ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: PERCEPTIONS ANALYSIS OF MICRO AND MACRO
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING
Joshua T. Delich, B.A., ME.D.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
December 2015
APPROVED:
Jane B. Huffman, Major Professor
Don Powell, Minor Professor
Douglas Otto, Committee Member
Miriam Ezzani, Committee Member
James D. Laney, Chair of the Department
of Teacher Education and
Administration
Jerry Thomas, Dean of the College of
Education
Costas Tsatsoulis, Dean of the Toulouse
Graduate School
Delich, Joshua T. Organizational Behavior: Perceptions Analysis of Micro and Macro
Organizational Behavior in an Organizational Setting. Doctor of Philosophy (Educational Leadership),
December 2015, 214 pp., 35 tables, 6 figures, references, 528 titles.
Understanding organizational behavior (OB) has profoundly influenced organizational
performance and how people behave in organizations. Researchers have suggested various
micro and macro organizational behaviors to be the impetus for high-performing organizations.
Through a policy capturing approach this study builds on these findings by specifically
examining the perceptions of micro and macro organizational behaviors in an organizational
setting. The participants (n =181) completed a Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior
Perceptions Questionnaire. Results showed perception differences exist between subordinates
and supervisors. Additionally, participants perceived job satisfaction to be the most important
micro organizational behavior, whereas organizational design was perceived to be the most
important macro organizational behavior. However when comparing hierarchal positions in the
organization, supervisors weighted leadership as the most important and subordinates weighted
job satisfaction as the most important organizational behavior. While these findings only scratch
the surface as to how organizational behavior is perceived, the implications challenge leaders to
close the OB perception gap. Correspondingly, organizational behavior thinking may result in
improving individual and organizational performance.
Copyright 2015
by
Joshua T. Delich
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Huffman, I want to gratefully thank you for the remarkable support, guidance, and
sincerity you showed me during this process. You will always hold a special place in my future
career endeavors. It is my privilege to have worked under your guidance.
To my dissertation committee, thank you for the thought-provoking insight you provided
me along the way. Thank you for what you taught me during the doctoral program.
To my brother Caleb, thank you for the many conversations we had over the years during
my research, you unknowingly ignited the fire inside me to keep persevering. Brotherly love
forever. Rachel, Jennifer, Eve, and Charity, “Little Josh” is done. Thanks for checking in on my
progress throughout this journey.
John and Trudy, your enduring and unconditional love and support laid the foundation
that made this all possible. When you turn the pages of this body of research, know that each
page was because of you. Dad and Mom, you are as deserving of this degree as I am. Love you.
Daddy’s beautiful little girls, Rae’ven-Hope and Nylah-Rae, you were, and will always
be, an inspiration for me to keep going. While you probably will never remember Daddy’s
research days, I will always remember your little voices asking me: “Are you doing research?
When will you be done?” My precious daughters, your dad is finished. I love you.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, Desirae, for the unwavering
love, incredible support, selfless acts, and compassionate understanding you gave me during this
long journey. I will never forget the sacrifices you made. I am so blessed, and honored, to call
you my wife. And despite this landmark in our lives coming to an end, it is only the beginning
of many more amazing milestones we will achieve together. My soul mate for life, I love you.
We did it!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
CHAPTERS
1
2
INTRODUCTION
1
Background
1
What is Organizational Behavior
3
Historical Origin of Organizational Behavior
4
Statement of the Problem
5
Statement of Purpose
6
Research Questions
6
Significance of Study
6
Delimitations
7
Assumptions
8
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
9
Definition of Terms
11
Organization of Study
14
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
16
Organizational Behavior
16
Micro and Macro Dichotomy
18
Micro Organizational Behaviors
21
iv
Stress
21
Job Satisfaction
25
Creativity
28
Leadership
32
Macro Organizational Behavior
38
Organizational Structure
39
Organizational Design
48
Organizational Change
54
Organizational Development
64
Contingency Theory
72
Policy Capturing Approach
Social Judgment Theory
76
Lens Model
78
Single System Design
3
74
78
Conclusion
79
METHODOLOGY
82
Introduction
82
Research Questions
83
Research Design
83
Policy Capturing Approach
83
Defining Judgment Policy
86
Population
87
Pilot Study
89
v
4
Data Collection Procedures
90
Instrument Design
90
Instrument Questions
90
Instrument Considerations
92
Instrument Validity and Reliability
92
Limitations
96
Policy Capturing Approach Limitations
97
Data Analysis
98
Summary
99
RESULTS
102
Overview of Data Collection
102
Materials
102
Questionnaire Instrument
103
Descriptive Statistics
104
Questionnaire Response Rate
104
Demographical Data
104
Statistical Analysis
106
Characteristics of Data
106
Least-Squared
106
Cue Usage
107
Data Results
109
Conclusion
116
vi
5
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
119
Introduction
119
Review of Organizational Behavior
119
Overview of the Study
120
Summary of the Results
121
Perceptions Theorization
123
Discussion
126
Concluding the Eight Studied Organizational Behaviors
126
Insight on Findings of the Study
130
Implications
134
Recommendations
135
Leveraging, Understanding, and Managing Organizational
Behavior
135
Interlocking Organizational Behavior Thinking with HighPerforming Attributes
137
Future Exploration into the Field of Organizational Behavior
139
Concluding Thoughts
143
A.
DIFFERENTIATING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR SUBFIELDS
146
B.
DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
150
C.
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS/CHANGE MANAGEMENT
APPENDIX
D.
MODELS
152
LENS MODEL SINGLE SYSTEM DESIGN
155
vii
E.
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF BRUNSWIK’S LENS MODEL
F.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DETERMING THE RELATIONSHIP
157
BETWEEN ADMINISTRATOR AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS
OF MICRO AND MACRO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR IN AN
ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING
G.
159
HIGH-PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS, HIGH-PERFORMING
PEOPLE, AND HIGH PERFORMING LEADERS
REFERENCES
174
178
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Definitions of Organizational Behavior ............................................................................ 17
2. Differentiating Organizational Behavior Subfields .......................................................... 19
3. Micro vs. Macro Organizational Behavior: Issues, Research, and Applications.............. 20
4. Creativity........................................................................................................................... 31
5. Leadership Effects ............................................................................................................ 34
6. Leadership Styles .............................................................................................................. 35
7. Organizational Structure – 3 Key Components ................................................................ 41
8. Organizational Structure Types ........................................................................................ 42
9. Organization Structure – Tall vs. Flat Organizations ....................................................... 44
10. Organizational Structure – Dimensions Impacted.............................................................. 45
11. Mechanistic vs. Organic ..................................................................................................... 49
12. Montzberg’s Five Organizational Design Configurations ................................................. 51
13. Classical and Neoclassical Organization Design ............................................................... 52
14. Organizational Change ....................................................................................................... 55
15. Receptivity to Change ........................................................................................................ 56
16. Organizational Change Types ............................................................................................ 57
17. Strategic Planning Process/Change Management Models ................................................. 63
18. Organizational Development Goals ................................................................................... 67
19. Organizational Development Types ................................................................................... 71
20. Transparency, Communicability, Coherence, and Transferability Defined ....................... 94
21. Demographical Characteristics of the Research Sample .................................................. 105
22. Normalized Usefulness Index Across All Participants .................................................... 108
ix
23. Logistical Regression Coefficients for Demographics Assessing Micro and Macro
Organizational Behavior Preference ................................................................................ 110
24. Logistical Regression Coefficients for Weighted Cues Assessing Micro and Macro
Organizational Behavior Preference ................................................................................ 111
25. Cue Means and Standard Deviation for T-Test Analysis ................................................. 112
26. Mean Differences in the Weighted Cues for Teachers and Administrators ..................... 113
27. Perception Importance: Micro or Macro Organizational Behavior .................................. 114
28. Perception Importance within the Organizational Behavior ............................................ 115
29. Perception Importance with the Organizational Behavior - Macro ................................. 115
30. Perception Importance of the Eight Organizational Behaviors ....................................... 116
31. Attributes of High-Performing Organizations, People, and Leaders .............................. 138
A.1. Differentiating Organizational Behavior Subfields ......................................................... 147
B.1. Organizational Behavior – Definitions and References ................................................... 151
C.1. Strategic Planning Process/Change Management Models ............................................... 153
G.1. High-performing Organizations, High-performing People, and High-performing
Leaders ............................................................................................................................. 175
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Organizational structure types .......................................................................................... 42
2. Flat organization and tall organization ............................................................................. 43
3. Mechanistic and organic characteritistics ......................................................................... 50
4. Determing organization development interventions ......................................................... 69
D.1. Lens model – single system design ................................................................................. 156
E.1.
Mathematical formulation of Brunswik’s lens model. ................................................... 158
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Organizational behavior is important to leaders, managers, employees, and consumers; and
understanding it can make us more effective leaders, managers, employees and consumers.
- Richard Sims, 2002
In Chapter 1, the background and historical roots of organizational behavior are
discussed. The theoretical framework that supports this research study is disclosed to better
explain the vacillating behaviors observed in an organizational setting. Furthermore, the
following sections in Chapter 1 are: problem statement, purpose of the study, significance of the
study, delimitations, limitations, and assumptions of the study. Lastly, Chapter 1 concludes with
definition of key terms and organization of the study.
Background
Through decades of research, the study of organizational behavior (OB) has yielded a
multitude of attributes that lead to high-performing organizations. Researchers in psychology,
sociology, political science, economics, and other social sciences have systematically attempted
to explain and develop a comprehensive body of organizational research that explain the
attributes that lead to organizational performance (Greenberg, 2011; Miner, 2007; Owens &
Valesky, 2011; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005). If leaders are better able to answer the questions
of how to design organizations to become superior performers by identifying what specific
actions need to be taken, then leaders can implement systems to drive organizational success
(Epstein & Manzoni, 2004). In an attempt to discover the fundamental attributes that lead to
high-performing organizations, scholars have turned to the study of organizational behavior for
the answer (Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson, 2009; Greenberg, 2003, 2011; E. M. Hanson, 2003;
Miner, 2007; Owens, 2001; Sims, 2002; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005).
1
Leaders need to know how to manage behavior effectively in the organization and to
identify the connection between organizational behavior and performance to become a highperforming organization (Hitt, Miller, & Colella, 2006). Furthermore, Hitt et al. (2006) goes on
to purport that improved performance in an organization requires taking a strategic approach to
organizational behavior by organizing and managing people’s knowledge and skills.
Understanding organizational behavior has influenced organizational performance and how
people behave in organizations (Clegg, Barling, & Cooper, 2008). As Sims (2002)
acknowledges, recognition of organizational behavior has empowered leaders to better
understand the myriad workforce issues, therefore, altering leadership behavior to increase an
organization’s performance and effectiveness. By recognizing and understanding the impact
organizational behavior has on performance, leaders can better ascertain what attributes lead to
high-performing organizations. Subsequently, leading researchers in the field turn to
organizational behavior when identifying the organizational attributes that are responsible for the
difference in performance levels among organizations (Colquitt et al., 2009; Greenberg, 2011;
Miner, 2007; Owens, 2001; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005).
Researchers have spent decades studying organizations, people, individuals, and the
reasons why some organizations perform at unprecedented high levels, and other organizations
make a descending plunge to dismal performance. How does this happen? Connellan (1978)
posited the majority of an organization’s problems are derived from human performance
problems; thus, a change in human behavior means a change in the performance results of the
organization. Organizational behavior has been identified as the crucial variable for achieving
success, and is considered the fundamental underpinning that helps leaders identify problems,
ascertain how to address the problems, recognize the complexities within the organization, and
2
establish whether change needs to occur to make things better (Miner, 2006b; Sims, 2002).
Organizational behavior is used as a means for enhancing organizational effectiveness and
individual welfare (Greenberg, 2011; Robbins & Judge, 2007). Research shows that
organizational behavior affects performance levels within an organization.
What is Organizational Behavior?
The field of organizational behavior has evolved from the various disciplines of
psychology, sociology, political science, and economics; therefore, notably being defined as the
study of behavior of individuals and groups within an organization (Cummings, 1978;
Greenberg, 2011; Schneider, 1985; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005). Greenberg (2011) defines
organizational behavior to be a multidisciplinary field that seeks knowledge of behavior in an
organizational setting by systematically studying individual, group, and organizational processes.
Organizational behavior is the study of individual behavior and group dynamics in an
organization, primarily focusing on the psychosocial, interpersonal, and behavioral dynamics in
organizations; thus, morphing into an applied discipline that is an interplay of practice and
application (Miner, 2006b; Nelson & Quick, 2009; Wilson, 2001). Organizational behavior
researchers seek to describe, understand, and predict behavior in the environment of formal
organizations by focusing on individual, group, and organizational dynamics (Miner, 2005;
Sims, 2002; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005).
Researchers have also identified organizational behavior as the actions and attitudes of
people in an organization that attempt to understand, explain, and ultimately improve the
attitudes and behaviors of individuals and groups in organizations (Colquitt et al., 2009; Sims,
2002). Organizational behavior differs from related fields (psychology, sociology, political
science, and anthropology) in the fact it specifically focuses on individual and group behavior in
3
an organization (Northcraft & Neale, 1990). As Owens and Valesky (2011) purport, “. . .
organizational behavior is an area in which social scientists and school administrations can seek
to collaborate, however imperfectly, to bridge the gulf between arcane academic inquiry and the
everyday challenges of improving the performance of schools” (p. 65). Organizational behavior
has evolved into a growing field of study that provides a plethora of information for 21st century
leaders who are interested in improving organizational performance and identifying the attributes
that lead to high-performing organizations.
Historical Origin of Organizational Behavior
The study of organizational performance, organizational theory, and the origin of
organizational behavior dates back to the era of the Industrial Revolution and Scientific
Management era in the United States (Sims, 2002), the epoch in which classical thinkers such as
Max Weber (a German sociologist), Henri Fayol (a French industrialist), and Fredrick Taylor (an
American industrial engineer) began to examine the various attributes of organizational
performance and efficiency (E. M. Hanson, 2003). By the 1930s, organizations were examined
through a social system theory lens, and by the 1960s, organizations, specifically educational
organizations, were viewed through the open system theory (Owens & Valesky, 2011). The first
review of organizational behavior was done in 1979 by Terence R. Mitchell which covered four
topics: personality and individual differences, job attitudes, motivation, and leadership
(Cummings, 1982). Preceding Mitchell’s work on organizational behavior came Cummings in
1982, Staw in 1984, and Schneider in 1985 (Schneider, 1985). By the 1980s, organizational
behavior was codified into two separate and identifiable fields: micro organizational behavior
[individual action] and macro organizational behavior [organization action] (Cummings, 1982;
Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981; Schneider, 1985; Staw, 1991).
4
Micro organizational behavior includes individual behaviors that influence organizational
action (Cummings, 1978), while macro organizational behavior is the social structure and the
effects of the structure on the organization and the people within the organization (Pfeffer, 1991).
Decades later, organizational behavior has been divided into three distinct subfields: micro
organizational behavior, meso organizational behavior, and macro organizational behavior
(Miner, 2006b; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005). Micro organizational behavior focuses primarily
on the behaviors of an individual, meso organizational behavior hones in on the behaviors of
people working together in teams and groups, and macro organizational behavior zeroes in on
the behaviors of the entire organization (Tosi & Abolafia, 1992). According to Sims (2002), all
three levels (individuals, groups, and organizations) must be used to fully comprehend the
dynamics of behavior in organizations. The origin of organizational behavior has come a long
way since the era of Weber, Fayol, and Taylor. As a result of research, organizations’ leaders
have found ways to improve their efficiency, performance, and results. For the purpose of this
study, micro and macro organizational behaviors will be the foci.
Statement of Problem
Since the era of the Industrial Revolution, theorists, scientists, practitioners, and
researchers alike have studied ways to improve organizational performance. Literature portrays
organizational behavior as a primary catalyst for improving organizational performance
(Greenberg, 2011; Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2008; Miner, 2007; Robbins & Judge,
2007). Since the first review of organizational behavior in 1979, a comprehensive body of
research has been conducted to empower leaders with the knowledge and skills needed to
improve organizational performance through organizational behavior (Mitchell, 1979). As a
result of years of organizational behavior research, a myriad of micro and macro organizational
5
behaviors have been noted as the seminal attributes that lead to high-performing organizations
(Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005).
Despite the extensive volume of research on organizational behavior, no research has yet
been done to examine what subordinates and supervisors perceive as the most important micro
organizational behaviors and the most important macro organizational behaviors. With this
study, the researcher will specifically examine the perceptions of micro and macro organizational
behaviors through the lens of classroom teachers and school administrators.
Statement of Purpose
The intent of this study is to examine classroom teachers’ and school administrators’
perceptions of micro organizational behaviors and macro organizational behaviors in an
organizational setting through aspects of the policy capturing approach.
Research Questions
1. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by a teacher?
2. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by an administrator?
Significance of Study
Findings from this study may provide potential insights for both practitioners and
researchers. Although much research has been dedicated to organizational behavior in the
educational setting (E. M. Hanson, 1996, 2003; Owens, 1970, 1981, 1991; Owens & Valesky,
2011), the significance of this study will be the first of its kind to examine the relationship
between the perceptions of classroom teachers and school administrators in regard to micro and
macro organizational behaviors.
The implications of this study will inform leaders and aspiring leaders with research
regarding the impact that micro and macro organizational behaviors can have on improved
6
individual and organizational performance. By shedding light on this relationship between what
school leadership and classroom teachers perceive as important micro and macro organizational
behaviors, the study may identify the need for a paradigm shift in organizational thinking.
Delimitations
With this research study, the investigator does not look at all the posited and identifiable
micro, macro, or meso organizational behaviors, only selected behaviors were examined. Only
Texas school districts that met the Texas Education Agency guidelines for being a secondary
school were considered and included in this study. The sample of the study draws from Texas
teachers and school administrators who work at the secondary level (9th-12th grades). The data
from the research was geographically restricted to the state of Texas, thus generalization of the
study should be cautioned when extrapolating findings to other educational settings or regional
locations.
Employing the policy capturing approach Cooksey (1996a) purports four empirical
delimitations: (a) judgmental policies are not always described accurately and completely by
people, (b) judgmental policies may be inconsistently applied by people, (c) often a small
number of cues are used, and (d) it can be quite difficult to ascertain or learn another’s policy by
simply listening or observing judgments. According to Connolly, Arkes, and Hammond (2000),
a robust policy capturing study and its findings shoulder all four essential aspects: a) cue
identification; b) the assignment of cue values to be used in the study; c) the selection of judges
representative of those who normally make such decisions; and lastly, (d) the presentation and
demands of the task. All things considered, the four aspects are designed with a high degree of
representativeness, subsequently resulting in an equivalent degree of precision in the statistical
7
descriptions of the policy capturing study. With that in mind, for the purpose of this study, it is
deduced that all four essential aspects were designed with a high degree of representativeness.
Assumptions
As Leedy and Ormrod (2010) posited, “Assumptions are so basic that, without them, the
research problem itself could not exist” (p. 62). The assumptions section is divided into two
sections: (a) general educational research assumptions and (b) specific assumptions to the
research study at hand.
Based upon the work of Johnson and Christensen (2004, 2008, 2012), there are three
general educational research assumptions made regarding this study: (a) certain agreed-on norms
and practices in the research were followed (i.e., collection of empirical data, integrity, honesty,
respect towards research participants and neutrality); (b) understanding the predictable part of the
world allowed generalizability to be inferred in this research; and (c) recognition that science
alone cannot provide answers to all questions or the meaning of life. Furthermore, assumptions
about this study correspond with the work of Cohen, Swerdlik, and Sturman (2013) that various
sources of error may manifest as part of the assessment process, the selected measurement
technique [in this case policy capturing approach] in a research study has strengths and
weaknesses, and lastly, assessment of data will be conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.
Coinciding with Bryant (2004), the assumption in this research study that the research
extrapolates about the tools used to glean and analyze data and the chosen research method is
predicated on epistemological suppositions about what constitutes authentic knowledge and what
constitutes legitimate methods of procuring that knowledge. Epistemological is described as the
study of a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits
and validity (Agnes, 2001).
8
The assumptions are even more specific to this research study. A keystone assumption
made was the identified micro and macro organizational behaviors of this research study were
accurately captured through the policy capturing approach. Additionally, an assumption would
be the policy capturing approach was the most operative methodology to answer the research
questions. It was assumed the statistical weighting and regression analysis were correctly
calculated to reflect the perceptions of classroom teachers and school administrators. Also, it
was assumed the participants in this study answered all the survey questions with complete
candidness and honesty. Likewise, it was assumed the validity of the individual questions that
were asked was understood by the participants in the study. Since a survey was the means of
collecting data, it was assumed the sample is representative of the population in which inferences
are being made. Lastly, the relationship that existed between the perceptions of classroom
teachers and school administrators is assumed to be representative of a larger sample based upon
the stability of findings gathered at this specific point in time.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Researchers have discovered when studying human behavior in organizations there are
no simple answers; organizations are not static, but rather quite dynamic, intricate, and everchanging (Greenberg, 2011), thus one of the most effective ways to organize and manage is
contingent upon the circumstances of complexity and change within the organization (Hatch,
1997). The theoretical framework for this study is grounded in the precepts of contingency
theory.
In 1967, emergence of the contingency theory came about through the work of Paul
Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (Miner, 2007). The first formal statement of contingency theory
defined an organization as, “A system of interrelated behaviors of people who are performing a
9
task that has been differentiated into several distinct subsystems, each subsystem performing a
portion of task, and the efforts of each being integrated to achieve effective performance of the
system” (P. R. Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967a, p. 3). Based on P. R. Lawrence and Lorsch’s (1967a)
empirical study of 10 organizations, they acknowledged different types of organizations faced
different types of environments; therefore, the divergent characteristics of the environment result
in different types of structures and processes evident in the corresponding organizations. As a
result of P. R. Lawrence and Lorsch’s work, the proliferation of contingency thinking emerged.
The contingency approach is a theoretical perspective that serves as the theory-practice
gap (Moberg & Koch, 1975). Contingency theory is a major theoretical framework used to view
organizations (Donaldson, 2001). This paradigm of thought suggests organizational
effectiveness results from aligning organizational characteristics (i.e., structure, environment,
organizational size, and organizational strategy) to contingencies that augment the situation of
the organization (Donaldson, 2001; P. R. Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967a; Pennings, 1992;
Woodward, 1965). A contingency is “any variable that moderates the effect of an organizational
characteristic on organizational performance” (Donaldson, 2001, p. 7). A primary contribution
that contingency thinking offers is providing leaders a way to thoroughly analyze the
interrelationship between internal needs and external conditions within an organization
(Hellriegel & Slocum, 1973).
The contingency theory perspective is grounded in the ideology that recognizes behavior
in an organization as the complex result of many micro and macro behaviors and the way
someone behaves in the organization is contingent on the many different variables present
(Greenberg, 2011). According to Vibert (2004), a researcher using contingency theory attempts
to answer the seminal question of which organizational structure achieves the highest
10
performance. There is no universal principle of management that can be used in all situations,
but rather the management approaches vary because they are dependent on the unique conditions
and internal factors that are inherent to the organization (Bowditch & Buono, 2001; Kast &
Rosenzweig, 1972). As Owens and Valesky (2011) attest, by critically understanding and
analyzing organizational behavior leaders can identify certain designs of organizational structure
and certain management models that can lead to increased efficiency.
The contingency theory underscores the relationship between the internal and external
environments in an organization, therefore an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency is
dependent on an organization’s capacity to change internal variables to address the changing
external environments (E. M. Hanson, 1996, 2003). For an organization to be both efficient and
effective, the structures of the organization should be designed to react to the various
contingencies that shape the organization, and the decision(s) regarding the organization should
be dependent on the particular situations that the organization faces (Vibert, 2004). The
contingency theory has paved the way for leaders to bridge the gap between organizational
behavior and organizational performance. The underpinnings of this study will rely heavily on
the contingency theory approach to ascertain whether classroom teachers or school
administrators perceive micro organizational behaviors or macro organizational behaviors more
important. Additionally, contingency theory will be used to support whether or not a relationship
exists between the perceptions of classroom teachers and school administrators.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study the following terms are defined as:

Organizational Behavior – “A multidisciplinary field that seeks knowledge of
behavior in organizational settings by systematically studying individual, group, and
11
organizational processes” (Greenberg, 2011, p. 3), while at the same time
understanding individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors that influence
behavior and value of an organization’s people (Hitt et al., 2006).

Micro Organizational Behavior – (a) The individual actions and behaviors that
influence organizational action (Cummings, 1978, 1982; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981;
Schneider, 1985; Staw, 1991). (b) Micro organizational behavior focuses primarily on
the behaviors of an individual within an organization (Tosi & Abolafia, 1992).

Macro Organizational Behavior – (a) The organizational action and behaviors that
influence the organization as a whole (Cummings, 1982; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981;
Schneider, 1985; Staw, 1991), (b) The social structure and the effects of the structure
on the organization and the people within the organization (Pfeffer, 1991), (c) The
behaviors of the entire organization (Tosi & Abolafia, 1992).

Meso Organizational Behavior – Meso organizational behavior will be defined as the
behaviors of people working together in teams and groups within the organization
(Tosi & Abolafia, 1992). For the purpose of this study, meso organizational
behaviors will not be studied.

Organizational Effectiveness – Organizational effectiveness can have a very broad
meaning that has been the subject of considerable interest and has yet to have a
universally accepted definition (Hitt & Middlemist, 1979). For the purpose of this
study, organizational effectiveness is: “The organizational ability to attain the goals
set by itself, the organization’s ability to function well as a system and the
organizations ability to satisfy its stakeholders” (Donaldson, 2001, p. 6).
12

High-Performing Organizations - High-performing organizations are denoted as
organizations with five distinguishable attributes: (a) compelling vision that creates
an intentional laser-like focused culture which drives the organization’s results; (b)
ongoing learning system that is constantly building knowledge capital and permeating
the learning throughout the organization; (c) relentless focus on customer results and
a keen aptitude to measure the organization’s results; (d) well-defined invigorating
systems, structures, and processes that are clearly aligned to support the
organization’s vision, strategic direction, and goals; and (e) shared power and
distributed decision making throughout the organization that catalyzes high
involvement (Blanchard & Ken Blanchard Companies., 2010). Furthermore, highperforming organizations are organizations that demonstrate exceptional effectiveness
and efficiency (Bidwell & Kasarda, 1985).

Policy Capturing –
1. The process of applying multiple regression methods to obtain a representation of
a judge’s policy [a judge is one who completes the survey]. The degree of
success in capturing the policy is indexed by the multiple correlation Rs
(Cooksey, 1996a, p. 371).
2. Quantitatively describing a relationship between a decision-maker’s judgment and
the information or cues used to make the judgment (Brehmer, 1988).
3. The goal is to “capture” the way a decision maker weighs and combines
various pieces of information when arriving at a particular decision—that
is, to uncover the decision-rules individuals apply in evaluating and
13
integrating information in coming to an overall judgment (Boon & Sulsky,
1997, p. 20).
For further explanation, refer to the Policy Capturing Approach section in Chapter 3.

Social Judgment Theory (SJT) – SJT would be the explanation of how decision
makers weigh and combine informational cues in forming judgments; the policycapturing approach is a technique derived from the social judgment theory in forming
judgments (Brehmer, 1988; Connolly et al., 2000).

