Organizational Behavior
Department of Management and Technology
Bocconi University
Massimo Magni
massimo.magni@unibocconi.it
Seminar Goals
This seminar is designed to provide an introduction to the best works (articles and book chapters) that
have been published in the field of organizational behavior with a particular focus on classic and
contemporary theories, ongoing controversies, and ground breaking empirical studies. The emphasis
would be on providing the foundations to the linkage between theory and research in OB. Because in
it is impossible to complete an exhaustive overview of the OB field in few meetings, we will
selectively explore some topics to give you a sufficient lay of the land.
Class structure
Each week you will be asked to read 4 journal articles or book chapters. Our goal each week is to
generate a high quality discussion that promotes understanding of some of the central issues, concepts
and debates in the field of organizational behavior. To accomplish these objectives will require a great
deal of reading on your part. It is critical that you read the material before class, as well as spend some
time thinking about the implications of the readings. In the course schedule that follows, there will be
a set of assigned readings for each class. I suggest that you read them in the order listed. Sometimes
“suggested readings” are listed that provide examples of other exemplary papers on the topic, though I
will not expect that you will have read them.
Evaluation criteria
Seminar requirements and evaluation criteria are the following:
1- Class preparation and contributions (40%)
2- Research proposal (40%)
3- Paper review (20%)
1- Class preparation and contributions (40%)
You are expected to read (and often re-read) the articles assigned to each meeting in order to
attempt to understand the goal, the logic and the contribution of each manuscript. This approach
will allow you to be an active and constructive contributor during each meeting, which is the basic
requirement of the seminar. In reading the papers and articles for each meeting you could use the
following questions as guidelines:






What is good about this paper?
What is the basic formulation of the theory (constructs and relationships among them),
and what drives the theory? What are the theoretical foundations of the research?
How tenable are the assumptions?
What is the main contribution of this paper? What are the interesting ideas?
What could have been improved in the paper?
Do you believe the arguments (about the theory and the conclusions drawn from the
data)? What would it take to convince you?


What are the boundary conditions of the argument? In other words, for whom and under
what circumstances does the argument apply and not apply?
What are the critical differences between this author’s argument and others you have
read? Can these differences be resolved through an empirical test? What would that
study look like?
2- Research proposal (40%)
You are required to work individually (with my support) and prepare a research proposal to present to
the class. The proposal should review (briefly) the literature in a selected area, describe the methods
for conducting the study (including sample survey or questionnaire items), outline analyses and
anticipated results, and discuss the study's contributions and implications. The proposal should
include the target journal for the potential submission and a submission letter you would send to the
designated journal. Thus, you have to determine an appropriate journal outlet. Overall, the proposal
or paper should be 15-20 double-spaced typed pages and please use 12-point font. Use the APA
style for formatting your manuscript. The proposal should be sent to me by 22/10/2013 (23:59 PM).
During the final meeting (24/10/2013), each student will make a 20-minute presentation to the class
based on his/her research proposal. Presentations must be professional in nature, as if they were to be
presented at a meeting such as the Academy of Management, ICIS, SMS. You will be evaluated on
the basis of your research proposal, submission letter, and presentation.
3- Paper review (20%)
The professional review process requires to develop the ability to assists others in crafting high
quality manuscripts. You will receive a real paper to review and you will have to develop a review as
it was an actual journal submission. Please, take a look at “review tips” in the appendix of this
document. The review should be sent by email no later than 09/11/2013.
Topics
1. Individual differences (Personality, Emotions) - 15/09/2014
Funder, D.C. 2001. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 197- 221.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using
integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 110-127.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2009). Emotions research in OB: The challenges
that lie ahead. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 833-838.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
review of psychology, 53(1), 279-307.
Suggested:
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional
research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203-224.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 86(1), 3-34.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at
work. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor
structure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 59(6), 1216.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The
mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and
counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression
management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900.
2. Organizational justice - 18/09/2014
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: the mediating role of
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships
among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract
violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 146-157.
Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intraunit
justice climate. Journal of Management, 35(3), 564-599.
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary
learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and
leader‐member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103-1126.
Suggested
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A
historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J.A. Colquitt (Eds.) Handbook of organizational justice,
3-56.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of
applied psychology, 86(3), 425.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of
a measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the
justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: the effects of
aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(3), 432.
3. Leadership - 22/09/2014
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural
orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(2), 208-218.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership
advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528550.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and
transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological
empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
Suggested:
McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When Does Voice Lead to Exit? It
Depends on Leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 525-548.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of
emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(5), 845-858.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hopton, C. (2011). Leadership. In S. Zedeck (ed.), APA handbook
of Industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 1, pp. 183-240.). Washington D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of
the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(5), 1187-1212.
4. Teams and groups 29/09/2014
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines,
conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794-813.
O'Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational
characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. Mis Quarterly, 31(3), 433-452.
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning
transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581-598.
Suggested
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From
input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 517-543.
Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group Faultlines A Review, Integration, and Guide to
Future Research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969-1009.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3),
410-476.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed
teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous
communication. Organization science, 16(3), 290-307
5. Team (II) 22/10/2014
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences
of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
O'leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A
theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy
of Management Review, 36(3), 461-478.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative science quarterly, 634-665.
Suggested:
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents
and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary
teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal,
48(3), 532-547.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: an
empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97.
6. Climate and cross level research in OB + individual presentation 24/10/2014
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D. R. (2012). A Multilevel Model of Team Goal
Orientation, Information Exchange, and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
management review, 31(2), 386-408.
Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The
moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 395-406.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level:
A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of
management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.
Suggested
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing
and conducting multilevel research. Organizational research methods, 3(3), 211-236.
Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of management
review, 10(4), 837-847.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross- level
perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
7, pp. 1-37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. In C. L.
Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 139-158). New York: Wiley.
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear
modeling to organizational research.. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.),Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations: 467–511. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence,
reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 486-496.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: a cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee
service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 41-58.
Appendix
1- Tips on Reading Academic Journal Articles
The following tips have been suggested and developed by C. Bartel. You could rely on them in
order to better understand the papers that will be presented in class, but also above and beyond our
meeting.
It’s typical that seminar participants differ in their experience with reading journal articles.
Reading journal articles often can seem like a daunting task. They are usually full of domainspecific jargon, complicated statistics and what seems like irrelevant and complex information.
Journal articles are written so that researchers can replicate the authors' work, but often a reader’s
aim is just to find out what the authors did and what they found.
Thus, a lot of the information given may seem irrelevant—but it is not. This information will help
you to determine how much stock to put into the research. The methodological and statistical
details, in particular, provide vital information for determining an article’s strengths and
weaknesses, and generally for determining whether it is an example of “good scholarship.”
Therefore it is important that you learn how to read journal articles so that you gain the relevant
information, yet be aware of their limitations.
Though you will develop your own strategy over time, here are some questions you should aim to
answer when reading a given paper:

