84277 Hogue
Organizational Behavior Theory
Fall 2014
Professor: Mary Hogue, Ph.D.
Office: A423
Phone: 330-672-1148
E-Mail: mhogue@kent.edu
Class time: 9:00-12:00 Wednesday
Office Hours: 9:45-11:45 Tuesday & Thursday, 12:00-1:00 Wed. or by appointment
Required text: If you have never taken a class in organizational behavior (OB), then
please obtain an OB textbook. You can save money by finding an older
version. You can also save money by finding a “fundamentals” book.
What you need is a basic explanation of all of the fundamental concepts
of OB to provide context for understanding the assigned readings.
Required readings: A list of all required readings is found in the daily schedule at the end of
this syllabus.
COURSE OVERVIEW
This course provides an overview of established and emerging knowledge of OB, from the micro- meso- and macro-level perspectives. Thus, the class will focus on individual, group, organizational and extra- organizational influences of human behavior at work. To accomplish this, we will examine work from many fields (e.g., management, psychology, sociology, etc.). Our goal is to cover a broad range of topics with sufficient depth to provide the knowledge base necessary for you to become researchers in the field, teach undergraduate courses in the field, or simply engage in intelligent conversations about OB.
We will look back at seminal work while maintaining a primary concentration on contemporary work, with a special focus on the intersection of people and technology at work.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
By the end of this course you should have:
1. Foundational knowledge of core theories, concepts and research in the field of OB.
2. Improved critical thinking and analytical skills.
3. Increased abilities to participate in academic discussions related to OB.
4. Enhanced skills as a researcher.
5. A recognition of ways that OB informs the research you wish to conduct.
Course Structure
This is a seminar in which we will create conversation. Conversation topics are found in the course schedule in this syllabus.
Preparation for class begins with a thoughtful reading of the assigned material. Reading academic articles is essential to becoming a good researcher, but it is not always easy. It is a skill that must be developed through practice. Each of you likely has a different level of experience and a different level of comfort when it comes to reading academic papers. To help as you learn to read OB research, I have provided two series of questions – one for empirical articles and the other for theoretical or conceptual articles. These questions will form the basis of our class discussions. To participate fully in discussion you should have: 1) a copy of the article; 2) a copy of your prepared responses to the questions below. It’s not necessary that you are able to fully answer each question for each article. What is necessary is that you try. My expectation is that answering the questions will be difficult at the beginning of the semester but will become easier as the semester progresses.
Empirical research articles
Empirical pieces are written so that readers can replicate the original investigators’ work. Examining a paper with an eye to replication not only tells you how to conduct similar research, but it also lets you know how much faith you can have in the conclusions that are drawn.
As you approach empirical pieces, look for answers to the following questions.
1. What is the “big picture” problem being addressed, and what is the more focused research question?
2. Is the paper grounded in theory? What is that theory?
3. Define important constructs.
4. How do the hypotheses fit with theory? What relationships do hypotheses propose?
5. Briefly describe the methods and results.
6. What is the appropriate way to interpret the results? To whom and under what conditions do the results apply?
7. What conclusions do the authors draw? What theoretical and practical contributions does the research offer?
8. What are your thoughts about the research? What do you see as its strengths and weaknesses?
For each empirical paper in your assigned reading list, our discussion will walk through all 8 questions.
Literature reviews and theory-building articles
These discuss the general findings from others’ research pieces. They are an excellent source to gain a general knowledge of a topic, but they rarely provide enough information to assess the conclusions of the cited work. When using literature reviews, book chapters, or theoretical pieces that cite the empirical work of other researchers, it is your ethical obligation to locate the original work and read it carefully before citing it in your own papers.
As you approach theoretical papers and literature reviews, look for answers to the following questions.
1. What is the big picture problem being addressed, and what is the author’s approach to addressing it?
2. Why is this issue important? What does this paper provide that is new?
3. What are some primary points made by research about the issue?
4. How does this article enhance theory and the field? How does it enhance your own knowledge? – These questions require you to think critically about the work that is presented and how it is presented. Is the reader given sufficient information to critically analyze the research that is reviewed? Is the review sufficiently thorough to anticipate and answer any questions that may arise? What do you think are the article’s strengths and weaknesses?
For each conceptual paper in your assigned reading list, our discussion will walk through all 4 questions.
As we move forward in the semester, for both types of articles, we will also add the question:
How can we integrate this article with the material we’ve already learned?
Student Assessment and Grading
Participation (100 pts.). To reward you for your class preparation, you will have the opportunity to earn 100 points. To earn these points, I expect you to demonstrate that you have prepared responses to the questions above. You will demonstrate your preparation by engaging as an active participant as we discuss each article. To prepare your responses, feel free to work together. I know that learning to read journal articles can be a challenging skill, and you may learn better by helping one another. Keep in mind that it is not necessary that you have generated the precise response to each question for each article before coming to class. It is necessary that you tried. By trying, you will be able to answer many questions, but if you find you are stumped, don’t worry. That’s part of the learning experience, and we can talk about that in class.