Judgment – Judgments are defined as, “The opinion about what is (or will be) the
status of some aspect of the world” (Yates, 1990 p. 6). “It is the mental or intellectual
process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing” (Arkes &
Hammond, 1986 p. 1). Judgment is the, “Explicit indication of a judge’s appraisal of
a cue profile’s position with respect to some dimension of interest (Cooksey, 1996a,
p. 369).
Organization of Study
This mixed-method qualitative study is divided into five chapters. In Chapter 1, the
researcher introduced the problem statement, purpose of the study, guiding research questions,
theoretical framework, definition of terms, delimitations and limitations of the study,
significance of the study, organization of the study, and an organization of the study. Chapter 2
consists of a comprehensive review of organizational behavior literature, delving deeper into the
differentiation between micro and macro organizational behaviors. In Chapter 3, the researcher
explains the methods and procedures used for this study. Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the
data through the method of policy capturing aspects as well as descriptive statistics. In Chapter 5,
the researcher analyzes the results of the study and provides discussions and recommendations
14
for future research in the field of organizational behavior. The study concludes with references
and appendixes.
15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
An empowered organization is one in which individuals have the knowledge, skill, desire, and
opportunity to personally succeed in a way that leads to collective organizational success.
- Stephen R. Covey
Researchers of organizational behavior have acknowledged a multitude of micro and
macro organizational behaviors. With the review of literature, the researcher presents how micro
and macro organizational behaviors are a decisive impetus behind high-performing organizations
and human behavior. In this chapter, the researcher presents literature that examines and
emphasizes the micro and macro organizational behaviors for the current study. The review of
literature is organized into four main sections. Section 1 provides information on micro
organizational behaviors: stress, job satisfaction, creativity, and leadership. Section 2 canvasses
the macro organizational behaviors: organizational structure, organizational design,
organizational change, and organizational development. In Section 3, the researcher discusses
the interplay between the contingency theory and social judgment theory as it pertains to the
research design in the current study. Lastly, Section 4 concludes with a summary of the review
of literature.
Organizational Behavior
Organizational behavior is the field of study that concentrates on the study of human
behavior in organizations (Greenberg, 2011). Inability to recognize how behaviors affect
organizational performance may lead to the intensification of behaviors that only exacerbate
organizational ineffectiveness (Staw & Salancik, 1977). A body of research indicates how
organizational behavior impacts organizational performance (Greenberg, 2011; Harris &
Hartman, 2002; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999; Nelson & Quick, 2011; Staw & Salancik,
16
1977). To improve organizational performance, understanding human behavior is essential. As
Nelson and Quick (2011) posit, organizational behavior helps to explain the ways in which the
individual and the organization interact. Greenberg (2011) affirms organizational behavior to be
the antecedent for enhancing organizational effectiveness and individual well-being. So why
take an organizational behavior perspective for this research study? Pfeffer (2007) infers that
taking an organizational behavior perspective enables researchers to better explain the why in
organizational performance. However, before moving forward in the literature review it is
essential that organizational behavior is defined. Refer to Table 1 to see how over the years
leading researchers and organizational behavioral scientists have categorized organizational
behavior.
Table 1
Definitions of Organizational Behavior
Reference
Definition of Organizational Behavior
Greenberg, 2011, p. 3
Multidisciplinary field that seeks knowledge of behavior
in organizational settings by systematically studying
individual, group, and organizational processes.
Nelson & Quick, 2009, p. 3
Study of individual behavior and group dynamics in an
organization, primarily focusing on the psychosocial,
interpersonal, and behavioral dynamics in organizations.
Colquitt et al., 2009, p. 7
A field of study devoted to understanding, explaining, and
ultimately improving the attitudes and behaviors of
individuals and groups in organizations.
Bowditch & Buono, 2001
Study of people, groups, and their interactions in an
organization.
Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 9
A field of study that investigates the impact that
individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior within
organizations, for the purpose of applying such
knowledge toward improving an organization’s
effectiveness.
17
Using organizational behavior, a researcher attempts to understand how interpersonal,
individual, and organizational dynamics influence the human behavior of people in an
organization (Hitt, Miller, & Colella, 2011). Understanding organizational behavior is a critical
component to improved organizational performance (Colquitt et al., 2009). Moreover, Miles
(1980) suggests managers need to understand the patterns of behavior that are observed, predict
in what direction behavior will move or change, and use this knowledge to control behavior
within the organization. Furthermore, at the epicenter of personal and organizational
effectiveness is the notion organizational behavior can contribute and make a difference that
empowers organizations to achieve their potential when the organization makes a positive impact
in the lives of their stakeholders and constituents (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999). Over time,
organizational behavior research has enhanced management practices, refined organizational
dynamics, and transformed human behavior within the organization and its people. As Hersey
and Blanchard (1977) assert, understanding past behavior and predicting future behavior are
necessary for running effective organizations; additionally, leaders must also develop skills in
directing, changing, and influencing the behavior of people. Yet in order to do so, leaders should
recognize the major dichotomy between micro and macro organizational behavior.
Micro and Macro Dichotomy
The cornerstone of this literature review includes micro and macro organizational
behavior research. As noted in Table 2, there are three distinct subfields of organizational
behavior: micro, macro and meso organizational behavior.
18
Table 2
Differentiating Organizational Behavior Subfields
Micro Organizational
Behavior
Macro Organizational
Behavior
Meso Organizational
Behavior
Organizational behavior that
is focused on individuals
working alone or working in
groups
Organizational behavior that Organizational behavior that
is focused on action of the
is focused on behavior within
group or an organization as a groups and teams
whole
Individual differences
Organizational power
Interdependence
Personality characteristics
Organizational politics
Organizational roles
Diversity
Organizational conflict
Communication
Perception
Structural interdependence
Efficiency
Decision making
Organizational structure
Motivation
Creativity
Hierarchy & Centralization
Work Design
Work motivation
Organizational design
Group dynamics
Job Performance
Technology
Team effectiveness
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Job satisfaction
External environment
Stress
Organizational culture
Attitudes
Organizational change
Turnover & Absenteeism
Organizational development
Note: Leadership is repeatedly notated in micro organizational behavior and meso organizational
behavior. Some research has even placed leadership under macro organizational behavior.
Source: Greenberg (2011); Miner (2006a, 2006b); Pfeffer (1991); Sims (2002); Staw (1991);
Wagner & Hollenbeck (2005). (see Appendix A for a complete list)
For the purpose of this study, only specific micro and macro organizational behaviors
were studied. Miles (1980) explained there are different levels of abstraction at which
organizational behavior can be examined, thus making it imperative to understand, design, and
19
manage organizational behavior. Table 3 shows the dichotomy between micro and macro
organizational behaviors.
Table 3
Micro vs. Macro Organizational Behavior: Issues, Research, and Applications
Micro Organizational
Behavior
versus
Macro Organizational
Behavior
Issue Emphasis
Structures and processes with
individuals, small groups and
their leaders, and the linkages
between them.
Structures and processes
within major subsystems,
organizations, and their
environments, and the linkage
between them.
Research Focus
Study of behaviors of
individuals, small groups, and
their leaders in the laboratory
or in relatively isolated or
immediate social settings.
Study of the behaviors of
members of major
subsystems, subsystems
themselves, organizations,
and their environments within
their larger contexts.
Primary Application
Individual self-improvement
and job design, intervention
into interpersonal and group
processes, training of leaders
of small groups. Individual
and group change.
Design and management of
the structures and processes
linking major subsystems,
organizations, and their
environments.
Organizational and
environmental change.
Note: The table was constructed from the work of Miles, 1980, p. 3
Notated earlier was the assertion that micro and macro organizational behaviors have an
impact on organizational performance. When strategizing how to develop high performing
organizations, leaders may want to consider the dichotomy amidst organizational behavior. So
much so, that Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999) avow it is essential that leaders understand the
20
levels of analysis (micro and macro) within their organization in order to meet the challenging
demands of leading an organization. Having defined organizational behavior (see Appendix B)
and explaining the differentiation within organizational behavior, the review of literature now
turns to the eight organizational behaviors examined in the research study.
Micro Organizational Behavior
Extensive research in the field of micro organizational behavior has been conducted. As
Cummings (1978) suggests, micro organizational behavior embraces the behaviors that are more
individual in nature, yet influence the organization as a whole in a striking way. Miner (2006a)
asserts micro organizational behavior not only ranges from working alone but also working in
groups. To improve organizational and individual performance, researchers acknowledge the
effect of micro organizational behavior. Stress, job satisfaction, creativity, and leadership will be
thoroughly examined to shed light on the influential effect that micro organizational behavior
can have on individual and organizational performance. The purpose of this portion of the
literature review is to underscore the selected micro organizational behaviors in this research
study.
Stress
Stress is the pattern of emotional and physiological reactions occurring in response to
demands from within or outside an organization (Greenberg, 2013, p. 156). Stress is also
regarded as any action or situation that places physical or psychological strain on people
(Brimm, 1983). According to Eckles (1987), stress emerges internally rather than externally;
specifically, people experience external stressful events or situations but are then unable to cope
with their external stressors which in turn cause stress to be internally generated. Consequently,
yet understandably so, stress has become the mental and physical wear and tear that people
21
experience as they live their lives (Hawk & Martin, 2011). From an organizational perspective,
job stress comes about when people experience discomfort in their work situation typically from
an imbalance between job demands and resources (S. J. Roberts, Scherer, & Bowyer, 2011).
Whatever the internal or external causality may be, stress has unmistakably inundated the fabric
of organizations and its people.
The work of Kenexa High Performance Institute indicates stress levels in the workforce
are holding at a higher level compared to the last five years, and stress is on the rise across
geographies, industries, and job types (Pace, 2012). Worldwide, as well as nationally,
employees are claiming their stress levels have increased in the past year; with work being cited
as the top source of stress ("U.S. workers," 2012; "Worker stress," 2012). Work-related stress
has been estimated to cost American companies $300 billion annually (Greenberg, 2011). The
United Nations International Labour Organizations has even gone so far as to define stress as a
“global epidemic” (Kofoworola & Alayode, 2012, p. 162). Subsequently, stress at work has
emerged as an important area of investigation because of its potential effect on the health and
performance of employees in an organization. As Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999) claim,
managers must be cognizant of the organizational stress factors that impact the workforce.
Moreover, when awareness of stress is marginalized, organizations and their people experience
detrimental repercussions.
Stress has shown to be the catalyst for job burnout (Mearns & Cain, 2003; Russell,
Altmaier, & Van Velzen, 1987; Yi-Hua & Mei-Ling, 2012). Negative health effects, poor job
performance, and low job satisfaction manifest when stress is not appropriately dealt with (Hitt
et al., 2006; Kofoworola & Alayode, 2012; Salami, Ojokuku, & Ilesanmi, 2010). Ali et al.
(2011) found job performance was impacted by job stress which consequently affects job
22
commitment. When job commitment diminishes, job satisfaction plummets and turnover
intentions increase (Samad & Yusuf, 2012); subsequently these variables impact employee and
organizational performance (Hitt et al., 2011; Nelson & Quick, 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Stress also emerges from job demands. Job demands can lead to constant psychological
overtaxing and long term exhaustion which result in burnout (Bakker, Van Emmerik, & Van
Riet, 2008). As Hering (2012) attests when burnout occurs, employees exhibit difficulty
focusing, decreased creativity, low energy, lack of enthusiasm, and a plethora of health-related
issues. If not dealt with, stress will thwart one’s individual effectiveness, resulting in fruitless
work-related performance (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999). Considering the sobering findings,
it is undoubtedly important to understand the nature and implications of organizational stress.
Repercussions of stress are disturbing and the impact of stress alone is of grave concern.
By the same token, the way in which stress impacts an individual is alarming. Stress has become
a seminal factor for organizational performance as it impacts the health and wellness of an
employee. Employees who are more happy, are people who are typically more successful and
flourishing, additionally experiencing more successful outcomes (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener,
2005). Once on the job, employees who have high psychological well-being, and not
experiencing negative emotional states, perform more successfully (Cropanzano & Wright,
1999). Whereas Cropanzano, Rupp, and Byrne (2003) found emotional exhaustion to have a
direct impact on job performance, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Job
stressors increase one’s psychological strain, which in turn directly impacts the job performance
of an employee (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; M. R. Smith, Rasmussen, Mills, Wefald, &
Downey, 2012). Stress related factors can have a direct and indirect cost to overall
organizational effectiveness and productivity in an organization. Experiencing high levels of
23
organizational stress will lead to negative effects on task performance of employees (Greenberg,
2011). Organizational practices tend to play a significant role in an employee’s feeling of stress,
burnout, and health (Jamal, 2005). As one’s well-being increases so does their job satisfaction,
engagement at work, organizational commitment, and a lower level of turnover intentions
(Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, & Farr-Wharton, 2012).
Stress affects both the individual and organization in a profound way. Organizational
practices have shown to mitigate or exacerbate one’s stress levels. An individual’s stress
adversely impacts their performance, health, and wellbeing, subsequently bleeding into the
efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. Identifying the major stressor (i.e., occupational
demand, role conflict, role juggling, sexual harassment, social support, and overload to name a
few) as well as identifying various ways of reducing stress in the workplace (i.e., employee
assistance programs, wellness programs, stress management programs and absence control
programs) can reduce or prevent stress (Greenberg, 2011). Stress is a conduit for how well
people perform (Hon & Chan, 2013), the number of errors people make on the job (Hoffer,
1988), and even whether or not they come to work and remain on the job all day (Meško et al.,
2013). If stress plays a significant role in the behavior of people in organizations, it behooves
the organization to take an active role in the efforts of managing and mitigating stress in the
workplace. Hargrove, Nelson, and Cooper (2013) assert top managers recognize both the
wellness and wellbeing of their employees to be of utmost importance in the organization. Bal,
Campbell, and McDowell-Larsen (2009) claim in order to attain optimal performance levels in
an organization, a balanced and healthy level of eustress is needed. Eustress is the positive
psychological response to stressors (Hargrove et al., 2013). The result of eustress yields
increased enthusiasm and motivation in the workplace (Bal et al., 2009; Hargrove et al., 2013).
24
Identifying the major causes of organizational stressors, recognizing the impact of stress (both
employee and organization), and managing stress in the workplace will result in enhanced
employee performance and organizational effectiveness; successively helping the organization to
achieve peak performance.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a persuasive organizational behavior because job satisfaction embodies
the positive or negative attitudes held by employees towards their job (Greenberg, 2011).
Luthans (2008) suggests there are three dimensions to job satisfaction: (a) emotional reaction to
the job; (b) ability for the job to meet expectations or the expected expectations; and (c)
influential factors that impact job satisfaction (i.e., pay, promotion, colleagues, supervisor). To
understand the resultant impact of job satisfaction fully, a delineation of job satisfaction would
be advantageous. According to Titus (2000), job satisfaction is, “An individual’s positive
emotional reactions to a particular job. It is the affective reaction to a job that results from the
person’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired, anticipated, or deserved” (p.
331). While Swaminathan and Jawahar (2013) codify job satisfaction to be, “The sense of inner
fulfillment and joy achieved when performing a particular job” (p. 71). Tanriverdi (2008) posits
job satisfaction to be, “The pleasure the worker takes from the job or job experience and the
positive emotional state that occurs as a consequence” (p. 152). Everything considered job
satisfaction embodies attitudes, emotions, perceived or intended outcomes, and reactions about
one’s job. Robbins and Judge (2013) suggest the positive and negative feelings about a job are
derived from job satisfaction, so when people speak about employee attitudes they are typically
referring to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a decisive micro organizational behavior.
Understanding the implications of job satisfaction is essential for managers and leaders.
25
Does job satisfaction really have an eliciting presence on organizations and individuals?
Job satisfaction influences work performance in an organization (Swaminathan & Jawahar,
2013). Brunetto et al. (2012) expressed that job satisfaction predicts an individual’s engagement
at work and their affective commitment. Subsequently, when one’s job satisfaction increases, so
does one’s organizational commitment in the workforce (Tanriverdi, 2008), and when
organizational commitment is present, performance and productivity increases (Jamal, 2011).
Yücel (2012) asserts job satisfaction is one of the most influential antecedents of organizational
commitment and turnover intentions. Yücel (2012) avers higher levels of job satisfaction yield
higher job commitment, which in turn positively influence affective commitment. Soo-Young
and Whitford (2008) found people with a greater sense of commitment to their organization are
less likely to leave. Ahmed and Ahmad (2011) underscore that job satisfaction is important to
organizations as it yields returns on increased employee commitment, motivation, organizational
citizenship behavior, performance, and productivity. Job satisfaction has a significant and
positive relationship with organizational commitment (Bagozzi, 1980; Reichers, 1985).
Correspondingly, employee burnout is a manifestation of the consequences of low levels of job
satisfaction in an organization (Nagar, 2012). Job satisfaction has a colossal impact on employee
performance and organizational productivity.
When job satisfaction is present results are captivating. What do we know about satisfied
workers? Satisfied employees have been found to be more time-effective at work, use less sick
leave, and have lower turnover intentions (Spector, 1994). A significant relationship has been
found between job satisfaction and affective commitment with employees (Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Affective commitment is the emotional attachment and
26
identification with an organization that makes employees loyal and attached to the organization
(N. J. Allen & John, 1990).
Over time research has found that employee job satisfaction manifests from a multitude
of variables within the organization; thereupon, job satisfaction can be influenced by gender
congruence (Grissom, Nicholson-Crotty, & Keiser, 2012); perceived organizational values
(Kumar, 2012); salary, efficiency in work, fringe benefits, supervision, promotion, and coworkers (Parvin & Nurul Kabir, 2011; Yang, Brown, & Moon, 2011); situational constraints
(Ferguson & Cheek, 2011); human resource management (Kaya, Koc, & Topcu, 2010);
organizational climate (Mahajan, Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1984); and organizational
commitment (Lum, Kervin, Clark, Reid, & Sirola, 1998). Recognizing and reacting to the
breadth of contingencies that influence job satisfaction is essential.
Amongst the job satisfaction research there exist some insightful notions. Gender does
not affect job satisfaction (Titus, 2000). According to Tanriverdi (2008), job satisfaction can
only be obtained when the characteristics of the job coincide with the worker’s expectations.
Without job satisfaction, work may latently slow down, productivity will decrease, turnover will
increase, and complaints about the job will increase (Tanriverdi, 2008). As Spector (1997)
postulates, low levels of job satisfaction are problematic for organizations because it increases
the probability that an individual will engage in counterproductive behavior and decreases the
likelihood that the individual will contribute to the overall goals of the organization. Job
satisfaction and affective organizational commitment should be considered when attempting to
understand and manage employee behavior (Meyer et al., 2002). Enhancement of job
satisfaction increases when variety, control over work, task relevance, feedback on results, and
personal growth are provided (Cushway & Lodge, 1993). Replacement costs including
27
recruiting, selecting, training costs, lost productivity, loss of high performers, and high potential
talent can be very costly for organizations (D. G. Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010; Campion,
1991; Maertz & Boyar, 2012; Steel, Griffeth, & Hom, 2002; Trevor, Gerhart, & Boudreau,
1997). The work of Amah (2009) found job satisfaction to have a direct relationship with
turnover intention.
Concluding, job satisfaction is another decisive micro organizational behavior that either
improves or diminishes individual and organizational performance. With job satisfaction being a
driving conduit for performance, leaders in organizations should be cognizant of the implications
of enhancing job satisfaction. Organizational leaders can gain a competitive advantage by
acknowledging job satisfaction as a crucial factor in human resource management (Noe, 2010).
Work plays a significant role in a person’s life simply for the reason they devote more time to
work than most any other single activity. When job satisfaction is managed successfully, work
performance is enriched and organizational productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness improves.
Creativity
Creativity is considered a key to organizational success and survival (Hennessey &
Amabile, 2010; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Highly creative people are found to be an
asset to an organization (Greenberg, 2011). A creative personality leads to creative performance
(Dul, Ceylan, & Jaspers, 2011). According to Hallowell (2011), creativity at work is an essential
step to igniting peak performance in the workplace. Creativity is recognized as a vital
underpinning for organizational innovation and competitive advantage (Amabile, 1988; Axtell,
Holman, & Wall, 2006; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009; Zhou,
2003). Amabile (2003) claims leaders impact creativity within their employees. Despite the fact
creativity elicits innovation and performance; creativity is often seemingly controlled, chastised,
28
or abdicated in organizations regardless of the profound effect on individual and organizational
performance.
According to Amabile (1997, 1998), within every individual, creativity is composed of
three components, all of which managers can have a degree of influence on:
1. Expertise – knowledge (technical, procedural, and intellectual);
2. Creative-thinking skills – how flexible and imaginative people approach problems;
and
3. Motivation – the inner passion to solve the problem at hand.
Creativity is a positive predictor that yields idea implementation in the workforce (Axtell et al.,
2006). As Baer (2012) maintains, unless employees are motivated to push for their innovative
ideas and are given support with strong buy-in relationships, creativity will vanish. Employee
moods, both positive and negative, impact creativity in the workplace, ergo becoming important
and valuable factors when bringing about creativity in organizations (George & Jing, 2007).
Researchers acknowledge various factors that spur creativity both within the individual
and the organization. A positive affect in the workplace relates positively to creativity in the
organization (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005). Organizational teams have a powerful
moderating influence on individual creativity (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009).
Creativity increases under externally imposed structures (how structured the task is and the
instructions provided about the task) and conditions (Sagiv, Arieli, Goldenberg, & Goldschmidt,
2010). Work environment influences creativity by stimulating the individuals’ components of
creativity (Amabile, 1997). Research indicates that individual creative behavior increases as a
person perceives their work environment to support creativity (Amabile, 1988; Diliello,
Houghton, & Dawley, 2011; Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007; Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
29
Thereupon, the use of feedback-seeking behavior is central to the creativity in organizations and
serves as a strategy to enhance creative performance (De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011).
Feedback-seeking behavior is when individuals proactively seek evaluative information about
their performance (Porath & Bateman, 2006). Creativity incites innovation and yields improved
performance. Smart organizations and prudent leaders capitalize on creativity and design their
organizational infrastructures to support creativity in the workplace.
Expounding on creativity research, findings point out that organizations and leaders will
face a range of creativity thwarts and catalysts. Literature has underscored a number of
identifiable factors that impact creativity at both the individual level and the organizational level
(see Table 4):
Busco, Frigo, Giovannoni, and Maraghini (2012) couch creativity and innovation as the
cornerstone of what organizations are and what they want to be. Fostering creativity occurs
when leaders: provide organizational support that promotes creativity, carefully design work
teams, frequently offer praise and encouragement, allocate appropriate resources for the task at
hand, provide ample work time to get the task done, and match people with jobs that align to
their expertise and their skills in creative thinking that will ignite intrinsic motivation (Amabile,
1998). Creativity has a cascading effect that seeps into the fabric of the organization, all the
while influencing individual performance.
30
Table 4
Creativity
Individual
Organization
When people are under increased pressure
and have little time to come up with ideas,
people are less likely to think creatively
(Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002).
A creative work environment has a strong and
positive effect on creativity and innovation in
the workplace (Politis & Politis, 2010).
Time pressure affects creativity in different
ways, specifically less and less creative
thinking as pressure increases (see Amabile
et al., 2002 regarding the timepressure/creativity matrix).
A decline in creativity has been found as
organizations experience downsizing (Amabile
& Conti, 1999).
Leaders not only manage creativity and
identify employees with creative potential;
leaders must also understand how the team
context influences the creativity of
individuals with different dispositions (Hirst
et al., 2009).
Organizational creativity is contingent on the
type of innovation (Çokpekin & Knudsen,
2012).
Promoting creativity in the workplace is
positively related to an individual’s
problem-solving demand (Zhou, 2003).
Creative work environment is composed of
freedom, challenging work, organizational
encouragement, and sufficient resources
(Politis & Politis, 2010).
Employee creativity increases when work
environments enhance intrinsic motivation
(Egan, 2005).
Contextual characteristics in an organization
(i.e., organizational encouragement,
supervisory encouragement, sufficient
resources, challenging work, and organizational
impediments) impact employee creativity
(Hsiu-Ju, 2013).
Employee turnover intentions are a result of An organization’s job design and the interplay
how creative the work environment is for the between the leader-member relationship
worker (Jacqueline & Milton, 2008)
increases employee creative work involvement
(Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, 2012).
Creativity is positively related to job
performance and creative self-efficacy
(Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009)
Creative work environment affects creative
capital, which in turn affects tangible
organizational outcomes such as: performance,
loyalty, retention, job satisfaction, and
absenteeism (Robbins & Judge, 2013)
31
In summation, research has shown that when creativity is emphasized both individual and
organizational facets are impacted. Creativity has been noted as the driving force behind
innovation. Thereupon when creativity is accentuated in the workplace, substantial evidence
indicates there is amelioration at both the macro and micro level. Both the organization and
leadership are found to be pivotal impetuses behind spreading or disbanding creativity (Zhang &
Bartol, 2010). Additionally, research continues to stress the influential effect that creativity
imparts on the individual and organization. As Florida and Goodnight (2005) assert, creative
people are the most valuable asset to an organization. Whereas Amabile and Sansabaugh (1992)
add, the organizational environment in which people work serves as the difference between
creative and uncreative outcomes. Creativity matters and extends into a multitude of individual
and organizational capacities.
Leadership
Leadership is compelling and is an elusive topic that has been extensively researched
over decades. As a result, leadership has morphed into a plethora of definitions by theorists,
researchers, and practitioners alike (Gorton, Alston, & Snowden, 2007). Leadership has been
defined as:

The process whereby one individual influences others toward the attainment of
defined group or organizational goals (Greenberg, 2011 p. 447).

Influencing and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared
objectives (Yukl, 2012, p. 66).

Influencing the behavior of other people (Owens & Valesky, 2011).

Capturing attention and motivating people to follow your way by influencing others
to accomplish organizational goals (Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013).
32

The ability to persuade others willingly to behave differently. It is the process of
influencing people – getting them to do their best to achieve a desired result. It
involves developing and communicating a vision for the future, motivating people,
and securing their engagement (Armstrong, 2012).

A process that involves influence, occurs in a group context, and involves goal
attainment (Western, 2008).
Leadership has evolved into a bedrock concept for organizations, leaders, and
researchers. Despite the organizational, social, or cultural context, leadership is found to be a
fundamental influence when it comes to politics, sports, and many other activities (Yukl, 2006,
2013). According to Gilley, Dixon, and Gilley (2008), leadership is the driving force for
organizational change as well as innovation. A renowned research study on 43 of America’s
best-run companies found excellent and successful companies also had a strong leader (Peters &
Waterman, 1984). Correspondingly years later, the recognized work of Collins (2001) found
good-to-great companies had Level 5 Leadership transparent in the organization. Level 5
leadership is the highest level of hierarchy executive capabilities that Collins (2001) found in his
comprehensive research study. “This level of leadership builds enduring greatness through a
paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (Collins, 2001, p. 20). Essentially,
this coined Level 5 Leadership embodies all five levels: highly capable individual, contributing
team member, competent manager, effective leader, and executive. The companies in this
seminal research study were found to have Level 5 Leadership. Level 5 Leadership is also noted
as (humility + will = Level 5). Even more simply put, it is a specific style of a leader/leadership
defined by Collin (2001). This type of leadership style was shown to significantly impact
organizations. Level 5 Leadership was found to be an impactful factor in the innumerable
33
organizations that were being studied. In 2010, The Work Foundation published The Principles
of Outstanding Leadership, the report stated outstanding leaders do have significantly different
underpinning beliefs about how things should be approached, thus impacting the organization
(Lawson & Cox, 2010). Leadership matters as it permeates into a multitude of organizational
and individual dimensions. Research literature on leadership has found a litany of factors; both at
the micro and macro level, which are affected by this organizational behavior (see Table 5).
Table 5
Leadership Effects
Factor
Source
Organizational success
Bennis (2003)
Job satisfaction
Xiao-Dong, Jian An, & Xiao-Yan (2013); Yafang (2011)
Team performance
Yukl (2012)
Organizational performance
Choudhary, Akhtar, & Zaheer (2013); Yukl (2012)
Organizational commitment
Leroy, Palanski, & Simons (2012)
Job performance
Xiao-Dong et al. (2013)
Organizational climate
Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun (2012)
Employee absenteeism
Mayfield & Mayfield (2009)
Work role performance
Leroy et al. (2012)
Employee stress
Lopez, Green, Carmody-Bubb, & Kodatt (2011)
Creativity
Zhang & Bartol (2010)
Organizational change
Boga & Ensari (2009); Fullan (2007); Seo et al. (2012)
Organizational effectiveness
Savage-Austin & Honeycutt (2011)
Organizational culture
Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange (2002)
Organizational development
Noruzy, Dalfard, Azhdari, Nazari-Shirkouhi, & Rezazadeh (2013)
Organizational structure
Ghiselli & Siegel (1972)
Organizational design
Lorsch (1977)
While leadership spans across the organizational behavior spectrum, it also affects the
way people are led. No matter the type of organization, leadership itself plays a significant role
in creating the success of the organization (Collins, 2001; Collins & Hansen, 2011). The
34
leadership style is a determinant for the way in which individuals behave, communicate, adjust,
and respond within the organization (Darling & Heller, 2012). Val and Kemp (2012) emphasize
a leader has the ability to choose from the various leadership styles and then apply them
appropriately to the group in which they lead. Over decades of time, leadership research has
ascertained a gamut of leadership styles (see Table 6).
Table 6
Leadership Styles
Various Leadership Styles
Action-centered
Contingency
Human-oriented
Relational
Adaptive
Cross-cultural
Innovative
Servant
Affiliative
Democratic
Laissez-Faire
Situational
Authentic
Delegative
Matriarchal
Spiritual
Authoritarian
Deserter
Missionary Moral
Strategic
Autocratic
Dictatorial
Motivational
Task-oriented
Charismatic
Distributive
Pace Setter
Team
Civic
Emergent
Paternalistic
Technical
Coaching
Empowering
Participative
Thought
Coercive
Exchange
Post-modern
Transactional
Collective
Expert
Post-heroic
Transformational
Clinical
Feminized
Primal emotional
Valued-based
Command and Control
Focused
Principle-based
Visionary
Connected
Free Reign
Principle-centered
Determining the type of leadership style that meshes with the organization is crucial.
McConnell (1982) contentiously surmises there is no style of leadership that can be considered
wrong; however, effectiveness is derived when the leader utilizes the leadership style that is
values-centered and works with the employees (Niewenhous, 2003). Leadership is a people
35
business. The ability to understand the various leadership styles and how the styles impact
organizational behavior is pivotal.
Leadership itself has been found to have a significant effect on various facets of an
organization. The style of leadership also has been found to have a considerable impact on the
fabric of the organization. At the epicenter of organizational success, performance, efficiency,
and effectiveness is the leader. So what traits, characteristics, behaviors, and qualities are found
in a great leader? To improve organizational behavior great leaders invoke an alchemy of great
vision (Peters & Waterman, 1984); demonstrate a triad of core behaviors: fanatic discipline,
productive paranoia, empirical creativity, and a driving force of Level 5 Leadership ambition
(Collins & Hansen, 2011); exhibit supportiveness, assuredness, and preciseness when
communicating (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010); use failure as a wake-up call
(Snyder, 2013); embody Level 5 Leadership (Collins, 2001); and think and act systematically
(Lawson & Cox, 2010). Equally important, great leaders are found to be strategic thinkers,
exceptional communicators, and masters in the leadership skill area of emotional intelligence
(Voisin, 2011). Kouzes and Posner (2013) found great leaders model the way, inspire a shared
vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. Gilley et al. (2008)
assert great leaders are able to appropriately communicate and motivate others. A foundational
research analysis by John Adair in 1973 revealed three essential roles of a leader: define the task,
achieve the task, and maintain effective relationships. Armstrong (2012) purported great leaders
are capable of flexing their leadership style to meet the demands of the situation. Leaders are
particularly skillful at fostering group collaboration and promoting efficacy in goal attainment
(Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013).
36
The effect of a leader on an organization and its people abound. Leadership improves the
performance of individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole (Greenberg, 2011). A vast
wealth of research also indicates defined traits, characteristics, behaviors, and qualities that are
found in great leaders. Higgs and Rowland (2005) confirm leadership behavior alone is
responsible for almost 50% of the difference between change success and failure in an
organization. Leadership is impactful in a multidimensional way. In spite of all the adulation
towards leadership, the work of Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) make a thought-provoking assertion,
“Evidence indicates that leaders can and do make an important difference in organizational and
group performance, although the effects are not as large as usually assumed nor as important as
many other factors” (p. 194). Leadership is a critical dynamic; however, it is not the sole
variable for organizational success performance, efficiency, and effectiveness. Conversely,
attention to leadership is valuable however it is not the sole panacea. As Snyder (2013)
expounds:
Leadership can be learned. It’s an observable pattern of practices and behaviors and a
definable set of skills and abilities. And any skill can be learned, strengthened, honed,
and enhanced. What’s required, however is the willingness to become better. No matter
how much skill or talent you have, if you’re not willing to improve or interested in being
better than you are today, then no amount of coaching or no amount of practice is going
to make a difference. (p. 7)
Leadership changes people’s behavior (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Markman (2012)
purports if you change habits, you change thinking. When thinking is changed, behavior is
changed (Greenberger & Padesky, 1995), and when behavior is changed, human performance
improves (Heath & Heath, 2010). As Buckingham and Vosburgh (2001) assert, a leader aims to
elevate the people they lead by recognizing talent and capitalizing on the talent through strengthbuilding, all the while being cognizant of the individual’s natural talents. For as research
confirms, the behavior of an administrator is a determinant of organizational performance (Child,
37
1974). Taking everything into account, the ultimate act of leadership is the institutionalizing of a
leadership-centered culture in the organization (Kotter, 1990b).
Concluding, micro organizational behavior research on stress, job satisfaction, creativity,
and leadership revealed countless findings that impact individual and organizational
performance. Findings point out various effects that emerge from each micro organizational
behavior. Literature reveals how micro organizational behavior influences human behavior at
multiple levels. Empirical research substantiates when micro organizational behaviors are
impacted, so too are the overall organizational dynamics. Looking at things at a more finite level
within an organization is micro organizational behavior; however, the effect on the organization
is far-reaching. While stress, job satisfaction, creativity, and leadership play a salient role in
organizational and individual performance; correspondingly, an immense volume of macro
organizational behavior research indicates organizational structure, organizational design,
organizational change, and organizational development are catalysts behind the augmentation of
both individual and organizational performance levels (Greenberg, 2011; Hitt et al., 2011;
Nelson & Quick, 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2012; Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005).
Macro Organizational Behavior
Macro organizational behavior has also been extensively researched. As pivotal as micro
organizational behavior has been reviewed, macro organizational behavior takes an analogous
role. Researchers acknowledge macro organizational behavior to be a compelling dynamic that
improves both organizational and individual performance (Greenberg, 2011; Miles, 1980;
Robbins & Judge, 2014). Pfeffer (1991) describes macro organizational behavior to be the social
structures of the organization. Macro organizational behaviors are found to affect the
performance of the entire organization (Colquitt et al., 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2012). Tosi and
38
Abolafia (1992) add that macro organizational behaviors include the behaviors of the entire
organization that focus on the group or organization as a whole. With that in mind, based upon
this empirical research study, there were four macro organizational behaviors considered—
organizational structure, organizational design, organizational change, and organizational
development. The purpose of this section in the literature review is to accentuate the seminal
impact that macro organizational behavior has on individual and organizational performance. It
should be noted when looking through the lens of macro organizational behavior,
quintessentially, it is taking a step back and looking at the organization as a whole.
Organizational Structure
Research devoted to the intricacy of organizations reveals organizations as complex (P.
Allen, Maguire, & McKelvey, 2011; Etzioni, 1975; Hall, 1995; Lissack & Gunz, 1999;
McMillan, 2004; Salas, Goodwin, & Burke, 2009). Research indicates organizational structure
to be the formal system for increasing effectiveness, bolstering the management of
organizational behavior, and motivating people to achieve the organizational goals (G. R. Jones,
2004). As Duncan (1979) claims, the structure of an organization integrates organizational
behavior so that it is synchronized, specifically providing a channel of communication through
which information flows. Moreover, organizational structure must be understood in the context
of how the organization will compete, because organizational structure can be leveraged to serve
as a competitive advantage (Noe, 2010). When done correctly, organizational structure can
reduce the level of organizational complexity.
Precisely, what is organizational structure? Hitt et al. (2011) defines organizational
structure “to be the work roles and authority relationships that influence behavior in an
organization” (p. 443). Organizational structure is the way in which individuals and groups are
39
arranged with respect to the task they perform (Greenberg, 2011, p. 517). According to
Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1999), organizational structure is delineated as the way in which
people are organized in an attempt to achieve the organization’s mission. Similarly,
organizational structure is the pattern of interaction and coordination that links technology, tasks,
and people together (Duncan, 1979). Organizational structure has also been branded as the
policies, procedures, systems, relationships, and activities within an organization (American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants., 1991). The American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants go on to delineate organizational structure as the formal and informal structures that
recognize reporting relationships, responsibilities, and authorities in the organization, while the
information structure is that which reflects actual day-to-day operations (organization’s
management, personnel, and communication patterns). Conversely, albeit clearly transparent at
times, organizational structure is also purported to be an abstract concept that is considered a
dimension in an organization that people cannot see (Greenberg, 2011).
Delving deeper, Robbins (1983, 1987) recognizes organizational structure to be
composed of three components: complexity, formalization, and centralization; however, it should
also be noted that Blackburn and Cummings (1982) maintain these three components are not
universal but are generally agreed upon. The three underpinnings, to some extent, will be
transparent within any given organization (see Table 7). The amount of complexity,
formalization, and centralization permeating the given organization will be indicative of the type
of organizational structure.
40
Table 7
Organizational Structure – 3 Key Components
Component
Definition
1. Complexity
Degree of differentiation that is present within an organization
2. Formalization
Degree to which jobs within an organization are standardized
3. Centralization
degree to which decision making is concentrated at a focal point in the
organization
Note. Robbins (1983, 1987)
Complexity, formalization, and centralization are cornerstones of organizational
structure. Each aspect affects the organization in different capacities. Bearing that in mind,
Figure 1 illustrates how over time research has educed an array of organizational structure types;
whereas Table 8 shows the different structural variations that embody differing scopes of
complexity, formalization, and centralization. Each structure type has its uniqueness. Each
structure offers a different element to the organization and its stakeholders. In the same vein,
each organizational structure will offer a different degree of complexity, formalization, and
centralization based on the structure type.
Different organizational structures produce significant differences in performance (Carzo
& Yanouzas, 1969). Correspondingly, the type of organizational structure influences the
hierarchy of the organization. The two most common organizational hierarchies are flat structure
and tall structure (see Figure 2). Depending on the particular hierarchy, organizations and its
people will experience disparate dimensions. Table 9 depicts the dimension contrasts of a flat
structure verse a tall structure.
41
Organizational Structure Types
Bureaucratic
Divisional
Functional
Line
Matrix
Network
Prebureaucratic
Postbureacratic
Team
Virtual
Figure 1. Organizational structure types
Table 8
Organizational Structure Types
Type
Definition
Bureaucratic -
Typically a large organizational size, highly specialized, hierarchically
structured, heavily formalized, centralized authority (Astley, 1985)
Divisional -
Arranges people by divisions, markets, geographical areas (G. R. Jones, 2013)
Functional -
Organizes people by function such as production department, marketing
department, human resources department, accounting and etc. (G. R. Jones,
2013)
Line -
People are arranged through informal environments where decision-makers
interact directly with their subordinates and decisions are implemented
expeditiously (Greenberg, 2011)
Matrix -
Employees are grouped by both function and product; required to report to
both a functional manager as well as a product manager (Greenberg, 2011)
Network -
Managers are organized, coordinated, and controlled by electronic means;
primary concerned with outsourcing jobs (G. R. Jones, 2013)
Prebureaucratic -
Lack standardization of tasks, totally centralized, leader typically makes all
key decisions (Torbert, 1974)
Postbureaucratic -
Consensus model, network rather than hierarchy, decisions are based on
dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command (Heckscher &
Donnellon, 1994)
Team -
Individuals are organized in a team by interdependent individuals bound by a
collective aim; such as problem-solving groups, quality circles, process
improvement groups, task-forces, committees, and project groups (Glassop,
2002)
Virtual -
A collection of geographically distributed, functionally and/or culturally
diverse entities that are collaboratively linked by electronic types of
communication that operate as an organization without walls (Desanctis &
Monge, 1999)
42
Flat Organization
President
Manager
Manager
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Manager
Manager
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Worker
Tall Organization
President
Vice
President
Vice
President
Director
Specialist
Worker
Worker
Director
Specialist
Worker
Worker
Specialist
Worker
Worker
Director
Specialist
Worker
Specialist
Worker
Figure 2. Flat organization and tall organization
43
Worker
Worker
Director
Specialist
Worker
Worker
Specialist
Worker
Worker
Specialist
Worker
Worker
Table 9
Organization Structure – Tall vs. Flat Organizations
Tall
Flat

Narrow span of control

Wide span of control

Tall hierarchy

Flat hierarchy

Centralization

Decentralization

Chain of command is large

Chain of command is small

Limited autonomy

Board autonomy

Supervise less people directly

Supervise more people directly

Limited decision-making

Decision-making capabilities

Many levels of management

Few levels of management

Job specialization

Individual initiative and responsibility

Close supervisory control

Loose supervisory control

Difficulty with change

React quicker to change
Note. Ghiselli & Siegel (1972); Greenberg (2011); Noe (2014); Porter & Siegel (1965)
The chosen organizational structure type dictates the organizational hierarchy, which in
turn impacts various dimensions within the organization (Noe, 2014). As earlier noted, the
assertion by Greenberg (2011) acknowledges that organizational structure is made up of the seen
and unseen dimensions that occur as a result of this macro organizational behavior. Given that,
Table 10 shows the various dimensions within an organization that can be impacted as a result of
organizational structure.
44
Table 10
Organizational Structure – Dimensions Impacted
Dimensions which are impacted by organizational structure

