1
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL
THEORY AND RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR1 (26:620:555-01)
Dr. Chao C. Chen, MEC 303; (Tel): 973-353-5425; (Fax): 973-353-1664;
Email: chaochen@andromeda.rutgers.edu
CLASS HOURS:
Monday 2:30pm-5:20pm
OFFICE HOUR:
Monday: 1:30pm to 2:30pm or by appointment
FOR INCLEMENT WEATHER: NW: 973-353-1766; NB: 732-932-1766
Objectives
Welcome to the course! This doctoral seminar is designed to provide an in depth look at some of
the major topics of interest in contemporary organizational behavior, with a primary focus on
individual and collective processes. Drawing on theory and research in psychology, social
psychology, and organizational behavior, we shall explore individual, interpersonal, and group
processes in work organizations. Our emphasis will be on the development of theory and
research, as well as managerial implications.
Each week we will focus on a particular topic within organizational behavior, beginning with
such micro organizational behavior topics as personality and various self-processes and then
moving into meso or macro issues of organizational behavior such as group dynamics,
leadership, justice, trust, and culture. Our approach will typically involve reading seminal pieces
or literature reviews on a topic and examining in depth several empirical papers on the subject.
Readings
The articles listed under Class Schedule are all required readings.
Course Requirements
Class participation (20%).
Attendance is mandatory. Participation in the class involves reading the articles,
reflecting on them, making linkages, asking new questions, challenging assumptions, and
constructively critiquing ideas. By 10:00am each Sunday, you are responsible for e-mailing me
a short (one-page) memo, which includes 2-3 questions or comments that the readings have
evoked for you. In addition, students take turns to play the roles of a synthesizer and a critic as
described below.
Session Synthesizer. This involves digesting all the reading for the session, and
distributing to the class a written outline of your comments, questions, and discussion
points that:
a. Provide an organizing framework for classroom discussion of theories and
empirical research;
2
b. Compare & contrast (as appropriate) theories or lines of empirical research;1
c. Identify three to five interesting patterns or findings that have been
encountered by researchers on this topic.
d. Identify five interesting propositions that now need to be studied within this
topic area.
Critic. Conduct an in-depth oral critique of one empirical paper. Summarize the key
points and identify what you regard as specific strengths and weaknesses of the study
with respect to theory development, methodology, findings, and/or implications. Some
basic questions to get you started include: what is the theoretical model tested in the
paper? Does the author offer convincing rationales for the hypotheses? How confident are
you in the stability or persistence of these findings? Might boundary conditions exist? In
light of this study’s results, what additional questions in this topic area can be generated
or are necessitated (i.e., directions for future research)? In addition to your oral critique,
a written copy is to be distributed to the class to facilitate class discussion.
Two short papers (30%)
You are responsible for turning in two short (3-5 pages) papers by Classes 6 (Oct. 14th)
and 11 (November 18th) of the course. In each paper, you are to develop a new idea inspired by
the course readings. The write-up should include a concise statement of the idea and 2-3
hypotheses associated with it. Your write-up should outline the logic behind the idea and the
hypotheses. The idea should be a new one for you – something that is not immediately obvious,
something that might be worth investigating empirically.
Final paper (50%)
The final paper is a research proposal, due in Class 13, December 2nd. The research
proposal provides each student the opportunity to conceive and plan a study on some issue
within the domain of the course. An initial proposal for your study is due in Class 10 (Nov. 11).
In the final paper, you should provide a literature review of the related work to-date, a theoretical
framework consisting of hypotheses, and methodology to be used for testing the hypotheses (for
the format, use AMJ publications as examples). The paper should be no more than 15 doublespaced pages of text in length. Each student will give a 15 minutes presentation of his or her
final paper in the last two classes (Dec. 2 and 9).
