Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Meets Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis: Is PsyCap a Robust Predictor of Well-Being and Performance Controlling for Self-Report Bias?

International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-021-00060-0 RESEARCH PAPER Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Meets Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis: Is PsyCap a Robust Predictor of Well-Being and Performance Controlling for Self-Report Bias? Scott I. Donaldson1 · Stewart I. Donaldson2 · Lawrence Chan2 · Kyoung Wan Kang2 Accepted: 2 November 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Abstract A growing body of evidence suggests positive psychological capital (PsyCap) strongly predicts well-being and performance at work. However, most of this empirical research has used self-report survey designs, increasing the possibility of selfreport and mono-method bias. The current study used a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) research design and condition-based regression analysis to examine the effect of PsyCap on job well-being and work role performance beyond self-report bias. Findings from 416 full-time employees within 208 coworker pairs showed that self-reported and informant-reported PsyCap were predictive of job well-being and work role performance. However, multitrait-multimethod analyses showed monomethod measures may inflate the strength of association between PsyCap and work outcomes. Implications for future applied positive psychology research controlling for self-report and monomethod bias with multiple data sources are discussed. Keywords Psychological capital · Well-being · Performance, self-report bias · Positive organizational behavior · Positive organizational psychology, MTMM At the turn of the twenty-first century, Fred Luthans (Luthans, 2002) introduced Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap) to the management and organizational behavior literature, inspired by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’s (2000) positive psychology movement. Two decades later and the role of PsyCap on employee wellbeing and performance is well-documented. Several systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and PsyCap intervention studies demonstrate a relationship between PsyCap * Scott I. Donaldson 1 USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 2 Claremont Evaluation Center, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA 13 Vol.:(0123456789) International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology and desirable attitudes, behaviors, performance, and well-being (Avey et al., 2011; Dawkins et al., 2013; Donaldson et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2014). The impact of PsyCap on workplace well-being and performance has even been demonstrated across international contexts, including countries such as Australia, France, Italy, and South Africa to name a few (Donaldson et al., 2020a). Still, there is an open debate on how self-report and monomethod bias from survey measures may have influenced previous research findings on PsyCap (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). The current study shed light on this major concern for organizational behavior researchers and practitioners working to improve PsyCap in the workplace. Luthans (2002) defined PsyCap as a “positively oriented human resource strength and psychological capacity that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace” (p. 59). This evidence-based and validated construct has been cited more than 4300 times since 2007 (cf. Luthans et al., 2007). Positive psychological capital is measured by four theory-driven subdimensions sometimes described by the acronym HERO (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017): Hope – goal-directed agency and planning (Snyder et al., 1996) Efficacy – ability to execute tasks (Parker, 1998) Resilience – overcome adversity and bounce back (Wagnild & Young, 1993) Optimism – positive outlook and explanatory style (Scheier & Carver, 1985) The relationship between PsyCap and work outcomes is of critical importance to practitioners, human resource managers, leaders, and organizational scholars interested in a positive approach to work. Avey et al. (2011) meta-analyzed PsyCap in the workplace using 51 samples representing more than 12,000 employees. Avey and colleagues found that PsyCap was a significant predictor of work performance, well-being, and negatively related to undesirable work outcomes (e.g., deviance, turnover intentions). Donaldson et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis of positive psychology interventions at work found a similar result for the impact of PsyCap interventions on work outcomes. For instance, PsyCap interventions were particularly effective at reducing undesirable work outcomes (e.g., turnover intentions). Another systematic review and synthesis of PsyCap found a relationship between PsyCap and individual, team, and organizational work outcomes, including absenteeism, team performance, and financial performance (Newman et al., 2014). The impact of PsyCap on well-being and performance has even been demonstrated in international contexts. Donaldson et al. (2020a, b) found that PsyCap was a strong predictor of overall work performance and well-being across 15 nations, some of which included Australia, France, Italy, and South Africa to name a few. Moreover, Adil and Kamal (2018) found that PsyCap was a significant predictor of job-related affective well-being (JAWS) in a sample of 500 Pakistani university teachers. The most used measure in studies of PsyCap is the psychological capital questionnaire (PCQ-24), including a short version (PCQ-12) that measures each of PsyCap’s subdimensions with 2–4 survey items (i.e., 4 items for hope, 3 for 13 International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology self-efficacy and resilience, and 2 for optimism; Luthans et al., 2007). Luthans et al. (2007) validated the PCQ using four samples and found Cronbach alphas between .66 and .85 for each subscale and alphas above .88 for the overall scale. Dawkins et al. (2013) performed a critical analysis and psychometric review of the PCQ and suggested future research include methodological diversity to further explore convergent and discriminant validity. In another research synthesis of PsyCap, Newman et al. (2014) reported that the majority of studies on PsyCap suffer from self-report bias and that alternative measures, such as other-rated measures of PsyCap from partners and supervisors should be considered to control for common method variance. Multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) research designs use at least two sources of information to measure the constructs of interest. For example, both self-reports and co-worker informant reports of PsyCap, well-being, and performance were used in this study. This allowed us to assess the convergent validity of our measurement approach, and to determine how much our measures were inflated by self-report and mono-methods bias (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Meade et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Miner and Hulin (2006) suggest workplace studies that rely on selfreport measures are prone to social desirability bias. Donaldso (...truncated)