Doctoral Seminar in Advanced Organizational Behavior
College of Business and Behavioral Science
Clemson University
Summer 2014
Professors Kristin Scott and Tom Zagenczyk
Phone: 864-872-5556 and 412-606-5284
Email: kscott3@clemson.edu; thomasj@clemson.edu
SEMINAR OVERVIEW
The field of Organizational Behavior covers a large number of topics at the individual, group and
organizational level of analysis. An important challenge that you face as a doctoral student is developing
your own “mental map” of this field. Our role in this course is to provide a (partial) guided tour through the
field of Organizational Behavior so that you can begin to develop this map.
Accordingly, the objective of the course is to provide foundation knowledge in Organizational Behavior,
including classic and contemporary theories, ongoing controversies, and important empirical studies. In a
single semester it is impossible to complete an exhaustive tour of the field, thus we will explore select
research domains that will give you exposure to some of the key themes. Our goals are to help you to
gain broad familiarity with theory and research concerned with micro-organizational processes, and to help
you develop the analytical skills necessary to critically evaluate and integrate work in this area. We will
also encourage you to use the course to hone your own research agenda.
Accomplishing these objectives will require a great deal of reading on your part. It is critical that you read
the material before class, as well as spend some time thinking about the implications of the readings. In
the course schedule that follows, there will be a set of assigned readings for each class. We suggest that
you read them in the order listed. Sometimes “optional readings” are listed that provide examples of other
exemplary papers on the topic, though we will not expect that you will have read them. It normally will be
your responsibility to locate the material on-line or in the library; if the material is difficult to obtain, I will
post a PDF on Blackboard.
Most people refer to the key journals in the field simply by acronyms; here’s a list of acronyms you may not
yet be familiar with:
 AMJ: Academy of Management Journal
 AMR: Academy of Management Review
 ASQ: Administrative Science Quarterly
 JAP: Journal of Applied Psychology
 JOB: Journal of Organizational Behavior
 JOM: Journal of Management
 JPSP: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
 OBHDP: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
 OS: Organization Science
 PPsych: Personnel Psychology
 Psych Bull: Psychological Bulletin
 PSPB: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
 ROB: Research in Organizational Behavior
2
SEMINAR REQUIREMENTS
CLASSROOM NORMS
This is a discussion-based seminar that requires your active involvement. Accordingly, attendance is
required for every class session. Also, please be on time. Coming late to class is highly disruptive to
everyone. Each week you will be asked to read 4 or 5 journal articles or book chapters. Our goal is to
generate a high quality discussion that promotes understanding of some of the central issues, concepts
and debates in the field of organizational behavior.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Seminar requirements and evaluation criteria include the following:



Class preparation and contributions (50%)
Short papers (25%)
Research proposal and presentation (25%)
Class preparation and contributions (30%)
There are three components of this course requirement, which comprise 50% of your final grade:
1. First, we expect you to be an active and constructive participant during each session. This requires
reading and often re-reading the assigned articles and chapters. In general, you should seek a firm
understating of the purpose and logic for a given paper. More importantly, you should strive to reach
beyond basic reactions to the readings and instead consider:








What is good about this paper?
What are the theoretical foundations of the research?
What assumptions do different perspectives make about people? About organizations?
What is the main contribution of this paper? What are the interesting ideas?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research design?
What could have been improved in the paper?
Do you believe the arguments (about the theory and the conclusions drawn from the data)?
What are the boundary conditions of the argument? In other words, for whom and under what
circumstances does the argument apply and not apply?
 What are the critical differences between this author’s argument and others you have read? Can
these differences be resolved through an empirical test? How could you design such a study?
Overall, expect to spend much time dissecting the assigned readings. Go over a reading until you are
certain you understand its basic premises and arguments (see “Tips for Reading Academic Journal
Articles” on page 5) and are comfortable discussing them. This is the level of preparation we expect you
to do each week before coming to class.
As part of your preparation you are asked to complete a one-page (single-spaced) annotated
bibliography for each assigned reading. Beginning in our second class meeting, you will hand in a
copy of these bibliographies at the start of class (be sure to keep a copy for your own records). An
annotated bibliography is an elaborated summary of key aspects of the paper. While you are free to
develop a style and format that works best for you, bibliographies generally should contain the following
pieces of information:

