BAD 84277 Spring 2010 Hogue
Organizational Behavior Theory
Doctoral Seminar
Professor: Mary Hogue, Ph.D.
Office: A423
Phone: 330-672-1148
E-Mail: mhogue@kent.edu
Class time: TBD
Office Hours: Thursdays: 12:15–1:15 & by appointment
Required reading: There is a list of required reading at the end of the syllabus. Many can be accessed online. Some are found in the following required book.
Ott, J. S., Parkes, S. J. & Simpson, R. B. (2008). Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior 4th ed. Belmont: Thompson Publishing.
COURSE OVERVIEW
This course provides an overview of established and emerging knowledge of organizational behavior (OB). It takes a holistic, multi-dimensional approach to the field.
We will examine micro-, meso-, and macro-level influences on the behavior of individuals within organizations. Thus, while our primary focus is the person, we recognize that individuals act within the context of social relationships that occur at dyadic, group, organizational, and even extra-organizational levels.
The field of OB is informed by research that crosses each of those levels, which means that our exploration will cover multiple fields. In addition to covering the work of management theorists, we will examine the work of psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and political scientists. 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 organizational behavior.
Our multi-dimensional/multi-paradigmatic approach will lead us to look back at seminal work while maintaining a primary concentration on contemporary work. Reading literature reviews will provide a general knowledge of the various topics, and closely examining empirical work from various epistemological perspectives will provide more specific knowledge about the field itself (e.g., how did investigators answer their research questions) and about how you can move forward conducting research in OB or any of the related fields.
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 lead and facilitate classroom learning and discussions.
4. Enhanced skills as a researcher.
4. A recognition of areas of scholarship and research methods that are exciting to you.
Course Structure
This is a seminar in which we will create conversation. Conversation topics are found in the brief course schedule within this syllabus, and required readings for each topic are in the reading list at the end of the syllabus. The reading list contains both required readings, which each student must be prepared to discuss in class, and suggested readings, designed to provide direction for further reading if the topic sparks your interest or if you find yourself doing research in the area.
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 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, let me provide some guidelines.
First, understand that although it may seem that academic articles are filled with unnecessary information, all of the material is extremely important. Empirical pieces are written so that researchers can replicate the investigators’ work. This 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. Literature reviews and theory-building articles 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.
Your goal in reading journal articles is to acquire the important information. As you approach empirical pieces, ask yourself the following questions.
1. What is the “big picture” problem being addressed, and what is the more focused research question?
2. Why is this research question important?
3. What does previous research say about the issue?
4. What is the author’s approach to the question? How is this approach different from previous research? What does this author provide that is new?
5. Examine the methods. Who are the participants? How were data gathered? Are the sample and method appropriate to the research question?
6. How were the data analyzed? Why (or why not) is this approach appropriate to the research question?
7. What are the results? How do you know? That is, how does the presentation of the results help you understand what was found?
8. What is the appropriate way to interpret the results? To whom and under what conditions to the results apply?
9. What conclusions do the authors draw? What theoretical and practical contributions does the research offer?
10. What are your thoughts about the research? What do you see as its strengths and weaknesses?
As you approach theoretical papers and literature reviews, ask yourself 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? And why is this approach important? What does this paper provide that is new?
3. What does research say about the issue?
4. What conclusions does the author draw?
5. How does this article enhance the 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?
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?
These questions will form the basis of our classroom discussions, so prepare your responses as you read each article.
Student Assessment and Grading
15% Discussion Leadership
10% Class Participation
15% Research Proposal
35% Research Paper
25% Final Exam
___
100 points
Failing to complete one or more of the above requirements will result in a failing grade for the course.
Grade Allocation: A: 93-100 points; A-: 90-92; B+: 87-89; B: 83-86; B-: 80-82;
C+: 77-79; C: 73-76; C-; 70-72; D+: 67-69; D: 63-66; D-: 60-62; F: below 59.
Discussion leadership
Each of you will be discussion leader for 3 class sessions. Look over the course schedule and reading list for a topic or articles that interest you. We will choose topics and dates on the first day of class. I will lead discussion for the first 3 weeks of class, so choose your topics accordingly.
