Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research

Nikolaos Bozionelos*, Marcia J. Simmering

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

New key evidence on common method variance (CMV) has been generated in the last decade (including quantitative and qualitative reviews, and simulations) to estimate its real validity threat, and evaluate the post hoc techniques to detect and correct for its effects. This work looks at the new evidence, and reviews all HRM‐related empirical articles published in the last 10 years in six major journals. The following primary conclusions are drawn. First, adoption of new knowledge about CMV by the empirical literature has been uneven. Second, published research in these journals indicates few incidences of meaningful distortion of estimates due to CMV, even when post hoc tests are used to detect it. Third, these findings in the empirical literature mirror the conclusions of reviews and simulations of the last 10 years, which indicate that the probability of significant distortion of estimates because of CMV is very limited.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)194-215
Number of pages22
JournalHuman Resource Management Journal
Volume32
Issue number4
Early online date8 Jul 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2022

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this