What is the overarching research question and specific goals of the research?
3






Does the research adopt a primary theoretical lens?
What are the central constructs and hypotheses (or propositions)?
For each hypothesis (proposition), in 1-2 sentences state the theoretical argument
What methodology was used?
What were the findings?
What are the key contributions of the research?
Discussion Leaders:
2. Second, all seminar participants are responsible for helping to lead our discussions on multiple
occasions. In our first class meeting we will assign the dates for which you will help lead our discussion.
As the leader, your role is not merely to summarize readings but, rather, to prepare discussion questions
and observations that highlight the main issues, strengths, weaknesses, controversies, and gaps in the
readings for that week. This role, obviously, requires an integrated and thorough understanding of the
readings. As the leader, you will guide the discussion on a particular reading. This should not be a
presentation, rather a discussion, so your classmates participation will be critical. Writing some questions
to jumpstart the discussion will help.
Generally speaking, you will be responsible for leading the discussion of the topic—you are not
responsible for selecting additional readings (you may, however, find it useful to do some additional
reading for your own purposes). You may begin by providing your own synopsis of the topic and then
presenting what you feel are the critical questions, fundamental flaws, or promising new research
directions in the area. While it is often useful to include a detailed analysis/critique of each article
separately, some people prefer to instead focus on a broad overview. You should assume that the other
seminar participants have also read the material carefully, so your job is primarily to generate discussion,
not to provide a lecture and summary.
3. Lastly, you will serve as a reviewer for one of your classmates. Your job will be to read a draft of that
classmate’s final paper and provide a constructive review of it. You should plan on writing 2-3 pages
single spaced. The objectives of this assignment are: (1) to hone your critical reviewing skills; (2) to get
you in the practice of thinking and writing as though you are a reviewer of your own work. You will receive
a paper to review on July 23rd and your completed review is due via on July 30th.
To summarize, your class preparation and contributions include:
 Being on time and thoroughly prepared for class, and being an active participant
 Turning in your annotated bibliographies at the start of class
 Serving as a discussion facilitator on one or more occasions
 Serving as a reviewer for a fellow colleague
Weekly position papers and innovation papers (25%)
Weekly position papers provide additional opportunities for you to thoughtfully reflect upon key concepts or
theories raised by the readings of the week. These papers should NOT be a summary of the main ideas
and findings in the readings. Rather, it is your chance to think about the implications of the readings. For
example, how do the readings relate to each other and to readings from previous weeks? What do the
readings make you wonder about? What lines of inquiry might they open up—particularly when applied to
specific organizational contexts or situations? Your position paper (maximum 2 double-spaced pages) is
due at the beginning of the session; no late papers will be accepted. I would like to see you offer one
novel hypothesis in your position paper (and be sure to provide some theoretical justification for this idea).
Innovation papers provide opportunities for you to practice constructing testable hypotheses. You will
prepare two innovation papers (3-4 double-spaced pages). These papers will be brief presentations of
novel hypotheses. I will provide the details for each paper approximately one week in advance of its due
date. These papers are due XXX and XXXXX.
4
Research proposal and presentation (25%)
This paper will be an analysis of a topic of your choosing and should add new knowledge or bring a new
perspective to old findings within the field. The paper should review prior research on your topic or related
literatures (if your topic is quite new), and then should pose a set of hypotheses that would be worth
pursuing in future research. It is expected that you will do some additional readings outside of the formal
class list for this paper. The paper should also have a brief “Implications” section that outlines the
theoretical and practical contributions.
Overall, the proposal/paper should be 10-15 double-spaced typed pages. Please use APA (American
Psychological Association) formatting.
Deliverables:
1) Introduction: What is the topic? Why is it important? What prior research has been conducted? What
questions are unanswered? Highlight new opportunities in the field. Convince the reader why this study
should be done.
2) Theory and Model: Propose a testable set of hypotheses that can drive research on one or more
unanswered questions identified above. Ensure that the key constructs are defined and the hypotheses
are testable.
3) Methods: Describe in as much detail as you can how it will be tested (i.e., provide a mock methods
section). This should include identifying your sample, the procedure, measures you would use, etc. Closely
follow the format of the ‘methods section’ found in journal articles that we have read.
4) Theoretical/Practical Implications: Conclude with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.
For this section, you can assume that your hypotheses were supported.
Presentation
a. You will be required to make a (maximum) 10 minute presentation summarizing the topic of your
seminar paper. You should treat the presentation as though you are presenting at one of our
leading conferences, such as the Academy of Management or SIOP (Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology). The presentations will be made during the final class period
on July 30th.
b. Please email a copy of your presentation to kscott3@clemson.edu and thomasj@clemson.edu.
c. You should be prepared to ask questions and provide constructive feedback when other members of the
class are presenting.
(4) Final Draft of the Paper (due by midnight July 23rd). This draft should incorporate the feedback that
you receive from me and from the class. You may submit this electronically to kscott3@clemson.edu and
thomasj@clemson.edu.
5
Tips on Reading Academic Journal Articles
It’s typical that seminar participants differ in their experience with reading journal articles. Reading journal
articles often can seem like a daunting task. They are usually full of domain-specific jargon, complicated
statistics and what seems like irrelevant and complex information. Journal articles are written so that
researchers can replicate the authors' work, but often a reader’s aim is just to find out what the authors did
and what they found.
Thus, a lot of the information given may seem irrelevant—but it is not. This information will help you to
determine how much stock to put into the research. The methodological and statistical details, in
particular, provide vital information for determining an article’s strengths and weaknesses, and generally
for determining whether it is an example of “good scholarship.” Therefore it is important that you learn how
to read journal articles so that you gain the relevant information, yet be aware of their limitations.
Though you will develop your own strategy over time, here are some questions you should aim to answer
when reading a given paper:

What is the aim of the research? Specifically, what “big picture” practical question is highlighted and
what more focused research question is addressed?