The discussion leader is responsible for creating an engaging discussion that facilitates learning and results in new insights. It is critical that you have a firm grasp on the material itself, on critical analysis of the material, and on cross-topic integration. Feel free to talk to me as you plan your discussion.
I ultimately decide discussion leadership points, but each of you will provide input by completing a feedback sheet on one another. Feedback sheets will provide me with grade input and you with developmental input.
Class participation
Class participation necessitates that you demonstrate both having read the material and an ability to respond to basic questions (e.g., what is the research question? who are the participants?). However that is not sufficient. Successful participation requires that you demonstrate your critical analysis of the material (e.g., that you are able to answer more complex questions such as why is this research question important, are the research methods appropriate to the research question, and how can the article be integrated with previous material).
I ultimately decide participation points, but each of you will provide input about yourself and one another by completing a feedback sheets.
Research proposal
Each of you will engage in OB-related research this semester – a project that can be fully completed by the end of the semester. Your project can be theoretical or empirical. We will walk through the research projects together. Dates for each requirement are in the schedule attached to this syllabus.
If choosing a theoretical piece, your research proposal should contain information that follows questions 1-3 in the guidelines for reading theoretical papers. Your paper cannot simply be a literature review. If you choose this approach, your paper must advance theory in some way, must provide a diagram to illustrate proposed relationships and must include testable propositions.
If choosing an empirical piece, your proposal should contain information that follows questions 1-6 in the guidelines of how to read an empirical article. In other words, you must say what is the big picture, your specific question, why your question is important, what other research has said about your topic, what your theoretical approach is, what your sample and methods will be, and what data analysis approach you will use.
Research proposals should be roughly 6-8 pages not including references and should follow APA guidelines.
Before proposals are due, we will have two classes devoted to proposal preparation. During these, you will present your approved topic and discuss any dilemmas you have with respect to your investigation. This will be time for you to receive valuable feedback from me and your classmates. Please use this class period wisely.
Research paper
After your research proposal is approved, you will collect and analyze data if necessary, and then complete your research paper providing information that answers the remainder of the questions in the guidelines for reading journal articles. You should each expect to end this semester with a publishable and/or professionally presentable paper.
The body of your paper (not including title page, abstract, figures, tables, and references) should be roughly 25-30. Aim for 40 pages all-inclusive. Papers should incorporate the research proposal including any feedback from me and should follow APA guidelines. Papers must be written specifically for this course. Those modified from other courses or begun independently of this class will not be accepted. Likewise, late papers will not be accepted.
Final exam
The final exam is intended to assess your knowledge and to prepare you for comps. The questions will be similar to those you will see when you take comps, so your approach to studying should be similar as well. We will discuss this more throughout the semester.
Brief Outline of Class Schedule
(may be modified as class progresses)
Understanding OB research
Session 1 What is OB?
**Class discussion leaders chosen
**General topic for research proposal due
Session 2 Reading and writing academic articles
Session 3 Conducting research in OB
Understanding the individual within the organization (The micro perspective)
Session 4 Perception
Session 5 Personality
Session 6 **Specific research questions due
Discussion of how questions will be approached
Session 7 Emotions
Session 8 Intelligence
Session 9 Self & identity
Session 10 Attitudes
Session 11 Discussion of dilemmas in research proposals
Session 12 Motivation (historic view)
Session 13 Motivation (contemporary view)
Session 14 Demography and diversity
Understanding group processes in organizations (The meso approach)
Session 15 Status
**Research proposals due
Session 16 Leadership (historic view)
Session 17 Leadership (contemporary view 1)
Session 18 Leadership (contemporary view 2)
Session 19 Power and influence (historic view)
Session 20 Power and influence (contemporary view)
Session 21 Groups and teams (historic view)
Session 22 Groups and teams (contemporary view)
Session 23 Discussion of dilemmas in research projects
Understanding the influence of the organization (the macro approach)
Session 24 Organizational culture (historic view)
Session 25 Organizational culture (contemporary view)
Session 26 Fairness and trust
Session 27 Person-environment fit
Session 28 Organizational citizenship behaviors
Session 29 Dysfunction
Reading List
Understanding organizational behavior research
What is OB?
