84277 Hogue
Organizational Behavior Theory
Fall 2015
Professor: Mary Hogue, Ph.D.
Office: A423
Phone: 330-672-1148
E-Mail: mhogue@kent.edu
Class time: 2:30-5:30 Tuesday
Office Hours: T Th 11:00-12:15, Th 1:00-2:00
Or we can set up a different, mutually convenient time
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. (They also can be used as article summaries in the future as you prepare for comps.) To participate fully in discussion you should have: 1) a copy of the article (hard copy or electronic); 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 a particular theory, or does it draw from different theoretical
approaches? What is/are that/those theory/theoretical approaches(s)?
3. Define important constructs.
4. Describe the proposed relationship between or among constructs. For this, look at
the hypotheses.
5. Explain how the hypotheses fit with the theory/theoretical approach.
6. Briefly describe the methods and results.
7. What is the appropriate way to interpret the results? To whom and under what conditions do the results apply?
8. What conclusions do the authors draw? What theoretical and practical contributions does the research offer?
9. 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 9 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
Written responses to discussion questions. (25 pts.) Five random times throughout the semester, I will collect the copy of your prepared responses to the discussion questions for one article. Each paper is worth 5 points.
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
including a review of relevant research.
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 (not 1 through 4). 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. For either approach, I expect a thorough yet concise review of previous, related literature. As a guideline, aim for 10-12 pages, double-spaced for content plus probably 2-4 pages of references.
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 on item 1 and will also include the proposed research plan so that your final paper incorporates items 1, 2, 3 & 4.
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 (whether you plan to use an experimental or survey design, how you will obtain your sample, what procedures you will use to test your hypotheses, a plan for data analysis).
You will be graded on how well you follow these instructions and also how well your paper is written. The most important aspects of an academic paper are accuracy and clarity. To receive full credit for this assignment, you must achieve both.
Thus, total points available for class are 150. 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.
Students attending the course who do not have the proper prerequisite risk being deregistered from the class.
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, September 6, 2015 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.
Academic honesty: 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 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 Fall 2015, the course withdrawal deadline is Sunday, November 18, 2015.
Students needing accessability: 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 through Student Accessibility Services (contact 330-672-3391 or visit http://www.kent.edu/sas for more information on registration procedures).
Schedule
A BROAD VIEW OF OB
9/1: 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. I expect that even though we do not cover them in detail in class, you will use them to guide you in writing your paper.
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)
9/8: 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.
Duehr, E. E. & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?
Personnel Psychology, 59, 815-846.
Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 283-296.
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.
9/15: 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.
9/22: 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.
Mayer, J. D, Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.
9/29: Attitudes
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reason action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 107-122.
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.
10/6: 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.
10/13: 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.
10/20: MID-TERM DUE Before 5:30 PM
UNDERSTANDING GROUP PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS
(THE MESO APPROACH)
10/27: 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. 11/3: Leadership (1)
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.
11/10: Leadership (2)
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.
11/17: 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.
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.
Nederveen-Pieterse, A., van Knippenberg, D. & van Ginkel. W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153-164.
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)
11/24: Culture – national
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64, 194-204.
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.
Kitayama, S. Conway, L. G., Pietromonaco, P. R., Park, H. & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Ethos of independence across regions in the United States. American Psychologist, 65, 559-574.
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.
12/1: 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.
12/8: Work on papers
12/15: Final paper due before 5:30 PM
