IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v45y2020i1p3-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J Jordan
  • Ashlea C Troth

Abstract

Authors are experiencing increasing competition for their articles to be published. One way of ensuring their work is given the best chance of being published is to underpin their research with rigorous methods that are characterized by robustness, accuracy and reliability. A common factor that can stymie research rigour is common method bias. Our aim in this article is to outline the nature of, concerns about and examine reasons why researchers still conduct studies that are susceptible to common method bias. We also provide some solutions for avoiding or managing common method bias concerns. In doing this, we acknowledge the substantial work that has been produced on this topic to date and, therefore, focus our contribution specifically on issues that affect research in applied and managerial settings. JEL Classification: C90, D23

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J Jordan & Ashlea C Troth, 2020. "Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(1), pages 3-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:45:y:2020:i:1:p:3-14
    DOI: 10.1177/0312896219871976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0312896219871976
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0312896219871976?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MacKenzie, Scott B. & Podsakoff, Philip M., 2012. "Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 542-555.
    2. John Antonakis & Samuel Bendahan & Philippe Jacquart & Rafael Lalive, 2010. "On making causal claims : A review and recommendations," Post-Print hal-02313119, HAL.
    3. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Denise M. Rousseau, 2009. "Bridging the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening!," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 534-546, May.
    4. Alfred Kieser & Lars Leiner, 2009. "Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 516-533, May.
    5. Fuller, Christie M. & Simmering, Marcia J. & Atinc, Guclu & Atinc, Yasemin & Babin, Barry J., 2016. "Common methods variance detection in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3192-3198.
    6. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
    7. Sea-Jin Chang & Arjen van Witteloostuijn & Lorraine Eden, 2010. "From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 41(2), pages 178-184, February.
    8. Nitika Garg, 2019. "Misery wants control: The roles of helplessness and choice in the sadness–consumption relationship," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(3), pages 407-424, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shehnaz Tehseen, T. Ramayah, Sulaiman Sajilan, 2017. "Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods," Journal of Management Sciences, Geist Science, Iqra University, Faculty of Business Administration, vol. 4(2), pages 146-175, October.
    2. Howard, Matt C. & Henderson, Jennifer, 2023. "A review of exploratory factor analysis in tourism and hospitality research: Identifying current practices and avenues for improvement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Arjen van Witteloostuijn & Nele Cannaerts & Wim Coreynen & Zainab Noor el Hejazi & Joeri van Hugten & Ellen Loots & Hendrik Slabbinck & Johanna Vanderstraeten, 2020. "Co-Creative Action Research Experiments—A Careful Method for Causal Inference and Societal Impact," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-28, September.
    4. Yang, Miles M. & Li, Tianchen & Wang, Yue, 2020. "What explains the degree of internationalization of early-stage entrepreneurial firms? A multilevel study on the joint effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship,," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(6).
    5. Manit Mishra, 2016. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as an Analytical Technique to Assess Measurement Error in Survey Research," Paradigm, , vol. 20(2), pages 97-112, December.
    6. Bag, Surajit & Rahman, Muhammad Sabbir & Srivastava, Gautam & Shore, Adam & Ram, Pratibha, 2023. "Examining the role of virtue ethics and big data in enhancing viable, sustainable, and digital supply chain performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    7. Jean–Luc Arregle & Bat Batjargal & Michael A. Hitt & Justin W. Webb & Toyah Miller & Anne S. Tsui, 2015. "Family Ties in Entrepreneurs’ Social Networks and New Venture Growth," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(2), pages 313-344, March.
    8. Jacqueline Fendt, 2013. "Lost in Translation? On Mind and Matter in Management Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, May.
    9. Musarra, Giuseppe & Kadile, Vita & Zaefarian, Ghasem & Oghazi, Pejvak & Najafi-Tavani, Zhaleh, 2022. "Emotions, culture intelligence, and mutual trust in technology business relationships," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Kawai, Norifumi & Chung, Chul, 2019. "Expatriate utilization, subsidiary knowledge creation and performance: The moderating role of subsidiary strategic context," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 24-36.
    11. Xiao Zhang & Luqun Xie & Jiatao Li & Li Cheng, 2022. "“Outside in”: Global demand heterogeneity and dynamic capabilities of multinational enterprises," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 709-722, June.
    12. Vendrell-Herrero, Ferran & Bustinza, Oscar F. & Opazo-Basaez, Marco, 2021. "Information technologies and product-service innovation: The moderating role of service R&D team structure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 673-687.
    13. Akhtar, Pervaiz & Khan, Zaheer & Tarba, Shlomo & Jayawickrama, Uchitha, 2018. "The Internet of Things, dynamic data and information processing capabilities, and operational agility," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 307-316.
    14. Joern Hoppmann & Alice Sakhel & Marcel Richert, 2018. "With a little help from a stranger: The impact of external change agents on corporate sustainability investments," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1052-1066, November.
    15. Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica & de Hooge, Ilona E. & Almli, Valérie L., 2021. "My style, my food, my waste! Consumer food waste-related lifestyle segments," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    16. Tajeddini Kayhan & Mueller Stephen, 2019. "Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Relationship between a Firm’s Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, October.
    17. Bianchi, Constanza & Abu Saleh, Md., 2020. "Investigating SME importer–foreign supplier relationship trust and commitment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 572-584.
    18. Maestrini, Vieri & Luzzini, Davide & Caniato, Federico & Ronchi, Stefano, 2018. "Effects of monitoring and incentives on supplier performance: An agency theory perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 322-332.
    19. Jie Chen & Lefa Teng & Yonghai Liao, 2018. "Counterfeit Luxuries: Does Moral Reasoning Strategy Influence Consumers’ Pursuit of Counterfeits?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 249-264, August.
    20. Linder, Christian & Seidenstricker, Sven, 2018. "How does a component from a supplier with high reputation for product innovation improve the perception of a final offering? A process perspective," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 288-299.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Applied research; common method bias; common method variance; method bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:45:y:2020:i:1:p:3-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.