[Required reading]
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Miner, J. B. (2002). Ch. 1, Theory, research, and knowledge of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. *Available at Google Books
Miner, J. B. (2006). Ch. 2, Theory building and kinds of theories. Organizational Behavior, 3: Historical origins, theoretical foundations, and the future. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. *Available at Google Books
[Suggested reading]
House, R.J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M.J. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71-114.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. Understanding organizations: Concepts and controversies. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), pp. 773-777, Handbook of social psychology (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195-229.
Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. (2000). Big-B versus Big-O: An examination into what is distinctly organizational about organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1- 16.
Reading and writing academic articles
[Required reading]
Locke, K. & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1023-1062.
Campion, M. A. (2002) Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles. Personnel Psychology, 45. 705-718.
Heilman, M.E. & Okimoto. T.G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81-92.
Conducting research in OB
[Required reading]
Martin, J. (2000). Hidden gendered assumptions in mainstream organizational theory and research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 207-216.
Miner, J. B. (2006). Ch. 3, Measurement of variables and design of research. Organizational Behavior, 3: Historical origins, theoretical foundations, and the future. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. *Available at Google Books.
Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211-236.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M. & Zeynep, Aycan (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514.
[Suggested reading]
Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832.
Cascio, W. F. & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062- 1081.
Understanding the individual within the organization (The micro approach)
Perception
[Required reading]
Duehr, E. E. & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59, 815-846.
Uleman, J. L., Saribay, S. A. & Gonzalez, C. M. (2007). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329-360.
Zou, X., Tam, K., Morris, M. W., Lee, S., Lau, I. & Chiu, C. (2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 579-597.
[Suggested reading]
Hodgkinson, G. P. & Healey, M. P. (2008). Cognition in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 387-417.
§ Humphrey, R. (1985). How work roles influence perception: Structural-cognitive processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review, 50, 242-252.
Gioia & Poole. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449-459.
§ Malle, B. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23-48.
Tetlock, P.E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 293-326.
Walsh, (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280-321.
Personality
[Required reading]
§ Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions & job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
§
§ Heine, S. J. & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369-394.
§
§ [Suggested reading]
§ Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits – self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.
§
§ Kilduff, M. & Day, D.V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead: The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047-1060.
§
§ Meglino, B. & Ravlin, E. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351-389.
§
§ Onez, D. S. Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995-1027.
§
§ Staw, B. (2002). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: An empirical and conceptual review. In B. Schneider & B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and Organization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
§
Emotions
[Required reading]
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
§
§ Locke, E. A., (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
§
§ Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D. & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
§
§ [Suggested reading]
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. (2005). Affect and creativity: A daily longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403.
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2001). The collective construction of work group mood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197-231.
Brief, A. P. & Weis, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Wharton, A. S. (2009). The sociology of emotional labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 147-165.
Intelligence
[Required reading]
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79- 132.
Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S. & Tyler,P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297-330.
Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
[Suggested reading]
Delgado, A. R. & Prieto, G. (2008). Stereotype threat as validity threat: The anxiety-sex-threat interaction. Intelligence, 36, 635-640.
Smedley, A. & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60, 16-26.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Psychologist, 60, 46-59.
Wullf, C., Bergman, L. R. & Sverke, M. (2009). General mental ability and satisfaction with school and work: A longitudinal study from ages 13-48. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 398-408.
Self and Identity
[Required reading]
Leary, M. A. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317-344.
Marcus, B., Machilek, F. & Schutz, A. (2006). Personality in cyberspace: Personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 1014-1031.
[Suggested reading]
Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 676-609.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858-866.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E. & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665-683.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C. & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29: 9-27.
Attitudes
[Required reading]
Azjen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
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.
[Suggested reading]
Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645-663.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction- job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 376-407.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, B. & Salvaggio, A. (2003). Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 836-851.
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.
Tugade, M. M. & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86, 320-333.
Motivation (Historic view)
[Required reading]
**Intro to chapter 2 in your book. pp.130-139.
Festinger, L. (Reading 12 in your book.) The motivating effect of cognitive dissonance.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (Reading 16 in your book). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the 21st century.
McGregor, D. M. (Reading 11 in your book.) The human side of enterprise.
Roethlisberger, F. J. (Reading 9 in your book.) The Hawthorne experiments.
Motivation (contemporary view)
[Required reading]
Fehr, E. & Gintis, H. (2007). Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 43-64.