You’ll get feedback mid-way through the semester regarding your progress toward earning participation points.
Research update (100 pts.). Because the focus of our PhD program is the intersection of people and technology at work, three times during the semester, you will be responsible for updating the class in emerging research that ties the week’s discussion topic with technology. This will require you to examine recent literature (within the last 3 years). Your focus should be on any of the journals from which I’ve drawn your assigned reading list. These are the premier journals in OB and its related fields, so these are the journals that publish top-level work. You also may want to look at the top IS journals, all of which also publish behavioral research. These are: MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management and Information Systems, Journal of AIS. Each student assigned to provide the research update must discuss 2 articles, providing for me and for your classmates a response paper with answers to the questions above from the list that is appropriate (empirical or conceptual/theoretical). One hundred points are available for providing the 3 research updates. That is 33.33 points each week it is your turn.
Research proposal. You will write a 15-20 page (inclusive of references) double-spaced paper that both proposes a plausible research study in any area of OB that interests you and provides a means of adding new knowledge to the field. Your paper must include:
1) a thorough explanation and discussion of the theory that will ground your paper.
2) a set of testable hypotheses.
3) a proposed research plan that is modeled after and builds onto an existing study.
4) references for all cited work.
Your paper must follow APA writing guidelines. A quick google search should direct you to several websites that provide the information you need. APA style is updated every few years, so make sure that you are following guidelines from the most recent manual.
The ultimate goal of the project is to create a publishable paper.
Your paper will be graded in two parts, first as your mid-term exam and second as your final exam.
Mid-term (50 pts.): Your mid-term paper will encompass items 1 & 4 above. It must include the following:
a. Your big picture problem and your more focused problem. Your more focused problem will begin with, “The purpose of the present research is . . . “
b. A presentation of your theory. You must locate the seminal article presenting your theory and do a thorough review of the literature with respect to this theory and your research question. I expect to see a full but concise description of the entire theory. If you are focusing on only a part of the theory, then I expect to see a clear explanation of your focus and a thorough yet concise review of previous, related literature. As a guideline, aim for 10-12 pages, double-spaced.
Final (75 pts.): When I grade your mid-term paper, I will provide detailed feedback. Your final will incorporate my feedback from the mid-term and will also include the proposed research plan (items 2-4 above).
Your mid-term paper will provide the foundation for item 2, hypothesis development. Look closely at the hypotheses in the assigned readings for the class and in the articles you read for your lit review. Be sure to word your hypotheses similarly – as testable statements.
Item 3 is a discussion of Methods and Results. This typically tells the reader what the researcher did. Instead, you will tell me what you plan to do. I know that you will not have a research methods class until next year, so I don’t expect this coverage to be exact. However, you should have become sufficiently familiar with research in this area and others that you should be able to draw from those to develop a reasoned research plan.
Thus, total points available for class are 325. I follow the guidelines of 92-100% = A; 90-91.99% = A-; 88-89.99% = B+; 82-87.99% = B; 80-81.99% = B-; and so on.
Academic honesty: Cheating means to misrepresent the source, nature, or other conditions of your academic work (e.g., tests, papers, projects, assignments) so as to get undeserved credit. In addition, it is considered to be cheating when one cooperates with someone else in any such misrepresentation. The use of the intellectual property of others without giving them appropriate credit is a serious academic offense. It is the University's policy that cheating or plagiarism result in receiving a failing grade for the work or course. Repeat offenses result in dismissal from the University.
For Spring 2014, the course withdrawal deadline is Sunday, March 23, 2014.
University policy 3342-3-01.3 requires that students with disabilities be provided reasonable accommodations to ensure their equal access to course content. If you have a documented disability and require accommodations, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester to make arrangements for necessary classroom adjustments. Please note, you must first verify your eligibility for these accommodations through Student Accessibility Services (contact 330-672-3391 or visit http://www.kent.edu/sas for more information on registration procedures).
Students have responsibility to ensure they are properly enrolled in classes. You are advised to review your official class schedule (using Student Tools on FlashLine) during the first two weeks of the semester to ensure you are properly enrolled in this class and section. Should you find an error in your class schedule, you have until Sunday, January 26, 2014 to correct the error. If registration errors are not corrected by this date and you continue to attend and participate in classes for which you are not officially enrolled, you are advised now that you will not receive a grade at the conclusion of the semester for any class in which you are not properly registered.
Schedule
A BROAD VIEW OF OB
Aug. 27: What is OB? What do I need to know in order to understand OB research?
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E. & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385-1399.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Rousseau, D. M. & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing
organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1-13.
Suggested reading for developing your paper. We’ll discuss these briefly in class in relation to your paper, but we won’t follow all of the discussion questions for the following articles. Thus, feel free to skim them for important points.
Barley, S.R. (2006). When I write my masterpiece: Thoughts on what makes a paper interesting.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 16-20.
