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.
AntonakisJ (2017) On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly28: 5–21.
2.
AntonakisJBendahanSJacquartP, et al. (2010) On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly21: 1086–1120.
3.
AntonakisJBendahanSJacquartP, et al. (2014) Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In: DayDV (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford: Oxford Library of Psychology, pp. 93–117.
4.
AshkanasyNM (2010) Publishing today is more difficult than ever. Journal of Organizational Behavior31: 1–3.
5.
AvolioBJYammarinoFJBassBM (1991) Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management17: 571–587.
6.
BakerMAliMFrenchE (2018) Effectiveness of gender equality initiatives in project-based organizations in Australia. Australian Journal of Management44: 425–442.
7.
BartunekJMRynesSLIrelandRD (2006) What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?Academy of Management Journal49: 9–15.
8.
BaumgartnerHSteenkampJBE (2001) Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research38: 143–156.
9.
BucicTNgoLVSinhaA (2017) Improving the effectiveness of market-oriented organisation: Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. Australian Journal of Management42: 308–327.
10.
CampbellDTFiskeDW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin56: 81–105.
11.
ChangSJvan WitteloostuijnAEdenL (2010) From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies41: 178–184.
12.
ChiewTMMathiesCPattersonP (2019) The effect of humour usage on customer’s service experiences. Australian Journal of Management44: 109–127.
13.
ChinWWThatcherJBWrightRT (2012) Assessing common method bias: Problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly36: 1003–1019.
14.
ConwayJMLanceCE (2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology25: 325–334.
15.
DotyDHGlickWH (1998) Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results?Organizational Research Methods1: 374–406.
16.
EdmondsonACMcManusSE (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review32: 1155–1179.
17.
EdwardsJR (2008) To prosper, organizational psychology should . . . overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior29: 469–491.
18.
FullerCMSimmeringMJAtincG, et al. (2016) Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research69: 3192–3198.
19.
GalbreathJShumP (2012) Do customer satisfaction and reputation mediate the CSR-FP link? Evidence from Australia. Australian Journal of Management37: 211–229.
20.
GargN (2019) Misery wants control: The roles of helplessness and choice in the sadness-consumption relationship. Australian Journal of Management44: 407–424.
21.
GriffithsORobertsLPriceJ (2019) Desirable leadership attributes are preferentially associated with women: A quantitative study of gender and leadership roles in the Australian workforce. Australian Journal of Management44: 32–49.
22.
HairJFJrWolfinbargerMMoneyAH, et al. (2015) Essentials of Business Research Methods. New York: Routledge.
23.
HarleyB (2015) The one best way? ‘Scientific’ research on HRM and the threat to critical scholarship. Human Resource Management Journal25: 399–407.
24.
HercheJEngellandB (1996) Reversed-polarity items and scale unidimensionality. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science24: 366–374.
25.
HodgkinsonGPRousseauDM (2009) Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening!Journal of Management Studies46: 534–546.
26.
JakobsenMJensenR (2015) Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal18: 3–30.
27.
JohnsonRERosenCCDjurdjevicE (2011) Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology96: 744–761.
28.
KieserALeinerL (2009) Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies46: 516–533.
29.
KongHChiuWCLeungHK (2018) Building creative self-efficacy via learning goal orientation, creativity job requirement, and team learning behavior: The key to employee creativity. Australian Journal of Management44: 443–461.
30.
LeHSchmidtFLPutkaDJ (2009) The multifaceted nature of measurement artifacts and its implications for estimating construct-level relationships. Organizational Research Methods12: 165–200.
31.
LinCPTsaiMK (2019) Strengthening long-term job performance: The moderating roles of sense of responsibility and leader’s support. Australian Journal of Management. Epub ahead of print 10 May. DOI: 10.1177/0312896219842629.
32.
LindellMKBrandtCJ (2000) Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology85: 331–348.
33.
LindellMKWhitneyDJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology86: 114–121.
34.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPM (2012) Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing88: 542–555.
35.
MalhotraNKKimSSPatilA (2006) Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science52: 1865–1883.
36.
MathiesCNgoLV (2014) New insights into the climate-attitudes-outcome framework: Empirical evidence from the Australian service sector. Australian Journal of Management39: 473–491.
37.
MenardS (2008) Handbook of Longitudinal Research: Design, Measurement, and Analysis. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; Elsevier.
38.
MinbashianABirneyDPBowmanDB (2019) The thinking styles of managers: Dimensionality, profiles and motivational antecedents. Australian Journal of Management44: 70–90.
39.
PodsakoffPMOrganDW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management12: 531–544.
40.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63: 539–569.
41.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 879–903.
42.
RichardsonHASimmeringMJSturmanMC (2009) A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods12: 762–800.
43.
SimmeringMJFullerCMRichardsonHA, et al. (2015) Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods18: 473–511.
44.
SpectorPE (1987) Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?Journal of Applied Psychology72: 438–443.
45.
SpectorPE (2006) Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?Organizational Research Methods9: 221–232.
46.
SpectorPEBrannickMT (2009) Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In: BuchananDABrymanA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 346–362.
47.
SpectorPERosenCCRichardsonHA, et al. (2019) A new perspective on method variance: A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management45: 855–880.
48.
WeickKE (1995) What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 385–390.
49.
WilliamsLJMcGonagleAK (2016) Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology31: 339–359.
50.
WilliamsLJHartmanNCavazotteF (2010) Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods13: 477–514.