Why is this research question important? Meaning, why should anyone care?

What do we already know about this research question? That is, what does past research on this
issue say?

What is the author’s approach to the research question? (i.e., what is the theoretical foundation)?

How is this approach different from what we already know? Why should anyone care about taking this
approach to the question?

For empirical articles, who were the participants? What method was used? Are the sample and
method appropriate given the study’s hypotheses?

What were the major findings that are relevant to the aims of the study?

How generalizeable are the findings? What are the boundary conditions? (i.e., for whom and under
what conditions do the findings apply?)

What conclusions did the authors draw? What theoretical and practical contributions does the
research offer?

What do you think of the research? What do you see as its strengths and weaknesses?
6
Seminar Outline
Session 1: May 14
Setting the Stage – What is OB?
Discussion Leader: Kristin Scott
Brief, A. P. & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Theory in organizational behavior: Can it be useful? Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13: 327-352.
Mowday, R. T. & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational
contexts. In Spence, J. T., Darley, J. M. & Foss, D. J. (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 195-229.
Porter, L. 1996. Forty years of organization studies: Reflections from a micro perspective. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41: 262-269.
Rousseau, D. M. 1997. Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. In Spence, J. T., Darley, J. M. &
Foss, D. J. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 48: 515-546.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find interesting:
Barley, S.R. (2006). When I write my masterpiece: Thoughts on what makes a paper interesting.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 16-20.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
hnPsychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bartunek, J.M., S.L. Rynes, and R. D. Ireland (2006). What makes management research interesting and
why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-16.
Cascio, W. F. & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to
2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5): 1062-1081.
Palmer, D., Dick, B., & Freiburger, N. (2009). Rigor and relevance in organization studies. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 18: 265-272.
Polzer, J. T., Gulati, R., Khurana, R., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Crossing boundaries to increase
relevance in organizational research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18: 280-286.
King,B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. 2010. Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory
of the organization as a social actor. Organization Science. 21: 290-305.
Session 2: May 21
Organizational Justice and Fairness
Discussion Leader:
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 561-568.
7
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions:
Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120: 189-208.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of
the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 913930.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice
perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432-443.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A
cross-level multifoci framework, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242-256.
Wiesenfeld, B., Brockner, J., Swann, W., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness always preferred? Selfesteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1235-1253.
Session 3: May 28
Social Exchange Theory and the Employer-Employee Relationship
Discussion Leader:
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31, 874-890.
Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161178.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on
work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647-680.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical
integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491-509.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A
theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491-509.
Morrison, E. W. and Robinson, S. L. (1997). ‘When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops’. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226-56.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). ‘Perceived organizational support: A review of the l
iterature’.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
8
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
574-99.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promises, and mutuality: The psychology of the psychological contract.
Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 24, 511-541.
Zagenczyk, T.J., Restubog, S.L.D., Kiazad, K., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. (2014). Psychological contracts as
a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of
Management, 40, 1098-1122.
Scott, K.L., Restubog, S.L.D., & Zagenczyk, T.J. (2013). A social exchange-based model of the
antecedents of workplace exclusion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 37-48.
Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., & Chapman, G.J. (in press). Moderating roles
of self-control and aggressive work culture in predicting responses to psychological contract breach.
Journal of Management.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–
111.
Session 4: June 5*** NOTE this is a Thursday
Motivation & Self Regulation in the Workplace
Discussion Leader:
Kerr, S. 1995. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B, Academy of Management Executive.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being, American Psychologist.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self‐ Regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115-128.
Latham, G. & Locke, E, 1991. Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50:212-247.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control
resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 249-259.
Duffy, M.K, Scott, K.L., Shaw, J.S., Tepper, B.J., & Aquino, K. (2012). Envy and ethical behavior at work: the
mediating role of moral disengagement between worker envy and social undermining behavior, Academy of
Management Journal, 55(3): 643-666.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological wellbeing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(4), 822.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
9
Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). The Hawthorne experiments. In F. J. Roethlisberger, Management and
morale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Landy, F., & Becker, S. (1987). Motivation theory reconsidered. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 1-38). JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Pittman, T. S. (1998). Motivation. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (4th Ed., pp. 549-590). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Deci, Koestner, & Ryan (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of intrinsic
vs. extrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 627-88.
Locke, E. A. & Schweiger, D. M. 1979. Participation in decision making: One more look. In Staw B. M.
(Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 265-339.
Maslow. A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370-96.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317-375.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human
behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangey (Eds.), Handbook of self and
identity (pp. 492-518). New York: Guilford Press.
Wheeler, S. C., Briñol, P., & Hermann, A. D. (2007). Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation: Egodepletion and its effects on attitude change processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1),
