Hello everyone,

My colleagues, Ernest O’Boyle, Matt Rutherford, and I have have a new article that is in-press in the Journal of Business Venturing.  The abstract and citation are below.


Publication bias (PB) exists when the published literature is not representative of the population of studies. PB has largely been ignored or dismissed in entrepreneurship research as there is a general belief that only fields entrenched in dominant theoretical paradigms are capable of suffering from PB. We tested this presumption by re-analyzing the results of 15 systematic reviews (i.e., meta-analyses) of entrepreneurial antecedents and firm performance. Using three different tests, we found some degree of PB in all but three of these analyses. Our results belie the contention that entrepreneurship is immune to PB.


O’Boyle Jr., E.H., Rutherford, M. & Banks, G.C. (in press). Publication bias in entrepreneurship research: An examination of dominant relations to performance. Journal of Business Venturing. 

Description: Macintosh HD:Users:mcwilliamsmj:Desktop:Photos:Longwood Wordmark Combined (template).jpg

Study by Longwood professor finds no support for “Evil Genius” theory

Farmville, Va.— If you’re worried that someone might be an “evil genius,” relax. Research by a Longwood University professor found no evidence for the notion that smarter people are more likely to manipulate others.

A study by Dr. George Banks, assistant professor of management, and fellow researchers examined whether there is a relationship between intelligence and “socially exploitative social traits” such as Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy, known as the “Dark Triad” (DT) traits. The “evil genius” hypothesis says that highly intelligent people tend to display these traits.

“Thankfully, we found no support for the ‘evil genius’ hypothesis,” said Banks, whose specialty is human resources and organizational behavior. “We also found no support for the ‘compensatory’ hypothesis, which states that less intelligent individuals compensate for their cognitive disadvantages by adopting manipulative behavioral tendencies. The results were very encouraging.”

An article about the study, “A meta-analytic review of the Dark Triad-intelligence connection,” has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Research in Personality. “Those individuals whose personalities include such dark traits as Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy are neither brute dullards nor evil geniuses on average,” says the article.

The research reviewed 48 separate studies involving 10,313 participants that were conducted between 1965 and 2010. The participants were a representative sample of average working adults, said Banks. Forty of the studies were conducted in the United States, the others in Canada, Germany and Malaysia.

“We were trying to determine if individuals who display socially exploitative qualities tend to be more intelligent or less intelligent,” said Banks. “We looked at the entire range of both mental ability and DT traits. All of the studies examined the same things. A meta-analytic review, in which you take multiple studies and re-analyze the data together, is a good way to summarize multiple results.”

Banks’ co-authors were Dr. Ernest O’Boyle of the University of Iowa, Dr. Donelson Forsyth of the University of Richmond and Dr. Paul Story of Kennesaw State University.

This is the second of three related studies on DT traits in which Banks has collaborated with O’Boyle, a former Longwood faculty member. The first, published in 2011 in the Journal of Applied Psychology, an elite publication in management, looked at the relationship between DT and counter-productive work behaviors. The third study, currently under review, examines the relationship between DT and positive personality factors known as the “Big Five.” Dr. Charles White, assistant professor of management at Longwood, helped collect data in that project.

Another research project in which Banks collaborated with O’Boyle, “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Data Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles,” resulted in a Best Paper award from the Academy of Management. The paper was presented during the organization’s annual meeting in August 2013 in Orlando, Fla.

Meta-analytic resources

Posted: 30th July 2013 by George Banks in My research publications

Hello everyone,

I hope that your week is off to a good start! Someone emailed me the other day to ask me about syntax for running a meta-analysis and publication bias analyses. There are certainly a lot of good resources out there! One great website has been posted by Andy Field and is based on a recent article of his:

Field, A. P. & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology63, 665-694

The website is: http://www.statisticshell.com/meta_analysis/how_to_do_a_meta_analysis.html

Another good source for meta-analytic resources has been created by Dave Wilson: http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html

Both websites are very useful!