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.
[Suggested reading]
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055-1067.
Deci, E., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Latham, G. P. & Pinder, C. C. (2004). Work motivation: Theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multilevel model of empowerment, performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Soneshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16, 537-549.
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.
Demography and Diversity
[Required reading]
Fiske, S. T. (2002). What we know about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128.
Goodwin, S. A. Gubin, A. Fiske, S. T. & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 227-256.
Roosevelt, R. T. Jr. (Reading 21 in your book.) A diversity framework.
[Suggested reading]
Chatman, J. A. & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 193-208.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D. & Tamkins, M. M. (2004) Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A. & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801-830.
Konrad, A. M., Prasad, P. & Pringle, J. K. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
§ Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P., & Swann Jr., W.B. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 296-324.
§
Ragins, B. R. (2004) Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23, 37-122.
van Knippenberg, D. & Schippers, M. C. (2006). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.
Understanding group processes in organizations (the macro approach)
Status
[Required reading]
DiTomaso, N. Post, C. & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inquality: Power, status and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473-501.
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.
Ravlin E. C. & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification processes in organizational life. Journal of Management, 31, 966-987.
[Suggested reading]
Berger, J. & Fisek, M. H. (2006). Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1038-1079.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 557-591.
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C. & Simon. L. S. (2009) Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 742-755.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Inequality, status, and the construction of status beliefs. In J. T. Turner (Ed.). The Handbook of Sociological Theory. (pp. 323-342). New York: Springer Science. **Can be accessed through Google Books
Ridgeway, C. L. & Smith-Lovin, (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Sociology, 57, 375-400.
Weber, M. (1999) Class, status, and party. In Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. C. Lemert (Ed.). pp.115-124 Boulder: Westview Press.
Leadership (Historic view)
[Required reading]
**Intro to Chapter 1 in your book (pp. 31-42).
Chemers, M. M. (Reading 7 in your book.) Efficacy and effectiveness: Integrating models of leadership and intelligence.
Fiedler, F. E. (Reading 3 in your book.) The contingency model: A theory of leadership effectiveness.
Follett, M. P. (Reading 1 in your book.) The giving of orders.
Tichy, N. M. & Ulrich, D. O. (Reading 4 in your book.) The leadership challenge: A call for the transformational leader.
Leadership (Contemporary view: 1)
[Required reading]
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O. & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Qarterly, 18, 370-390.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M. & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17,180-197.
Leadership (Contemporary view: 2)
[Required reading]
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
Hofsteded, G. (2006). Cultural constraints in management theories. In H. W. Lane, M. L. Maznevski, J. D. Distefano (Eds.) International Management Behavior: Texts, Readings,
and Cases (pp.75-88). Madden: Blackwell Publishing. **can be found at Google Books.
Stone, T. H. & Cooper, W. H. (2009). Emerging credits. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 785-798.
[Suggested reading]
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
§ Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 4, 637-647.
§
Den Hartog, D.N. & Koopman, P.L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In Anderson, N. Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds). 2001. Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. pp. 166-187. **most of this chapter is available at Google Books
§ Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
§
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 4, 569-591.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijain, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992) Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
§ Emrich, C.G., Brower, H.H., Feldman, J.M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527-557.
§
§ Fiedler, F.E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250.
§
§ Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
§
Hanges, P. J., Lord, R. G., Dickson, M. W. (2000). An information-processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case for connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,133-161.
Hogue, M. & Lord, R. G. (2007). A multilevel, complexity theory approach to understanding gender bias in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 370-390.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly.
Meindl, J.R., & Ehrlich, S.B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30: 91-109.
§ Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H. (1996). Meta-analysis of the relationship between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380-399.
§
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., Bommer, W. H. & Baldwin, T. T. (2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader and employee outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 680-688.
Sparrowe, R.T. & Liden, R.C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
Thompson, G. & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 837-848.
van Knippenberg, D. van Knippenberg, B. DeCremer, D. & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825-856.
§ Weber, R., Camerer, C., Rottenstreich, Y. & Knez, M. (2001). The illusion of leadership: Misattribution of cause in coordination games. Organization Science, 12, 582-598.