150-156.
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect
helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3),
379-384.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of
self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(4), 495.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications. Guilford Press.
Session 5: June 11
Dark Side Organizational Behavior
Discussion Leader:
10
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect ofincivility in the workplace. Academy
of Management Review, 24, 452-471. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:
Review,synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan,
N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92, 228-238.
Scott, K.L., Restubog, S.D.L. & Zagenczyk, T.J. (2013). A Social Exchange-Based Model of the Antecedents of
Workplace Exclusion. Journal of Applied Psychology. 98(1): 37-48.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of
offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 653-668.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying...oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within
workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructors that capture
interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 487-498.
Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp.
211-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and
their common correlates: A review and meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 409-423.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on
the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658-672.
Warren, D. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 28, 622-632.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 272-288.
Session 6: June 18
Leadership and Abusive Supervision
Discussion Leader:
** Innovation Paper # 1 due
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
Avolio, B.J, Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of the
antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future.
Journal of Management, 38, 1715-1759.
11
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the
supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009.
Restubog, S.D.L., Scott, K.L., & Zagenczyk, T.J. (2011). When Distress Hits Home: The Role of Aggressive
Culture in Predicting Abusive Supervision and the Effects on Employees and their Significant Others. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4): 713-729.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S.D.L., Zagenczyk, T.J., Scott, K.D. & Tang, R. (2012) Sins of our Fathers: The Role of
Supervisors’ Previous Experience of Family Undermining in Predicting Subordinates’ Perceptions of Abusive
Supervision, Leadership Quarterly 23(5): 869-882. (2012 Impact Factor: 2.711).
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between
abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 974.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation,
and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor
of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(3), 252-263.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
NOTE: June 25 – Class will not meet this week.
NOTE: July 3: Class will not meet this week.
Session 7: July 9 – Tom Z.
Social Networks and Influence
Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J. Greve, H., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817. Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-463.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
12
Shah, P. P. (1998). Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent
others. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 249-268.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomer’s relationships: The role of social networks ties during socialization. Academy
of Management Journal, 45, 1149-1160.
Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Gibney, R., Murrell, A. J., & Thatcher, J. B. (2010). Social influence and perceived
organizational support: A social networks analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111,
127-138.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sensemaking: Effects of network centrality and
proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-303.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Raider, H., & Krackhardt, D. J. (2001). Intraorganizational networks. In J. A. C. Baum, (Ed.), Companion to
Organizations (pp. 58-74). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Burkhardt, M. E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a
technological change: A longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869-898.
Umphress, E. E., Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., Kass, E., & Scholten, L. (2003). The role of instrumental and
expressive social ties in employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. Organization Science, 14, 738-753.
Ho, V. T. (2005). Social influence on evaluations of psychological contract fulfillment. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 113-128.
Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social
information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219-244.
Session 10: July 16
Attitudes, Mood & Emotion in Organizational Life
Discussion Leader:
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 279-307. (SKIM ONLY)
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder- but-wiser vs.
happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95-110.
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45, 197-231.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and
organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 461- 487.
13
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations:
An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 334.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. Academy of
Management Annals, 1: 315 – 386.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. (2005). Affect and creativity: A daily longitudinal
test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367-403.
Sanchez-Burks, J. & Huy, Q. (2009). Emotional aperture: The accurate recognition of collective emotions.
Organization Science, 20, 22-34.
Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage
against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
312-334.
Session 11: July 23
Organizational Stress & Coping
Discussion Leader:
**Short description of Final Paper due today
** Innovation Paper #2 due
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of
burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
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.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The
moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777-796.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of applied
psychology, 93(3), 498.
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Research in personnel and
human resources management, 30, 115-157.
Supplementary (optional) reading you may find useful:
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work
stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 314-334.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and
voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior.
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer Publishing Company.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating
role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93.
14
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy
people: a review and meta-analysis. The journal of alternative and complementary medicine, 15(5), 593600.
Session 12: July 30 – Tom Z.
Course Wrap up and Student Interest Papers
You will deliver a 15-20 minute presentation of your research ideas to the class.
NOTE: You will receive a paper to review via email on July 23rd by 12:00 AM.
NOTE: Your written review of a classmate’s paper is due on July 23rd by 5pm. Email your review directly to your
classmate and copy us on the message.
NOTE: Your completed paper is due via email on July 23rd.