Centralization

Duties

Span of control

Communication flow

Formalization

Staff positions

Coordination

Hierarchy of authority

Reporting relationships

Decentralization

Information flow

Responsibilities

Departmentalization

Line positions

Rights

Division of labor

Power

Roles
Note. Greenberg (2011); Hitt et al. (2011); Kortmann (2012); Nahavandi & Malekzadeh (1999);
Nelson & Quick (2011); Scott (1975)
Putting it together, organizational structure affects the organization in two significant
ways: (a) provides the foundation on which the operating procedures and routines of the
organization rest; and (b) ascertains which individuals get to participate in the decision-making
process (Jacobides, 2007). With that in mind, each organization is structured in different ways
based upon the organization’s objective; by the same token, the selected structure is indicative of
the means in which the organization operates and performs. Thus far, much attention has been
made to the delineation of organizational structure; however, there is also compelling literature
that supports the importance and impact of this particular macro organizational behavior.
Organizational structure has a cascading effect that benefits organizations in a myriad of
ways. Over time research has found organizational structure to facilitate the flow of information
in an organization to reduce the uncertainty in decision making (Cushway & Lodge, 1993;
Duncan, 1979), impact the perceptions of fairness and organizational justice in the workplace
(Marjani & Ardahaey, 2012; Schminke, Cropanzano, & Rupp, 2002), influence organizational
innovation and organizational learning (Shin-Tien & Bao-Guang, 2012), affect organizational
45
behavior (Rahmati, Darouian, & Ahmadinia, 2012); impact job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in the workplace (Katsikea, Theodosiou, Perdikis, & Kehagias, 2011; Willem,
Buelens, & De Jonghe, 2007); explain how resources are allocated and managed (Cushway &
Lodge, 1993); and enhance knowledge sharing in organizations (Willem & Buelens, 2009). All
in all, organizational structure impacts both the individual and organization in a plethora of
unforeseen or intended ways. Thus, recognizing how organizational structure can be
strategically leveraged to improve organizational and individual performance can be quite
advantageous.
To gain a competitive edge, research underscores factors that need to be taken into
account when selecting an organizational structure. How an organization is structured is
indicative of the size, history, people, processes, geography, technology, market, and even
customers of the organization (Child, 1973; Cushway & Lodge, 1993). For that reason,
consideration should be given to the internal and external variables. As Cushway and Lodge
(1993) purport, despite good organizational structure being in place, even the best of structures
will not work well if people are not properly trained or appropriately motivated. In fact, different
organizational structures cause people to behave in different ways; ergo, successful organizations
are able to strike the appropriate balance between organic and mechanistic structures (Jones,
2004) [refer to Organizational Design section for a deeper understanding regarding organic and
mechanistic]. Conversely, feckless organizational structures are found to yield poor motivation
and morale, ineffective decision making, lack of control, poor communication, and inefficiency
(Cushway & Lodge, 1993). Organizational structure has been found to have a substantial impact
on the dynamics of the organization as well as its stakeholders. Leadership effectiveness is
found to be impacted by organizational structure (Walter & Bruch, 2010). All things considered,
46
a factor certainly important to leaders is the notion that organizational structure needs to fit one
of or more contingences (i.e., environmental uncertainty, strategy, and size) to achieve high
performance (Qiu, Donaldson, & Luo, 2012).
In summary, empirical research confirms organization structure to be a much more
decisive organizational behavior than generally credited. In spite of the complexity of
organizations, evidence has shown that organizational structure provides the desired formal
configuration. The type of organizational structure and hierarchy is found to embody the fabric
of an organization significantly. So much so that organizational structure impacts organizational
behavior which in turn impacts organizational effectiveness (DeGroot & Brownlee, 2006).
While in the same vein, the structural dimensions of organizational structure have been found to
have a conceptual relationship with attitudes and behavior in an organization (James & Jones,
1976); thus, bleeding into the organizational climate which is found to be directly impacted by
organizational structure (Lawler, Hall, & Oldham, 1974). Despite all the cited effects derived
from organizational structure, the foremost purpose of organization structure is to ensure the
organization is designed in a manner to best achieve its goals and objectives (Cushway & Lodge,
1993). As Nordin, Halib, and Ghazali (2011) describe, organizational structure is the framework
of an organization that significantly impacts the flow of communication and ideas. Thereupon,
the ideal organizational structure is the one that sustains effective responses to the contingencies
or problems the organization encounters (G. R. Jones, 2004; P. R. Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967b;
Noe, 2010). Placing organizational structure in the forefront is vital. Inattention to the impact of
organizational structure can be catastrophic. The structure of an organization serves as a
foundational mechanism that will either promote change or make it difficult to prosper
(McShane & Von Glinow, 2008).
47
Organizational Design
Organizational behavior is a result of organizational design (G. R. Jones, 2004).
Organizational design is considered to have a forceful and a direct impact on an organization’s
performance (Lin, 2000). According to McCaskey (1974), designing a human social
organization is extremely complicated; the design of a human social organization can never be
perfect or final; and the design is intended to devise a complex set of trade-offs in a field of
changing people, environments, and values. The goal of any leader should be to develop and
implement an organizational design that aligns with different elements of strategy, task, and
individuals within the organization (Nadler & Tushman, 1988). Robbins (1987) purports
organizational design ought to be concentrated on the constructing or changing of the
organization’s structure to achieve the organization’s goals. Organizational design has important
implications as it allows for an organization to deal with various contingencies, manage
diversity, generate new ideas, control its environment, and motivate employees (G. R. Jones,
2004).
To improve both organizational and individual performance an understanding of
organizational design is necessary. Organizational design is the process of orchestrating the
structural elements (organizational structure) in the most effective and efficient manner (Daft,
2007). Similarly, Greenberg (2011) defines organizational design as “the process of
coordinating the structural elements of organizations in the most appropriate manner” (p. 529).
According to G. R. Jones (2004), organizational design is the process by which leaders of an
organization select and manage the aspects of the organizational structure and culture to control
activities in the organization necessary to achieve its goals. Indispensably important is the
notion that organizations operate in an ever-changing environment, thus their own organizational
48
design must be flexible because organizations that are either poorly designed or unyielding
cannot survive (Greenberg, 2011).
Organizational design is considered the creative process used for designing and aligning
features of an organization to reach optimal efficiency and effectiveness (Hinrichs, 2009).
Nadler and Tushman (1988) avow decisions about formal organizational arrangements, formal
structures, and formal processes are the cornerstones for organizational design. Hinrichs (2009)
suggests when planning organizational design, there are common elements that should be
considered in the design process: people, processes, systems, structures, and culture.
Organizational design has multiple designs; however, there are two commonly identified—
mechanistic design and organic design. Both Table 11 and Figure 3 depict the two
organizational designs. Each representation underscores how the design can alter individual and
organizational dynamics. As Greenberg (2013) points out, while each design takes on a different
connotation, each design lends itself to the improvement of organizational performance,
productivity, and efficiency. Figure 3 expresses a deeper contrast of these two designs.
Table 11
Mechanistic vs. Organic
Dimension
Mechanistic
Organic
Stability
Change is improbable
Change is expected
Specialization
Many specialists
Many generalists
Formal rules
Unyielding rules
Substantial flexibility
Authority
Centralized, vested in a few top
people
Decentralized, diffused throughout
the organization
Note. Greenberg, 2011, p. 532
49
Mechanistic
Organic
Rigid Structure
Vertical Lines of Communication
Closed Structure
Low Task Uncertainty
Structured
High Job Specialization
Decision-making Centralized
Roles Clearly Defined
Flexible Structure
Vertical & Horizontal Lines of Communication
Open Structure
High Task Uncertainty
Unstructured
Low Job Specialization
Decision-making Decentralized
Roles Continually Redefined
System is most effective for
System is more effective for organizations that
organizations that operate in stable
operate in rapidly changing and unpredictable
and highly predictable
environments
environments
Figure 3. Mechanistic and organic characteristics. Source: T. Burns & Stalker (1961); P. S.
Lewis & Fandt (1989); McCaskey (1974)
Both the mechanistic and organic designs provide leaders with advantages and
disadvantages based upon the type of organization. As P. S. Lewis and Fandt (1989) mentioned,
most managers or leaders cannot control the design of the organization, however they often have
some control over their departments/teams; thus it is advantageous to create the
departments/teams that shoulder characteristics of the organic design. However, the most
effective design (mechanistic or organic) is the one in which the group, unit, department, or
individual is best structured to match the appropriate type of task required within the
organization (Morse & Lorsch, 1970). It is crucial that leaders have an informed
50
conceptualization of the implications of organizational design. Specifically, because
management fiascoes are often the results of the failure to appropriately utilize the systemic
nature of organizational design (Rivkin & Siggelkow, 2003).
Although mechanistic and organic are considered two primary approaches, literature has
also identified other types of designs. Table 12 shows Henry Mintzberg’s five acclaimed distinct
organizational design configurations which embody their own unique set of strengths and
weaknesses.
Table 12
Montzberg’s Five Organizational Design Configurations
Characteristics
Simple
Structure
Machine
Bureaucracy
Professional
Bureaucracy
Divisional
Structure
Adhocracy
Specialization
Low
High
functional
High social
High functional
High social
Formalization
Low
High
Low
High within
divisions
Low
Centralization
High
High
Low
Limited
decentralization
Low
Environment
Simple and
Dynamic
Simple and
stable
Complex and
stable
Simple and
stable
Complex
and
dynamic
General
structural
classification
Organic
Mechanistic
Mechanistic
Mechanistic
Organic
Configurations
Defined as:
Simple Structure
Simple, informal, authority centralized to a single person
Machine bureaucracy
Highly complex, formal environment with clear lines of authority
Professional bureaucracy
Complex, decision making is entrusted in the hands of professionals
Divisional structure
Large, formal organizations with clear division of labor
Adhocracy
Simple, informal, with decentralized authority
Note. Greenberg (2011); Mintzberg (1983, 2009); Robbins (1987)
51
Organizational design is categorized into two theoretical organizational design
approaches: classical organizational theory and neoclassical organizational theory. As shown in
Table 13, there are distinct contrasts between the two schemas, yet each design yields improved
individual and organizational performance.
Table 13
Classical and Neoclassical Organization Design
Classical
Neoclassical
Shoulders the notion that there is a single best
way to design organizations
Posits that economical effectiveness is not the
only objective of organizational structure but
also employee satisfaction
Characteristics:
Characteristics:










Rigid
Tall hierarchy
Narrow span of control
Close control over subordinates
Centralization
Autonomy
Flat hierarchy
Wide span of control
Loose control over subordinates
Decentralization
Note. Daft (2010); Thompson, & Vroom (1971)
Organizational design is more than just an organizational framework; the type of
organizational arrangement has significant impact on both the individual and organization.
Leaders should be concerned about organizational design because it is an essential task for
leadership (Galbraith, 2002). Research findings suggest organizational design enmeshes itself
into the fabric of the organization by the following: enhancing innovation (Mosurović & Kutlača,
2011; Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman, & O’Reilly, 2010); improving an organization’s
competitive advantage (Galbraith, 2002); supporting organizational development (Bate, Khan, &
Pye, 2000); impacting absenteeism and increasing job satisfaction (Kass, Vodanovich, &
Callender, 2001); developing human capital (Mobrman, 2007); boosting job commitment
(Jaskyte, 2003); bolstering organizational change (Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000); influencing
52
creativity (Dong, Hui, & Loi, 2012); affecting leadership behaviors (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, &
Bebb, 1987); exacerbating or mitigating stress (Diamond & Allcorn, 1985); and assisting with
existing organizational structure or redesigning a new one (Hax & Majluf, 1981). By
ascertaining what the structure and processes of an organization will be, organizational design
impacts a multitude of dynamics within an organization.
In closing, the contingency approach to organizational design acknowledges there is no
one specific or best approach to organizational design but rather the ideal design is the design
that best fits with the existing environmental conditions which the organization experiences
(Greenberg, 2011). Organizational design serves as the conduit for the flow of information,
resources, and support within the organization; therefore strongly determining the power-holders
in the organization (Myers, 1996). The design of the organization should respond to the internal
capabilities, environment, and change while at the same time maintaining a sense of stability,
clarity, and balance (Hinrichs, 2009). Conversely, Duncan (1979) describes the external
environment as the sum of all the contingent forces (i.e., sociopolitical, technological,
economical, geographical, general work conditions, and competition) that encroach upon an
organization and which must be dealt with effectively if the organization is to thrive.
Furthermore, Greenberg (2013) asserts the ideal design of an organization is the organizational
design that is most appropriate to the numerous circumstances and contexts in which the
organization operates. The management style and approach used by leadership to implement and
support the organizational structure via organizational design has an impactful effect on both the
individual and organization. As Nadler and Tushman (1988) attest, organizational effectiveness
is derived from the optimal amalgamation of organizational design and organizational structure.
53
Organizational Change
Organizational change is a complex phenomenon, ubiquitous, fuzzy and unexpectedly
instigated (Ahearne, Lam, Mathieu, & Bolander, 2010; Collins, 2001; Mariana & Violeta, 2011).
This macro organizational behavior affects the organization and people in a number of ways such
as stress and productivity (Halkos & Dimitrios, 2012); job performance (Ussahawanitchakit &
Sumritsakun, 2008); job satisfaction (Bryson, Barth, & Dale-Olsen, 2013); organizational
effectiveness (S. Hanson, 2013); creativity (Amabile & Conti, 1999); leadership (Fullan, 2002);
organizational commitment (Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006); organizational culture
(Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006); organizational climate (Drzensky, Egold, & van Dick, 2012),
and organizational design (Gresov, Haveman, & Oliva, 1993). Considering this, organizational
change is inherent thus almost all organizations will change in one way or another in order to
survive (Greenberg, 2011). Change is so crucial that failure to understand the need for change or
to initiate change threatens the performance or even the survival of the organization (Hill &
Rothaermel, 2003). Organizational change spans a broad spectrum, impacting the organization
and its people in a plethora of ways. While much attention to this macro organizational behavior
has been directed, subsequently it has also resulted in a number of ways in which organizational
change has been defined (see Table 14).
Defining organizational change is one thing; and recognizing the effects of organizational
change is another. Change literature reveals a 50-90% failure rate in organizational change
efforts (Andrew & Sirkin, 2003; Burnes, 2009; Greenberg, 2011; Kotter, 1995). Equally
compelling is the fact that only 2% of organizational change ventures even last as long as 50
years, while 62% of new ventures fail to even make it five years (Nystorm & Starbuck, 1984).
Although literature discourse and research findings point to the importance of change efforts,
54
change in itself is undoubtedly arduous and compulsory for survival. Undeniably so, Dixon and
Day (2010) found the failure to change as the source of overall organizational failure. Whereas
the work of M. E. Smith (2002) disclosed 75% of change initiatives fail to even make an impact.
Despite the call or need for change, the success rate for change remains explicitly dismal leaving
leaders at the helm wondering the conceivability of doing organizational change effectively.
Table 14
Organizational Change
Definition
Reference
Adaption of new ideas or behavior by an
organization.
Halkos & Dimitrios (2012)
Transformations in an organization’s structure,
technology, and/or people that is either planned or
unplanned.
Greenberg (2011)
Alterations of existing work routines and strategies
that affect a whole organization.
Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu (2008)
Change that is planned and directed toward the
achievement of specific new higher organizational
outcomes that involve the entire organization.
Owens & Valesky (2011)
Any alteration or modification to an organization’s
structures or processes.
Zorn, Christensen, & Cheney (1999)
Total organizational shifts in objectives, policies
and general modes of operation.
Shirley (1975)
Deliberate planned change in an organization’s
formal structure, system, processes or productmarket domain that is intended to improve the
organization.
Lines, Sáenz, & Aramburu (2011)
Organizations are branded by fixed rules, stringent policies, and unmalleable procedures
that often make organizational change all but impossible. As Conner (1998) attests, human
55
resistance to change is a perfectly natural response. As indicated in the Table 15, change
receptiveness comes in a range of responses.
Table 15
Receptivity to Change
Negative
Neutral
Positive

Change contempt

Passive acceptance

Pro-innovation

Frustration

Change readiness

Change

Change fatigue

Ambivalence

Commitment

Fear

Go-slow

Excitement

Resistance

Participation
Note. “A critical analysis,” (2012)
Not only are there various responses to change, there are also many different types of
change. Each type of change comes in different sizes, different scopes, and different levels of
complexity (L. K. Lewis, 2011). Table 16 shows some of the various types of organizational
change.
At the epicenter of organizational change initiatives are the people in the organization
(Tetenbaum, 1998). As Dent and Goldberg (1999) point out, people do not resist change itself,
but rather the anticipated consequences or expected effects of the change (i.e. loss of pay, loss of
status, loss of comfort, or even loss of control). Moreover Armstrong-Stassen (2005) and S. A.
Lawrence and Callan (2011) attest that organizational change impacts employees because it
involves changes to role structures, increased workloads, altered work patterns, and often a sense
of job insecurity. The fear of the unknown alone is a powerful reason why individuals do not
change, or at least do not change expeditiously (Weeks, Roberts, Chonko, & Jones, 2004).
Resistance to change can have a catastrophic impact and influence on the attainment of an
organizational change effort (Van Dijk & Van Dick, 2009); therefore, helping employees
56
through the change process is essential to the success of the organization (Bennett & Durkin,
2000).
Table 16
Organizational Change Types
Type of Change
Source
Planned –
deliberate, purposeful, and explicit; brought
about by purposeful efforts
Levy (1986); L. K. Lewis
(2011)
Unplanned –
brought about by uncontrollable forces;
unexpected shifts in organization due to external
forces
Greenberg (2011); L. K.
Lewis (2011)
First-order –
occurs within individuals, dyads, teams, groups,
and entire system; incremental; reversible;
temporary and limited departure from structural
coherence; discontinuous, driven by external
factors; insular and somewhat isolated from
overall organizational structure
Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal,
& Hunt (1998);
Takamine (2008); Weick
& Quinn (1999)
Second-order –
radical change; major shifts involving many
different levels within organization; system itself
changes; continuous and perpetual; selfinitiating and far-reaching within the
organization; reorientation of leaving one
archetype to another; planned, deliberate and
strategically implemented
Levy (1986); Takamine
(2008)
Third-order –
preparation for continuous change; affects the
entire system; process in which members of the
organization are given the opportunity to
transcend the schemata; transconceptual mode of
understanding
Bartunek & Moch
(1994); L. K. Lewis
(2011); Takamine (2008)
Discursive –
relabeling a current practice without really doing
things differently
Zorn et al. (1999)
Emergent –
ongoing accommodations, adaptations, and
alterations that produce fundamental change
without direct intentions to do so; change that
often goes unnoticed
Beer & Nohria (2000)
(continued)
57
Type of Change
Source
Contingency –
a one best way for each approach that is based
upon the situational variable that it faces
Dunphy & Stace (1993)
Choice –
ability to influence or manipulate contingencies
to align them with their preferred way of
working and their managerial style; high degree
of decision-making
Burnes (1996)
Continuous –
sustainable, durable, and long-term assimilation
into the organization
Brännmark & Benn
(2012)
Discontinuous –
single, abrupt, onetime event that takes place
through large, widely separated initiatives
Luecke (2003)
Incremental –
successive, limited, and negotiated shifts that
occur increasingly and separately
Burnes (2009)
Smooth incremental –
slow, systematic, and predictable at a constant
rate
By (2005)
Bumpy incremental –
periods of lull time punctuated by speeding up
the pace of change
By (2005)
Crisis –
Reactive approach driven by external factors and
fear of failure
Price & Chahal (2006)
According to O’Toole and Lawler (2006), organizations, more than ever, need researchbased knowledge about organizational change. When knowledge is generated it helps to
stimulate change (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012). Understanding organizational change can
especially aid decision-makers, leaders, or the like in the change process as well as prepare all
stakeholders for the change initiative. With that in mind, change does not happen overnight, but
rather the change process typically takes a considerable length of time, therefore to transform an
organization successfully, change should be an underpinning of the organization’s culture
(Kotter, 1995). A central driver to the success of a change effort is open communication from
the start of the change initiative (Burnes, 2009; McKay, Kuntz, & Näswall, 2013). Even more
so, employees invited to participate in the planning and implementation of the change are more
58
likely to conceptualize the proposed change effort and accept the reasons for changes (Holt,
Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007). Change readiness is an important element for successful and
effective organizational change (Pellettiere, 2006). For that reason, a strong focus towards
crafting a readiness for change message with employees can minimize resistance while at the
same time transforming employees into change agents during the change process (Neves, 2009);
bear in mind, an individual’s change readiness is one’s actual acceptance or adoption of the
change efforts at hand (Cunningham et al., 2002). Furthermore, although not surprisingly, a
well-planned change helps to ensure the change initiative is successfully implemented (Price &
Chahal, 2006). Successful implementation to organizational change is substantially contingent
on the level of organizational commitment to change (Ning & Jing, 2012). Change literature
finds that successful organizational change requires leadership (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). J. M.
Burns (1978) insists leaders are the impetus that causes change and movement in an
organization. Correspondingly, Clement (1994) avows leadership management, particularly top
management, is perhaps the most central element in a major organizational change effort.
According to Herold et al. (2008), the leader was found to be strongly related to the level of
change commitment held by the employees. The work of Seo et al. (2012) found leadership to
be directly related to an employee’s positive or negative reaction to organizational change.
Understanding the complexity of organizational change can help in the planning and
implementation process along with effective leadership at the helm.
There is much research positing the causes of successful and effective organizational
change; there is also literature on the various barriers to change efforts. As Montana and
Charnov (2000) attest, implementing change within an organization can lead to conflict, so much
so it can even hinder the change process. By and large research has generally cited three
59
principle barriers to organizational change: lack of management visibility and support,
inadequate skills of management, and employee resistance (Jick & Peiperl, 2011). Failure of
organizational change is also found to be derived from the organization’s failure to match the
new strategic change effort to the organization-environment fit (Sastry, 1997). Hoag, Ritschard,
and Cooper (2002) found the failure of leaders to lead and manage the organization through the
change process creates a culture that is resistant to change, thus the obstacles encountered are the
effects of their own making. An increasing number of researchers are suggesting change efforts
are failing because change leaders are underestimating the central role that people play in the
change process (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Chung-Ming & Woodman, 1995;
George & Jones, 2001; Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). Failure to
communicate change and the politics of change are catalysts of ineffective change efforts
(McClellan, 2011). Lines et al. (2011) state many organizations and their leaders fail to provide
an explanation for change, and if so, the explanation is so weak there is a lack of information
regarding the change efforts. Bryson et al. (2013) claim resistance, hostility, job anxiety, and
fear of those involved in the change process can thwart the change efforts. Whereas Gover and
Duxbury (2012) found social identities and intergroup dynamics to influence the perceptions that
individual and groups form about change, thus resulting as a barrier to change. Whatever the
obstruction for change may be, it is crucial that decision-makers, leaders, and change agents
recognize the potential impediments.
Lamentably, there are more factors that stifle change efforts from occurring. Change
fatigue, the perception that too much change is happening, affects organizational commitment,
exhaustion, stress, and turnover resulting in harmful change outcomes (Bernerth, Walker, &
Harris, 2011). Staren and Eckes (2013) believe the increasing restrictive regulations, policies,
60
and bureaucracy that entrench organizations are the major barricades to change. The work of
Michel, Stegmaier, and Sonntag (2010) found procedural justice impacts change as it affects
employees’ organizational identification which directly influences one’s supportive attitudes,
values, and behaviors for change. Procedural justice is “people’s perceptions of the fairness of
procedures used to determine the outcomes they receive” (Greenberg, 2011 p. 39). The cultural
background of people, leadership style of the change leader, and the employee involvement in
the decision-making process are things to be considered which affect the change process (Pihlak
& Alas, 2012). Sadly, organizational change has been found to sometimes increase the
propensity for corruption, as change can be disruptive to existing formal and informal
organizational structures (K. D. Martin, Johnson, & Cullen, 2009). Change halts when there is a
failure to understand the fundamental nature of organizational cultural change (G. Martin &
Dowling, 1995). G. Martin and Dowling (1995) go on to openly state, “Mistakes in not
understanding the other person’s culture can be expensive and even life threatening” (p. 93).
Organizations comprise many different subcultures, and for that precise reason, change efforts
are unlikely to succeed when leaders only know one of the organization’s subcultures and plan
only changes according to that subculture (Kekale, Fecikova, & Kitaigorodskaia, 2004).
Whatever the cause for failed change, the fact remains that an organization’s ability to
change, or respond to its environment and/or environmental stimuli, is an important factor in the
organization’s ability to succeed. In response, Buono and Kerber (2010) claim there needs to be
a stronger emphasis on building organizational change capacity to enhance an organization’s
ability to navigate the array of changes successfully by responding to the changing
environmental conditions, and anticipating the shifting internal and external demands, pressures,
and societal conditions. Buono and Kerber (2010) explain building organizational change
61
capacity entails a systematic approach to developing the organization in a way that reaches into
the heart of the people’s natural capacity to change by supporting and making it a basic part of
organizational life.
As noted earlier, there are many types of change, and the reaction to change may vary
based upon the individual. Factors that impact change were also noted. Distinctly, leadership
was found to be a pivotal influence in significantly helping or harming change efforts. While
much attention has been given to organizational change in itself, a variable to successful
effective change is the actual change management model often referred to as the strategic
planning process. The remainder of this section provides various processes for formulating,
implementing, and evaluating decisions in an effort to achieve successful and effective
organizational change. Over time a myriad of strategic planning processes/change management
models have been developed. Researchers have acknowledged these models to mitigate
resistance to change, provide a framework for change, and better ensure the change process is
successful (Price & Chahal, 2006; Shirley, 1975; Staren & Eckes, 2013). Table 17 illustrates
various strategic planning steps and change management models designed to bolster effective
change (more extensive models are provided in the appendices).
In summary, organizations have a competitive advantage when able to adapt to dynamic
environments (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). Organizational change is hard to do, especially
when organizations are in constant flux (Kotter, 1990a). Nevertheless, the leaders of successful
organizations have been found to support change 94% of the time, whereas others supported
change 76% of the time (D. Smith, 1998). The success rate and sustainability of change is bleak.
62
Table 17
Strategic Planning Process/Change Management Models
McKinsey7-S Framework
Kotter’s Change Management
Lewin’s Change
Management
Steps
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shared values
Strategy
Structure
Systems
Style
Staff
Skills
Peters & Waterman (1984)
1. Establish a sense of urgency
2. Form a powerful guiding
coalition
3. Create a vision
4. Communicate vision
5. Empower others to act on
the vision
6. Plan for and create shortterm wins
7. Consolidate improvements
and produce still more
change
8. Institutionalize new
approaches
1. Unfreezing – recognize a
need for change
2. Changing – implement
the planned change
3. Freezing – accept newly
changed state
Kotter (1995, 1996, 2012)
Lewin (1947)
Note. See Appendix C for a complete list.
Yet when organizational change is done correctly, the effect and impact can be astonishing in a
multiplicity of ways. People respond to change differently. There is not one type of change, but
rather a miscellany of change approaches that have different change intentions. Planning
change, reacting to change, initiating change, and institutionalizing change are inevitable if an
organization is to survive. While organizational change helps better understand the inherent
challenges that surround the implementation of change, it does not solely answer how a change
initiative affects its adaptation into an organization (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012). Nevertheless,
in order for change to take hold and be effective, organizations need to have a pronounced and
visible need for change, along with a clear widespread acceptance for change throughout the
organization (Armenakis et al., 1993). Despite poor performance serving as a goading causality
63
for organizational change (Boeker, 1997), effective change leaders are those who actively
participate as learners by helping the organization improve, recognizing that effectiveness
motivates people to do more, and building a culture of collaboration (Fullan, 2011). For as
Collins and Hansen (2011) sagely proclaim, “For more difficult than implementing change is
figuring out what works, understanding why it works, grasping when to change, and knowing
when not to” (p. 134). Organizational change is not easy but the fruits of the labor are invaluable
to all stakeholders; seemingly to be the bedrock for improving individual and organizational
performance.
Organizational Development
In the 1970s organizational development (OD) was on an accelerating rise, showing up in
business firms, school systems, government agencies, religious institutions, and both
domestically as well as internationally (Raia, 1972). Decades later, OD has been found to be an
organizational behavior that enhances the effectiveness of an organization (Taute & Taute,
2012). Today, organizational development has morphed into many different strategies for
implementing planned organizational change, yet the keystone remains the same—an attempt to
produce some type of change in individual employees, work groups, and/or the entire
organization (Greenberg, 2011). Stevenson (2012) attests this macro organizational behavior is
the deliberate actions which are intended to promote the growth of an organization. Likewise,
Bennis (1969) surmises OD to be a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs,
attitudes, values, and structure of the organization to better adapt to new technologies,
challenges, markets, and the incessant rate of change itself. In the same vein, organizational
development does not just center exclusively on the individual or organization but rather the
symbiotic and synergistic relationship between the two (Kegan, 1971). All in all, organization
64
development has been regarded as one of the most popular and widely used approaches for
implementing organizational change to improve efficiency and effectiveness (Waclawski &
Church, 2002). In the same way, Anderson (2010) asserts, “By learning about the field of
organizational development and the process by which it is conducted, you will be a more
effective change agent inside the organization to which you belong” (p. 2).
Similar to the previously discussed organizational behaviors, there are several definitions
in which organizational development has been delineated. Beckhard (1969) describes
organizational development as the application of knowledge, concepts, and research findings
about human behavior in the organization as it relates to planned change with the intent to
increase the organization’s effectiveness. OD has also been simply termed as the response to
change (Bennis, 1969). According to Marguiles (1973), organizational development is a
learning process that helps to determine the need for organizational changes, how to implement
changes, and ways to evaluate the outcomes. Whereas Ivancevich et al. (2008) succinctly
defined OD as” the process for preparing for and managing change in organizational settings” (p.
529). However more recently, Stevenson (2012) describes organizational development as,
“Helping people within organizations work together in ways that achieve the outcomes they
mutually seek” (p. 87). While Anderson (2010) defines organizational development as, “The
process of increasing organizational effectiveness and facilitating personal and organizational
change through the use of interventions driven by social and behavioral science knowledge” (p.
3). Despite the plethora of various OD definitions, the work of Egan (2002) affirmed a common
variable remains amidst organizational development—the process of increasing organizational
effectiveness (Egan, 2002). All things considered, it has been Beckhard’s (1969) delineation of
organizational development that has survived the test of time, “Organizational development is an
65
effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top to (4) increase
organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization’s
‘process,’ using behavioral-science knowledge” (p. 9). However, for this research study, OD
will specifically be examined and defined as the planned organizational activities (particularly
professional development) provided for the growth of employees and the organization with the
aim to improve skills, actions, thinking, and/or processes to help the organization be more
efficient and effective.
While various definitions of organizational development were in the literature, there are
also countless ways in which organizational development affects the individual and organization.
Organizational development is, but not limited to, equipping individuals with the skills,
activities, tools, and methods needed to: help the organization be more efficient (Abu-Hamour,
2012), serve as the conduit for successful change in organizations (Marguiles, 1973), impact
organizational culture (Conceição & Altman, 2011), create more effective teams while also using
teams to intervene in organizational issues (Waclawski & Church, 2002), and promote and build
a learning capability within the organization (DiBella, 2000). Furthermore, Patten (1981)
avouches OD efforts augment teambuilding in organizations. Whereas Golembiewski (1990)
points out how OD has a crucial impact on stress, burnout, and strain. Whatever the effect may
be, the central theme of organizational development is the creating and managing of change in
order to yield higher performing organizations in which employees can grow and develop
(Anderson, 2010). Additionally important is the assertion that organizational development and
leadership development go hand-in-hand (Michael Quinn, 1999).
OD is aimed at helping facilitate change by more fully understanding how organizational
systems operate and interconnect. Correspondingly, OD empowers leaders and managers to
66
employ systemic organization-wide efforts planned deliberately to increase the organization’s
effectiveness and/or efficiency. To bolster organizational development the work of Huffington,
Cole, and Brunning (1997) purport the objective of OD is to integrate more fully the needs of
individuals with the purpose or mission of their organization. In order to do so, Anderson (2010)
discloses core values that should be deep-rooted in organizational development: participation,
involvement, and empowerment; group and team dynamics emphasized; growth, development,
and learning put at the forefront; deliberate attention towards valuing the complete person; laserlike focus on engaging in discourse and collaboration; and lastly, creating an authentic, open, and
trustworthy environment. Not only are leaders to keep organizational development values at the
forefront, in conjunction, the research of Kegan (1971) insists there are specific process goals
that OD programs ought to include. Table 18 outlines the specific process goals that OD
programs should encompass.
Table 18
Organizational Development Goals
Development Goals







Create an open climate
Increase self-control for organizational
members
Develop a problem-solving climate
Supplement authority of status with
competence in the organization
Increase self-direction for organizational
members
Build trust within the organization
Recognize organizational goal achievement







Ensure shared problem-solving
responsibilities
Reduce unneeded competition
Generate collaborative decision-making
Foster collaboration
Develop reward systems for both
organizational and individual goals
Increase a sense of ownership of the
organization and its objective
Recognize individual goal attainment
Note. Kegan (1971)
In addition, the work of Waclawski and Church (2002) purport three principles in
organizational development: (a) OD should be fundamentally a data-driven process, (b) OD
67
should represent a total systems approach to organizational change, and (c) OD should be a
normative and humanistic values-based approach to organizational improvement. Bennis (1969)
and Kegan (1971) insisted OD ought to be an educational strategy using experienced-based
behavior in a way to accomplish a self-renewing organization. As Greenberg (2011)
underscores, effectiveness of OD techniques is contingent on the extent to which the values of
the OD align with the underlying values of the culture in which it is being used. Lastly,
acknowledging that OD is about changing people and organizations for continuous positive
growth and improvement; a ruminating caveat is the objectives of OD are not to dictate one
particular behavior but to support and provide more options to the members in the organization
concerning their behavior (Kegan, 1971).
Furthermore, Taute and Taute (2012) acknowledge seven major goals that emanate from
organizational development: (a) improved performance, (b) refined employees’ skills, (c)
prevention of managerial obsolescence, (d) increased organizational problem-solving, (e)
orientation for new employees, (f) preparation programs for promotion and managerial
succession, and lastly, (g) training given to improve organizational effectiveness and increase
personal growth for all employees. An important OD notion is the assertion by Nystrom and
Starbuck (1981) which suggests the survival of an organization hinges on the reciprocity
between individuals and the organization in its environment. Through effective organizational
development efforts, organizational learning and personal development processes and structures
can be successfully established.
Huffington et al. (1997) determined there are various ways of categorizing organizational
development interventions. As illustrated in Figure 4, the diagnosed problems show the way in
68
which the organization reacts to OD. The mode of intervention specifies the methods that can be
used towards correction, and the focus of attention can span from a micro, meso, or macro effort.
Diagnosed
Problems
Organizational
Development
Focus of
Attention
Mode of
Intervention









Goals, plans
Communication
Culture, climate
Leadership, authority
Problem-solving
Decision-making
Conflict or cooperation
Role definition
Other






Total organization
Intergroup (two or more)
Team or group
Dyad or triad
Role
Person