Bartunek, J.M., S.L. Rynes, and R. D. Ireland (2006). What makes management research
interesting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-16.
Corley, K. G., & Giola, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a
theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36, 12-32.
Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J-F. (2011). The challenge of building theory by combining lenses.
Academy of Management Review, 36, 6-11.
Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
UNDERSTANDING THE INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION
(THE MICRO PERSPECTIVE)
Sept. 3: Perception and cognition
Before coming to class, go to https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ and take a few of the tests available. Choose any that interest you. We’ll discuss them in class.
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J. & Cox, W. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit
race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1267-1278.
Duehr, E. E. & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?
Personnel Psychology, 59, 815-846.
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Wu, M. & Kurlander, D. (2011). The pull of the past: When do habits persist despite conflict with motives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1428-1437.
Uleman, J. L., Saribay, S. A. & Gonzalez, C. M. (2007). Spontaneous inferences, implicit
impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329-360.
Sept. 10: Personality & cognitive ability
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K. Perugini, M. Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., DiBlas, L., & . . . De Raad, B.
(2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions & job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J. & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational
Attainment and Job Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162-173.
Sept. 17: Affect, emotions & mood
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
Fredrickson, B. L. & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686.
Locke, E. A., (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
Sinaceur, M., Van Kleef, G. A., Neale, M. A., Adam, H., & Haag, C. (2011). Hot or cold: Is
communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation? Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1018-1032.
Sept. 24: Attitudes
Azjen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment:
Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645-663.
Glasman, L. R. & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 32, 778-822.
Thorsesen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., de Chermont, K., & Warren, C. R. (2003).
The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic
review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.
Oct. 1: Self & identity
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H. & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations:
An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34,
325-374.
Leary, M. A. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317-344.
LeBoeuf, R. A., Shafir, E. & Bayuk, J. (2010). The conflicting choices of alternative selves. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 48-61.
Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420-430.
Oct. 8: Motivation
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Sejits, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K. & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227-239.
Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339.
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation
theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.
Oct. 15: MID-TERM DUE Before 3 PM
UNDERSTANDING GROUP PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS
(THE MESO APPROACH)
Oct. 22: Status, power & influence
Caza, B., Tiedens, L. & Lee, F. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and explicit power on the self. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 15-24.
Hogue, M. & Yoder, J. D. (2003). The role of status in producing depressed entitlement in women’s and men’s pay allocations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 330-337.
Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. (2005). Building organization theory from first principles: The self-enhancement motive and understanding power and influence. Organization Science, 16, 372-388.
Ravlin, E. C. & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification processes in organizational life. Journal of Management, 31, 966-987.
1. Oct. 29: Leadership
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C. & Hu, J. (2013). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly
Follett, M. P. (1924). The giving of orders.
***This is tough to find. I’ll give you a copy.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organizations: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1): 42-63.
MacDonald, H. A., Sulsky, L. M. & Brown, D. J. (2008). Leadership and perceiver cognition: Examining the role of self-identity in implicit leadership theories. Human Performance, 21, 333-353.
Nov 5: Leadership
Brown, M. E., L. K. Treviño & Harrison, D. A. (2005) Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134
Hogue, M. & Lord, R. G. (2007). A multilevel, complexity theory approach to understanding gender bias in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 370-390.
Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G.J. & Phillips, K. W. (2008). The White Standard: Racial
bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (4), 758-777.
van Dierendonck, D. & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249-267.
Nov 12: Groups & Teams
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2005) Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H. & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583-611.
Offermann, L.R., & Spiros, R.K. (2001). The science and practice of team development: Improving the link. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 376-392.
UNDERSTANDING THE INFLUENCE OF THE ORGANIZATION
(THE MACRO APPROACH)
Nov. 19: Culture - national
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P. & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 601-620.
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M. & Fehr, R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should adopt a global perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 493-517.
Hofstede, G., de Hilal, A., Malvezzi, S., Tanure, B. & Vinken, H. (2010). Comparing regional cultures within a country: Lessons from Brazil. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 363-352.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., McInnis, K. J., Maltin, E. R. & Sheppard, L. (2012). Affective, normative and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 225-245.
Nov. 26: Culture - organizational
Greenhaus, J. A., Ziegert, J. C. & Allen, T. D. (2012). When family-supportive supervision matters: Relations between multiple sources of support and work-family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 266-275.
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical assumptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677-694.
Lai, J. M., Lam. L. W. & Lam, S. K. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A team cultural perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1039-1056.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229-240.
Dec. 3: Dysfunction
Barling, J., Dupre, K. E. & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671-692.
Grescoll, V. & Uhlmann E. L. (2008). Can angry women get ahead: Status conferral, gender and workplace emotion expression. Psychological Science, 19, 268-275.
DeWall, C., Buffardi, L. E., Bonser, I. & Campbell, W. (2011). Narcissism and implicit attention seeking: Evidence from linguistic analyses of social networking and online presentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 57-62.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J., Wayne, S. J. & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325-257.
May 10: Final paper due before 3 PM
