This paper presents the most rigorous meta-analysis undertaken to date of empirical literature examining antecedents and outcomes related to psychological capital (PsyCap), and moderators of these relationships. We investigated seven leadership styles as antecedents of PsyCap (authentic, ethical, servant, empowering, transactional, transformational, and abusive leadership), five outcomes (burnout, turnover intentions, work engagement, performance, and satisfaction), and the impact of four moderators (country of sample origin, cultural characteristics, industry type, and research design). Our analysis of PsyCap research (2007–2020) examined 244 studies (254 independent samples and over 96000 participants), which is over twice as large as previous PsyCap meta-analyses. To optimize the quality and reliability of findings, we corrected for artefacts and included heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses. Our results provide several new findings beyond previous PsyCap meta-analyses. We found that empowering, servant, transformational, and transactional leadership were all positively associated with PsyCap, with empowering and transformational leadership being the strongest antecedents of PsyCap and abusive and transactional leadership being the weakest. The findings demonstrated PsyCap was positively associated with work engagement, and negatively associated with burnout. Country of sample origin moderated all the relationships, except for servant and transactional leadership. Additionally, cultural characteristics (e.g., power distance, masculinity, long-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance) moderated several conceptual relationships. Study design was also found to moderate the PsyCap—work engagement relationship. Collectively, these findings offer new and extended insights into the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators related to PsyCap, beyond previous meta-analyses. The theoretical and practical implications of these new findings are also discussed.

Purpose This paper aims to enhance the understanding of the essence of product innovation capability (PIC) as a dynamic capability by systematically assessing its conceptualization and construct validity. The paper answers the call by numerous researchers to undertake research efforts to better understand and operationalize dynamic capability constructs. Design/methodology/approach A priori and scholarly contentions based on complementarities between the tenets of three prominent frameworks (Dynamic Capability View, Process Management and Organizational Ambidexterity) were utilized for conducting a theoretical triangulation, as presented in the paper. Established approaches to explication and measurement of multi-dimensional latent constructs were used for guiding this paper. Findings This paper enhances the conceptualization of dynamic capabilities and identifies a lacuna in frequently adopted PIC operationalization approaches that is pertinent to other dynamic capabilities. It presents substantive and specific prescriptions for enabling the development of superior capability (both dynamic and operational) measurement models in empirical research. Research limitations/implications The diverse implications for research and practice are discussed in the paper alongside suggestions for future research. Originality/value This paper guides future theoretical and empirical research by reviewing the conception and validity of PIC. It presents a comprehensive conception of dynamic capabilities by extending the dynamic capability definition to address the identified problems. The arguments presented have wide-ranging applications and broad generalizability across multiple research fields.