§
Power & Influence (Historic view)
[Required reading]
**Intro to chapter 5 in your book pp. 336-345.
French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. (Reading 30 in your book.) The bases of power.
Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (Reading 33 in your book.) Who gets power and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power.
Habgerg, J. O. (Reading 36 in your book.) Women and power.
Power & Influence (Contemporary view)
[Required reading]
Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N, J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
Curhan, J. R. & Pentland, A. (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 802-811.
[Suggested reading]
Aquino, K. & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization. Social Psychology, 89, 1023-1034.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466
Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. (2001). Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43-91.
Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M P., Near, J. P. & Van Scotter, J. R. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relationships. Organization Science, 19, 221-240.
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.
Stewart, A. J. & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
Groups & Teams (Historic view)
[Required reading]
**Intro to chapter 3 in your book pp. 209-219.
Alderfer, C. P. (Reading 19 in your book.) An intergroup perspective on group dynamics.
Asch, S. E. (Reading 24 in your book.) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.
Blake, R. R. Shepard, H. A. & Mouton, J. S. (Reading 17 in your book.) Foundations and dynamics of intergroup behavior.
Cartwright, D & Zander, A. (Reading 18 in your book.) Origins of group dynamics.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E. & Hackman, J. R. (Reading 28 in your book.) Social influences on work effectiveness.
Groups & Teams (Contemporary view)
[Required reading]
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.
[Suggested reading]
Ancona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321-341.
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.
Joshi, A. (2006). The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams. Academy of Management Review, 31, 583-595.
Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 623-655.
Understanding the influence of the organization
Organizational culture (Historic perspectives)
[Required reading]
Lewin, K. (Reading 38 in your book.) Group decision and social change.
Schein, E. H. (Reading 5 in your book.) The learning leader as culture manager.
Wright, B. E. (Reading 15 in your book.) The role of work context in work motivation.
Senge, P. M. (Reading 40 in your book.) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Organizational culture (Contemporary view)
[Required reading]
Berson, Y., Oreg, S. Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615-633.
Jordan, A. T. (2008). Organizational culture: It’s here, but is it anthropology? Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, 2-5.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
[Suggested reading]
Durrenberger, P. W. (2007). The anthropology of organized labor in the United States. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 73-88.
Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A. & Shook C. L. (2009) Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62, 673-679.
Judge, T. A. & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Youg, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A. & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389-416.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 220-229.
Morrison, E.W. 2002. Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1149-1160.
Fairness & Trust
[Required reading]
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E. & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34-48.
Loi. R., Yang, J. & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 770- 781.
Scott, B. A. & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange, ideology, and the Big Five.
Group and Organization Management, 32, 290-325.
[Suggested reading]
Adams, J.S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 422-436.
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947-965.
Andrews, M. C. Kacmar, K. M. & Harris, K. J. (2009). Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1427-1437.
Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y-R. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155-167.
Chen, Y., Brockner, J. & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 1-21.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Kramer, R. M. (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235-244.
Person-Environment Fit
[Required reading]
Cable, D. M. & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834.
Hofstede, G. & McCrae, R. R. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 38, 52-88.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.
[Suggested reading]
Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546-561.
Ehrhart, K. H. & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31, 901-919.
Lyness, K. S. & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777- 785.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 985-993.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D. & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person- supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, B., Smith, D., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462-470.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
[Required reading]
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078-1095.
Heilman, M. E. & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431-441.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A. & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.
[Suggested reading]
Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1481-1494.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241-1255.
Kark, R. & Waismel-Manor, R. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: What’s gender got to do with it? Organization, 12 (6), 889-917.
Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dysfunction
[Required reading]
Aquino, K & Shau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717-741,
Bies, R. J. & Tripp, T. M. (Reading 35 in your book.) Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny in organizations.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483-496.
[Suggested reading]
Barling, J., Dupre, K. E. & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671-692.
Greenberg, J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequality: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 561-568.
Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H. Ekeberg, S. E. & Dubois, C. L. Z. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 22, 687-729.
§ O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Glew, D.J. 1996. Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21: 225-253.
§
§ Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Wenger, J. 2001. When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54: 1387-1419.
§
Robinson, S.L. & O’Leary-Kelly, J.M. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 658-672.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Paetzold, R.L., & Griffin, R.W. 2000. Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25: 372-388.