What is the aim of the research? Specifically, what “big picture” practical question is
highlighted and what more focused research question is addressed?

Why is this research question important? Meaning, why should anyone care?

What do we already know about this research question? That is, what does past research on
this issue say?

What is the author’s approach to the research question? (i.e., what is the theoretical
foundation)?

How is this approach different from what we already know? Why should anyone care about
taking this approach to the question?

For empirical articles, who were the participants? What method was used? Are the sample
and method appropriate given the study’s hypotheses?

What were the major findings that are relevant to the aims of the study?

How generalizable are the findings? What are the boundary conditions? (i.e., for whom and
under what conditions do the findings apply?)

What conclusions did the authors draw? What theoretical and practical contributions does
the research offer?

What do you think of the research? What do you see as its strengths and weaknesses?
2 -Tips on Reviewing Academic Journal Articles
The following tips could represent a useful guide to review a paper and to be aware about the main
issues that reviewers will look at when they read your work. The tips are adapted from MISQ
reviewer’s packet and AOM suggestions for reviewers.
The following points are some suggested criteria that might help you structure your evaluations of
the submissions sent to you.
1. Conceptual Significance: The work represents an important contribution to knowledge. It
extends or challenges OB theory, empirical literature, methods, OB professional issues, or
OB body of knowledge. Ties to relevant literature are clear as is the thrust of the central
argument. The work explicates underlying assumptions well and provides direction for
extending or improving on the present work.
2. Practical Significance: The work contributes to our understanding of current
organizational problems or challenges faced by managers or other practitioners.
3. Design and Execution: Methods, subjects, logic, and techniques (where relevant) are well
designed for the investigation of the questions posed. The work is well executed, including
provision of pertinent evidence and interpretation of results. Where appropriate,
operationalizations of theoretical constructs, validity, and the choice of statistical and/or
mathematical analysis are well done. The work adheres to generally accepted codes of
scientific ethics.
4. Presentation: The work adopts a professional style and tone and is concise. It is
grammatically correct and clear in its use of figures and tables. The flow of ideas in the
paper is logical and there is a clear tie between its use of prior literature and a clear link
between the method it adopts and its conclusions. The work is presented at a level of
sophistication and length appropriate to the readership of the journal.
Slightly
Strongly
Slightly
Strongly
agree Agree agree Unsure disagree Disagree disagree
The paper is conceptually
significant.
The paper is practically
significant.
The paper is well
designed.
The design is well
executed.
The presentation of ideas
is effective.
Overall, the paper
presently makes a major
contribution.
Overall, the paper has the
potential to make a major
contribution.
In going deeper in the review process and in the development of your review document you could
use the following questions as guidelines:





Introduction
o Is there a clear research question, with a solid motivation behind it?
o Is the research question interesting?
o After reading the introduction, did you find yourself motivated to read further?
Theory
o Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical
framework?
o Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined?
o Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?
o Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical
references missing?
o Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?
Method (for empirical papers)
o Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses?
o Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical technique(s) applied?
o Does the study have internal and external validity?
o Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions and
were they applied appropriately.
Results (for empirical papers)
o Are the results reported in an understandable way?
o Are there alternative explanations for the results, and if so, are these adequately
controlled for in the analyses?
Contribution
o Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research?
o Does the submission stimulate thought or debate?
o Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and practice
community?