Training
Process consultation, coaching
Confrontation
Data feedback
Problem-solving
Plan making
OD task force establishment
Technostructural activity
Figure 4. Determining organization development interventions. Huffington et al., 1997;
Schmuck & Miles, 1971
Decades of research in the field of organizational development have resulted in a myriad
of OD interventions that immerse themselves in the fabric of organizations and its people. Table
19 catalogs, albeit not all, the various organizational development efforts that are used.
In closing, organizational development guides long-range efforts that enhance an
organization’s problem-solving capabilities and its ability to cope with external environmental
factors (French, 1969). Organizational development emerges when there is a change in the
69
organization’s condition (Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981). As Taute and Taute (2012) suggest,
effective leadership and management can be the difference between OD success and OD failure.
Over time a plethora of organizational development interventions have been established to help
the organization become more efficient, effective, and deal with change. However, in order for
organizational development to be effective, it must be selective and leaders must realize it is not
the panacea for all organizational issues (Patten, 1981). Moreover, in the face of organizational
challenges and complexity OD has developed into an organization improvement strategy that
focuses on how the organization and people function, and how they can function better. In order
for organizational improvement to take place, organizational development becomes a necessity
when working through the process of planned change (Waclawski & Church, 2002).
Correspondingly, effective OD sustainability requires trust, learning, empowerment, buy-in, and
relational capacity as part of the core organizational strategy (B. B. Jones, Brazzel, & NTL
Institute for Applied Behavioral Science., 2006). Promoting change is about promoting and
building learning capability in organizations (DiBella, 2000), for the reason that organizational
learning is a fundamental objective of OD (B. B. Jones et al., 2006). Organizational
development is more than just an intervention for organizational enhancement; OD is an
organizational behavior that puts a laser-like emphasis on the improvement of its most valued
asset—people.
70
Table 19
Organizational Development Types
Development Type
Source
Employee Assistance Programs – EAPs target employees whose performance
shows a pattern of decline which is not readily explained by supervisory
observations of their job circumstances as well as those whose employees who are
aware of personal difficulties that may be affecting or may start to affect their
work lives.
Oher (1999), p. 61
Professional Development – a professional community of practice is formed of
individuals who come together to discuss common issues, share ideas, and learn
from each other through face to face interaction or virtually. The learners support
each other’s learning by collaboration, share practices, and perceptions in the
quest of their common interests and activities.
Schwartz & Bryan (1998)
Focus Group – a carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a
defined area of interest in a permissive nonthreatening environment.
Waclawski & Church
(2002), p. 115
Process Consultation – a face-to-face interaction between the client and
consultant in which a set of activities are used to help the client to perceive,
understand, and act upon the organization’s environment.
Schein (1999)
Coaching – a one-on-one intervention which an individual works to improve a
specific personal, interpersonal, or skill area, or to take actions to reach a desired
future goal, working with a facilitator on the process of personal change.
Anderson (2010), p. 200
Team building – a method of improving the work relationships among employees
that have a positive contributing effect on accomplishment of tasks.
Patten (1981), p. 83
Management by Objective (MBO) – the practice in which the employee and
manager engage in a process of collaboratively crafting goals that will direct the
employee’s efforts and serve as the basis for evaluation by which the manager
provides performance feedback.
Drucker (1954)
Survey Feedback – questionnaires and interviews used to glean data and
information about issues concerning the organization with the intent of using the
feedback to plan organizational change.
Greenberg (2011)
360-Degree Feedback – an ongoing process of assessment, performance
evaluation, and discussion of performance with supervisors, subordinates, peers,
and others that include goal setting, creating development experiences, and
improving performance.
Tornow & London (1998)
Quality of Work Life (QWL) Programs – technique designed to improve
organizational functioning by humanizing the workplace, making it more
democratic by involving employees in the decision making process that affect
them on their job (i.e. work restructuring, quality circles).
Greenberg (2011)
In summary, research acknowledges findings that the four selected macro organizational
behaviors affect, influence, or enhance individual and organizational performance. Researchers
71
of organizational design, organizational structure, organizational change, and organizational
development identified several causations that result from each macro organizational behavior.
Literature shows how macro organizational behavior influences organizational dynamics, which
in turn influences human behavior, resulting in the waning or improving of performance. Macro
organizational behavior has an effect on the organization, subsequently affecting the micro
organizational level. Furthermore, the four selected macro organizational behaviors for this
study are found to have an effect on organizational and individual performance.
As noted so far, research confirms both micro and macro organizational behavior as
significant conduits to organizational and individual performance. Each identified organizational
behavior in the study impacts performance in a singular way. Substantiated is the Bobbitt and
Behling (1981) assertion that organizational behavior literature does not provide any simple or
all-encompassing principles or laws on administration, thus there is no one ideal way because not
all methods are equally effective. However, contingency theory helps to explain how the
selected micro and macro organizational behaviors are affected by unpredictable variables
(Donaldson, 2001; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1973). Earlier noted was the averment that improved
performance comes from the ability to acclimatize to the ever-changing internal and external
factors (Colquitt et al., 2009; Hitt et al., 2006; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999; Nelson & Quick,
2011). To conceptualize and understand organizational behavior more fully as it relates to both
the organization and individual, the contingency theory is brought into discussion.
Contingency Theory
E. M. Hanson (2003) asserts that variability in needs and demands requires a variability
in organizational responses. The contingency approach recognizes that there is no best way to
manage an organization, motivate people, or even orchestrate change, thus becoming widely
accepted by behavioral scientists (More, 2006). Subsequently, the contingency theory has been
72
used to guide leaders as they attempt to improve organizational performance in the workplace.
Using the contingency management model there are four key elements to be considered:
environmental driving forces, the individual, the organization, and the group or team within the
organization (More, 2006).
Although the contingency theory has served to augment organizational behavior research,
it has also been noted to have major problems with the measurement of its variables, specifically
the ambiguity of the environmental variable (Miner, 2007). The contingency theory has been
scrutinized for being more of a classification scheme rather than a true theoretical formulation
(Bowditch & Buono, 2001). As Moberg and Koch (1975) contend, there is a noticeable
indistinctness between contingency and non-contingency views. Donaldson (2001) purports
three problems arise from the contingency theory:
1. The theory is seemingly too static and does not do a sufficient job of explaining why
organizations move from a misfit (low performance) into a fit (high performance).
2. The theory is unclear as to how leaders would exactly ascertain which organizational
structures best fit with their contingencies.
3. The theory is questioned as to why organizations move from one contingency to
another if there are no performance gains from doing so.
Despite some caveats to the contingency theory, behavior scientists and researchers
continue to rely on the theory for ways to improve organizational performance (Donaldson,
2001; Ivancevich et al., 2008; Robbins & Judge, 2007). Wilson (2001) suggests the contingency
variables most often used are leader’s personal characteristics, employee’s personal
characteristics, the group’s characteristics, and the structure of the organization. Owens and
73
Valesky (2011) suggest three basic propositions that bolster the contingency approach to
organizational behavior in the educational setting:
(1) There is no best universal way to organize and administer school districts or schools;
(2) Not all ways of organizing and administering are equally effective in a given
situation: Effectiveness is contingent upon appropriateness of the design or style to
the situation;
(3) The selection of organizational design and administrative style should be based on
careful analysis of significant contingencies in the situation. (p. 105)
The contingency theory is the middle ground that there are universal principles of
organization and management and that each organization is uniquely different, therefore calling
for each situation to be analyzed individually (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1973).
The contingency theory offers a scaffold to the internal and external contingencies that
organizations encounter on a daily basis. Acknowledging the contingency theory precepts
allows for a more competent understanding as to why organizational behaviors and perceptions
may vary within the research study. Now we turn to the social judgment theory to explain how
judgments come to fruition through the policy capturing approach.
Policy Capturing Approach
Research offers numerous reasons as to why policy capturing benefits the researcher as
he or she attempts to examine how individuals reach decisions. Regarded as a form of judgment
analysis, policy capturing has been applied to a variety of settings and contexts (Cooksey,
1996a). According to Boon and Sulsky (1997) policy capturing, “uses the observed relations
between people’s overall judgments and the cues varied by the experimenter to infer an
individual’s implicit judgment policy” (p. 22). Rogelberg, Balzer, Ployhart, and Yonker (1999)
74
claim the advantage in policy capturing is the ability to measure each individual’s approach to
decision making in an objective method, therefore being used to effectively model decisions that
are mood laden, conscious, and deliberate. In their work, Arnold and Feldman (1981) avow
policy capturing to be advantageous because the objective weight method mitigates the ability
for individual biases to overestimate the relative importance of minor factors that are evident
when using subjective weight methodologies. Subsequently, the use of inferred objective
weighting (i.e., policy capturing approach) provides a valid measurement of importance in selfreport studies of choice situations (Arnold & Feldman, 1981). Policy capturing is a research
design that examines decision making and provides a mathematical description of the decision
maker’s policy that has yielded outcomes to predict and understand future decisions (Taylor &
Wilsted, 1974). A strength in the policy capturing approach is the capability to assess each
individual’s approach to decision making in an objective manner (Rogelberg et al., 1999). In
addition, Rogelberg et al. (1999) maintain policy capturing demonstrates an external validity
when being used.
In summary, policy capturing approach is a research method to assist researchers who are
interested in objectively capturing human judgment policies as an attempt to bridge and
juxtapose the macro and micro organizational behavior domains. Through this statistical
weighting approach, researchers can thoroughly examine how individuals reach decisions and
how they ascertain how much weight should be applied to each criterion or variable based on the
number of actual decisions being made, all the while maintaining external validity. The
researcher will then attempt to ascertain the actual perceptions of macro organizational behaviors
and micro-organizational behaviors by classroom teachers and school administrators. In the end,
the data results will be used to determine if a relationship exists between the two groups’
75
perceptions. For more in-depth explanation of the policy capturing approach, reference Chapter
3.
Social Judgment Theory
Judgments that emerge when utilizing the policy capturing approach are developed from
the precepts of the social judgment theory (SJT). Judgments are considered the bedrock of most
decisions (Yates, 1990). So a question remains, how are human judgments emerging from the
policy capturing approach? To better conceptualize the policy capturing approach, the tenets of
the social judgment theory are brought into the study. The social judgment theory is a theoretical
underpinning that bolsters the policy capturing approach by explaining how human judgments
are formed and how a metatheory (SJT) provides direction for research on judgment (Cooksey,
1996a).
What is the social judgment theory? SJT has evolved from probabilistic functionalism
over the last five decades (Doherty & Kurz, 1996). The theory originated on principles
constructed by psychologist Egon Brunswik in 1955 and thereafter evolved into a theoretical
framework for conceptualizing human judgment and decision making (Arkes & Hammond,
1986; Brehmer, 1976). Using the social judgment theory, researchers attempt to explain how
people make judgments (Mallard, 2010) and show that policy quarrels can be captured in terms
of cognitive parameters (Adelman, Stewart, & Hammond, 1975); thereupon, the manifesting
perceptions (policies) burgeoning from the policy capturing approach come to fruition.
When juxtaposing the policy capturing approach and the social judgment theory, the SJT
defines group patterns that manifest from the perceptions of individuals (S. W. Smith, Atkin,
Martell, Allen, & Hembroff, 2006). As Adelman et al. (1975) posits, policies can be delineated
when (a) weighting the proximal cues or factors; (b) employing different function forms (linear
76
or nonlinear) for the relationship between the cue and the policymaker’s judgment; (c) using
different organizational principles for amalgamating the cue information once the weighting has
been applied; and (d) executing policies with varying degrees of consistency (ensuring identical
circumstances evoke identical judgments). Since the SJT is a statistical research approach, it
takes on a representative design that provides a uniquely informative means of analyzing many
of our interactions with the environment and with each other (Cooksey, 1996b). So to
conceptualize how judgments are formed, one should recognize the interplay between
environment and human judgment.
The SJT is used as a methodology and a perspective for understanding human judgment
as it is exercised within a particular ecological context (Cooksey, 1996b). Policymakers develop
different judgment policies as a result of the nature of the ecology (environment) in which the
policy is made (Adelman et al., 1975). Since SJT is grounded in the notion of causal ambiguity
in the environment, the environment is generally codified as the judgment ecology (Arkes &
Hammond, 1986). Ecology is postulated as the decision task environment in which he or she is
embedded, simply put one’s environment (Cooksey, 1996b). SJT underscores the notion that
one can arrive at an understanding of the environment or make a judgment two ways: a) based on
the variety of sources of the environment or b) make a judgment based on a variety of sources of
information or cues (Doherty & Kurz, 1996). The policymaker is involved in the policy
formation task (decision making) that can include a plethora of cues and interrelationships;
therefore, in order to understand the task ecology (environment), one must also understand the
context in which the policymaker is working (Cooksey & Freebody, 1986).
77
Lens Model
A fundamental underpinning to SJT is the embodied Brunswik’s lens model (Arkes &
Hammond, 1986; Brehmer, 1988; Connolly et al., 2000; Cooksey, 1996a). Judgment analysis
(policy capturing approach) is commonly referred to as the lens model because it illustrates the
complexities of a relationship between two interrelated sub-systems: the environment and
cognitive processes of the judge (Arkes & Hammond, 1986; Cooksey, 1996b). Furthermore, the
utilization of the single system design is the classical policy capturing model when employing
personnel-related judgment research (Cooksey, 1996b). Multiple regression and analysis of
variance have proven to be useful linear models in the analysis of judgment task (Brehmer,
1976). The lens model as it pertains to the SJT provides a method to compare two interacting
systems by using parallel indices to analyze both the task ecology [environment] and the judge’s
judgments [decisions] (Cooksey, 1996b).
There are four broad system concepts (single system, double system, triple system, and nsystem) that can be used when studying human judgment. Each of the four broad system
concepts is derived from the scope of a theoretical approach for studying human judgment.
Cooksey (1996a) delineates scope as “the type of relationship and phenomena considered
appropriate for a particular perspective to be examined” (p. 55). For the purpose of the current
research study, the judgment analysis paradigm will be the single system design.
Single System Design
When working in the single system design framework, a researcher needs to only have
available a sample of cue profiles representing cases or situations (real or simulated) for the
human judge to process (Cooksey, 1996a). Cooksey (1996a) goes on to acknowledge the single
system design primarily focuses only on the judgment process itself, with minimal or no
78
reference being made to: (a) the information about the variables or criteria under the study, (b)
the nature of the task environment, (c) the social dimension of the task environment, or (d) the
nature of the interrelationship between judgment processes and the task environment.
The lens model depicts a judgment-environment system as a symmetrical structure, in
which the environment (ecology) is indicated on the left side and the human judgment is
represented on the right side. A main advantage to the lens model is the ability to account for
both the decision maker and the decision-making task, thus providing both descriptive
information to understand judgment accuracy and prescriptive information about how judgment
accuracy can be improved (Hartwig & Bond, 2011). See Appendix D for the visual
representation of the lens model and the fundamental components that make this model a useful
tool when utilizing the policy capturing approach. In addition, when delving deeper into analysis
of the lens model, there is a mathematical formulation of Brunswik’s lens model within the linear
framework that denotes both the judgments and the criterion being judged as functions of cues in
the environment (see Appendix E).
Conclusion
In summary, researchers have spent decades studying organizations, and their people to
ascertain the reasons why some organizations perform at unprecedented levels of success and
others descend toward dismal performance. Organizational behavior has been identified as the
decisive variable for improving organizational performance and human behavior in organizations
(Locke, 2009). In Chapter 2, the researcher selected four micro and four macro organization
behaviors to explore. In the first section of the review of literature, the investigator examined the
four micro organization behaviors (stress, job satisfaction, creativity, and leadership). In the
second section, the researcher reviewed the four macro organizational behaviors (organizational
79
structure, organizational design, organizational change, and organizational development). The
literature review posited that each organizational behavior affects the organization in its own
way. The literature also showed that each organizational behavior influences human behavior in
varied ways. For this reason, individuals within an organization may correspondingly hold
divergent perceptions on micro and macro organizational behaviors.
In Chapter 2, the researcher conveyed theoretical reasons why organizations struggle to
be limited to one modus operandi. Since organizations operate in an ever-changing arena, the
contingency theory was discussed to provide an ideology that recognizes behavior in an
organization as the complex result of many micro and macro behaviors taking place.
Understanding the contingency approach helps to explain why there is no single preeminent way
to manage an organization, motivate people, or even make change; thus becoming a widely
acknowledged theory by behavioral scientists (More, 2006). The precepts of the contingency
theory lend a theoretic explanation as to why the perceptions of the selected organizational
behaviors may vary within this empirical research study; additionally, the theory helps to explain
why organizations are all but static.
Chapter 2 concluded with an introductory theoretical look into the research design of the
current study. The policy capturing approach provides a modern day research paradigm that
serves as a statistical method of analysis of variance for juxtaposing micro and macro
organizational behavior in an organizational context (Priem, Walters, & Li, 2011). Whereas the
social judgment theory provides a uniquely informative means for analyzing how judgments are
formed through a representative design. By way of using the single system design, a researcher
can take a sample of cue profiles representing cases or situations in which human judgments are
80
processed; thus, the lens model gives a conceptual depiction for understanding judgment within
the paradigm of the social judgment theory.
The literature review provided an overarching understanding into the field of
organizational behavior while at the same time attempting to explain the complexities in which
organizations operate. Although there are several known organizational behaviors, the review of
literature in this study only covers the selected micro and macro organizational behaviors.
Despite conjecturing how the two levels of analysis (micro and macro) impact organizational
performance and human behavior, preceding researchers have not conducted studies between the
perceptions of the two levels. To underpin the research study, theories and research approaches
are introduced to help better answer the why as well as the how that emerge through this
research. Since the study aims to narrow a gap in organizational behavior research, a new
paradigm for bridging the abyss between theory and practice is articulated in Chapter 3.
81
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Inquiry is fatal to certainty.
- Will Durant
Introduction
With his empirical research, the investigator examined classroom teachers’ and school
administrators’ perceptions of micro organizational behaviors and macro organizational
behaviors related to the organizational setting. The researcher explored the relationship between
a supervisor (administrator) and a subordinate (classroom teacher), and what organizational
behaviors are more important to each. The policy capturing approach was used in this research
study to capture the perceptions of the following micro and macro organizational behaviors:
leadership, creativity, job satisfaction, stress, organizational structure, organizational design,
organizational change, and organizational development. The researcher considered the impact
micro and macro organizational behaviors can have on improved organizational performance,
while at the same time shedding light on the perceptions of micro and macro organizational
behavior in an organizational setting.
Briefly, the policy capturing approach can assist researchers who are using micro and
macro organizational behavior in an organizational context. It is a statistical weighting method
to capture human judgment policies on organizational behavior objectively. In the data analysis,
the researcher weighed and combined information about the perceptions of micro and macro
organizational behavior in an organizational setting based on the eight selected organizational
behaviors. The individuals’ responses were analyzed so inferences can be made about how the
cues influenced their judgment. Noted earlier, the social judgment theory is a theoretical
82
underpinning that bolsters the policy capturing approach to explain how human judgments are
formed. In conjunction, aspects of the lens model were used to analyze the statistical weighting
of the cues. The lens model provides a method to compare two interacting systems directly by
using parallel indices to analyze both the task ecology (environment) and the evaluator’s
judgments (decisions).
Research Questions
The research questions which served to guide the study were:
1. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by a teacher?
2. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by an administrator?
Research Design
The research design used in this study consisted of both qualitative and quantitative
research. The method used to gain qualitative information came from the Micro and Macro
Organizational Behavior Perceptions Questionnaire (see Appendix F). Inferential statistics were
used to conjecture the study from the sample in relation to the population. A t-test was run to
determine if a difference exists between the means of the two groups (administrators and
teachers). A factor analysis was used as a way to break down the larger data set into different
subgroups or factors; subsequently, looking at each question with the group of questions (Likert,
scenario, and closed filtered) to determine how these questions accumulate together. The
bedrock of the study hinged on the utilization of the policy capturing approach.
Policy Capturing Approach
The method used in this study was the policy capturing approach. According to Arkes
and Hammond (1986), a person’s judgment policy can be captured after judgments are made
regarding hypothetical cases; subsequently the policy may then be applied to everyday life.
83
Priem et al. (2011) infer the policy capturing approach bridges the chasm and integrates the
macro and micro domains in a research study. The research design for this study comes from the
work of Hitt, Dacin, Levitas, Arregle, and Borza (2000) and Hitt, Ahlstrom, Dacin, Levitas, and
Svobodina (2004). Policy capturing is a statistical weighting methodology derived from the
work of Slovic and Lichtenstein in 1971 and is based on the social perception lens developed by
Bruskwik in 1952 (Priem & Harrison, 1994) [see Chapter 2 for more detail on the lens model].
Over time, the policy capturing approach has been used in research studies to determine
job performance (Spence & Keeping, 2010), performance appraisals (Ogunfowora, Bourdage, &
Lee, 2010; Taylor & Wilsted, 1974), organizational subunit effectiveness (Hitt & Middlemist,
1979), organizational decision-making (Sherer, Schwab, & Heneman, 1987; Tyler & Steensma,
1998), teaching effectiveness (Carkenord, 1994), management decisions (Stumpf & London,
1981), blame and forgiveness (Boon & Sulsky, 1997), supervisor trustworthiness (Lapierre,
2007), acquisition decisions (Hitt & Tyler, 1991), and entrepreneur evaluations of opportunities
(Grégoire, Shepherd, & Lambert, 2010; Haynie, Shepherd, & McMullen, 2009). Policy
capturing allows for a more holistic, integrated view of the way people weight and combine the
information they are processing (Boon & Sulsky, 1997). The policy capturing method has been
noted as a within-subjects method that enables a measuring of relative importance when it comes
to decision-making variables or factors (Martocchio & Judge, 1994).
To better conceptualize the methodology used in this study, Hitt and Middlemist (1979)
disclose fundamental precepts of the policy capturing approach:
Policy capturing provides a method of objectively identifying actual judgment
policies. The results of the policy capturing procedure are based on analysis of
actual decisions and provide a quantitative description of a decision maker’s
policy that can be used to predict future decisions. Policy capturing is a process
in which decisions and their cues (criteria) are analyzed to provide a model
84
depicting the decision-influencing cues (criteria) and their weights. (Hitt &
Middlemist, 1979, p. 360)
A chasm exists between the micro and macro divide in management research (Priem et
al., 2011). While Staw (1991) builds a robust platform for the micro side, Pfeffer (1991) builds a
solid foundation for the macro side [see Pfeffer (1991) and Staw (1991) articles for further
explanation]. Through the work of researchers, the gap between micro and macro organizational
behaviors has narrowed, yet the divide still remains intermittent and perplexing in the research
milieu (Priem et al., 2011). Using the policy capturing approach as the research design can assist
researchers who are juxtaposing micro and macro organizational behavior in an organizational
context.
Through the method of statistical weighting, policy capturing ascertains how much
weight should be applied to each criterion or variable based on the number of actual decisions
being made (Hitt & Barr, 1989). As Stumpf and London (1981) purport the “policy capturing
approach requires each decision maker to rate a larger number of individuals who vary along
several criteria” (p. 752). Policy capturing is an empirical analysis of actual decisions that
provide a mathematical description of a decision maker’s policy (Taylor & Wilsted, 1974), and
as a regression paradigm this method uses correlational statistics to provide judgmental models
in realistic settings (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1977). Policy capturing is used for
analyzing the judgment policies that emphasize individuals’ decisions, and thus their actions in
an organization (Priem et al., 2011). According to Taylor and Wilsted (1974), the policy
capturing approach employs multiple regression or analysis of variance techniques, which
subsequently weight the cues (criteria) according to their actual influence in the decision.
Regression analyses can be performed to establish relationships between criteria and judgment
when various effectiveness criteria are identified (Hitt & Middlemist, 1979). The research
85
design uses the regression techniques to model the cognitive processes underlying individuals’
judgments (Boon & Sulsky, 1997).
The methodology of policy capturing has assisted in the identification of a number of sets
of weights used by a decision maker in combining criteria (Stumpf & London, 1981). Through
an analysis of decision making, policy capturing develops a quantitative decision model that
incorporates a decision criterion which has respective weighting assigned by the individual (Hitt
& Barr, 1989). Thus policy capturing provides an accurate representation of decision-making
behavior that supports the need for external validity within this method (Hitt & Middlemist,
1979). Employing the policy capturing approach offers a versatile option for researchers wishing
to undertake management studies focused on bridging the macro and micro domains in
management research (Priem et al., 2011). Through utilization of the policy capturing approach,
the method circumvents the problems of retrospective bias, faulty memory, or attempts to cast
past behaviors in a positive light, which is common amid certain survey techniques (Golden,
1992; Hitt et al., 2000). Additionally, the approach allows for the examination of multiple
variables synchronously (Rogelberg et al., 1999). As Gorman, Clover, and Doherty (1978)
avow, policy capturing provides two key features: (a) a high degree of control and (2)
manipulation of factors that are difficult to otherwise regulate. The policy capturing approach
lends itself as a conduit between micro and macro organizational behavior studies.
Defining Judgment Policy
A notable element in the policy capturing approach is judgment policy. To better
conceptualize the policy capturing approach, an understanding of judgment policy helps to
recognize how decisions are made. According to Priem et al. (2011), to bridge the micro-macro
divide the judgment policies method attempts to underscore individuals’ decisions and, thus their
86
actions. Judgment policies are important for two main reasons: (a) allow individuals to identify
problems and understand the relationship among contributing factors and outcomes, thus guiding
one’s choices and (b) since choices have to be made at all levels of an organization, these choices
greatly influence individual, group, and organizational success (Priem et al., 2011). Priem et al.
(2011) go on to define judgment policy as, “individual mental representations” (p. 554).
Individual mental representations are considered understandings of contributing relationships to
noticeable variables such as mental models, cognitions, cognitive frames, causal maps, schemas,
belief systems, decision rules, and judgment policies (Priem et al., 2011). Priem et al. go on to
assert that mental representations, as delineated above, are the foundations individuals base their
decisions on; therefore, one’s judgment policy for a situation can influence the actions that he or
she will take when confronted with a situation.
Population
Purposeful sampling was used in the research study. Purposeful sampling is based on the
assumption that the investigator wants to discover, comprehend, and glean insight through the
research; therefore, the investigator needs to select a sample from which the most can be learned
(Merriam, 2009). From the various types of purposeful sampling (typical, unique, maximum
variation, convenience, snowball, or chain sampling), unique sampling was selected (Patton,
2002). Additionally, sample size in purposeful sampling is ascertained by informational
considerations to avoid redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As Merriam (2009) asserts, the
size of the sample is determined by information considerations when employing purposeful
sampling. Purposeful sampling was used as a way to obtain a more information-rich outcome for
this study. Patton (2002) insists purposeful sampling should be judged according to the purpose
and the rationale of the study at hand, not so much the size of the sample.
87
In conjunction with purposeful sampling, convenience sampling and theoretical sampling
were used. Convenience sampling is used to obtain more precise information about the
theoretical construct in a more opportune method (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Convenience
sampling is a sample which the researcher finds to be readily accessible and willing to participate
(Fink, 2003). Theoretical sampling was also used in the research. A cornerstone to theoretical
sampling would be, “the process of choosing a research sample in order to extend and refine a
theory” (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, p. 92). As discussed in Chapter 1, the conceptual
framework of this study relies heavily on contingency theory and social judgment theory.
Contingency theory is a grounded ideology that allows investigators to recognize behavior in an
organization as the complex result of many micro and macro behaviors. Correspondingly, social
judgment theory serves to bolster the policy capturing approach for data gathering by allowing
the researcher to explain how human judgments are formed. After the parameters for purposeful
and theoretical sampling were established, the convenience sample technique was then used to
determine the sample population for the pilot study and research study.
The sampling frame for this research study was the state of Texas, however the frame
was only Tarrant County, Texas. The classification of secondary schools was identified through
the 2012-2013 Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) set forth by the Texas Education
Agency (TEA). The sample population for this research study consisted of secondary teachers
and secondary administrators. In order to be codified as a secondary campus, the campuses
needed to work with students from the range of 9th-12th grade. The sample of teachers and
administrators was drawn within the sampling frame, coming from the sample population. Each
campus was given a pseudonym within the convenience sample during the research study as well
as the pilot research.
88
Pilot Study
Prior to the collection of data for the study, a pilot study was run in the sample frame.
The particular county used for the pilot study was Collin County. The purpose of the pilot study
was to examine the design of the Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior Perceptions
Questionnaire. The pilot study conducted was prior to the actual research study. The purpose of
the pilot study was to identify grave errors in the design of the survey instrument. The design of
the questionnaire was created based upon research analysis. In line with Czaja and Blair (2005)
there are two aspects that served as initial vanguards on the instrument construction: (a)
particular questions were written prior to the overall structure of the instrument; and (b)
intentionality towards keeping in mind the context and circumstances of the questionnaire. To
better ensure understandability, the questionnaire took into consideration the essentials of
questioning in an instrument: biases, length, clarity, abbreviations, and jargon (Fink & Kosecoff,
1998). Based on the work of Presser and Blair (1994), an expert panel was utilized to examine
the questionnaire instrument, identify problems with the questionnaire, and uncover plausible
analysis difficulties. Pilot testing was used for three essential purposes: (a) see whether
participants understood the directions that were provided, (b) examine if participants could
answer the questions provided, and (c) see if the instrument was able to glean the information
needed (Fink, 2006). As Creswell (2013) notes, pilot testing also allows the researcher to refine
interview questions and the research procedures. Furthermore, Czaja and Blair (2005) maintain
the purpose of the pilot data is to ensure that respondents clearly understand the questions being
asked by the researcher, have the necessary information, and respondents are able and willing to
provide an answer in the form the questions require.
89
Data Collection Procedures
Employing the policy capturing approach, data was collected through the author designed
Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior Perceptions Questionnaire. Organizational behavior
scientists purported there is no existing survey instrument of its kind that can be used in this
particular perceptions analysis (J. Quick, J. Wagner, C. Miller, M. Hitt, E. M. Hanson, R. Priem,
personal communications, November 2011-February 2012). Subsequently, a survey instrument
was constructed for the research. The design of the Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior
Perceptions Questionnaire (survey instrument) was constructed based upon three fundamental
sources: (a) previous policy capturing approach instruments; (b) existing policy capturing
research; and (c) leading organizational behavior scientists’ research as well as insight from the
doctoral committee. The survey instrument was designed specifically to focus on capturing the
perceptions of the eight identified organizational behaviors.
Instrument Design
The Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior Perceptions Questionnaire was the
instrument used to collect the data. Participants were provided with a set of scenarios or profiles
and asked to provide a judgment on each question. The instrument was self-administered and
allowed the researcher to gather some useful descriptive statistics. The structure of the
instrument took into account key research tenets regarding instrument design, instrument
questions, instrument considerations, and instrument validity and reliability.
Instrument Questions
The actual questions of the instrument took into account a multitude of aspects needed to
support quality instrument design. First and foremost, as well as in accordance with Czaja and
Blair’s (2005) work, the instrument was designed to measure the attitudes, behaviors, or
90
attributes required by the research questions (in this case the behaviors measured are the eight
selected organizational behaviors). Questions asked in the questionnaire were, and are to be,
dependent upon the focus of the study (Merriam, 2009). Pretesting, or in this case pilot testing,
was done to ensure the questionnaire worked in a manner intended by the researcher, while at the
same time providing valid and reliable measures of the attitudes, behaviors, or attributes that
were being studied. Ordinal response choices were also used to capture the respondents’
perceptions of micro and macro organizational behavior; in some cases, ordinal response choices
are used to expedite the computing of survey results (Fink, 2003). Ordinal response is defined
as, “Response choices that respondents use to rate or order items” (Fink, 2003 p. 163). In this
instance, the rating was by the participant indicating which organizational behavior they
perceived to be more important. In addition, question utility was closely examined and aligned
[see Czaja & Blair, 2005, p. 71 regarding Key Decision Guide: Question Utility].
The design of the questionnaire took into account the problems with double barreled
questions; double barrel meaning “piling multiple topics into one question” (Czaja & Blair,
2005, p. 83). The instrument also intentionally avoided asking why questions as those questions
tend to lead to speculation about causal relationships (Merriam, 2009). The concept of
acquiescence response set or the tendency to use agree or true categories in questions was
circumvented to mitigate biased inferences that occur from this questioning schema (Zuckerman,
Knee, Hodgins, & Miyake, 1995). In the same vein, leading questions and yes-or-no questions
were similarly avoided to better ensure bias or assumptions were not emerging, being that often
those responses can give you no information at all (Merriam, 2009).
91
Instrument Considerations
Czaja and Blair (2005) stress that in order to accomplish an understandable instrument
design, researchers must not cling so tightly to the language of hypotheses, constructs, or
research concepts that very few people, other than experts, can comprehend. Hence, as Fink
(2006) asserts, some instruments are not all concerned with internal consistency since they are
not going to be measuring one attitude or characteristic per se but rather the instrument is
interested in the responses to each items. With that in mind, the Micro and Macro
Organizational Behavior Perceptions Questionnaire concentrated heavily on responses to each
item in the questionnaire rather than purely internal consistency since the instrument was not
only measuring one attitude or characteristic. The questionnaire design was to measure the
following constructs: leadership, creativity, job satisfaction, stress, organizational structure,
organizational design, organizational change, and organizational development. According to
Fink (2006), the identified constructs need to be defined and coincide to the selected theory.
Each of the eight selected organizational behaviors were defined to better ensure a common
definition was adopted that would conform to an accepted theory of the research.
Instrument Validity and Reliability
Overall, reliably is problematic in the social sciences simply because human behavior is
never static (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) mentions there are bound to be differences in
criteria for validity and reliability. As Kirk and Miller (1986) avow, “No experiment can be
perfectly controlled, no measuring instrument can be perfectly calibrated. All measurement,
therefore, is to some degree suspect” (p. 21). By the same token, Auerbach and Silverstein
(2003) describe the problem with reliability and validity as “pursuing the unreachable ideal” (p.
80). Thus there should be a sense of some skepticism about the concept of validity in any social
92
science research. Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) underscore this notion when there is no scale
for measuring reliability and validity in regards to groundbreaking research. Substantial regards
to the assertion of Wolcott (2005) who accentuates the incorrectness of considering reliability in
studying human behavior:
In order to achieve reliability in that technical sense, a researcher has to manipulate
conditions so that replicability can be assessed. Ordinarily, fieldworkers do not try to
make things happen at all, but whatever the circumstances, we most certainly cannot
make them happen twice. And if something does happen more than once, we never for a
minute insist that the repetition be exact. (p. 159)
With that in mind, as human perceptions are being captured in this research study,
similarly data variances might emerge throughout the sample population. Moreover, Lincoln and
Guba (1985) suggest that opposed to demanding the same results, a researcher who wishes
outsiders to concur with the data gleaned from the research should arrange the results in a way
that makes sense—consistent and dependable. Reliability, validity, or other types of data quality
are contingent on the attributes of the subpopulation in the research (teachers and administrators
in this instance), thus impacting the survey design in the research study (Alwin, 2007).
The Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior Perceptions Questionnaire is premised on
grounded reliability and validity research notions. Rarely is one measuring of a signal factor
with an instrument or test likely, therefore to this extent almost all instruments or tests measure
more than one characteristic (Dick & Hagerty, 1971); subsequently, a decrease in internalconsistency reliability estimates will emerge in research. In the same notion, it is essential to
recognize criterion validity procedures cannot be applied to all measurement situations in the
social sciences, thus the more abstract the concept, the less likely it is to discover an appropriate
criterion for assessing a measure of it (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). With that in mind, both
criterion validity and content validity have limited usefulness for assessing the validity of
93
empirical measures of theoretical concepts employed in the social sciences (Carmines & Zeller,
1979).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) note that credibility, consistency/dependability, and
transferability are appropriate strategies for dealing with internal validity, reliability, and external
validity with respect to qualitative research. When questionability of reliability and validity
emerge in instrument design, a criteria employed to distinguish between justifiable and
unjustifiable research is called transparency, communicability, and coherence (Rubin & Rubin,
1995). Transferability is also considered an alternative to generalizability (Auerbach &
Silverstein, 2003). Given that, transparency, communicability, coherence, and transferability are
defined as in Table 20:
Table 20
Transparency, Communicability, Coherence, and Transferability Defined
Criteria
Definition
Transparency
Other researchers understand the steps by which the researcher arrived
at the interpretation of results.
Communicability
The themes and constructs can be understood and make sense to other
researchers and the participants themselves.
Coherence
Theoretical constructs fit together and allow the researcher to tell a
coherent story about the data analysis.
Transferability
Theoretical constructs and abstract patterns that were developed in
grounded theory are transferable in the fact they will be found in
different subcultures.
Note. Auerbach & Silverstein (2003); Rubin & Rubin (1995, 2005)
Delgado-Rico, Carretero-Dios, and Ruch (2012) purport content validity is essentially the
degree to which a sample of items (in this case the eight organizational behaviors) represents an
adequate operational definition of the construct of interest (construct of interest being the
94
perceptions of the organizational behaviors). Wynd, Schmidt, and Schaefer (2003) contend
content validity is the degree to which an instrument adequately samples the research domain of
interest; however, as Carmines and Zeller (1979) notably assert, there is “no agreed upon
criterion for determining the extent to which a measure has attained content validity” (p. 22).
Moreover, Carmines and Zeller suggest there are two ways to adequately measure content
validity: (a) identifying the entire domain of content related to the phenomena of interest
beginning with a thorough review of literature; and (b) developing instrument items associated
with the identified domain of content. Braun, Jackson, Wiley, and Messick (2002) assert validity
is seemingly only concerned with measurement and is not concerned with decisions, values, and
impacts.
As Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) acknowledge, all research design or instrumentation
evokes skepticism to some degree. However, when hesitant to accept the reliability, validity, or
generalizability of this study or the research design, one should consider transparency,
communicability, coherence, and transferability. Moreover, instead of holding so strongly to
validity, and since validity theorists cannot reach a consensus over its proper use despite decades
of debates, the evaluation of assessment procedures might be strongly considered (Newton,
2012b). Newton goes on to state the evaluation of assessment procedures entails three