Hello everyone! I hope you’re having a wonderful summer. I am excited to announce that my colleagues and I recently had a paper published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior . The study is titled “What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange.” Thus, the study focuses on the relative importance of social exchange relationships between team members and leaders and followers. The findings were very interesting! Below is the abstract and citation. Thanks for your interest!

Banks, G.C., Batchelor, J.H., Seers, A., O’Boyle Jr., E., Pollack, J., & Gower, K. (in press). What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior.  (2011 Journal Citation Report Ranking: 17 of 168 in Management).


Both leader-member exchange (LMX) and team-member exchange (TMX) measure the quality of reciprocal exchange among employees in the workplace. Though LMX focuses on supervisor-subordinate relationships while TMX examines the relationships among team members, both have theory-based and empirically-proven relations with workplace outcomes such as job performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. However, it is not yet known which has more of an impact on such workplace outcomes—specifically, it is not clear if an employee’s time is best spent developing vertical relationships among supervisors and subordinates (LMX) or on the horizontal relationships among team members (TMX). Accordingly, this meta-analysis explores the incremental validity and relative importance of these two social exchange based constructs. The theoretical logic underlying LMX and TMX is clarified and the parameter estimates between LMX, TMX, and work outcomes are reported. Results demonstrate that TMX shows incremental validity above and beyond LMX for some outcomes (organizational commitment and job satisfaction), but not others (job performance and turnover intentions). Also, LMX shows greater relative importance across all four outcomes. In sum, the clarification of the theoretical and empirical landscape lays a foundation for recommendations for future research.

November 30, 2012

Dr. George Banks

Bosses everywhere might want to think twice before they pile another project on an overworked employee’s desk, according to the results of a research study co-authored by a Longwood University management professor.

Just like competition and undercapitalization, workplace stress is a powerful force affecting the success of an organization, says Dr. George Banks, assistant professor of management at Longwood, who collaborated on a study that examined the link between “emotional exhaustion” in the workplace and “counterproductive work behaviors,” or CWBs.

The connection is real—and the price tag is steep. Researchers cited in the study estimate that in one year, CWBs cost organizations $120 billion due to theft, $4.2 billion as a result of workplace violence and more than $900 billion in lost income due to fraudulent activities.

“If employees feel overworked, they might lash out, so it’s in an organization’s best interest to promote well-being,” said Banks, whose specialty is human resources and organizational behavior. “Our paper offers practical recommendations such as flextime and stress-management intervention programs to help companies mitigate employee stress and, ultimately, prevent harmful work behaviors.”

Some 113 employees at nine branches of a large banking company in South Korea participated in the study, detailed in an article, “(How) Are Emotionally Exhausted Employees Harmful?,” that appeared in the International Journal of Stress Management.

“What was unique about our study is that we had employees rate their emotional exhaustion and organizational commitment—then we asked supervisors how often their employees engaged in CWBs,” said Banks. “What we found was that as emotional exhaustion increased, commitment seemed to decrease, which may have led to an increase in CWBs.”

The researchers were interested in the correlation between stress levels and CWBs, not the frequency of counterproductive behavior. “We found that stress may have been causing CWBs—there is a correlation,” said Banks.

Examples of CWBs identified include being rude to or gossiping about coworkers or the boss, working slowly or putting little effort into work, coming in late to work, taking longer breaks than are acceptable and avoiding safety rules.

Banks suspects that supervisors in his study likely underreported how frequently CWBs occurred. “Maybe they couldn’t see it, or they’re putting a positive spin on the situation, or they could get in trouble for reporting it,” he said. Thus, the occurrence of CWBs may have been more frequent.

The study was initiated by In-Sue Oh, a former professor of Banks’ and a prominent researcher who is now an associate professor of human resource management at Temple. The other co-authors are KangHyun Shin of Ajou University in South Korea and Chris Whelpley, a Ph.D. student at Virginia Commonwealth University.