cornerstones to offset validity questionability:
1. Evaluating the potential for good measurement (using the procedure),
2. Evaluating the potential for good decision making (using the procedure), and
3. Evaluating the potential for good impacts (using the procedure).
Taking an all-or-none conception of validity may have a negative impact on practice
(Markus & Borsboom, 2013), and a problem with validity cannot be solved by psychometric
95
techniques or models alone (Borsboom, 2005) but rather sufficiently clarifying validity has
seemingly more benefits (Newton, 2012a). Newton (2012a) would go on to add, “Declaring
validity on the basis of the instrument alone would be like declaring the legitimacy of an election
purely on the basis of the ballot form” (p. 119). Seconding this perspective, Kane (2001)
reiterates, “Validity is considered an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which
empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of
inferences and actions based on test scores or other modes of assessment” (p. 13). Additionally,
as McGrath (2005) attests, many, if not most, of the scales commonly employed are at best a
rough reflection of the constructs they are intended to capture. Concluding with the words of
Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) as noted in Table 20,
What we do ask of you is to recognize that reliability, validity, and generalizability are
not completely solid guarantees of trustworthy research in social sciences. Rather, they
require you to accept assumptions that are not immediately self-evident and are, in fact,
somewhat problematic. (p. 82)
Limitations
All research studies have some limitations (C. M. Roberts, 2010). Research findings
come with limited generalizability; thus, while research may discover what is, it always does so
within parameters of certain worldviews and set of values (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). First, the
instrument used to collect teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of organizational behavior
may be limited in its design. Second, in this study the researcher only looked at the perceptions
of public education teachers and administrators, subsequently not expanding into other industries
in the workforce. The policy capturing approach used in this study does not address all micro
and macro organizational behaviors. Based on the sample size of the research, there is limited
generalizability to other geographical and comparable districts or schools. Although multiple
regressions can be exceedingly valuable, conclusions drawn from correlations do not reveal
96
anything about causation (Greenberg, 2011). In other words, correlations point out how
variables are related to each other, but they do not provide any indication of the cause-and-effect
relationships in this study. Humans’ abilities to make judgments, to understand, and to
communicate about their judgment is a limitation of consideration (Johnson & Doherty, 1983).
Policy Capturing Approach Limitations
There are real-world constraints that can limit the number of cues that can be studied and
examined in any one policy capturing approach (Boon & Sulsky, 1997). Seldom, albeit
plausible, the selection of cue values in policy capturing studies may proceed in a way that is
designed to satisfy the experimental or statistical requirements (i.e., minimizing the cue
intercorrelation), rather than reporting the naturally occurring cue values (Connolly et al., 2000).
The policy capturing method is noted to have limited external validity (Cooksey, 1996a; Gorman
et al., 1978). Cooksey (1996a) purports, “In order to convincingly show internal validity in
policy capturing research, a perfect insight on the part of the judge with respect to one’s own
policy must be assumed” (p. 311). Cook and Stewart (1975) also assert a general lack of insight
into one’s own judgment when attempting to ascertain cue importance, and statistical weighting
or the researcher’s understanding of the exact meaning of cue importance is a limitation to be
considered. Perhaps, using a larger set of policies can shift the researcher away from using their
own subjective weighting schema to more accurately recognizing and distinguishing policy from
a larger group of policies (Reilly & Doherty, 1992). Another potential limitation to the study is
any method subjective or objective that is assessing cue weighting as employed in this research
needs to recognize both the procedural validity when choosing an appropriate weighting scheme
and substantive validity in terms of the empirical grounds for the use of the weighting scheme in
this research study (Cooksey, 1996a).
97
According to Carkenord and Stephens (1994) the policy-capturing approach lacks a
degree of representativeness, despite providing a great deal of control in the research
environment. As Priem and Harrison (1994) point out, policy capturing along with other
judgment-focused methods has inherent dilemmas:
One involves the choice between presenting profiles as either a set of correlated
or orthogonal strategy variables. Correlated variables have better generalizability
to actual states of the world, but do not allow a researcher an unambiguous way to
estimate the independent effect of each variable, or to construct the independent
interaction terms essential for comparing executive judgments to the prescriptions
of contingency theories. (p. 318)
As are most studies, the findings are limited by both the method and sample employed.
Additionally, the generalizability of results has been extended to teachers and school
administrators. It is possible that other cues not examined in this study may be germane to the
research study.
Data Analysis
The data gleaned from the research study was collected from secondary teachers and
administrators in the state of Texas. Data analysis was used to weigh and combine information
about the perceptions of micro and macro organizational behaviors in an organizational setting
(based on the eight selected organizational behaviors). Participants in this study were provided
with a set of scenarios or profiles and asked to provide a judgment on each question. The
independent variables also referred to as cues, was systematically varied across the scenario
questions. In policy capturing, the cues serve as the independent variables and the judgments
made by the participants serve as the dependent variables. The individuals’ comprehensive
responses are then examined using the policy capturing approach, and determined so inferences
can be postulated about how the cues influenced their judgment. At this juncture, the lens model
was used to analyze the statistical weighting of the cues. As previously mentioned, the research
98
design consisted of both qualitative research and quantitative research. The method used to gain
qualitative information came from the Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior Perceptions
Questionnaire. Inferential statistics, a t-test, and factor analysis used were ways to break down
the larger data set into different subgroups or factors; however duly noted should be the
underpinning of the study hinged on the utilization of the policy capturing approach.
Summary
In closing, Chapter 3 included the methodology for the research study that employed a
mixed-methods approach. The chapter began with discussing the research design. The research
design for this study was the policy capturing approach that assists researchers who are
juxtaposing micro and macro organizational behavior in an organizational context. The policy
capturing approach is a statistical weighting method that objectively captures human judgment
policies on organizational behavior. The researcher explored the relationship between a
supervisor (administrator) and a subordinate (classroom teacher), and what organizational
behaviors are more important to each. The researcher also considered the impact that micro and
macro organizational behaviors can have on improved organizational performance, while at the
same time shedding light on the perceptions of micro and macro organizational behavior in the
organizational setting.
Chapter 3 then moved into the sampling procedures. The sampling frame for this
research study was the state of Texas; however, the frame only extends into four Texas counties
(Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant). Through purposeful sampling, the sample population was
established. The sample population for this study came from 9th-12th grade classroom teachers
and school administrators within the sampling frame. After the sample population was
identified, research participants were selected through convenience sampling. The chapter also
99
included a discussion regarding reliability concerns with social science research when studying
human behavior.
Next the researcher addressed instrument development. The research instrument was
constructed based upon literature instrumentation precepts. With that in mind, consideration
about the instrument design and the context in which it was being used recognizes that research
data was collected through a researcher designed Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior
Perceptions Questionnaire. Data analysis consisted of weighing and combining information
about the perceptions of micro and macro organizational behavior in an organizational setting
(based on the eight selected organizational behaviors). Participants were provided with a set of
scenarios or profiles and asked to provide a judgment on each question. The participants’
responses were then examined and ascertained so inferences could be posited about how the cues
influenced their judgment. A regression analysis was then done to capture the perceptions of the
participants in the study. Ultimately, the data gleaned was then subjected to multiple regression
methods to obtain a representation of a participant’s policy judgment with the intent to capture
the policy. Concepts of the Brunswik’s lens model, specifically the single system design, were
employed in the policy capturing approach for this research study.
In summation, organizational behavior has a dynamic effect on both the organization and
its people (Greenberg, 2011; Nelson & Quick, 2011). The contributions from this research study
aim to inform leaders about how micro and macro organizational behavior is perceived within
the organization. The researcher builds upon organizational behavior research, and considers a
new paradigm for looking at organizational effectiveness through the perceptions of a supervisor
(administrator) and a subordinate (classroom teacher). While the research appraises what is
known about organizational behavior, the researcher examined an untouched area in the
100
literature. By means of juxtaposing micro and macro organizational behavior in an
organizational context, the findings of the research study may provide research-based application
to practitioners and researchers. In Chapter 4, the researcher will provide the results of the
perception analysis study.
101
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
In a questionnaire survey, meaning and interpretations come to light progressively, each
analysis providing an additional touch to a forthcoming global picture.
- Bruno Falissard
Detailed results of the research study are reported in this chapter. Chapter 4 is divided
into four main sections: overview of data collection, descriptive statistics, statistical analysis, and
data results. Interpretation of the results is the final discussion and reserved for Chapter 5. The
intent of the study was to examine classroom teachers’ and school administrators’ perceptions of
micro organizational behaviors and macro organizational behaviors in an organizational setting
through a policy capturing approach. There were two research questions for this study:
1. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by a teacher?
2. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by an administrator?
Data findings from this study provide insight on the perceptions of organizational
behavior through the lens of a supervisor and subordinate. The results from this study indicate a
perception variance does exist between the micro-macro levels. By answering the two research
questions, the data results point towards a possible need for a paradigm shift in organizational
thinking. Chapter 4 now moves into the overview of data collection.
Overview of Data Collection
Materials
In the field studies, participants received two packets. One packet was the informed
consent detailing the approval for research, confidentiality, contact information, and an overview
of the research study. The second packet was the Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior
Perceptions Questionnaire. Both the consent form and verbal communication from the
102
researcher assured confidentiality of individual responses. All participation was voluntary. The
principal investigator did not provide compensation for participating in the field study. The
current study was approved by the University of North Texas Institutional Review Board before
data collection began. When the participants were done, they were asked to return their packet.
Questionnaire Instrument
The paper-based questionnaire instrument consisted of 34 questions (three sets of 34
profiles). The questionnaire was divided into four primary sections: Likert scale questions,
scenario questions, closed-ended filter questions, and a weighting question (refer to Chapter 3 for
a more in-depth look at the design of the questionnaire instrument). The participants were asked
to rate each profile (Likert scale questions) in response to the following: strongly disagree,
disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree. After completing that
set of profiles, participants made judgments regarding the similar set of profiles in response to
scenario questions that had the participants respond with: strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat
disagree, somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree. The third set of profiles, the closed-ended
filter questions, were asked of the participants to best describe their response as strongly
disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree. In the final
set of profiles, weighting question, participants were asked to weigh their perception of micro
and macro organizational behavior using a 100 scale.
The set of profile questions were designed so each participant had the opportunity to
respond to each organizational behavior. The research questions are nomothetic questions in
nature, thus the nomothetic approach investigates large groups of people in order to find general
laws of behavior, through applying standardized criteria for categorization and comparison
(Robinson, 2011; Te’eni, 1998). The pilot study was used as a means to backward engineer,
103
meaning it took into account fatigue, boredom, and other factors to better ascertain upfront the
number of scenarios that would be reasonable for a participant (Aiman-Smith, Scullen, & Barr,
2002). Additionally, acceptable questionnaire length varies across individuals, which emerges as
the researcher determines the maximum number of scenarios respondents can reasonably be
expected to process (Aiman-Smith et al., 2002). The average data collection from start to finish
took 31-33 minutes. When working with attributes, construct, or behaviors, it is common in
research situations that ordinal categories will coincide with meaningful directional differences
(O’Connell, 2006); this notion was considered throughout the analyses of the questionnaire data.
Subsequently, Likert scale (ordinal) was used in the questionnaire. Whereas categorical data was
used for the relationship analyses between the teacher and administrator (1 – teacher and 2 –
administrator); the data site responses were also analyzed using the same analysis process.
Descriptive Statistics
Questionnaire Response Rate
The questionnaire was distributed to three high schools that were located in the state of
Texas, specifically Tarrant County. Questionnaires were vetted in the data as useable versus
unusable due to partial completion, multiple answers per item, incomprehensible markings, and
non-completion. Questionnaires were also removed in which the data entry was noted as straight
ballot responses, such as marking all items 1 or 4. A total of 191 questionnaires were initially
received, 10 of which could not be used. The study had an overall 94.8% response rate. The
principal investigator distributed and collected the questionnaires.
Demographical Data
The demographical data from the questionnaire included gender, race/ethnicity,
employment years, and administrative experience. Table 21 provides an overview of the sample.
104
Table 21
Demographical Characteristics of the Research Sample
Characteristic
N
%
Male
76
42
Female
105
58
Caucasian or White
130
72
Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish Origin
15
8.4
African American or Black
19
10.6
Asian American
4
2.2
Other
11
6.1
30 or younger
41
23.8
31-40
53
30.8
41-50
31
18.0
51-60
28
16.3
61 or older
19
11.0
Employment
1-5
56
34.1
Teaching
Experience
6-10
28
17.1
11-20
46
28.0
21-30
19
11.6
31-40
14
8.5
41 or older
1
.6
Employment
1-5
6
42.9
Administrative
Experience
6-10
5
35.7
11-20
2
14.3
21-30
1
7.1
Gender
Ethnicity
Age
In summary, the demographical characteristics of the research sample consists of the
majority of participants being of female gender (58%), with the primary ethnicity being
Caucasian (72%), the mean of age ranging between the ages of 22 to 72, with an average age of
41.4, and a standard deviation of 12.7. The sample consisted of 167 teachers (92.3%) and 14
105
administrators (7.7%). Interestingly, the largest employment groups were at the 1-5 years of
experience range for both the teacher (34.1%) and administrative experience (42.9%).
Statistical Analysis
Characteristics of Data
From the policy capturing approach, a nomothetic approach was used for this study as
this procedure is useful for predicting behavior or choices in the aggregate (Aiman-Smith et al.,
2002). A nomothetic approach simply attempts to examine generalizations rather than
particulars (Machotka, 2012). A regression model was employed for the analysis of data,
specifically a binary logistic regression. Regression analysis examines a relationship between a
quantitative response variable (Fox, 2008), thus a regression analysis was done. The outcome
used in the analysis (perception of micro or macro organizational behavior) is dichotomous and
therefore a binary logistic regression was considered.
Least–Squared
The method least-squares (LS) is regularly used when employing linear regressions,
multiple linear estimation, and for estimators used in ANOVA (Stauffer, 2008). The leastsquares method is used to estimate weights and parameters (Padgett, 2011). In this study, the
beta weights are represented in a logit form and interpreted in an odds ratio. Stauffer (2008)
points out that least-square estimators are the most efficient unbiased estimators for linear and
multiple regression, and that LS estimation can be generalized to the generalized least-squares
estimation (GLS). GLS regression provided unbiased estimates of standard error (Neter, 1996).
Using generalized linear models (GLMs), the model generalizes linear regression by allowing
the linear model to be related to the response variable through a link function and by allowing
the magnitude of the variance of each measurement to be a function of its predicted value
106
(Dobson & Barnett, 2008). GLMs are a generalization of linear models (Adler, 2012). To be
noted is that situations arise where the variances are not all the same and the observations may be
correlated. Subsequently, different variances with independent errors occur and the weighted
regression is considered (Padgett, 2011). However, with this particular policy capturing
approach, the research questions and the variables in the study do not require least-squared (LS)
or generalized least squared (GLS) to answer the research questions.
Cue Usage
To determine which cues the participants used in Micro and Macro Organizational
Behavior Perceptions Questionnaire, a usefulness index (UI) and a normalized usefulness index
(NUI) for each cue for each subject were computed. The UI cues that are effective in predicting
preference are considered usefulness indices in this study. UIs were based upon the variables
that are most likely in predicting participant’s preference of organizational behavior. Table 21
represents the NUI. High UIs indicate a greater preference of a cue than low UIs. NUIs were
computed to compare cue preference across participants. The NUIs were computed by dividing
the individual subjects UIs score by the total score of each UI and multiplying by 100. The
means and standard deviations of the NUIs across all participants are given in the table. Table
22 contains the median values for the NUIs. Also appearing in the table are the minimum and
maximum NUIs for each cue across all participants. As seen in Table 22, creativity, job
satisfaction and stress were identified as the most important cues. Table 22 data indicates the
statistical data of the NUIs across all participants for Questions 1-29.
107
Table 22
Normalized Usefulness Index Across All Participants
Cue Name
M
SD
Median
Min. Value
Max. Value
Leadership
55.73
24.05
50.00
0
100.00
Creativity
64.97
26.29
75.00
0
100.00
Job Satisfaction
63.73
29.48
66.67
0
100.00
Stress
61.58
27.46
57.14
0
100.00
Organizational Structure
39.96
22.70
37.50
0
100.00
Organizational Change
36.76
17.00
33.33
0
83.33
Organizational Design
40.53
21.39
42.86
0
85.71
Organizational
Development
41.97
25.64
37.50
0
100.00
Note. This study used the index of position (teacher or administrator).
Table 22 is the scaling score that each OB could get based upon the perceptions of the
participants. Importantly noted is that each OB was statistically rescaled to a scale of 0-8 to get
the normalized usefulness index, as shown in Table 22. High UIs indicate a greater use of a cue
than low UIs (i.e., preference). The cues accepted as the usefulness index, and found to be
effective in predicting preference were micro organizational behaviors—leadership, creativity,
job satisfaction, and stress. To be accepted as the useful index it simply means whether the
measure can be used to answer the stated research questions as well as how frequently the cue is
preferred. When referencing Table 22, the way to ascertain the cues accepted as usefulness
index can be found by examining the mean scores. When standardized weights are measured in
standard deviation (SD) units, the standard deviation can be used as the standardized regression
coefficients to explain the expected change (Aiman-Smith et al., 2002). If the cues are
uncorrelated, then the variance in the dependent variable that is associated or explained by each
108
cue is unique to that particular cue (Aiman-Smith et al., 2002). A reason why such a span occurs
within the SD is that the SD is derived from the difference in perceptions between the teacher
and administrator (1 – teacher and 2 – administrator), as well as the considerable sample size
variance between the two groups (e.g., 1 – teacher and 2 – administrator).
Data Results
Encapsulating the data analyses, there are some noteworthy results that can be drawn
from this study. The logistical regression data indicates that if exponential beta weights [Exp(B)]
are greater than one, there is a likelihood that the person selects macro organizational behavior.
On the other hand, if the value is less than 1, as the predictor increases the likelihood of the
outcome decreases. The results suggest that as people get older they will select macro
organizational behavior. The analyses of Table 23 indicate the following about the Exp(B)
weighted variables. For interpretation purposes, by looking at the odds ratio [Exp(B)] column, if
the value is greater than 1, then it indicates that as the predictor (i.e., age) increases the
likelihood of the outcome (preferring macro organizational behavior) also increases.
Additionally, when conducting a logistic analysis, sex became statistically significant at (.05).
Males (Exp(B) = 2.126, p < .05) were twice as likely to select macro than micro organizational
behaviors when holding all other variables constant (i.e., holding constant variables such as age,
experience, school, race, and position). Analyses indicate there is a difference on how the
hierarchal positions perceived organizational behaviors on Questions 1-29. Specifically, when
all variables are held constant, teachers (Exp(B) = 1.134) preferred macro organizational
behavior over micro in comparison to administrators. Note, this relationship was not statistically
significant (p = .857). However when all variables are not held constant, which is more often
109
than not, teachers preferred micro organizational behavior over macro whereas administrators
preferred macro organizational behavior over micro.
Table 23
Logistical Regression Coefficients for Demographics Assessing Micro or Macro Organizational
Behavior Preference
Predictors
Age
Experience
Male
B
S.E.
Wald
.029
.022
1.693
-.016
.030
.754
.382
Other
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
1
.193
1.029
.296
1
.586
.984
3.898
1
.048
2.126
6.332
4
.176
African American
.051
.943
.003
1
.957
1.052
Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish
Origin
.019
.942
.000
1
.984
1.019
Asian American
1.514
1.383
1.199
1
.274
4.545
Caucasian or White
-.758
.781
.941
1
.332
.469
.126
.701
.032
1
.857
1.134
.982
2
.612
Teacher
School
School(1)
-.305
.464
.434
1
.510
.737
School(2)
.120
.535
.050
1
.822
1.128
-1.692
1.310
1.669
1
.196
.184
Constant
Note. Cox & Snell (1989) R2 = .078; Nagelkerke (1992) R2 = .110; X2(10) = 12.707, p > .05
Table 24 analysis of the sample provides information of the eight OB cues preference
data. The way to interpret the table is the same way it was interpreted in Table 23. However
leadership (Wald (1) = 6.058, p < .05), organizational change (Wald (1) = 6.128, p < .05), and
organizational structure (Wald (1) = 6.226, p < .05) were found to be statistically significant in
110
predicting preference. Inferring the more important these cues are to the participants, the more
likely they will prefer macro (e.g., conjectured by the Exp(B) column results are greater than one
in logistic regression results).
Table 24
Logistical Regression Coefficients for Weighted Cues Assessing Micro or Macro Organizational
Behavior Preference
Cue
B
Organizational Development
.074
Leadership
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
.038
3.803
1
.051
1.077
.091
.037
6.058*
1
.014
1.096
Job Satisfaction
.028
.022
1.512
1
.219
1.028
Organizational Change
.063
.025
6.128*
1
.013
1.065
Organizational Structure
.097
.039
6.266*
1
.012
1.102
Creativity
.059
.038
2.400
1
.121
1.061
Organizational Design
.056
.032
3.082
1
.079
1.057
Stress
.037
.028
1.747
1
.186
1.037
-25.452
12.221
4.338*
1
.037
.000
Constant
S.E.
Note. Cox & Snell (1989) R2 = .304; Nagelkerke (1992) R2 = .423; X2(8) = 55.39, p < .001; *p <
.05
The analyses from Table 25 finds that teachers’ means are higher on all four micro
organizational behaviors and conversely the administrators are higher on the macro
organizational behaviors. Interestingly, data revealed that job satisfaction had a statistical
significance (t (168) = 2.78, p < .01) in regards to the perceptions of job satisfaction is more
important than the macro organizational behaviors. Stress had a statistical significance (t (172) =
2.13, p < .05) in regards to perceptions of stress is more important than the macro organizational
behaviors. Organizational change had a statistical significance (t (168) = -3.30, p < .01) in
111
regards to how the perceptions of organizational change were viewed, there was a noteworthy
difference between administrators and teachers. The means and standard deviations are also
shown in the Table 25.
Table 25
Cue Means and Standard Deviation for T-Test Analysis
Cue
Position
N
M
SD
Std. Error
Mean
Leadership
Teacher
156
4.3974
1.87919
.15046
13
4.1538
2.47811
.68730
157
3.9299
1.73617
.13856
13
2.5385
1.71345
.47522
154
5.2143
2.06738
.16659
13
5.0000
2.58199
.71611
159
2.7987
1.47888
.11728
13
3.3077
1.70219
.47210
152
3.3487
2.04667
.16601
13
3.4615
2.18386
.60569
161
4.3975
1.86842
.14725
13
3.2308
2.31495
.64205
157
2.1338
.99419
.07934
13
3.0769
.95407
.26461
155
3.1290
1.78635
.14348
13
4.0000
2.04124
.56614
Administrator
Job Satisfaction** Teacher
Administrator
Creativity
Teacher
Administrator
Organizational
Design
Teacher
Administrator
Organizational
Development
Teacher
Administrator
Stress*
Teacher
Administrator
Organizational
Change**
Teacher
Administrator
Organizational
Structure
Teacher
Administrator
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01
112
Table 26 shows the ANOVA and weighting cues for Question 34. The results point out
that leadership had a statistical significance F(1,169) = 7.46, p < .01) for administrators.
Table 26
Mean Differences in the Weighted Cues for Teachers and Administrators
Cue
Creativity
Job Satisfaction
Leadership**
Stress
Organizational
Change
Organizational
Development
Organizational
Design
Organizational
Structure
N
M
SD
Std. Error
Teacher
Administrator
158
13
24.854
24.231
14.9167
10.3775
1.1867
2.8782
Total
171
24.807
14.5987
1.1164
Teacher
Administrator
159
13
31.396
23.462
15.4715
11.7942
1.2270
3.2711
Total
172
30.797
15.3413
1.1698
Teacher
Administrator
158
13
25.019
36.538
14.7586
12.6466
1.1741
3.5075
Total
171
25.895
14.8938
1.1390
Teacher
Administrator
158
13
19.449
15.769
13.5499
9.5407
1.0780
2.6461
Total
171
19.170
13.3019
1.0172
Teacher
Administrator
157
13
16.618
15.769
8.8358
7.0256
.7052
1.9485
Total
170
16.553
8.6961
.6670
Teacher
Administrator
157
13
26.471
27.308
15.7779
10.5308
1.2592
2.9207
Total
170
26.535
15.4181
1.1825
Teacher
Administrator
158
13
29.222
36.154
16.2275
10.2376
1.2910
2.8394
Total
171
29.749
15.9370
1.2187
Teacher
Administrator
157
13
26.720
20.769
15.3142
10.1748
1.2222
2.8220
Total
170
26.265
15.0449
1.1539
Note. **p < .01
113
Conversely, although not statistically significant, teachers weighted creativity higher than
administrators F(1,169) = .022, p > .05). The analyses data outlines the overall weighting
perceptions and how organizational behaviors were weighted within the micro and macro lens.
Lastly, descriptive analyses from the closed-ended filter questions lend insightful data as
to how micro and macro organizational behaviors are being perceived in an organizational
setting. The corresponding tables show the data in a descriptive numerical format. Table 27
indicates participants tended to feel that micro (67.8%) was more important than macro (32.2%).
That data showed that 68.4% of teachers compared to 61.5% of administrators stated that micro
organizational behavior is more important than macro organizational behavior.
Table 27
Perception Importance: Micro or Macro Organizational Behavior
Position
Teacher
Administrator
All
Freq.
%
Micro Organizational Behavior
108
68.4
Macro Organizational Behavior
50
31.6
Total
158
100
Micro Organizational Behavior
8
61.5
Macro Organizational Behavior
5
38.5
Total
13
100
Micro Organizational Behavior
116
67.8
Macro Organizational Behavior
55
32.2
Among the four micro organizational behaviors, job satisfaction (40.9%) was identified
as the most important followed by creativity at (23.3%), leadership (20.5%) and stress at
(15.3%). Table 28 shows administrators selected leadership as the most important micro
organizational behavior, while teachers selected job satisfaction as the most important.
114
Organizational design (41.5%) was identified as the most important macro organizational
behavior, with organizational change the least important at 3.4%.
Table 28
Perception Importance within the Organizational Behavior
Micro Organizational Behavior
Cue
Macro Organizational Behavior
Freq.
%
Creativity
41
23.3
Leadership
36
Stress
Job Satisfaction
Total
Cue
Freq.
%
Organizational Change
6
3.4
20.5
Organizational Design
73
41.5
27
15.3
Organizational Development
51
29.0
72
40.9
Organizational Structure
46
26.1
176
100.0
176
100.0
Total
Table 29 shows a consensus between teachers (39.5%) and administrators (64.3%) that
organizational design is the most important macro organizational behavior.
Table 29
Perception Importance within the Organizational Behavior - Macro
Position
Teacher
Freq.
Organizational Change
6
3.7
Organizational Design
64
39.5
Organizational Development
47
29.0
Organizational Structure
45
27.8
162
100.0
Organizational Design
9
64.3
Organizational Development
4
28.6
Organizational Structure
1
7.1
14
100.0
Total
Administrator
Valid %
Total
Note. This particular administrative sample did not select organizational change
115
The organizational behavior that was considered to be perceived as the most important of
the eight organizational behaviors, when analyzed amid the other seven organizational behaviors,
was job satisfaction (31.6%). Conversely, organizational change (1.1%) was perceived as the
organizational behavior with the least importance (see Table 30).
Table 30
Perception Importance of the Eight Organizational Behaviors
Organizational Behavior
Freq.
%
Job Satisfaction
55
31.6
Organizational Development
21
12.1
Creativity
18
10.3
Organizational Design
17
9.8
Organizational Change
2
1.1
Stress
15
8.6
Organizational Structure
12
6.9
Leadership
34
19.5
174
100
Total
Conclusion
In closing, the analysis of the data indicates participants in an organizational setting
perceived micro organizational behaviors to be more important than macro organizational
behaviors at the teacher level. Conversely, data indicates that administrators perceived macro
organizational behaviors to be more important than micro organizational behaviors.
Interestingly, job satisfaction was the most important micro organizational behavior for teachers
and leadership for administrators; whereas the organizational design was noted as the most
important macro organizational behavior for both administrators and teachers. When all eight
116
organizational behaviors were analyzed in comparison to one another, job satisfaction was
perceived as the most important organizational behavior. Also noted was that as age increases so
does the likelihood of one’s own perceptions to perceive macro organizational behavior as more
important than micro organizational behavior.
While the analyses provide discussion points, there are some notions to consider. As
Falissard (2012) reminds researchers, a particularity of questionnaire data (in this case, the micro
and macro organizational behavior perceptions questionnaire) is they are fundamentally open to
interpretation. Nonetheless, the design must be tailored to each particular study (such as this
research study), thus inevitably resulting in no consensual, clear-cut rules concerning the design
of an ideal model. Despite a deliberate effort to ensure that data was pure for the research study,
Murtagh (2005) substantiates that real data analysis is never purely clean data, but instead data
that is imprecise, predominantly existent, and mixed in terms of various traditional data
categorizations (e.g., qualitative and quantitative, text and numeric, macro and micro, and so on).
Policy capturing grasps individual decision making policies including how multiple variables
rank in importance, how information presented is completed and how results are selected
(Chhinzer, 2007). In this particular study, a key aspect of the data analysis procedure was
participants were not requested in the policy capturing approach to explicitly state subjective
insights on the questionnaire, but rather the importance of each organizational behavior which
was inferred from the analytical results. Additionally when employing the research method, the
policy capturing approach cannot include all the variables that influence decision making
outcomes (Aiman-Smith et al., 2002), and it is also virtually impossible to determine a priori as
to the exact factors by which individuals make judgments (Karren & Barringer, 2002).
117
While this specific area of research is still in its infancy, these results, taken with future work,
have real world implication. Understanding how organizational behavior is perceived within the
organization provides meaningful data as to what might be assumed as important versus what is
actual perceptions in an organizational context. While there seems to be a micro-macro divide
within organizational research, results such as this offer an effective approach to view this chasm
through a more quantitative lens. The findings can help to better understand the complexity
within organizations, depict the differences of how organizational behavior is perceived, and
most importantly provide a tool to bridge the individual-organizational interface. A discussion
about the study, implications from the research findings, and future recommendations drawn
from this research study are in Chapter 5.
118
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Behavior in the workplace is not only the result of the needs and drives of the people present; it
is also a product of the perceptions of everyone involved.
- Jeff O. Harris & Sandra J. Hartman
Introduction
In the previous chapters, an overarching synopsis of organizational behavior was
provided, the overview of the study was delineated, a comprehensive literature review was given,
the methods discussed, and the statistical results were presented. This culminating chapter
contains four main sections. First, the introduction section begins with a review of
organizational behavior (OB), followed by a basic overview of the study and concluded by a
summary of the results. Secondly, the discussion section then provides my closing thoughts
about the eight organizational behaviors, along with insight about the data findings in the study.
Thirdly, in the implications section the findings of the study are interpreted and extrapolated.
Finally, the chapter concludes with recommendations for leveraging organizational behavior and
some recommendations for future exploration in the field of organizational behavior.
Review of Organizational Behavior
Organizations are overwhelmingly complex. There is an on-going interplay between the
organization and its people, a bond so forceful that it can either stifle performance or enhance
creativity. The work of an organization occurs through the behavior of people, individually or
collectively, on their own or in collaboration with technology (Hampton, Summer, & Webber,
1987). A key to understanding organizational behavior is to study and understand human nature
(Covey, 2006). As Natemeyer and Hersey (2011) point out, there are many determinants of
organizational behavior that can impact human behavior and performance within the
119
organization. So much so that one of the most challenging tasks for both a leader and
organization is to understand why people behave and act the way they do (Osland & Turner,
2011).
Organizational behavior provides crucial inferences regarding factors impacting success.
Organizations inevitably influence the behavior of people as well as the feelings and emotions of
the individual, groups, and the organization as a whole (Härtel, Zerbe, & Ashkanasy, 2005;
Natemeyer & Hersey, 2011). Correspondingly, Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly (2004) affirm if we
learn more about the cause-and-effect linkages among organizational behaviors, today’s
managers and organizations would therefore be in a position to better enhance outcomes and
performance. The ability to learn and to transfer knowledge is a key to organizational survival,
adapting rapidly at both the individual and organizational levels is fundamental to managing
effective organizations (Osland & Turner, 2011). Despite countless presumptions about human
behavior or actions, empirical research comes full circle back to the acknowledged assertion that
management practices must be tailored to fit the contingency of the situation and variables when
dealing with organizational behavior (Nelson & Quick, 2011; Schermerhorn, 2010).
Organizational behavior is the foundational bedrock for understanding the interweaving
individual-organizational relationship. Organizational behavior is dynamic, it helps to
understand the behavior of others, predict behaviors, explain observed behaviors in an
organization, and enable others to influence the behavior of their counterparts.
Overview of the Study
Although an extensive amount of research on organizational behavior has been
conducted, no research had yet examined whether micro organizational behaviors or macro
organizational behaviors are perceived more important in an organizational context. With this
120
study, the researcher specifically explored the perceptions of micro and macro organizational
behaviors through the lens of classroom teachers and school administrators using aspects of the
policy capturing approach. Policy capturing approach is a research design that researchers
employ who are interested in objectively capturing human judgment policies. The policy
capturing approach allows the researcher to attempt to bridge and juxtapose the macro and micro
organizational behavior domains. The theoretical framework of the study relied heavily on the
contingency theory. Contingency theory is used to view behavior in an organization as the
complex result of many micro and macro behaviors, thus acknowledging the way in which
humans behave in an organization is contingent on many different variables. Subsequently, the
research study hinges on the contingency theory as to whether or not a relationship exists
between the perceptions of classroom teachers and school administrators. The researcher
focused on answering two guiding research questions:
1. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by a teacher?
2. How are eight selected organizational behaviors perceived by an administrator?
The study consisted of 181 participants. The majority of participants were female (58%),
the primary ethnicity of the participants was Caucasian (72%), and the average age of the
participants was 41.4. Of the 181 participants, 167 were teachers (92.3%) and 14 were
characterized as administrators (7.7%). Both the teacher (34.1%) and administrative experience
(42.9%) was found to be in the 1-5 years of experience range.
Summary of the Results
The significance of this research study reveals how eight organizational behaviors are
perceived in an organizational context. Even more specifically, the result of the study shed light
on how four micro and four macro organizational behaviors are perceived differently at
121
hierarchal levels. This research data indicates organizational behavior is indeed perceived
differently. As found, males were twice as likely to select macro organizational behaviors when
holding all other variables constant (i.e., holding constant variables such as age, experience,
school, race, and position). Similar in nature, as participants got older they were more likely to
select macro organizational behavior. The findings pointed out those differences even existed
within the same organizational line and even in the same hierarchal position [teacher and
administrator]. The noted cue found to be effective in predicting preference and accepted as the
useful index is micro organizational behavior, specifically creativity, job satisfaction, and stress.
Dissimilar in their perceptions of micro-macro organizational behavior, teachers
perceived micro organizational behavior more important whereas administrators perceived
macro organizational behavior more important. Interestingly, leadership (Wald (1) = 6.058, p <
.05), organizational change (Wald (1) = 6.128, p < .05), and organizational structure (Wald (1) =
6.226, p < .05) were found to be statistically significant in predicting preference therefore
inferring the more important these cues are to the participants the more likely they will prefer
macro organizational behavior. Both job satisfaction (t (168) = 2.78, p < .01) and stress (t (172)
= 2.13, p < .05) had a statistical significance in regards to the perceptions of being more
important than the macro organizational behaviors. Organizational change was found to have a
statistical significance (t (168) = -3.30, p < .01) in regards to how the perceptions of
organizational change was viewed between administrators and teachers. Although not
statistically significant, creativity was found to be weighted by teachers higher than
administrators F(1,169) = .022, p > .05). Correspondingly, leadership had a statistical
significance F(1,169) = 7.46, p < .01) for administrators when weighted.
122
Summarizing the findings, participants overall tend to perceive micro organizational
behavior more important than macro organizational behavior. Within the micro organizational
behavior scope, data analyses identified job satisfaction for teachers as the most important, and
leadership the most important for administrators. In the analysis within the macro organizational
behavior scope, data indicated agreement for organizational design as the most important for
both hierarchal levels. Job satisfaction was perceived to be the most important of the eight
organizational behaviors, whereas organizational change was perceived as the least important of
the eight organizational behaviors. All in all, the data results point out the differences in how
both micro and macro organizational behaviors are perceived in an organizational context as well
as perception differences occurring within the subfield of the organizational behavior.
Perceptions Theorization
This particular section, perception theorization, has been interwoven into Chapter 5 for
the sole purpose of expanding the discussion of perceptions. Perception is not discussed in
Chapter 3, but rather embedded at this juncture to provide a foundational understanding into the
realm of perceptions so the results of the study (Chapter 4) are even more understood with
clarity. An extensive amount of research is found in the area of perceptions; however this
succinct overview merely serves as an attempt to explain why the perceptions of organizational
behavior may vary and why OB perception data collected may perhaps provide insightful data
for the leader as well as the organization.
The data gleaned from the research study came from the participants’ perceptions of the
eight organizational behaviors. According to Borkowski (2005), perception is a process by
which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impression in order to give meaning to
their environment. Similarly, Schermerhorn (2010) defined perception as, “The process through
123
which people receive, organize, and interpret information from their environment” (p. 84).
Conversely, it should also be explicitly noted that what an individual interprets and perceives
may be considerably different from reality (Borkowski, 2005). Nonetheless, our perceptions of
our environment are influenced by past experiences, beliefs, and expectations (Schermerhorn,
2010). Accurate perceptions can be the impetus for accurate judgments and spot-on decisions,
however if perceptions are misguiding, such actions and behavior can negatively manifest.
Perceptions have a direct and pervasive impact on behavior (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg,
1998). Perception is closely related to behavior (Borkowski, 2005). While there is a variance of
responses within the data, understanding perceptions and how perceptions can impact human
behavior in an organization may be quite informative.
When interpreting the results of the data, it is useful to also recognize the precepts of
perception research and the possible contingencies as to why data results may vary from
organization to organization. As Hampton et al. (1987) and Robbins and Judge (2014) point out,
perceptions are affected by a person’s needs, motivations, attitudes, interests, expectations,
experiences, and work situations; contrariwise, perception distortion can also manifest itself from
expectations, needs, fears, and organizing schema. Perceptions are affected in the context in
which people are placed, perceptions are affected by the characteristics of the perceiver and
perceived (Pettinger, 2010). Understandably, data may reveal various organizations perceiving
organizational behaviors differently. Similarly, individuals within the same organization may
respectively perceive organizational behaviors differently. As Reitz (1987) notes, perceptions
are derived from the objects or events being perceived (organizational behavior in this study), the
environment in which the perceptions occur (school setting in this study), and the individual
doing the perceiving (teacher or administrator in this study). Each participant in the research
124
sees things in their own way with their own meaning. The perceptions of the participants are
data that describes how they view organizational reality. Perception affects both decisions and
behaviors, which in turn influence organizational practices and processes. Perceptions are very
important for understanding human behavior, for people behave based on their perceptions.
Thus identifying the present perception of the environment helps leaders predict and understand
behavior in the organization (Mustafa, 2013). As Witt (2011) avows, perceptions capture a
mutual relationship between the environment and the perceiver’s abilities. Acknowledging how
organizational behavior is being perceived in an organizational setting is essential for
understanding what factors may be influencing behavior in the organization. Perceptions can
impact the outlook and the actions of each employee (Harris & Hartman, 2002). Thus, it would
be worthwhile for both the leader and the organization to understand what factors affect
employee perceptions regarding the organization.
People’s behavior is based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself
(Robbins & Judge, 2014); therefore one’s perception is not an objective representation of the
environment but rather reflects the connection amongst the environment and the perceiver’s
capability to act within it (Witt, 2011). Perceptions of organizational behavior are important
because the perception of the individual regarding organizational behavior influences the manner
in which the individual reacts or performs in the organization. The research study indicates there
is a difference of how the eight organizational behaviors are perceived through the lens of each
participant. Equally important, the data findings reiterate prior research discoveries that
underscore the importance of acknowledging how changing an individual’s perception in an
organization can be an effective way for improving organizational behavior. Acknowledging the
125
perceptions of organizational behavior in the workplace can provide very informative data that
may help enhance organizational performance at both a micro level and macro level.
Discussion
Concluding the Eight Studied Organizational Behaviors
Organizations influence people and people influence organizations. Organizational
behavior plays a fundamental role in organizations’ success, survival, and development. The
literature review, as well as previous research, underscores how the eight organizational
behaviors serve as a conduit for improving both organizational and individual performance.
Substantially acknowledged, all eight organizational behaviors have a direct impact on human
behavior, actions, attitudes, thinking, performance, efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity.
The study findings divulge some intriguing information about how eight different organizational
behaviors are perceived in an organizational context. Correspondingly, the data provides
information about how various organizational behaviors were perceived at different hierarchical
levels.
Concluding assertions reiterate the causal effect these eight selected organizational
behaviors could have on the organization and its people. Leadership can greatly affect an
organization (Buckingham, 2005; Collins, 2001; Drucker, 2007; Peters & Waterman, 1984).
Self-assessment ought to be the first action requirement of leadership (Drucker & Collins, 2008).
According to Drucker (1967), a leader must know the most common cause for leadership failure
is the unwillingness or inability to change with the demands of a new position. Leadership
influences and organizes meaning for all constituents in the organization. Leaders are people
who do the right thing, and have a vision that is articulated clearly and forcefully on every
occasion (Peters, 1987). Importantly, a great leader is found to build a strengths-based
126
organization (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001); and thus, high-performing organizations are led by
high-performing leaders (Larson, Latham, Appleby, & Harshman, 2012).
While leadership is vital, so is job satisfaction. Not only does job satisfaction impact an
array of individual and organizational outcomes (Nelson & Quick, 2011), job satisfaction is a
contributor to one’s life satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance (Dabke,
2014; Fu & Deshpande, 2014). Job satisfaction is irrefutably important to both the organization
and the individual. Similarly, creativity is another impactful organizational behavior. Creativity
is central for innovation (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996), and innovation is a
cornerstone for both sustainable lasting success and survival of an organization (Henard &
Szymanski, 2001). So much so, that Mumford (2012) affirms that creativity and innovation are
the critical variables in shaping the long-term success of an organization. Stress has found a way
into the lives of innumerable people while simultaneously infiltrating the fabric of countless
organizations. According to Greenberg (2011), the work environment is the number one source
of stress in people’s lives. Stress is found to abound at various levels within the organization
(Sinha & Subramanian, 2012); consequently, if stress is not dealt with appropriately, low job
satisfaction, poor work performance, negative health effects, and diminished perceptions of
personal accomplishment and life satisfaction may emerge (Hayes & Weathington, 2007; JuiChen & Silverthorne, 2008). Bourgeoning stress in the workplace cannot be ignored. Stress
management and prevention are essential if the organization is to thrive. Findings suggest
employees who are healthy and engaged are powerful assets to the organization and make
impactful contributions to the advancement and growth of the organization (Quick, 2013).
While each of the four micro organizational behaviors embody a different notion, each behavior
impacts the output performance of the individual as well as the organization.
127
Moving from the micro level to the macro level, organizational behavior maintains a
strong hold on the organization and its people. Organizational structure is crucial. The approach
towards organizing individuals and groups with respect to the job function they execute is
fundamental for performance. As Collins (2009) points out, leaders need to recognize that all
organizational structures have trade-offs and inefficiencies, hence there is no ideal organizational
structure in all situations. Organizational structure impacts the commitment and performance of
an organization. It is a phenomenon that continually changes, and a dynamic element of an
organization that integrates all of its parts and resources (Berkowitz & Wren, 2013; Delić &
Ahmetović, 2013). Organizations are not static, and organizational change is inevitable; it is not
the exception, but the rule (Greenberg, 2011). The work of Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) attest
when dealing with organizational change, leaders ought to be mindful of human tendency, which
at first, when reacting to new and untried ideas will attempt to revert back to the old and
ingrained practices even when it is not in their best interest. Over time a multiplicity of
organizational change efforts, models, and types have been established for application.
However, the cornerstone of effective change begins with the leader in conjunction with an
informed understanding of how effective organizational change comes about (Drucker &
Wartzman, 2010; Fullan, 2008; Peters, 1987).
Organizational development is a conduit for performance improvement; it enables the
organization to be more effective and efficient during the change process (Greenberg, 2013; Hitt
et al., 2011; Nelson & Quick, 2011). Organizational development plays a vital role in the
organization and its people (Robbins & Judge, 2014). The work of Drucker (1993) underscores
one of the most important contributions to organizational development is an effective leader
(Drucker, 1967). The final organizational behavior, organizational design, empowers an
128
organization to explore and exploit innovation (Tushman et al., 2010); it is one of the most
complex and difficult tasks, yet is one of the most important tasks for organizational leaders
(Beckman, 2009). Organizational design takes into account three core performance factors:
strategy, organization, and motivation; leveraging the appropriate organizational design
empowers an organization to execute better, learn faster, and change more easily (Myers, 1996).
According to Collins and Porras (1994), organizations might be advised to spend more time
thinking about organizational design. Whether it be at a micro or macro level, organizational
behavior influences a plethora of individual and organizational dynamics, subsequently
penetrating into the fabric of the organization and the behavior of its people. To change human
behavior to improve performance, there has to be an understanding of what drives behavior at the
individual and organizational level—organizational behavior.
Human behavior within the organization is impacted by organizational behavior. The
organization is affected in a two-fold manner: (a) by the individual behavior within the
organization; and (b) by the organization impacting the behavior of the individuals in the
organization. Organizational behavior factions study and apply knowledge of how people act
and behave within an organization; organizational behavior becomes a leadership mindset that
yields organizational benefit, even resulting in a competitive advantage. Organizational behavior
can be applied extensively to the behaviors of people in all types of organizational settings (i.e.,
business, government, schools, non-profits, service organizations, etc.). Taking everything into
account, when you change or improve individual, group, and organizational behavior, you
purposefully attain individual, group, and organizational outcomes. Organizational behavior is a
reciprocal people-organization relationship that can either improve performance or destroy
performance. Recognizing the perceptions of organizational behavior may help to manage
129
organizational behavior successfully in today’s ever-changing workforce. By rethinking through
the lens of organizational behavior, one can informatively interpret meaning for their
organization, which in turn can result in well-informed decisions, effective organizational
schemas, and more knowledgeable organizational action. The initial bedrock for organizational
performance, both at the individual and organizational level, is derived from organizational
behavior thinking, leading, and doing; all of which comes from understanding the complexity
and impact of micro and macro organizational behavior.
Insight on Findings of the Study
The findings of the current study substantiate how perceptions of organizational behavior
may vary within an organizational setting. People perceive organizational behavior differently.
Similarly, levels of organizational hierarchy perceive organizational behavior in a different way.
Even more so, each organizational behavior, whether it be micro or macro, were found to be
perceived differently by people. While the data shows that differences do exist in the
perceptions of organizational behavior, acknowledging such findings underscore the importance
of realizing what someone may individually perceive, may starkly contradict the organizational
reality. These data findings are exceptionally insightful to leaders, as the results point out
leaders’ perceptions may clash with the perceptions of the people they lead. Subsequently, this
perception variance may be a contributing factor to organizational ineffectiveness, organizational
conflict, and/or organizational inefficiency.
Organizational behaviors that were found to be weighted higher, as well as perceived
more important to individuals, were micro organizational behaviors. This discovery may suggest
organizational behaviors that are held closest to the individual are seemingly perceived with
greater importance. However as the individual moves up the hierarchal ladder, these data
130
findings indicate that macro organizational behaviors become more important to the individual in
regards to weighting as well as perceived importance. This particular finding could be useful as
it points out why a hierarchical division may exist as well as tension within organization
dynamics. Simply put, the leader and the subordinate do not perceive organizational behaviors
congruently; subsequently, a strain may emerge amidst the organization. Moreover, the data
perception variance may suggest as an individual moves up the hierarchical chain, there is a
possibility their lens of the organization becomes wider and more focused on organizational
aspects [macro] rather than personal aspects [micro].
Another point of interest would be that job satisfaction and stress were both found to be
statistically significant and perceived statistically significant. Such findings may infer a need to
purposefully discover what are considered stressors in that particular organization as well as
what elements of job satisfaction allow employees to be satisfied in their job and what variables
are causing employee job dissatisfaction. Each organization may have different trigger points for
stress and job satisfaction. Ascertaining the impetus may improve performance at both the
individual level and organizational level for that organization.
The perceptions of organizational change revealed a noteworthy perception gap between
supervisors and subordinates. The importance of change in an organization is perceived
differently. Such a finding may indicate, or at least imply, organizational change may actually
be a catalyst for high or low job satisfaction as well as increased or decreased levels of stress in
an organization. While leaders may perceive a need for organizational change, the people whom
they are leading are indicating their perception of change in an organization is not an
organizational behavior of such weighted or perceived importance. So it may be possible that
organizational change becomes counterproductive for the organization if the leader of the change
131
is not aware of the need for establishing an effective balance, understanding the various
responses people have to change, comprehending the different types of change, and realizing
each type of change comes in different sizes, different scopes, and different levels of complexity.
Considering all things, before enacting organizational change, a leader must step back to ensure
the organizational change does not result in detrimental consequences. Those who are leading
and those who are being led perceive organizational change differently.
Interestingly, leadership was perceived by the leader as more important, whereas the
people being led perceive this micro organizational behavior of less importance in comparison to
their own creativity, stress, and job satisfaction. Application from this finding would align to the
previous notion: organizational behaviors held closer to the individual are weighted, and
preferred, with more importance. With that in mind, it may be possible that within the subfield
of the specific organizational behavior (e.g., micro, macro, and meso), there are organizational
behaviors that are perceived to have a stronger influence on the individual’s wellbeing, thus
resulting in the OB being perceived as more important within that specific subfield. The more
impactful the organizational behavior is to one’s own wellbeing may suggest the more likely the
OB will be preferred and perceived with greater importance to that individual.
Overall, data analyses conclude individuals perceive, and prefer, micro organizational
behavior over macro organizational behavior. Such findings may conjecture organizational
behaviors that have a more personal implication to an employee are perceived more important.
With that in mind, to improve overall organizational performance, leadership may want to
consider initially exploring the micro organizational behaviors strongly first before looking at the
macro level organizational behaviors of the organization. At the outset, addressing
organizational performance from the individual level [micro] may yield more effective
132
turnaround results as well as organizational goals being accomplished at a quicker rate. The
findings from the data may be posited that OBs perceived more important to the individual will
be more likely to be received by the individual with a higher level of receptiveness. When
people are more receptive, they are more likely to act rather than demonstrate a state of inertia.
Organizational design, regardless of hierarchical position, was found to be the most
important macro organizational behavior in the descriptive analyses. In response to this finding,
the data suggests the management style or approach used by leadership is perceived to be of
greater importance despite hierarchical position. It is essential that leaders clearly understand
what organizational design is about, and how different organizational designs impact the
individual, the organization, and the overall performance results. According to the data findings,
the management style and approach used by leaders is perceived important as it has an impactful
effect on both the individual and organization. Thus, for a leader to have no conceptualization of
organizational design may unintentionally cause adverse organizational behaviors. Henceforth,
there should be deliberate attention towards selecting the ideal design based upon the numerous
contingencies, circumstances, and contexts in which the organization operates. With both the
leader and the subordinate perceiving organizational design to be of importance, this finding
should be noted and applied.
Lastly, while the results suggest that as people get older they are more likely to select
macro organizational behavior, consideration for this finding may be occurring due to the fact
older people are generally more prone to be serving in supervisory roles. Furthermore the data
could also surmise, as people work longer in an organization they are less likely to perceive or
weight micro organizational behaviors more important because they themselves are more selfinvested in the organization. Perhaps this data finding could infer that as individuals spend a
133
longer time in an organization they begin to perceive the organization through a wider
organizational lens as opposed to a narrower individual lens.
Implications
Findings from this study have theoretical and applicable implications with regard to
organizational behavior. While this study supports previous theoretical research in the area of
organizational behavior, the study bolsters the notion of how critical it is to understand the
complexities of organizational behavior fully as well as the impact OB can have on both
individual and organizational performance. The underpinning of the study is centered around the
contingency theory; subsequently, bringing to light how OBs can be perceived differently based
upon contingencies. The findings point towards what organizational behaviors are perceived to
be of greater importance. Furthermore, the results may also be extrapolated as an indicator of
what OBs are being valued in an organizational setting and what OBs are of less importance.
Correspondingly, when perception gaps manifest within the hierarchy of an organization, as data
results indicated, the likelihood of performance being impacted may increase. Just knowing the
organizational behaviors perception gap exists may in itself be a powerful piece of organizational
information to help improve organizational performance. Leaders have a significant impact on
the organization and its people. What is concerning is that many leaders who lead organizations
may have minimal awareness of what organizational behavior is all about and how impactful
organizational behavior can be for the people they lead.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of this study would be this specific area of
research examined the perceptions of organizational behavior in an organizational setting, and
the findings from the study may provide essential application for both practitioners and
researchers. Additionally significant about this research are data findings that reveal
134
organizational behaviors are perceived differently through the leader-subordinate lens.
Similarly, the implications of this study call attention towards the different perceptions held
within the subfield of the specific organizational behavior [e.g., micro and macro]. The
applicable results show that organizational behavior is perceived differently, thus empowering
organizations and its leaders to think through a more direct OB lens. In doing so, leaders are
taking a direct OB approach towards organizational performance which may result in a
calculated higher-yielding methodology for improving organizational performance.
In conclusion, the findings indicate certain organizational behaviors are perceived with
greater importance based upon various predictors, cues, and hierarchical position. The literature
review corroborates earlier research by confirming organizational behavior indeed impacts a
plethora of organizational dynamics. Moreover the research study results offer a glimpse as to
how organizational behaviors are being perceived within an organizational context. One of the
most significant implications of this study is the applicable awareness that people perceive OBs
differently, OBs within the subfield are preferred and weighted differently, and perceptions of
organizational behavior provide germane findings that could empower leaders and organizations
to improve both individual and organizational performance.
Recommendations
Leveraging, Understanding, and Managing Organizational Behavior
The current study results provide some meaningful insight into the realm of
organizational behavior. The implications of organizational behavior are compelling. In Chapter
3, the researcher echoes the importance of understanding organizational behavior to improve
performance and human behavior (both at macro and micro levels). There is no such thing as a
silver bullet for improving organizational performance, changing human behavior, or even
135
managing organizational behavior. What research does purport is the importance of
understanding and managing organizational behavior in changing times (Hitt et al., 2011; Nelson
& Quick, 2011; Noe, 2013). To manage organizational behavior effectively means to understand
the patterns of behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels; to predict what
behavior responses will be elicited by different managerial actions; and to use understanding and
prediction to achieve control (Hampton et al., 1987). Organizational behavior is of utmost
concern to anyone who organizes, creates, orders, directs, manages, or supervises the actions of
individuals (Pettinger, 2010). Leveraging organizational behavior through understanding can
empower a leader to leave a lasting imprint on an organization. Correspondingly, leveraging
organizational behavior can directly impact the performance of the individual within the
organization. A strong conceptualization of organizational behavior and how it affects the
performance of the organization is the initial cornerstone towards leveraging organizational
behavior to improve both individual and organizational results.
Improvements in people’s behavior emerge when people are reminded they are valued
and worthwhile (Blanchard & Johnson, 1982). To leverage organizational behavior, a leader
also leverages the self-worth of people. Through understanding individual and collective
behaviors, leaders can shape, manage, and develop behavior so the interest of the individual is
served as well as the organization (Pettinger, 2010). When done properly, organizational
behavior improves organizational effectiveness (Greenberg, 2013). High-involvement
management practices result in increased performance (Pfeffer, 1998). Understanding,
managing, and leveraging organizational behavior yields a high-involvement management
practice. An organizational behavior mindset is a high-yield management approach. Leveraging
organizational behavior optimizes human behavior for organizational results. Understanding and
136
managing organizational behavior is a crucial paradigm shift in leadership thinking. That shift in
leadership thinking comes through the direct leveraging of organizational behavior.
Interlocking Organizational Behavior Thinking with High-Performing Attributes
Acknowledged in organizational behavior research is that leveraging organizational
behavior correctly can lead to high-performing organizations. High-performing organizations
effectively apply the tenets of organizational behavior (Kaliprasad, 2006; Sawa & Swift, 2013).
In Chapter 1 a high-performing organization was defined. Organizational behavior is an
unwavering dimension to organizational success; to achieve greatness, research affirmed the
following conclusions about high-performing organizations, its people, and its leader (see
Appendix G). In culmination of this research study, the attributes notated in Table 31 improve
organizational performance. Interlocking both organizational behavior thinking with high
performance research may equip leaders with a competitive advantage while enhancing one’s
organizational knowledge, attitude, and skills for leading an organization. Table 31 identifies
attributes that characterize high-performing organizations, people, and leaders. Interlacing OB
thinking with high-performing notions of thought, may serve as a formula for both individual
and organizational performance.
137
Table 31
Attributes of High-Performing Organizations, People, and Leaders
High-Performing Organizations
Source
Excel in four primary management practices: clear and focused strategy, impeccable
operational execution, performance-oriented culture, and build a fast, flexible, flat
organizational structure.
Nohria, Joyce, &
Roberson (2003)
Consistently are able to turn knowledge into action, and do so even as they are growing
and taking on new people and even other organizations.
Pfeffer & Sutton (2000)
Hold utmost authenticity to the organization’s ideology; attain consistent alignment to
the ideology; preserve the core and stimulate progress; and articulate both the
organization’s core values and organization’s purpose in their core ideology.
Collins & Porras (1994)
High-Performing People
Find one’s own voice, and inspire others to find their voice. Visionary, exceedingly
disciplined, unrelenting passion, unwavering conscience.
Covey (2006)
Demonstrates a high level of internal motivation, assertiveness, personal enthusiasm
and the individual’s willingness to take a challenging responsibility confidently and
perform it well.
Tener (1993)
Exhibit personality traits of self-awareness, resilience, bravery, embrace change, value
of oneself, and pursue new knowledge.
Elliot (2012)
Possesses superior people skills.
Goldsmith (2004)
Self-motivated, enjoy what they do, empower themselves, constantly learning how to
do their job better and takes responsibility for their actions.
Tschohl (1999)
High-Performing Leaders
Manages time, understands what to contribute to the organization, knows where and
how to mobilize strength for the best effect, sets the right priorities, and links them all
together with effective decision-making.
Drucker (1993)
Relentlessly asks questions—why, why, why?
Collins (2009)
Possesses a high degree of emotional intelligence.
Goleman (1998, 2004)
Exhibit a high focus on systems, high focus on learning from past, high focus on
information, low tolerance for actions that are inconsistent with the values of the
organization and constant motivation to improve organizational performance.
Larson et al. (2012)
Additional High-Performing Research
Effectiveness is learned.
Drucker (1993)
An excellent organization have a strong leader, shared values, are fiscally sound, value
innovation, are effective at communication, intuitive, creative, comprise a strong
culture, demonstrate exceptional organizational fluidity, understands that every
individual seeks meaning and exhibits a learning organization.
Peters & Waterman
(1984)
Disciplined creativity and a culture of discipline leads to greatness.
Collins (2009)
Note. See Appendix G for a complete listing.
138
High performing organizations possess an unrelenting drive to uphold the hallmark
concept of continuous improvement—the belief that anything and everything done in the
organization should be continually improved and evaluated (Schermerhorn, 2010). Improving
performance comes from a multiplicity of facets, yet none more important than the ones derived
from the actions of human behavior that are guided by the organizational systems and structures
in which the leader and the organization create. High-performing organizations do not emerge
by accident but rather through the intentional focus and direction given towards organizational
behavior. Interlocking organizational behavior thinking with high-performing attributes
enhances the organization as well the members of the organization.
Future Exploration into the Field of Organizational Behavior
Organizational behavior provides the essential answers to questions regarding how
individuals, groups, and organizations interconnect so optimal performance and results are
reached. Organizational behavior and organizations affect all aspects of life—economic, social,
political, cultural, religious, communal, and family (Pettinger, 2010). Human behavior is a
function of both the person and the environment (Reitz, 1987). The findings of this research
examined how people perceive the environment in which they exist. The study has only
scratched another surface into the realm of organizational behavior. Further exploration into the
field of organizational behavior could come through specifically studying what contingencies
influence the perceptions of the eight studied organizational behaviors. Findings from the study
revealed how eight OBs were perceived, but it did not explain as to why some organizational
behaviors were perceived with greater importance and why other organizational behaviors are
perceived with less importance. Impending research as to what variables or contingencies allow
139
for a perception to be weighted with greater preference or preferred over other OBs could be
quite enlightening to both leaders and organizations.
The study results allowed the researcher to theorize the larger the variance gap in the
perceptions of organizational behavior, the more likely organizational ineffectiveness,
organizational inefficiency, and a larger perception gap between supervisors and subordinates
exist. However, if the perception variance gap is narrower, one could hypothesize that individual
and organizational performance is more effective, more efficient, and less apt to yield high levels
of organizational tension. While this notion is hypothesizing at most, conducting further
research could move the notion from surmising to fact finding.
While this researcher examined the perceptions of organizational behavior, he did not
study if perceptions are held differently based upon high-performing organizations compared to
low-performing organizations (e.g., high-performing schools in comparison to low-performing
schools). Does the type of organization affect the perceptions of organizational behavior? And
if so, to what extent are differences between the two types of organizations found?
Along similar lines, this researcher did not study if a perception gap difference between
economically thriving organizations and fiscally struggling organizations exists (i.e., affluent
schools compared to economically disadvantaged schools or Forbes top 20 Global HighPerforming Companies compared to Forbes list of struggling companies). Essentially, further
research could attempt to answer if perceptions of organizational behavior are perceived,
weighted, and/or preferred differently based upon the economic status of the organization.
Similar research could be replicated by studying the perceptions of organizational
behavior through multi-levels of a hierarchy. For example, rather than just examining the
perceptions of organizational behavior at the campus level, additional research could be
140
conducted by examining teachers’ perceptions in comparison to cabinet-level perceptions.
Conducting research in this area may provide meaningful data on how perceptions vary beyond
just one or two hierarchical levels. Could the perception gap become even wider as the hierarchy
becomes taller?
Additionally, should future research ascertain why some organizational behaviors are
perceived with greater importance than others, these data findings at minimal may give
practitioners and researchers invaluable information about what is impacting performance at the
micro and macro level. For example, the participants used in this study come from a field of
work where high attrition is rampant; results indicated job satisfaction and stress were perceived
with greater importance. One could surmise the attrition rate in this profession is elevated
because of higher job dissatisfaction and increased levels of stress, therefore making these two
particular OBs of research interest. Along those lines, this researcher recommends delving
deeper into the results of this study to see what variables perhaps are causing stress and job
satisfaction to be perceived with considerable importance. Correspondingly, this researcher
suggests expanding this research in the realm of discovering what variables are actually
impacting one’s perceptions towards specific organizational behaviors.
The data findings indicate job satisfaction and stress were perceived and weighted with
greater importance. As a result, it may be possible these two particular OBs are more
significantly impactful to an organization’s performance levels than initially thought. So much
so, one could hypothesize low performing organizations will be found to yield perception data
that indicates job satisfaction and stress to be perceived with substantially greater importance
than higher performing organizations. Subsequently, future research should be conducted
simultaneously in two areas: the first area, analyzing if job satisfaction and stress are perceived
141
differently based upon an organization’s performance level; and the second area being, exploring
whether poor organizational performance is characteristic of organizations where their
perception data shows job satisfaction and stress to be of greater importance. Future research
should attempt to answer if low performing organizations perceive job satisfaction and stress
with greater importance in their OB perception data. It may be conceivable that employees in
low performing organizations are more likely to be dissatisfied in their job and more likely to be
overly stressed, consequently impacting the overall organization’s performance results.
Additionally recommended for extended research would be the following two inquiries:
first, how might two different industries (i.e. education compared to banking or manufacturing)
perceive organizational behavior in an organizational context?; and secondly, does a difference
in OB perceptions exist in different lines of work? While this area of research has limited
exploration, the findings may contribute substantially in the field of organizational behavior.
This area of research builds upon prior research as to how perceptions of organizational
behavior are being perceived within an organizational setting. As result, there are many
recommendations for future research, however none more important than acknowledging when
perception data are gathered, such as it was in this study, it is not the end point for individual or
organizational improvement answers but rather the starting point for asking the why question and
discovering the how answer. A great deal can be learned about the perceptions of organizational
behavior, and much of OB perception data has yet to be discovered. While future research
probes into the perceptions of organizational behavior in an organizational setting, the results
must never dismiss the fact that each organization may have different contingencies that yield
different OB perception data.
142
Concluding Thoughts
Organizational behavior changes human behavior. When behavior is changed; habits and
thinking are changed. And when behavior, habits, and thinking change, human performance can
change the results of the organization. Correspondingly, the organization can and will impact the
behavior of humans. While it may seem as a tug-and-pull relationship, it does not necessarily
have to be that way. Behavior in an organization is understood when we understand the context
of that behavior (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). While the review of literature helps to expand one’s
knowledge and understanding into the world of organizational behavior, it must not supersede
the fact that a leader is the critical factor in building a strong workplace (Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999). And a cornerstone to building a strong workplace is a leader who can
effectively manage organizational behavior in the ever-changing workplace (Greenberg, 2013).
While the research findings only scratch the surface as to how organizational behavior is
perceived, the findings point out OB perceptions are perceived with importance differently. For
that reason, leaders must realize their leadership actions, decisions, and behaviors can impact
both the organization and its people at the micro as well as a macro level. This empirical study
reveals those being led and those who are leading may not always perceive organizational
behavior harmoniously. However despite the perception variances, it is the unrelentingly pursuit
of leveraging organizational behavior leadership and OB thinking that will yield the greatest
results.
Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) avow that so often organizations prefer to talk, conceptualize,
and rationalize about issues and problems rather than confront them directly. In response to this
assertion, and the probable likelihood that OB perception differences are found in most
organizations, OB leaders are charged with, “The greatest leaders do seek growth—growth in
143
performance, growth in distinctive impact, growth in creativity, growth in people—but they do
not succumb to growth that undermines long-term value. And they certainly do not confuse
growth with excellence” (Collins, 2009, p. 54). The underpinnings of this study are deeplyrooted on: the growth of leaders to better understand, manage, and leverage organizational
behavior. For it is talented employees who need great leaders, and great leaders exemplify
discipline, focus, trust, and perhaps most importantly a willingness to individualize (Buckingham
& Coffman, 1999). Moreover, this research study concludes, as well as conjectures, great
leaders are the organizational behavior leaders who will use these findings to improve the human
behavior in the organization they lead.
In closing, Covey (2006) shares there is a stark difference between leadership that works,
and leadership that endures. Failure to recognize the effect of organizational behavior may cause
short-lived leadership. There are three key performance areas that are needed in every great
organization: direct results, building value and affirmation, and growing and developing people
for tomorrow (Drucker, 1985). All three performance areas are directly connected to aspects of
organizational behavior, along with the leader’s ability to leverage and manage OB. While
organizational behavior is crucial, the work of Blanchard and Johnson (1983) point out how vital
it is to care about people and their results. Organizational behavior is all people-centered. For
without question, the inability to recognize, care, value, or conceptualize organizational
behavior, can be and most likely will be in due time, the demise of organizational performance
and leadership effectiveness. To improve individual and organizational performance, the
organizational behavior leader becomes one with the organization and the environment. For
when leaders realize perceptions vary they can improve realities; and when leaders improve
realities, they can then improve results. As Gladwell (2002) asserts, “What must underlie
144
successful epidemics, in the end, is the bedrock belief that change is possible, and that people
can radically transform their behavior or beliefs in the face of the right kind of impetus” (p. 258).
The right impetus being just that—organizational behavior leadership, a leadership thinking that
leverages and manages organizational behavior to drive unprecedented results.
145
APPENDIX A
DIFFERENTIATING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR SUBFIELDS
146
Table A.1
Differentiating Organizational Behavior Subfields
Micro Organizational
Behavior
Macro Organizational
Behavior
Meso Organizational
Behavior
Focused on individuals working
alone or working in groups
Focused on action of the group
or an organization as a whole
Focused on behavior within
groups and teams
Individual differences
Organizational power
Interdependence
Adaptability
Reward
Pooled
Demographic experience
Coercive
Sequential
Cultural experience
Legitimate
Reciprocal
Muscular strength
Referent (Charismatic)
Comprehensive
Endurance
Expert
Movement quality
Structural
Verbal ability
Quantitative ability
Uncertainty reduction
Substantiality
Centrality
Reasoning ability
Spatial ability
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Openness
Extroversion
Emotional stability
Personality characteristics
Organizational politics
Organizational roles
Extroversion
Functional
Emotional stability
Hierarchical
Agreeableness
Inclusionary
Conscientiousness
Openness to experience
(continued)
147
Micro Organizational
Behavior
Macro Organizational
Behavior
Meso Organizational
Behavior
Focused on individuals working
alone or working in groups
Focused on action of the group
or an organization as a whole
Focused on behavior within
groups and teams
Diversity
Organizational conflict
Communication
Ethnicity
Encoding
Cultural
Transmission
Race
Decoding
Perception
Structural interdependence
Efficiency
Decision making
Organizational structure
Motivation
Prebureaucratic
Motivation factors
Bureaucratic
Hygiene factors
Postbureacratic
Simple undifferentiated
Simple differentiated
Functional
Divisional
Matrix
Mulitunit
Modular
Virtual
Creativity
Hierarchy & Centralization
Work Design
Tall hierarchy
Flat hierarchy
Integration
Differentiation
Work motivation
Organizational design
Group dynamics
Mechanistic
Functional grouping
Organic
Work flow grouping
Group development
Initiation
Differentiation
Integration
Maturity
Process loss
Group synergy
(continued)
148
Micro Organizational
Behavior
Macro Organizational
Behavior
Meso Organizational
Behavior
Focused on individuals working
alone or working in groups
Focused on action of the group
or an organization as a whole
Focused on behavior within
groups and teams
Job Performance
Technology
Team effectiveness
Task structure
Communication structure
Group size
Group composition
Group motivation
Group cohesiveness
Group conflict
Job satisfaction
External environment
Leadership
Leader traits
Energy level
Cognitive ability
Technical skills
Knowledge
Leader decision-making styles
Authoritarian
Democratic
Laissez-faire
Leader behaviors
Employee-oriented
Job-oriented
Leadership styles
Leadership characteristics
Extroverted
Conscientious
Emotionally stable
Open to experience
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Stress
Organizational culture
Attitudes
Organizational change
Turnover & Absenteeism
Organizational development
Note. Leadership is repeatedly notated in micro organizational behavior and meso organizational behavior. Some
research has even placed leadership under macro organizational behavior. Sources: Greenberg (2011); Miner (2006);
Pfeffer (1991); Sims (2002); Staw (1991); Wagner and Hollenbeck (2005)
149
APPENDIX B
DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
150
Table B.1
Organizational Behavior – Definitions and References
Reference
Definition of organizational behavior
Greenberg, 2011, p. 3
Multidisciplinary field that seeks knowledge of behavior in organizational
settings by systematically studying individual, group, and organizational
processes.
Miner, 2005; Miner, 2006
Focuses on the behavior and nurture of people within an organization. An
applied social science discipline that is concerned with the interplay of
practice and application. Organizational behavior is not strategic
management, economics, or philosophy.
Owens, 1998, p. 21
A discipline that seeks to describe, understand, and predict human behavior in
the environment of formal organizations.
Nelson & Quick, 2009, p.3
Study of individual behavior and group dynamics in an organization,
primarily focusing on the psychosocial, interpersonal, and behavioral
dynamics in organizations.
Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005
Focuses on observable behaviors that involve an analysis of how people
behave both as individuals and as members of groups and organizations. A
field of study that attempts to understand, explain, predict, and change human
behavior as it occurs with the organizational milieu.
Sims, 2002
Actions and attitudes of people in an organization.
Wilson, 2001
Examines the interface between the individual, other individuals and groups
within the organization.
Colquitt et al., 2009, p. 7
A field of study devoted to understanding, explaining, and ultimately
improving the attitudes and behaviors of individuals and groups in
organizations.
Bowditch & Buono, 2001
Study of people, groups, and their interactions in an organization.
Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 9
A field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and
structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purpose of applying
such knowledge toward improving an organization’s effectiveness.
151
APPENDIX C
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS/CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS
152
Table C.1
Strategic Planning Process/Change Management Models
Change Management Models
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
McKinsey7-S Framework
Kotter’s Change Management
STEPS
STEPS
Shared values
Strategy
Structure
Systems
Style
Staff
Skills
Peters and Waterman (1984)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Establish a sense of urgency
Form a powerful guiding
coalition
Create a vision
Communicate vision
Empower others to act on the
vision
Plan for and create short-term
wins
Consolidate improvements and
produce still more change
Institutionalize new approaches
Lewin’s Change Management
STEPS
1.
2.
3.
Unfreezing – recognize a need
for change
Changing – implement the
planned change
Freezing – accept newly
changed state
Lewin (1947)
Kotter (1995, 1996, 2012)
Seven Steps to Change
STEPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mobilize energy and
commitment through joint
identification of problems and
solutions
Develop shared vision of how
to organize and manage
competitiveness
Identify leadership
Focus on results, not on
activities
Start change at the periphery,
let it spread to other units
without pushing it from the top
Institutionalize success from
formal policies, systems, and
structures
Monitor and adjust strategies in
response to problems in the
change process
Coghlan and MacAuliffe Model of
Large System Change
STEPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Develop a plan
Provide a vision for the future
Articulate vision and deliver
implementation plan
Communicate vision and
details of the plan to
stakeholders
Gain support of plan
Position the appropriate
arrangements in place to
facilitate implementation
Implement changes
Embed the change in the
organization
Model of Change
STEPS
1.
Analyze the organization and
its need for change
2. Create vision and common
direction
3. Separate the past
4. Create sense of urgency
5. Support a strong leader role
6. Line up political sponsorship
7. Craft an implementation plan
8. Develop enabling structures
9. Communicate, be honest and
involve people
10. Reinforce and institutionalize
change
Kanter, Stein, & Jick (1992)
O’Shea, McAuliffe, & Wyness
(2007)
Luecke (2003)
(continued)
153
Change Management Models
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Seven Stages of Six Sigma
Implementation
6 Step Change Management
Process
Change Management Strategic
Framework: A Six-Step Process
STEPS
STEPS
STEPS
Envisioning
Strategizing
Developing
Implementing
Improving
Sustaining
Abandoning
1.
2.
3.
4.
Moosa & Sajid (2010)
5.
6.
Identify a best practice
operating model
Implement a comprehensive
governance structure
Aggressively transition to the
new organization structure
Proactively manage
stakeholders, communication
and employee engagement
Define and implement new
business processes
Develop employee capabilities
and reinvent the culture
Halm (2014)
154
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Prepare the organization
Develop a vision and
implementation plan
Checking
Communicate plan and engage
workforce
Implementation
Evaluation
Price & Chahal (2006)
APPENDIX D
LENS MODEL SINGLE SYSTEM DESIGN
155
Figure D.1 provides a visual representation of the Lens Model and the fundamental
components that make this model a useful tool when utilizing the policy capturing approach.
Lens Model
Single System Design
CUES
ECOLOGY
SUBJECT
JUDGMENTS
(CRITERION UNKNOWN
OR UNMEASURED)
Cue
Utilization
Validities
Source: (Cooksey, 1996a)
Figure D.1. Lens model – single system design. Source: (Cooksey, 1996a)
156
APPENDIX E
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF BRUNSWIK’S LENS MODEL
157
When delving deeper into analysis of the Lens model, there is a mathematical
formulation of the Brunswik’s lens model, within the linear framework that denotes both the
judgments and the criterion being judged as functions of cues in the environment.
Figure E.1. Mathematical formulation of Brunswik’s lens model. Diagram from Hogarth &
Karelaia (2007). Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association. See “The
Mathematical Formulation of Brunswik’s Lens Model” section of the introductory text for a
description of terms.
158
APPENDIX F
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DETERMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ADMINISTRATOR AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF MICRO AND MACRO
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING
159
MICRO AND MACRO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographical Data
INSTRUCTIONS: Information on this questionnaire will remain confidential and anonymous.
Please check one space for each item that best applies.
Gender: Male _____
Female _____
Year of Birth: __________
Race/Ethnicity:
African American or Black _____
Asian American _____
Pacific Islander _____
Other (please specify): ______________
Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish Origin_____
Caucasian or White _____
American Indian or Alaska Native _____
Employment:
Teaching Experience (include this year) _____
Administrative Experience (include this year) _____
Principal (check box) _____
Assistant Principal (check box) _____
QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: You will be provided 34 questions. The 34
questions will consist of Likert scale questions, scenario questions, closed-ended filter questions, and
a weighting question. This is not a test. There are no correct answers. In spite of the fact there may
be other influencing factors, please use the information provided to indicate how you perceive the
micro and macro organizational behaviors. Circle responses you perceive to be accurate.
160
LIKERT SCALE QUESTIONS: For this questionnaire exercise, read the Likert scale
question, evaluate the statement, and then circle your response on the organizational behavior.
There is no right answer. It is not a test. Below is the criteria coding scale:
1 = strongly disagree
6 = strongly agree
1. An employee’s professional development and/or training(s) are more important on the
performance of the organization than the leadership of that organization.
1