May 16, 2013

Dr. George Banks

Those amazing research results we’re always reading about may not be so amazing after all, says a business professor at Longwood University.

Research in journal articles is sometimes manipulated by questionable practices that include deleting, adding or altering data to fit hypotheses or changing hypotheses to fit the results, said Dr. George Banks, co-author of a study that tracked the transformation some research findings went through on the way from dissertation—when there is less to pressure to support a hypothesis and more oversight—to journal article. The study investigated outcome-reporting bias which is a sub-set of the phenomenon known as publication bias or “the file drawer problem” because nonsignificant findings are sometimes hidden away in file drawers.

The study, “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Data Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles,” has been accepted to be presented at the conference of the Academy of Management, the largest management organization, in August in Orlando, Fla. It also received a “best paper” award in the research methods division.

“The pressure to publish encourages people to do things they shouldn’t do,” said Banks, assistant professor of management, whose study focused on publication bias in the management science field. “Most researchers don’t outright cheat, but many are comfortable engaging in practices that are questionable.

“For example, in journal articles, researchers often collect data and look at results—then they create a hypothesis. They report hypotheses that were supported and fail to disclose those that weren’t supported, which is misleading. In some studies, researchers find a negative relationship when they had predicted a positive one, but in the journal article they say they predicted a negative relationship all along, which is unethical.”

Although Banks’ study focused on a business field, he said publication bias cuts across disciplines.

“Publication bias has been a problem in the medical field, and the field has been cracking down on this—they’re light years ahead of us in business and the social sciences as a whole. In disciplines other than medicine, the potential consequences are less serious, so it’s been overlooked. I’d like my field, and other fields including education and psychology, to use more effective research methods.”

The study looked at 142 articles in management or industrial-organizational psychology, a similar field, that have appeared in refereed journals since 2000. All of the articles were originally dissertations. The study found that from dissertation to journal publication, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled.

“This rise is directly attributable to the dropping of nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of the predicted direction of hypotheses, and data manipulation,” the study states. “The published literature overestimates the predictive accuracy of management science and as such is biased.”

Among the “questionable research practices” (QRPs) the study measured were adding, deleting or altering data after hypothesis testing, selectively deleting or adding variables, dropping unsupported hypotheses or adding post-hoc hypotheses, or reversing the direction or reframing hypotheses.

The study includes several recommendations, including asking researchers to sign a disclosure statement when submitting a prospective article to a journal that they have not engaged in any of the listed QRPs. “You can’t stop true cheaters, but this would help keep the honest researchers honest which would reduce the problem,” said Banks. “Many researchers engage in some of these QRPs, typically out of ignorance, but they need to stop. Some people are on the fence between the dark and the light, and you want to push them toward the light.”

The study’s co-authors are at the University of Iowa: Dr. Ernest O’Boyle, assistant professor of management, and Erik Gonzalez-Mule, a Ph.D. candidate.

I am pleased to announce that Sven Kepes,  Mike McDaniel, Mike Brannick, and myself recently had a paper accepted to Journal of Business and Psychology! The paper reviews best practices from the psychometric meta-analysis tradition (i.e., Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) and the Hedges and Olkin (1985) tradition. The abstract provides the details below. It is also worth mentioning that this article includes supplemental materials available online that provide example tables that researchers can use to report their meta-analytic findings.


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and highlight opportunities for improvement of meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The paper reviews MARS, describes ‘‘best’’ meta-analytic practices across two schools of meta-analysis, and shows how implementing such practices helps achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Examples of best practices are provided to aid readers in finding models for their own research.

Implications/Value: Meta-analytic reviews are a primary avenue for the accumulation of knowledge in the organizational sciences as well as many other areas of science. Unfortunately, many meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences do not fully follow professional guidelines and standards as closely as they should. Such deviations from best practice undermine the transparency
and replicability of the reviews and thus their usefulness for the generation of cumulative knowledge and evidence based
practice. This study shows how implementing ‘‘best’’ meta-analytic practices helps to achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Although the paper is written primarily for organizational scientists, the paper’s recommendations are not limited to any particular scientific domain.

Kepes, S., McDaniel, M.A., Brannick, M.T., & Banks, G.C. (in press). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS . Journal of Business and Psychology.

I am very excited to announce that my colleagues and I recently had a paper accepted to Journal of Vocational Behavior! The paper explores the nomological network of organizational cynicism, and in particular, its relationship with trust. The abstract and reference are provided below:


We propose an integrative framework to investigate the extent to which employees’ organizational cynicism is predicted by individual differences (positive and negative affect, trait cynicism) and positive (e.g., organizational support) and negative (e.g. psychological contract violation) aspects of the work environment. We also examine the extent to which organizational cynicism predicts employee attitudes and performance. We investigate these relationships based on 32 primary studies and 34 statistically independent samples. Using both new meta-analytic data and effect sizes from prior meta-analyses, we test whether a negative antecedent, organizational cynicism, has a predictive advantage over a positive one, organizational trust, in predicting employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the nomological network of organizational cynicism and its relationship with organizational trust.

Chiaburu, D.S., Peng, A.C., Oh, I.-S., Banks, G.C., & Lomeli, L.C. (in press). Employee organizational cynicism antecedents and outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Encouraging debate on the uniform guidelines

Posted: 11th December 2012 by George Banks in My research publications

As mentioned in a previous post, Mike McDaniel, Sven Kepes, and I previously published an article (McDaniel, Kepes, & Banks, 2011a) that sought to explore some of the challenges presented by the Uniform Guidelines. One neat aspect of that article was that it was published as a part of a three step process designed to encourage debate on our topic. First, we published what was considered to be the focal article. Next, the focal article was disseminated to both researchers and practitioners on a large scale and these groups were encouraged to submit commentaries on our focal article. Approximately 11 commentaries were accepted. Finally, my colleagues and I compiled a summary of the commentaries and responded to the authors’ thoughts and suggestions. Our response was then published as an article (McDaniel, Kepes, & Banks, 2011b).

There appeared to be several themes in the commentaries. Notably, the commentaries seemed to suggest that the disparate impact theory of discrimination was a more pressing issue than the Uniform Guidelines for researchers and practitioners. Also of note, concerns were raised about the means through which adverse impact is evaluated as well as the shortcomings of expert witness testimony. Finally, the responsibilities and potential roles of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology were discussed as they relate to guiding regulation, legislation, and court actions.

In sum, I thought that this series of articles did much to advance the discussion of the issue of discrimination in personnel selection as well as the  Uniform Guidelines. We hope that the articles serve to stimulate continued debate and solutions to the problems presented. Enjoy!


McDaniel, M.A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G.C. (2011). Encouraging debate on the uniform guidelines and the disparate impact theory of discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 566-570.

McDaniel, M.A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G.C. (2011). Encouraging debate on the uniform guidelines and the disparate impact theory of discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 566-570.

I hope everyone has had a wonderful Thanksgiving break. I thought it was about time for me to update my blog with another post on a recent study of mine published this year. As many of you know, my colleagues (Sven Kepes and Mike McDaniel) and I have been working on a series of papers that aim to further introduce the concept of publication bias to the field of Management and Industrial/Organizational Psychology. We recently had a paper accepted entitled: “Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences.”

This paper began by providing evidence that our field lagged behind other fields, such as Medicine, Education, and general Psychology, in terms of the use of publication bias assessment and detection techniques. As publication bias is a serious threat to our confidence in our meta-analytic results, it is also a threat to evidence-based practice which is founded upon meta-analytic findings. The paper proceeds to illustrate some of the latest and most advanced publication bias analyses that can be used as sensitivity tests to evaluate meta-analytic results. The paper concludes with a discussion of how publication bias can be prevented in the first place. I hope everyone enjoys!

Banks, G.C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M.A. (2012). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 182-196.