strongly
disagree
2
3
4
5
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
6

strongly
agree
2. An employee’s positive and/or negative feelings, attitudes, and emotions about their job
are more important than if the organization improves efficiency, effectiveness, and
performance as a result of planned or unplanned changes within the organization.
1

strongly
disagree
2
3
4
5
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
6

strongly
agree
3. The ability for employees to generate or recognize new ideas, alternatives, or possibilities
on the job is less important than the way an organization arranges people within the
organization (i.e. teams, departments, units, branches, networks) to improve its
performance.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
4. The leadership of an organization is more important than the way in which people work
together (i.e. teams, departments, units, branches, networks) within the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
161
5. Organizational systems and processes that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
organization are more important than an employee’s ability to generate or recognize new
ideas, alternatives, or possibilities on the job.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
6. Employee training/professional development aimed to improve the skills, activities,
thinking and/or processes of its employees that make the organization more efficient and
effective is more important than the employee’s emotional and physiological reactions
that occur in response to the training/professional development.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
7. To improve the performance of an organization the leadership is more important than the
employee’s professional development.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
8. It is less important if employees lose their ability to generate new ideas, alternatives, or
possibilities on the job than if the organization improves its performance by the way in
which people are arranged within the organization (i.e. teams, departments, units,
branches, and networks).
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
162
9. The processes and systems that achieve the vision, mission, and goals of the organization
are more important than the employee’s emotional and physiological reactions that occur
as a result of the processes and systems that improve the efficiency and effectiveness in
the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
10. Planned or unplanned changes (i.e. changes in technology, organization’s vision and
mission, personnel) in the organization are more important than the leadership of the
organization during the change process.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
11. The emotional and physiological reaction to change in an organization (i.e. new
technology, reorganization, changes in leadership) is more important than the planned or
unplanned changes that lead to improved performance within the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
12. The way an organization arranges employees (i.e. teams, departments, units, branches,
networks) to improve organizational performance is more important than if employees
experience positive or negative feelings, attitudes, and/or emotions about their job as a
result of the arrangement of employees in the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
163
13. Professional development/training that enhances the skill level of its employees and helps
the organization become more efficient and effective is more important than the ability
for employees to generate or recognize new ideas, alternatives, or different ways to solve
problems in their job.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
SCENARIO QUESTIONS: For this questionnaire exercise, read the scenario and then
respond to the scenario statement based on the scenario you read. Circle the answer that you feel
best indicates your perception on the organizational behavior. There is no right answer. It is not
a test. Below is the criteria coding scale:
1
6
= strongly disagree
= strongly agree
14. The leaders in an organization make significant organizational changes that improve the
efficiency, effectiveness, and performance of the organization. However as a result of
these changes there is a significant decrease in the positive feelings, attitudes, and
emotions that employees now experience as a result of the organizational changes.
Intended or unintended changes in an organization that improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and performance of the organization are more important than the feelings,
attitudes, and emotions that employees experience as a result of the changes in the
organization.
1

strongly
disagree
2
3
4
5
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
164
6

strongly
agree
15. The Board of Trustees is strongly considering the hiring of a new leader or redesigning
the organization to make it more efficient and effective. Both aspects are important for
improved performance results. After much discussion the Board agrees that integrating
the people, information, and systems is the most effective and efficient way to achieve
organizational goals.
The integration of people, information, structures, culture and systems in an organization
is more important than the leadership of the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
16. An organization has experienced significant performance results because of new
professional development and training for its employees. However, many employees in
that organization have now experienced a decrease in their emotional and physiological
wellbeing as a result of the new professional development and training. Due to the
improved performance results, the organization decides to keep moving forward with
new professional development and training.
When the organization is experiencing significant performance results, professional
development and training is more important than an employee’s emotional and
physiological wellbeing.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
165
17. Many of the employees in an organization are feeling overwhelmed, burned out, and
experiencing health related issues. According to the employees they state their emotional
and physiological reactions are coming from the way the in which the organization
arranges employees (i.e. teams, departments, units, branches, networks). The
rearrangement of employees in the organization has improved productivity, efficiency,
and effectiveness in the organization.
When the organization experiences improved performance as a result of the formal
configuration of people (i.e. teams, departments, units, branches, networks) it is more
important than the emotional and physiological reactions that comes from the way in
which people are arranged in the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
18. An organization has found a way to integrate people, information, and systems in an even
more effective and efficient manner to achieve the organizational goals. Consequently,
the new management approach will take away the employees ability to generate or
recognize new ideas, alternatives, or possibilities on the job.
A management style or approach that makes an organization more efficient and effective
is more important than if the employees lose their ability to be artistic, imaginative, and
inventive on the job.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
19. Employees in an organization feel it is more important they receive high quality training
that will improve their personal skills, thinking, and decision making on the job; rather
than who the organization hires as their next leader.
The leadership in an organization is less important than the professional development or
training of its employees.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
166
20. Data reports indicate an organization has improved their efficiency and effectiveness by
integrating people, information systems, and organizational systems in a better process;
however the new process has caused employees in the organization to have more
negative feelings, attitudes, and emotions towards their job.
A person’s feelings, attitudes, and emotions about their job are more important than the
organizational processes and systems that improve overall efficiency and effectiveness.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
21. An organization has restructured, now putting employees in teams, departments, units,
branches, and networks. As a result of this organizational restructuring, employees have
lost their ability to generate or recognize new ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that lead
to problem solving on the job. However, the restructuring has improved the performance
of the organization.
The ability for employees to be artistic, imaginative, inventive, and innovative on the job
is less important than if the organization is efficient, effective, and more productive as a
result of the formal configurations in the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
22. Employees begin to experience heightened levels of emotional and physiological anxiety
as a result of operational changes, strategy changes, and management changes in the
organization. In spite of this, the new changes in the organization have resulted in
exceptional organizational performance and results.
The new changes in the organization are more important than the employee’s emotional
and physiological anxiety because of the improved organizational performance and
results.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
167
23. In the last ten years an organization has experienced great success as a result of utilizing
people, information and systems in the most effective and efficient manner to achieve the
organizational goals. The organization has also had the same excellent leader for ten
years. The excellent leader is going to retire. All employees are concerned about the
new leader coming in and all employees are concerned about the inability of the
organization to continue utilizing people, information and systems in the most efficient
and effective manner to achieve the organizational goals.
Leadership is more important than the way in which people, information, and systems are
integrated in the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
24. Employees have been told there will be organizational restructuring that is going to
improve the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the organization as well as how
employees do their job. Consequently, the restructuring in the organization will take
away the employee’s ability to generate or recognize new ideas, alternatives, or
possibilities that lead to problem solving.
The ability for employees to be artistic, imaginative, inventive, and innovative on the job
is more important than organizational restructuring that improves the performance,
efficiency, and effectiveness of the organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
168
25. Employees in an organization have extremely positive feelings, attitudes, and emotions
towards their job. The organization wants to offer its employees a proven professional
development that will improve their knowledge, skills, decision-making, and ability to do
their job more effectively and efficiently. The professional development will improve the
performance of the organization significantly. However, the likelihood of employees
experiencing negative feelings, attitudes, and emotions towards their job is definite.
The positive feelings, attitudes, and emotions towards one’s job are more important than
the professional development and training that improves efficiency, effectiveness,
productivity and performance of an organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
26. An organization underwent restructuring to improve the processes in which people,
information, and systems were interacting. As result the organization has quickly
experienced improved efficiency, effectiveness, and organizational performance.
Consequently, one significant drawback is the physical, emotional, and mental
exhaustion employees have experienced since the restructuring.
One’s emotional and physiological well-being is more important than the improved
efficiency, effectiveness, and organizational performance that come from the way in
which people, information, and systems interact.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
169
27. An organization is performing very poorly. Systems and processes in the organization
are ineffective. The leadership in the organization is also quite ineffective. To improve
their performance, the organization must decide to experience some immediate planned
and unplanned changes to the systems and processes within the organization or to
experience a change in leadership.
To improve organizational performance, the leadership in an organization is more
important than the planned and/or unplanned changes to systems/processes in an
organization.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
28. Employees are able to receive training that will improve their knowledge, skills, thinking,
and decision making on the job. The training will improve organizational efficiency,
effectiveness, and productivity. However, this training will take away the employees
ability to be artistic, imaginative, inventive, and innovative on the job.
Employee training and professional development that improves organizational
performance is more important than if an employee loses his/her ability to be artistic,
imaginative, inventive, and innovative on the job as a result of the training/professional
development.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
29. An organization has arranged employees in teams, departments, units, branches, and
networks. As a result, there has been improved performance, efficiency, effectiveness
and productivity in the organization. Regrettably, the way employees have been grouped
has now resulted in negative feelings, attitudes, and emotions towards their job.
Arranging employees and groups of employees to improve organizational performance is
more important than employees who experience negative feelings, attitudes, and emotions
towards their job as a result of being arranged in teams, departments, units, branches,
and/or networks.
1

2
3
4
5
6

strongly
disagree
disagree
somewhat
disagree
somewhat
agree
agree
strongly
agree
170
CLOSED-ENDED FILTER QUESTIONS: For this questionnaire exercise, read the
closed-ended filter question and provide your perception on the organizational behavior. There
is no right answer. It is not a test.
30. What do you perceive to be more important? (Circle the statement you agree with most)


Organizational behaviors that focus on the individual or working in groups.
or
Organizational behaviors that focus on the organization as a whole.
OB’s that focus on the individual
OB’s that focus on the organization
Creativity
Job Satisfaction
Leadership
Stress
Organizational Change
Organizational Development
Organizational Design
Organizational Structure
31. Of the four organizational behaviors listed below, which ONE do you feel is the most
important for improving your performance on the job: leadership, creativity, job
satisfaction, or stress? Please only circle one.
Creativity
Leadership
Stress
Job Satisfaction
Of the four organizational behaviors listed below, which ONE do you perceive to be the
most important for improving organizational performance: organizational structure,
organizational design, organizational change, or organizational development? Please only
circle one.
Organizational Change
Organizational Design
Organizational Development
Organizational Structure
171
Organizational change – planned or unplanned changes in the organization
Organizational design – management style or approach used by leadership to implement or
support the organizational structure; including organizational
systems and processes that improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the organization
Organizational development – professional development intended to enhance the personal
development of individuals and improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the organization
Organizational structure – formal configuration in which individuals and groups are arranged
in an organization (i.e. teams, departments, units, branches, and
networks)
32. Look at the box below. Circle the ONE organizational behavior that you perceive to be
the most important for improving organizational performance. Please only circle one.
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Change
Organizational Development
Stress
Creativity
Organizational Structure
Organizational Design
Leadership
172
WEIGHTING QUESTION: For this questionnaire exercise, please distribute 100 points
for each of the two types of organizational behaviors (micro and macro), based on the weight
you perceive the organizational behavior should get. There is no right or wrong weighting.
33. Weight the following based on what you perceive would be the estimate of the relative
weight you would give each organizational behavior; the sum needs to be 100.
Micro
Organizational Behavior
Macro
Organizational Behavior
Creativity
_______
Organizational
Change
_______
Job Satisfaction
_______
Organizational
Development
_______
Leadership
_______
Organizational
Design
_______
Stress
_______
Organizational
Structure
_______
100
173
100
APPENDIX G
HIGH-PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS, HIGH-PERFORMING PEOPLE,
AND HIGH-PERFORMING LEADERS
174
Table G.1
High-performing Organizations, High-performing People, and High-performing Leaders
High-Performing
Source
Organizations
Excel in four primary management practices: clear and focused
Nohria, Joyce, & Roberson
strategy, impeccable operational execution, performance-oriented (2003)
culture, and build a fast, flexible, flat organizational structure.
The organization is focused on the cornerstone of intellectual
capital, the knowledge, expertise, and energy available from their
members in the organization.
Schermerhorn (2010)
Put people first in the organization.
Pfeffer (1998)
Not only recognize that each employee is different, but also
capitalizes on employee’ differences.
Buckingham & Clifton
(2001)
Consistently are able to turn knowledge into action, and do so
even as they are growing and taking on new people and even
other organizations.
Pfeffer & Sutton (2000)
Recognize that people are the decisive bedrock to sustainable
high performance results.
Schermerhorn (2010)
Hold utmost authenticity to the organization’s ideology; attain
consistent alignment to the ideology; preserve the core and
stimulate progress; and articulate both the organization’s core
values and organization’s purpose in their core ideology.
Collins & Porras (1994)
People
Tend to be task-related rather than relationship driven.
Pettinger (2010)
Proactive, take responsibility for their choices, change agent,
begin with the end in mind, put first things first, prioritize
urgencies, think win/win, think opportunity rather than scarcity,
seek first to understand, then to be understood, and synergize.
Covey (2004)
Exceedingly hardworking, often lucky to be in the right place at
that right time, and spend more than 10,000 hours of working on
a skill.
Gladwell (2008)
(continued)
175
High-Performing
Source
People, Cont.
Find one’s own voice, and inspire others to find their voice.
Visionary, exceedingly disciplined, unrelenting passion,
unwavering conscience.
Covey (2006)
Demonstrates a high level of internal motivation, assertiveness,
personal enthusiasm and the individual’s willingness to take a
challenging responsibility confidently and perform it well.
Tener (1993)
Exhibit personality traits of self-awareness, resilience, bravery,
embrace change, value of oneself, and pursue new knowledge.
Elliot (2012)
Possesses superior people skills.
Goldsmith (2004)
Self-motivated, enjoy what they do, empower themselves,
constantly learning how to do their job better and takes
responsibility for their actions.
Tschohl (1999)
Demonstrates a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset.
Dweck (2008)
Consistently renew themselves in four basic areas: physical,
social/emotional, mental and spiritual, problem-solve and
embrace individual differences.
Covey (2004)
One’s culture, one’s family, one’s generation, and the personal
experiences of one’s upbringing impact one’s performance
success.
Gladwell (2008)
Leaders
Manages time, understands what to contribute to the
organization, knows where and how to mobilize strength for the
best effect, sets the right priorities, and links them all together
with effective decision-making.
Drucker (1993)
Relentlessly asks questions—why, why, why?
Collins (2009)
Possesses a high degree of emotional intelligence.
Goleman (1998, 2004)
Recognizes that leadership is a shared responsibility by all
members of the organization.
Drucker & Collins (2008)
(continued)
176
High-Performing
Source
Leaders, Cont.
Never believes they have reached ultimate success because they
realize they have never understood all the factors that have
brought them success in the first place.
Collins (2009)
Exhibit a high focus on systems, high focus on learning from
past, high focus on information, low tolerance for actions that are
inconsistent with the values of the organization and constant
motivation to improve organizational performance.
Larson et al. (2012)
Additional Research
Improved performance is derived by the leader and the
organization understanding the individual’s growth and
development needs, and then providing performance-contingent
opportunities for the individual to fulfill those needs.
Griffin & O’Leary-Kelly
(2004)
There are more ways to fall then be great, and sustained
performance is found by understanding how greatness can be
lost.
Collins (2009)
Effectiveness is learned.
Drucker (1993)
An excellent organization have a strong leader, shared values, are Peters & Waterman (1984)
fiscally sound, value innovation, are effective at communication,
intuitive, creative, comprise a strong culture, demonstrate
exceptional organizational fluidity, understands that every
individual seeks meaning and exhibits a learning organization.
Disciplined creativity and a culture of discipline leads to
greatness.
177
Collins (2009)
REFERENCES
A critical analysis of communication approaches for implementing organizational change.
(2012). Business & Management Review, 1(11), 27-35.
Abu-Hamour, H. M. J. (2012). The role of organizational development to improve the Jordanian
universities effectiveness. International Journal of Business & Management, 7(19), 7683.
Adair, J. E. (1973). Action-centred leadership. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Adelman, L., Stewart, T. R., & Hammond, K. R. (1975). A case history of the application of
social judgment theory to policy formulation. POLICY Sciences, 6(2), 137-159.
Adler, J. (2012). R in a nutshell (2nd ed.). Beijing, China: O’Reilly.
Agnes, M. (2001). Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Cleveland, OH: Webster’s
New World.
Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Mathieu, J. E., & Bolander, W. (2010). Why are some salespeople
better at adapting to organizational change? Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 65-79.
Ahmed, I., & Ahmad, Z. (2011). Explicit and implicit factors of job satisfaction: A combination
that works. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(12), 577586.
Aiman-Smith, L., Scullen, S. E., & Barr, S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in
organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based
techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 388-414.
Ali, F., Karamat, M., Noreen, H., Khurram, M., Chuadary, A., Nadeem, M., . . . Farman, S.
(2011). The effect of job stress and job performance on employee’s commitment.
European Journal of Scientific Research, 60(2), 285-294.
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(2), 48-64.
Allen, N. J., & John, P. M. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
63(1), 1-18.
Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (2011). The SAGE handbook of complexity and
management. London: SAGE.
178
Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10, 123.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what we love and
loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity in during
downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630-640.
Amabile, T. M., & Sansabaugh, S. J. (1992). High creativity versus low creativity: What makes
the difference? In S. S. Gryskiewicz & D. A. Hills (Eds.), Readings in innovation (pp. 1928) Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
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.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard
Business Review, 80(8), 52-61.
Amah, O. E. (2009). Job satisfaction and turnover intention relationship: The moderating effect
of job role centrality and life satisfaction. Research & Practice in Human Resource
Management, 17(1), 64-74.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1991). Improving organizational structure.
New York, NY: Author.
Anderson, D. L. (2010). Organization development: The process of leading organizational
change. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Andrew, J. R., & Sirkin, H. L. (2003). Innovating for cash. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 7683.
Arkes, H. R., & Hammond, K. R. (1986). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary
reader. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-704.
179
Armstrong, M. (2012). Armstrong’s handbook of management and leadership: Developing
effective people skills for better leadership and management (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA:
Kogan Page.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2005). Coping with downsizing: A comparison of executive-level and
middle managers. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 117-141.
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report choice
situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 377-385.
Astley, W. G. (1985). Organizational size and bureaucratic structure. Organization Studies, 6(3),
201.
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Axtell, C., Holman, D., & Wall, T. (2006). Promoting innovation: A change study. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 509-516.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination
of their antecedents and simultaneity. Journal of Marketing, 44(2), 65-77.
Bakker, A. B., Van Emmerik, H., & Van Riet, P. (2008). How job demands, resources, and
burnout predict objective performance: A constructive replication. Anxiety, Stress &
Coping, 21(3), 309-324.
Bal, V., Campbell, M., & McDowell-Larsen, S. (2009). Good vs. bad stress. Personal
Excellence, 14(1), 10.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1994). Third-order organizational change and the Western
mystical tradition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(1), 24.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership
and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73-87.
Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization
structuring: Where organization design meets organizational development. Organization
Science, 11(2), 197-211.
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency
theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398.
180
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Beckman, S. L. (2009). Introduction to a symposium on organizational design. California
Management Review, 51(4), 6-10.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker
support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21(4), 391.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Bennett, H., & Durkin, M. (2000). The effects of organisational change on employee
psychological attachment: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
15(2), 126-146.
Bennis, W. G. (1969). Organization development: Its nature, origins, and prospects. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Bennis, W. G. (2003). On becoming a leader (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub.
Berkowitz, D., & Wren, B. M. (2013). Creating strategic commitment in franchise systems:
establishing the link between leadership, organizational structure, and performance.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 481-492.
Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Harris, S. G. (2011). Change fatigue: Development and initial
validation of a new measure. Work & Stress, 25(4), 321-337.
Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1985). The organization and its ecosystem: A theory of
structuring in organizations. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.
Blackburn, R., & Cummings, L. L. (1982). Cognitions of work unit structure. Academy of
Management Journal, 25(4), 836-854.
Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, S. (1982). The one minute manager (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Morrow.
Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, S. (1983). The one minute manager (10th anniversary ed.). New
York, NY: Berkley Books.
Blanchard, K. H., & Ken Blanchard Companies. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on
leadership and creating high performing organizations (rev. and expanded ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
181
Bobbitt, H. R., Jr., & Behling, O. C. (1981). Organizational behavior: A review of the literature.
The Journal of Higher Education, 52(1), 29-44.
Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and
organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 152-170.
Boga, I., & Ensari, N. (2009). The role of transformational leadership and organizational change
on perceived organizational success. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(4), 235-251.
Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic
relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12(1),
19-44.
Borkowski, N. (2005). Organizational behavior in health care. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett
Publishers.
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bowditch, J. L., & Buono, A. F. (2001). A primer on organizational behavior (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Brännmark, M., & Benn, S. (2012). A proposed model for evaluating the sustainability of
continuous change programmes. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 231-245.
Braun, H. I., Jackson, D. N., Wiley, D. E., & Messick, S. (2002). The role of constructs in
psychological and educational measurement. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Brehmer, B. (1976). Social judgment theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict.
Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 985-1003.
Brehmer, B. (1988). Human judgment: The SJT view. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Pub. Co.
Brimm, J. L. (1983). What stresses school administrators. Theory into Practice, 22(1), 64.
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T. T., Shacklock, K., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence,
job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organisational commitment and
turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 428-441.
Bryant, M. T. (2004). The portable dissertation advisor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bryson, A., Barth, E., & Dale-Olsen, H. (2013). The effects of organizational change on worker
well-being and the moderating role of trade unions. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,
66(4), 989-1011.
182
Buckingham, M. (2005). The one thing you need to know: About great managing, great leading,
and sustained individual success. New York, NY: Free Press.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources function: It’s
the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 17-23.
Buono, A. F., & Kerber, K. W. (2010). Creating a sustainable approach to change: Building
organizational change capacity. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), 4-21.
Burnes, B. (1996). No such thing as ... a “one best way” to manage organizational change.
Management Decision, 34(10), 11-18.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics (5th
ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, England: Tavistock.
Busco, C., Frigo, M. L., Giovannoni, E., & Maraghini, M. P. (2012). Control vs. creativity.
Strategic Finance, 94(2), 29-36.
By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change
Management, 5(4), 369-380.
Campion, M. A. (1991). Meaning and measurement of turnover: Comparison of alternative
measures and recommendations for research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 199212.
Carkenord, D. M., & Stephens, M. G. (1994). Understanding student judgments of teaching
effectiveness: A ‘policy capturing’ approach. Journal of Psychology, 128(6), 675-682.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Carzo, R., Jr., & Yanouzas, J. N. (1969). Effects of flat and tall organization structure.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 178-191.
Chhinzer, N. N. (2007). Evaluating layoff techniques: A policy-capturing study of voluntary
versus involuntary layoffs (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest. (NR28125)
183
Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 18(2), 168-185.
Child, J. (1974). What determines organization: The universals vs. the it-all-depends.
Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 2-18.
Choudhary, A., Akhtar, S., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant
leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business
Ethics, 116(2), 433-440.
Chung-Ming, L. A. U., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A
schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 537-554.
Clegg, S., Barling, J., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior.
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Clement, R. W. (1994). Culture, leadership, and power: The keys to organizational change.
Business Horizons, 37(1), 33.
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An
introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Çokpekin, Ö., & Knudsen, M. P. (2012). Does organizing for creativity really lead to
innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), 304-314.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap--and others don’t (1st
ed.). New York, NY: Harper Business.
Collins, J. C. (2009). How the mighty fall: And why some companies never give in. New York,
NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Collins, J. C., & Hansen, M. T. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck: Why
some thrive despite them all (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies (1st
ed.). New York, NY: Harper Business.
Colquitt, J., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2009). Organizational behavior: Improving
performance and commitment in the workplace. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Conceição, S. C. O., & Altman, B. A. (2011). Training and development process and
organizational culture change. Organization Development Journal, 29(1), 33-43.
Connellan, T. K. (1978). How to improve human performance: Behaviorism in business and
industry. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
184
Conner, L. I. (1998). A Yeats dictionary: Persons and places in the poetry of William Butler
Yeats (1st ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Connolly, T., Arkes, H. R., & Hammond, K. R. (2000). Judgment and decision making: An
interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, R. L., & Stewart, T. R. (1975). A comparison of seven methods for obtaining subjective
descriptions of judgmental policy. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,
13(1), 31-45.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996a). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996b). The methodology of social judgement theory. Thinking & Reasoning,
2(2/3), 141-174.
Cooksey, R. W., & Freebody, P. (1986). Social judgment theory and cognitive feedback: A
general model for analyzing educational policies and decisions. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 8(1), 17-29.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: FreePress.
Covey, S. R. (2006). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. Philadelphia, PA: Running
Press.
Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1989). Analysis of binary data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Chapman
and Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (1999). A 5-year study of change in the relationship between
well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
51(4), 252-265.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169.
Cummings, L. L. (1978). Toward organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review,
3(1), 90-98.
Cummings, L. L. (1982). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 541.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A
185
longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377-392.
Cushway, B., & Lodge, D. (1993). Organisational behaviour and design. London, England:
Kogan Page.
Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing survey: A guide to decisions and procedures (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Dabke, D. (2014). Can life satisfaction be predicted by emotional intelligence, job satisfaction
and personality type? Aweshkar Research Journal, 17(1), 22-32.
Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson SouthWestern.
Daft, R. L. (2010). Organization theory and design (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western
Cengage Learning.
Darling, J., & Heller, V. (2012). Effective organizational consulting across cultural boundaries:
A case focusing on leadership styles and team-Building. Organization Development
Journal, 30(4), 54-72.
De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at
work: The role of feedback-setting behavior in creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(4), 811-831.
De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = Communication?
The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing
and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(3), 367-380.
DeGroot, T., & Brownlee, A. L. (2006). Effect of department structure on the organizational
citizenship behavior–department effectiveness relationship. Journal of Business
Research, 59(10-11), 1116-1123. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.020
Delgado-Rico, E., Carretero-Dios, H., & Ruch, W. (2012). Content validity evidences in test
development: An applied perspective. International Journal of Clinical Health &
Psychology, 12(3), 449-460.
Delić, A., & Ahmetović, E. (2013). Characteristics of organizational structure of Bosnian and
Herzegovian companies. Economic Review: Journal of Economics & Business, 11(2), 3143.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging ‘resistance to change.’ Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25.
186
Diamond, M. A., & Allcorn, S. (1985). Psychological dimensions of role use in bureaucratic
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 14(1), 35-59.
DiBella, A. J. (2000). Learning practices: Assessment and action for organizational
improvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dick, W., & Hagerty, N. (1971). Topics in measurement; reliability and validity. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior,
or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(4), 865-877.
Diliello, T. C., Houghton, J. D., & Dawley, D. (2011). Narrowing the creativity gap: The
moderating effects of perceived support for creativity. Journal of Psychology, 145(3),
151-172.
Dixon, S., & Day, M. (2010). The rise and fall of Yukos: A case study of success and failure in
an unstable institutional environment. Journal of Change Management, 10(3), 275-292.
Dobson, A. J., & Barnett, A. G. (2008). An introduction to generalized linear models (3rd ed.).
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Doherty, M. E., & Kurz, E. M. (1996). Social judgement theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 2(2/3),
109-140.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dong, L. I. U., Hui, L., & 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.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
Drucker, P. F. (1967). The effective executive (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). The effective executive (1st Harper colophon ed.). New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). The effective executive (1st HarperBusiness ed.). New York, NY: Harper
Business.
Drucker, P. F. (2007). People and performance: The best of Peter Drucker on management.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
187
Drucker, P. F., & Collins, J. C. (2008). The five most important questions you will ever ask about
your organization (New ed.). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Drucker, P. F., & Wartzman, R. (2010). The Drucker lectures: Essential lessons on management,
society, and economy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Drzensky, F., Egold, N., & van Dick, R. (2012). Ready for a change? A longitudinal study of
antecedents, consequences and contingencies of readiness for change. Journal of Change
Management, 12(1), 95-111.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the
physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715-734.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20454
Duncan, R. (1979). What is the right organization structure? Decision tree analysis provides the
answer. Organizational Dynamics, 7(3), 59-80.
Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1993). The strategic management of corporate change. Human
Relations, 46(8), 905-920.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books.
Eckles, R. W. (1987). Stress--making friends with the enemy. Business Horizons, 30(2), 74.
Egan, T. M. (2002). Organization development: An examination of definitions and dependent
variables. Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 59-70.
Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination
of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 160181.
Elliot, P. (2012). Seven tips for greatness. Supply Management, 17(11), 50-51.
Epstein, M. J., & Manzoni, J. F. (2004). Performance measurement and management control:
Superior organization performance. Oxford, England: Elsevier JAI.
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement,
and their correlates. New York, NY: Free Press
Falissard, B. (2012). Analysis of questionnaire data with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on
employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29.
188
Ferguson, T. D., & Cheek, R. (2011). How important are situational constraints in understanding
job satisfaction? International Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(22), 221-227.
Fink, A. (2003). The survey kit (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. B. (1998). How to conduct survey: A step by step guide (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Florida, R., & Goodnight, J. (2005). Managing for creativity. Harvard Business Review, 83(7/8),
124-131.
Fox, J. (2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J., Boal, K. B., & Hunt, J. G. (1998). Organizational adaptation to
institutional change: A comparative study of first-order change in prospector and
defender banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 87-126.
French, W. (1969). Organization development, objectives, assumptions and strategies. California
Management Review, 12(2), 23-34.
Fu, W., & Deshpande, S. (2014). The impact of caring climate, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment on job performance of employees in a China’s insurance
company. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 339-349.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most (1st ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Galbraith, J. R. (2002). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure, and
process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
189
George, J. M., & Jing, Z. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605-622.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual change in
organizations. Human Relations, 54(4), 419-444.
Ghiselli, E. E., & Siegel, J. P. (1972). Leadership and managerial success in tall and flat
organization structures. Personnel Psychology, 25(4), 617-624.
Gilley, A., Dixon, P., & Gilley, J. W. (2008). Characteristics of leadership effectiveness:
Implementing change and driving innovation in organizations. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 19(2), 153-169.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston,
MA: Back Bay Books.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success (1st ed.). New York, NY: Little, Brown and
Co.
Glassop, L. I. (2002). The organizational benefits of teams. Human Relations, 55(2), 225.
Golden, B. R. (1992). Research notes. The past is the past--or is it? The use of retrospective
accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 848-860.
Goldsmith, M. (2004). Nice guys can finish first. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/51757/nice-guys-can-finish-first
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93-102.
Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 82-91.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1990). Ironies in organizational development. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative selfefficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
Gorman, C. D., Clover, W. H., & Doherty, M. E. (1978). Can we learn anything about
interviewing real people from “interviews” of paper people? Two studies of the external
validity of a paradigm. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22(2), 165-192.
Gorton, R. A., Alston, J. A., & Snowden, P. E. (2007). School leadership & administration:
important concepts, case studies & simulations (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
190
Gover, L., & Duxbury, L. (2012). Organizational faultlines: Social identity dynamics and
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 12(1), 53-75.
Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (2011). Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J. (2013). Managing behavior in organizations (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Greenberger, D., & Padesky, C. A. (1995). Mind over mood: Change how you feel by changing
the way you think. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank
Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing
together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4),
1022-1054.
Grégoire, D. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2010). Measuring opportunity-recognition
beliefs. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 114-145.
Gresov, C., Haveman, H. A., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Organizational design, inertia and the
dynamics of competitive response. Organization Science, 4(2), 181-208.
Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (2004). The dark side of organizational behavior (1st ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grissom, J. A., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Keiser, L. (2012). Does my boss’s gender matter?
Explaining job satisfaction and employee turnover in the public sector. Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory, 22(4), 649-673.
Halkos, G. E., & Dimitrios, B. (2012). Importance and influence of organizational changes on
companies and their employees. Journal of Advanced Research in Management, 3(2), 90103.
Hall, R. H. (1995). Complex organizations. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.
Hallowell, E. M. (2011). Five steps to ignite peak performance. Chief Learning Officer, 10(2),
40-43.
Hampton, D. R., Summer, C. E., & Webber, R. A. (1987). Organizational behavior and the
practice of management (5th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
191
Hanson, E. M. (1996). Educational administration and organizational behavior (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanson, S. (2013). Change management and organizational effectiveness for the HR
professional. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=chrr
Hargrove, M. B., Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Generating eustress by challenging
employees: Helping people savor their work. Organizational Dynamics, 42(1), 61-69.
Harris, O. J., & Hartman, S. J. (2002). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: Best Business
Books.
Härtel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Emotions in organizational behavior.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of
human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643-659.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hawk, N., & Martin, B. (2011). Understanding and reducing stress in the superintendency.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(3), 364-390.
Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1981). Organizational design: A survey and an approach.
Operations Research, 29(3), 417.
Hayes, C. T., & Weathington, B. L. (2007). Optimism, stress, life satisfaction, and job burnout in
restaurant managers. Journal of Psychology, 141(6), 565-579.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of
resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3),
337-361.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard (1st ed.).
New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Heckscher, C. C., & Donnellon, A. (1994). The post-bureaucratic organization: New
perspectives on organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1973). Organizational design: A contingency approach.
Business Horizons, 16(2), 59.
192
Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than
others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362-375.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569598).
Hering, B. B. (2012). Extinguish burnout-yours and theirs. Managing People at Work, (368), 1.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and
change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change
and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121-151.
Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of
radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257-274.
Hinrichs, G. (2009). Organic organizational design. OD Practitioner, 41(4), 4-11.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
Hitt, M. A., & Barr, S. H. (1989). Managerial selection decision models: Examination of
configural cue processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 53.
Hitt, M. A., & Middlemist, R. D. (1979). A methodology to develop the criteria and criteria
weightings for assessing subunit effectiveness in organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 22(2), 356-374.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives.
Strategic Management Journal, 12(5), 327-351.
Hitt, M. A., Ahlstrom, D., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., & Svobodina, L. (2004). The institutional
effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition economies: China vs. Russia.
Organization Science, 15(2), 173-185.
Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J.-L., & Borza, A. (2000). Partner selection in
emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning
perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 449-467.
193
Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. (2006). Organizational behavior: A strategic approach.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. (2011). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Hoag, B. G., Ritschard, H. V., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Obstacles to effective organizational
change: The underlying reasons. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
23(1/2), 6-15.
Hoffer, W. (1988). Errors on the job can be reduced. Nation’s Business, 76(4), 62.
Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. (2007). Heuristic and linear models of judgment: Matching rules
and environments. Psychological Review, 114(3), 733-758.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational
change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43(2), 232-241,244-245,247-249, 251-255.
Hon, A. H. Y., & Chan, W. W. (2013). The effects of group conflict and work stress on
employee performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 174-184.
Hsiu-Ju, H. S. U. (2013). Factors affecting employee creativity in Taiwan’s hakka clothing
industry. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(2), 271-282.
Huffington, C., Cole, C. F., & Brunning, H. (1997). A manual of organizational development:
The psychology of change. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90.
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2008). Organizational behavior and
management (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Jacobides, M. G. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role
of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18(3), 455-477.
Jacqueline, M., & Milton, M. (2008). The creative environment’s influence on intent to turnover:
A structural equation model and analysis. Management Research News, 31(1), 41-56.
Jamal, M. (2005). Burnout among Canadian and Chinese employees: A cross-cultural study.
European Management Review, 2(3), 224-230.
Jamal, M. (2011). Job stress, job performance and organizational commitment in a multinational
company: An empirical study in two countries. International Journal of Business &
Social Science, 2(20), 20-29.
194
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1976). Organizational structure: A review of structural dimensions
and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 74-113.
Jaskyte, K. (2003). Assessing changes in employees’ perceptions of leadership behavior, job
design, and organizational arrangements and their job satisfaction and commitment.
Administration in Social Work, 27(4), 25-39.
Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2011). Managing change: Cases and concepts (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, W. R., & Doherty, M. E. (1983). Social judgment theory and academic advisement.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(2), 271-274.
Jones, B. B., Brazzel, M., & NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science. (2006). The NTL
handbook of organization development and change: Principles, practices, and
perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Jones, G. R. (2004). Organizational theory, design, and change: Text and cases (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational theory, design, and change (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Jui-Chen, C., & Silverthorne, C. (2008). The impact of locus of control on job stress, job
performance and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 29(7), 572-582.
Kaliprasad, M. (2006). The human factor II: Creating a high performance culture in an
Organization. Cost Engineering, 48(6), 27-34.
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement,
38(4), 319-342.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How
companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York, NY: Free Press.
195
Karren, R. J., & Barringer, M. W. (2002). A review and analysis of the policy-capturing
methodology in organizational research: Guidelines for research and practice.
Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 337-361.
Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., & Callender, A. (2001). State-trait boredom: Relationship of
absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(2), 317327.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General system theory: Applications for organization
and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447-465.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1973). Contingency views of organization and management.
Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
Katsikea, E., Theodosiou, M., Perdikis, N., & Kehagias, J. (2011). The effects of organizational
structure and job characteristics on export sales managers’ job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 221-233.
Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change
management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change
during a merger. British Journal of Management, 17, 81-103.
Kaya, N., Koc, E., & Topcu, D. (2010). An exploratory analysis of the influence of human
resource management activities and organizational climate on job satisfaction in Turkish
banks. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 2031-2051.
Kegan, D. L. (1971). Organizational development: Description, issues, and some research
results. The Academy of Management Journal, 14(4), 453-464.
Kekale, T., Fecikova, I., & Kitaigorodskaia, N. (2004). To make it total: Quality management
over subcultures. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(8), 1093-1108.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Kofoworola, O. H., & Alayode, A. M. (2012). Strategies for managing stress for optimal job
performance. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(2), 162-168.
Kortmann, S. (2012). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational
ambidexterity a comparison between manufacturing and service firms.
Betriebswirtschaftliche Studien in Forschungsintensiven Industrien, 1(1), 182-183.
Kotter, J. P. (1990a). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York,
NY: Free Press.
196
Kotter, J. P. (1990b). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73(2), 59-67.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2013). Great leadership creates great workplaces. Retrieved
from http://unt.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p =1211843
Kumar, N. (2012). Relationship of personal and organizational values with job satisfaction.
Journal of Management Research, 12(2), 75-82.
Labianca, G., Gray, B., & Brass, D. J. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema
change during empowerment. Organization Science, 11(2), 235-257.
Lapierre, L. M. (2007). Supervisor trustworthiness and subordinates’ willingness to provide
extra-role efforts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(2), 272-297.
Larson, M. D., Latham, J. R., Appleby, C. A., & Harshman, C. L. (2012). CEO attitudes and
motivations: Are they different for high-performing organizations? Quality Management
Journal, 19(4), 55-69.
Lawler, E. E. III, Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational climate: Relationship to
organizational structure, process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 11(1), 139-155.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967a). Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-47.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967b). Organization and environment: Managing
differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University.
Lawrence, S. A., & Callan, V. J. (2011). The role of social support in coping during the
anticipatory stage of organizational change: A test of an integrative model. British
Journal of Management, 22(4), 567-585.
Lawson, I., & Cox, B. (2010). Exceeding expectation: The principles of outstanding leadership.
The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 6(1), 4-13.
197
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Leroy, H., Palanski, M., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as
drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3),
255-264.
Levy, A. (1986). Second-order planned change: Definition and conceptualization.
Organizational Dynamics, 15(1), 5-23.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science;
social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lewis, P. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Organizational design: Implications for managerial
decision-making. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 54(4), 13.
Lin, Z. (2000). Organizational restructuring and the impact of knowledge transfer. Journal of
Mathematical Sociology, 24(2), 129-149.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lines, R., Sáenz, J., & Aramburu, N. (2011). Organizational learning as a by-product of
justifications for change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 163-184.
Lissack, M., & Gunz, H. (1999). Managing complexity in organizations: A view in many
directions. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Locke, E. A. (2009). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior: Indispensable
knowledge for evidence-based management (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lopez, D., Green, M., Carmody-Bubb, M., & Kodatt, S. (2011). The relationship between
leadership style and employee stress: An empirical study. International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(3), 170-181.
Lorsch, J. W. (1977). Organization design: A situational perspective. Organizational Dynamics,
6(2), 2-14.
Luecke, R. (2003). Harvard business essentials: Managing change and transition. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., & Sirola, W. (1998). Explaining nursing turnover intent:
Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction or organizational. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
19(3), 305.
198
Luthans, F. (2008). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
Machotka, P. (2012). Understanding aesthetic and creative processes: The complementarity of
idiographic and nomothetic data. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity & the Arts, 6(1),
43-56.
Maertz, C. P., & Boyar, S. L. (2012). Theory-driven development of a comprehensive turnoverattachment motive survey. Human Resource Management, 51(1), 71-98.
Mahajan, J., Churchill, G. A. Jr., Ford, N. M., & Walker, O. C. Jr. (1984). A comparison of the
impact of organizational climate on the job satisfaction of manufacturers’ agents and
company salespeople: An exploratory study. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 4(1), 1-10.
Mallard, J. (2010). Engaging students in social judgment theory. Communication Teacher, 24(4),
197-202.
Marguiles, N. (1973). Organizational development and changes organization climate. Public
Personnel Management, 2(2), 84.
Mariana, P., & Violeta, S. (2011). Opportunity to reduce resistance to change in a process of
organizational change. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series,
20(2), 698-702.
Marjani, A. B., & Ardahaey, F. T. (2012). The relationship between organizational structure and
organizational justice. Asian Social Science, 8(4), 124-130.
Markman, A. B. (2012). Smart thinking: Three essential keys to solve problems, innovate, and
get things done (1st ed.). New York, NY: Perigee.
Markus, K. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Frontiers in test validity theory: Measurement,
causation and meaning (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Martin, G., & Dowling, M. (1995). Managing change, human resource management and Timex.
Journal of Strategic Change, 4(2), 77-94.
Martin, K. D., Johnson, J. L., & Cullen, J. B. (2009). Organizational change, normative control
deinstitutionalization, and corruption. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1), 105-130.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1994). A policy-capturing approach to individuals’ decisions
to be absent. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 358-386.
199
Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2012). Creative leaders promote creative
organizations. International Journal of Manpower, 33(4), 367-382.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2009). The role of leader motivating language in employee
absenteeism. Journal of Business Communication, 46(4), 455-479.
McCaskey, M. B. (1974). An introduction to organizational design. California Management
Review, 17(1), 13.
McClellan, J. G. (2011). Reconsidering communication and the discursive politics of
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 465-480.
McConnell, C. R. (1982). The effective health care supervisor. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems
Corp.
McGrath, R. E. (2005). Conceptual complexity and construct validity. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 85(2), 112-124.
McKay, K., Kuntz, J. R. C., & Näswall, K. (2013). The effect of affective commitment,
communication and participation on resistance to change: The role of change readiness.
New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 29-40.
McMillan, E. M. (2004). Complexity, organizations and change. New York, NY: Routledge.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. Y. (2008). Organizational behavior: Emerging realities
for the workplace revolution (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Mearns, J., & Cain, J. E. (2003). Relationships between teachers’ occupational stress and burnout
and distress: Roles of coping and negative mood regulation expectancies. Anxiety, Stress
& Coping, 16(1), 71.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meško, M., Erenda, I., Videmšek, M., Karpljuk, D., Štihec, J., & Roblek, V. (2013). Relationship
between stress coping strategies and absenteeism among middle-level managers. Odnos
Izmedu Strategija Upravljanja Stresomi Apsentizma Medu Menadzerima Srednje
Rrazine, 18(1), 45-57.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents,
correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
Michael Quinn, P. (1999). Organizational development and evaluation. The Canadian Journal of
Program Evaluation, 14, 93-113.
200
Michel, A., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). I scratch your back - you scratch mine. Do
procedural justice and organizational Identification matter for employees’ cooperation
during change? Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 41-59.
Miles, R. H. (1980). Resourcebook in macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA:
Goodyear.
Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior 1. Essential theories of motivation and leadership.
Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Miner, J. B. (2006a). Organizational behavior 2. Essential theories of process and structure.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Miner, J. B. (2006b). Organizational behavior 3. Historical origins, theoretical foundations, and
the future. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Miner, J. B. (2007). Organizational behavior 4. From theory to practice. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 30(1), 243.
Moberg, D. J., & Koch, J. L. (1975). A critical appraisal of integrated treatments of contingency
finding. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 109-124.
Mobrman, S. A. (2007). Designing organizations for growth: The human resource contribution.
Human Resource Planning, 30(4), 34-45.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. III. (2012). Generating knowledge that drives change. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 41-51.
Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. (2000). Management (3rd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.
Moosa, K., & Sajid, A. (2010). Critical analysis of six sigma implementation. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 21(7), 745-759.
More, H. W. (2006). Organizational behavior and management in law enforcement (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Morse, J. J., & Lorsch, J. W. (1970). Beyond theory Y. Harvard Business Review, 48(3), 61.
201
Mosurović, M., & Kutlača, D. (2011). Organizational design as a driver for firm innovativeness
in Serbia. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 24(4), 427-447.
Mumford, M. D. (2012). Handbook of organizational creativity (1st ed.). Boston, MA:
Elsevier/Academic Press.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
Murtagh, F. (2005). Correspondence analysis and data coding with Java and R. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Mustafa, A. (2013). Organisational behaviour. Techlink, Singapore: Global Professional
Publishing.
Myers, P. S. (1996). Knowledge management and organizational design. Boston, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. (1988). Strategic organization design: Concepts, tools &
processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and
organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77-97.
Nagar, K. (2012). Organizational ommitment and job satisfaction among teachers during times
of burnout. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 37(2), 43-60.
Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1992). Maximum likelihood estimation of functional relationships. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. (1999). Organizational behavior: The person-organization
fit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Natemeyer, W. E., & Hersey, P. (2011). Classics of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (2009). ORGB. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (2011). Organizational behavior: Science, the real world and you
(7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Neter, J. (1996). Applied linear regression models (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Neves, P. (2009). Readiness for change: Contributions for employee’s level of individual change
and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 215-231.
202
Newton, P. E. (2012a) Clarifying the consensus definition of validity, measurement.
Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10(1-2), 1-29.
Newton, P. E. (2012b). Questioning the consensus definition of validity. Measurement, 10(1/2),
110-122.
Niewenhous, S. S. (2003). Reflections on leadership style. Home Health Care Management &
Practice, 15(5), 436-438.
Ning, J., & Jing, R. (2012). Commitment to change: Its role in the relationship between
expectation of change outcome and emotional exhaustion. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 23(4), 461-485.
Noe, R. A. (2010). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Noe, R. A. (2014). Fundamentals of human resource management (5th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Nohria, N., Joyce, W., & Roberson, B. (2003). What really works. Harvard Business Review,
81(7), 42-52.
Nordin, S. M., Halib, M., & Ghazali, Z. b. (2011). The impact of formalization and centralization
on organizational communication: A study on a highway concessionaire in the Klang
Valley, Malaysia. Review of Management Innovation & Creativity, 4(9), 70-78.
Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1990). Organizational behavior: A management challenge.
Chicago, IL: Dryden Press.
Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Relations
between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management,
organizational innovation, and organizational performance: An empirical investigation of
manufacturing firms. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
64(5-8), 1073-1085.
Nystorm, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid organizational crises, unlearn.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 53-65.
Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1981). Handbook of organizational design. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
O’Connell, A. A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
203
O’Shea, J. A., McAuliffe, E., & Wyness, L. A. (2007). Successful large system change: At what
cost? Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 107-120.
O’Toole, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2006). The new American workplace (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ogunfowora, B., Bourdage, J., & Lee, K. (2010). Rater personality and performance dimension
weighting in making overall performance judgments. Journal of Business & Psychology,
25(3), 465-476.
Oher, J. M. (1999). The employee assistance handbook. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Osland, J., & Turner, M. E. (2011). The organizational behavior reader (9th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Owens, R. G. (1970). Organizational behavior in schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Owens, R. G. (1981). Organizational behavior in education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Owens, R. G. (1991). Organizational behavior in education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: Instructional leadership and school
reform (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and
school reform (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pace, A. (2012). Stressed out? T+D, 66(10), 14.
Padgett, L. V. (2011). Practical statistical methods: A SAS programming approach. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Parvin, M. M., & Nurul Kabir, M. M. (2011). Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of
pharmaceutical sector. Australian Journal of Business & Management Research, 1(9),
113-123.
Patten, T. H. (1981). Organizational development through teambuilding. New York, NY: Wiley.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
204
Pellettiere, V. (2006). Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness and risk for a
planned change. Organization Development Journal, 24(4), 38-43.
Pennings, J. M. (1992). Structural contingency theory: A reappraisal. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 14, 267.
Perkins, S., & Arvinen-Muondo, R. (2013). Organizational behaviour: People, process, work
and human resource management. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.
Peters, T. J. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution (1st ed.). New
York, NY: Knopf.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1984). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s bestrun companies. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Pettinger, R. (2010). Organizational behaviour: Performance management in practice (1st ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organization theory and structural perspectives on management. Journal of
Management, 17(4), 789.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2007). Human resources from an organizational behavior perspective: Some
paradoxes explained. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), 115-134.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:
Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Pihlak, Ü., & Alas, R. (2012). Leadership style and employee involvement during organizational
change. Journal of Management & Change, 29(1), 46-66.
Politis, J., & Politis, D. (2010, January). Work environments that foster and inhibit creativity and
innovation. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership &
Governance.
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185-192.
205
Porter, L. W., & Siegel, J. (1965). Relationships of tall and flat organization structures to the
satisfactions of foreign managers. Personnel Psychology, 18(4), 379-392.
Presser, S., & Blair, J. (1994). Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce different results?
Sociological Methodology, 24, 73-104.
Price, A. D. F., & Chahal, K. (2006). A strategic framework for change management.
Construction Management & Economics, 24(3), 237-251.
Priem, R. L., & Harrison, D. A. (1994). Exploring strategic judgment: Methods for testing the
assumptions of prescriptive contingency theories. Strategic Management Journal, 15(4),
311-324.
Priem, R. L., Walters, B. A., & Li, S. (2011). Decisions, decisions! How judgment policy studies
can integrate macro and micro domains in management research. Journal of
Management, 37(2), 553-580.
Qiu, J., Donaldson, L., & Luo, B. N. (2012). The benefits of persisting with paradigms in
organizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 93-104.
Quick, J. C. (2013). Preventive stress management in organizations (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rahmati, V., Darouian, S., & Ahmadinia, H. (2012). A review on effect of culture, structure,
technology and behavior on organizations. Australian Journal of Basic & Applied
Sciences, 6(3), 128-135.
Raia, A. P. (1972). Organizational development: Some issues and challenges. California
Management Review, 14(4), 13.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment.
Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465-476.
Reilly, B. A., & Doherty, M. E. (1992). The assessment of self-insight in judgment policies.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(3), 285-309.
Reitz, H. J. (1987). Behavior in organizations (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among
elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3), 290-311.
Robbins, S. P. (1983). Organization theory: The structure and design of organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P. (1987). Organization theory: Structure, design, and applications (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
206
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2012). Essentials of organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2014). Essentials of organizational behavior (12th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to
planning, writing, and defending your dissertation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Roberts, S. J., Scherer, L. L., & Bowyer, C. J. (2011). Job stress and incivility: What role does
psychological capital play? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 449458.
Robinson, O. C. (2011). The idiographic nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of
contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13(2), 32-39.
Rogelberg, S. G., Balzer, W. K., Ployhart, R. E., & Yonker, R. D. (1999). Using policy capturing
to examine tipping decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2567-2590.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ruggieri, S., & Abbate, C. S. (2013). Leadership style, self-sacrifice, and team identification.
Social Behavior & Personality, 41(7), 1171-1178.
Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and
burnout among classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 269-274.
Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in
creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive
style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1086-1110.
Salami, A. O., Ojokuku, R. M., & Ilesanmi, O. A. (2010). Impact of job stress on managers’
performance. European Journal of Scientific Research, 45(2), 249-260.
Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S. (2009). Team effectiveness in complex organizations:
Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
207
Samad, S., & Yusuf, S. Y. M. (2012). The role of organizational commitment in mediating the
relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention. European Journal of Social
Science, 30(1-2), 125-135.
Sastry, M. A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 237-275.
Savage-Austin, A. R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A phenomenological study of
practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business &
Economics Research, 9(1), 49-54.
Sawa, B., & Swift, S. (2013). Developing high-performing organizations: Keys to recruiting,
retaining, and developing people who make the difference. Leadership & Management in
Engineering, 13(2), 96-100.
Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2010). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness
perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 881.
Schmuck, R. A., & Miles, M. B. (1971). Organization development in schools. Palo Alto, CA:
National Press Books.
Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36(1), 573.
Schwartz, R. A., & Bryan, W. A. (1998). What is professional development? New Directions for
Student Services, (84), 3.
Scott, W. R. (1975). Organizational structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 1-20.
Seo, M.-G., Taylor, M. S., Hill, N. S., Zhang, X., Tesluk, P. E., & Lorinkova, N. M. (2012). The
role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology, 65(1),
121-165.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength,
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(3), 489-505.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,
30(6), 933-958.
208
Sherer, P. D., Schwab, D. P. & Heneman, H. G. III (1987). Managerial salary-raise decision: A
policy-capturing approach. Personnel Psychology, 40(1), 27-38.
Shin-Tien, C., & Bao-Guang, C. (2012). The effects of absorptive capacity and decision speed on
organizational innovation: A study of organizational structure as an antecedent variable.
Contemporary Management Research, 8(1), 27-50.
Shirley, R. C. (1975). An interactive approach to the problem of organizational change. Human
Resource Management, 14(2), 11-19.
Sims, R. R. (2002). Managing organizational behavior. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Sinha, V., & Subramanian, K. S. (2012). Organizational role stress across three managerial
levels: A comparative study. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 31(5), 70-77.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the
study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance, 6(6), 649-744.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review
of Psychology, 28(1), 1.
Smith, D. (1998). Invigorating change initiatives. Management Review, 87(5), 45.
Smith, M. E. (2002). Implementing organizational change: Correlates of success and failure.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), 67-83.
Smith, M. R., Rasmussen, J. L., Mills, M. J., Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2012). Stress and
performance: Do service orientation and emotional energy moderate the relationship?
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 116-128.
Smith, S. W., Atkin, C. K., Martell, D., Allen, R., & Hembroff, L. (2006). A social judgment
theory approach to conducting formative research in a social norms campaign.
Communication Theory, 16(1), 141-152.
Snyder, S. (2013). Leadership and the art of struggle how great leaders grow through challenge
and adversity BK business. Retrieved from
http://unt.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1059666
Soo-Young, L., & Whitford, A. B. (2008). Exit, voice, loyalty, and pay: Evidence from the.
public workforce. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 18(4), 647-671.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of
a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.
209
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spence, J. R., & Keeping, L. M. (2010). The impact of non-performance information on ratings
of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31(4), 587-608.
Staren, E. D., & Eckes, C. A. (2013). Optimizing organizational change. Physician Executive,
39(3), 58-63.
Stauffer, H. B. (2008). Contemporary Bayesian and frequentist statistical research methods for
natural resource scientists. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Staw, B. M. (1991). Dressing up like an organization: When psychological theories can explain
organizational action. Journal of Management, 17(4), 805.
Staw, B. M., & Salancik, G. R. (1977). New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago, IL:
St. Clair Press.
Steel, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2002). Practical retention policy for the practical
manager. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 149-162.
Stevenson, B. W. (2012). Application of systemic and complexity thinking in organizational
development. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 14(2), 86-99.
Stumpf, S. A., & London, M. (1981). Capturing rater policies in evaluating candidates for
promotion. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 752-766.
Swaminathan, S., & Jawahar, P. D. (2013). Job satisfaction as a predictor of organizational
citizenship behavior: An empirical study. Global Journal of Business Research, 7(1), 7180.
Takamine, K. (2008). The delta change process: A multidimensional cultural change approach.
International Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 1(1), 71-82.
Tanriverdi, H. (2008). Workers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: Mediator
variable relationships of organizational commitment factors. Journal of American
Academy of Business, 14(1), 152-163.
Taute, W., & Taute, F. (2012). Organizational development: A supplement for the effective
organization. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 27(2), 63-78.
Taylor, R. L., & Wilsted, W. D. (1974). Capturing judgment policies: A field study of
performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 17(3), 440-449.
210
Te’eni, D. R. (1998). Nomothetics and idiographics as antonyms: Two mutually exclusive
purposes for using the rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 232.
Tener, R. (1993). Empowering high‐performing people to promote project quality. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 9(4), 321-328.
Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organizational Dynamics,
26(4), 21-32.
Thompson, J. D., & Vroom, V. H. (1971). Organizational design and research: Approaches to
organizational design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Titus, O. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers. Women in
Management Review, 15(7), 331-343.
Torbert, W. R. (1974). Pre-bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic stages of organization
development. Interpersonal Development, 5(1), 1-25.
Tornow, W. W., & London, M. (1998). Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: A process
for successful individual and organizational development (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Tosi, H. L., & Abolafia, M. (1992). The environment/organization/person contingency model: A
meso approach to the study of organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Trevor, C. O., Gerhart, B., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997). Voluntary turnover and job performance:
Curvilinearity and the moderating influences of salary growth and promotions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(1), 44-61.
Tschohl, J. (1999). The qualities of successful people. Managing Service Quality, 9(2), 78-80.
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010).
Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(5),
1331-1366.
Tyler, B. B., & Steensma, H. K. (1998). The effects of executives’ experiences and perceptions
on their assessment of potential. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), 939.
U.S. workers more stressed than global counterparts. (2012). Employee Benefit News, 26(13), 14.
Ussahawanitchakit, P., & Sumritsakun, C. (2008). Effects of organizational change on
psychological stress and job performance of accountants in Thailand. Journal of
International Business & Economics, 8(2), 1-9.
Val, C., & Kemp, J. (2012). Leadership styles. Pathways: The Ontario Journal of Outdoor
Education, 24(3), 28-31.
211
Van Dijk, R., & Van Dick, R. (2009). Navigating organizational change: Change leaders,
employee resistance and work-based identities. Journal of Change Management, 9(2),
143-163.
Vibert, C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: A handbook of ideas and
explanations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Voisin, G. (2011). All together now: Vision, leadership and wellness. Toronto, ON: Dundurn
Press.
Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy,
and creative work involvement. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456-465.
Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (2002). Organization development: A data-driven approach to
organizational change (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wagner, J. A., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2005). Organizational behavior: Securing competitive
advantage (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of
transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis.
The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765-782.
Weeks, W. A., Roberts, J., Chonko, L. B., & Jones, E. (2004). Organizational readiness for
change, individual fear of change, and sales manager performance: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24(1), 7-17.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1), 361.
Western, S. (2008). Leadership: A critical text. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: The
impact of organizational structure dimensions. International Journal of Information
Management, 29(2), 151-160.
Willem, A., Buelens, M., & De Jonghe, I. (2007). Impact of organizational structure on nurses’
job satisfaction: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(6),
1011-1020.
Wilson, E. M. (2001). Organizational behaviour reassessed: The impact of gender. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
20(3), 201-206.
212
Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Worker stress levels on the rise. (2012). EHS Today, 5(10), 24.
Wynd, C. A., Schmidt, B., & Schaefer, M. A. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for
estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5), 508.
Xiao-Dong, X. U., Jian An, Z., & Xiao-Yan, W. (2013). The impact of substitutes for leadership
on job satisfaction and performance. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 41(4), 675-685.
Yafang, T. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job
satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 98-106.
Yang, S.-B., Brown, G. C., & Moon, B. (2011). Factors leading to corrections officers’ job
satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 40(4), 359-369.
Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yi-Hua, H., & Mei-Ling, W. (2012). The moderating role of personality in HRM - from the
influence of job stress on job burnout perspective. International Management Review,
8(2), 5-18.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of
performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2),
323-342.
Yücel, İ. (2012). Examining the relationships among job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and turnover intention: An empirical study. International Journal of
Business & Management, 7(20), 44-58.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more
attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.
Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
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.
213
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of
supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413-422.
Zorn, T. E., Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (1999). Do we really want constant change?:
Beyond the bottom line. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Communications.
Zuckerman, M., Knee, C. R., Hodgins, H. S., & Miyake, K. (1995). Hypothesis confirmation:
The joint effect of positive test strategy and acquiescence response set. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 68(1), 52-60.
214