It is important that you appropriately cite all references within the text of your proposal,
as well as including a reference list at the conclusion of your paper (for the format of referencing,
see AMJ publication guides). Sentences that are paraphrased and ideas that are adopted from
another work must be appropriately cited. If you are including a sentence or passage verbatim
from another work (published or unpublished), you must indicate this with the appropriate
quotation marks and citation. Failure to do so will result in an automatic “F” for the course as
well as further disciplinary action.
1
This syllabus is based on syllabi by Professors Siegel form Rutgers, and Blount and Janicik from NYU.
3
OUTLINE OF CLASSES
Overview
1 – September 9
2 – September 16
3 – September 23
4 – September 30
5 – October 7
6 – October 14
7 – October 21
8 – October 28
9 – November 4
10 – November 11
11 – November 18
12 – November 25
13 – December 2
14 – December 9
Introduction
Overview of organizational behavior research
Self-construal and self-identity
Sense making and causal attribution
Person-situation interactionism
Motivation
Job attitudes and behaviors
Social networking and knowledge transfer
Procedural justice and trust
Leadership and power
Conflict and negotiations
Groups and teams
Presentations
Presentations
Class 1 - Introduction
Class 2 - Overview of Organizational Behavior Research
Staw, B. 1984. Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s outcome
variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 627-666.
Rousseau, Denise M. 1997. Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol 48. pp. 515-546.
Mowday, R. T. and Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and
groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44.
Sutton, R. I., and Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40: 371-384.
Kerr, Norbert L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 2: 196-217.
Griffin, R. and Kacmar, K. M. 1991. Laboratory research in management: Misconceptions
and missed opportunities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12: 301-311.
Daft, R. L. 1985. Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you can
do about it. In L.L. Cummings and P.J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizational
Sciences, pp. 193-209.
Class 3: Self-Construal and Self-Identity
4
Leippe, M.R. & Eisenstadt, D. 1994. Generalization of dissonance reduction: Decreasing
prejudice through induced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 3,
395-413.
Swan, W.B. 1987. Identity negotiation. Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 6, 1038-1051.
Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional
adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 4, 764-792.
Crocker, J. & Luhtanen, R. 1990. Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, 58, 1, 60-67.
Crocker, J, Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B. Broadnax, S. 1994. Collective self-esteem and
psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 5, 503-513.
Brewer, M.B., & Sonia Roccas, 2000. Individual Values, Social Identity, and Optimal
Distinctiveness. In Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M.B. (Eds.) Individual Self, Relational Self,
Collective Self (pp. 219-237). Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001
Earley, P.C. 1989. Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the U.S. and the
People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.
Chen, C.C., Meindl, J.R., & Hunt, R.G. 1997. "Testing the effects of horizontal and vertical
collectivism: A study of rewards allocation preferences in China," Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 28 (1), 44-70, 1997.
Class 4. Individual sense-making and causal reasoning
Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on
preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63: 131-144.
Brickman, P., Ryan, K., and Wortman, C. B. (1975). Causal chains: Attribution of
responsibility as a function of immediate and prior causes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32: 1060-1067.
Guimond, S. and Palmer, D. L. (1990). Type of academic training and causal attributions for
social problems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20: 61-75.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 480-498.
Malle, B. 1999. How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 3 (1) 23-48.
5
Miller, J. G., Bersoff, D. M., and Harwood, R. L. (1990). Perceptions of social
responsibilities in India and the United States: Moral imperatives of personal decisions?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58: 33-47.
Morris, M.W., Larrick, R. & Su, S. 1999. Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: Ascribing
personality traits for situationally determined bargaining behaviors. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77 (1)
Class 5. Person-Situation Interactionism
Snyder, Mark & Ickes, William. 1995. Personality and Social Behavior (Chapter 28). In
Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, 883-947.
Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. 1989. Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in
organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 3, 385-400.
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 Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Kernis, M.H., Brockner, J., & Frankel, B.S. 1989. Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The
mediating role of overgeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 4,
707-714.
Brockner, J. & Elkind, M. 1985. Self-esteem and reactance: Further evidence of attitudinal
and motivational consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 346-361.
Zalensky, M.D. & Ford, J.K. 1990. Extending the social information processing perspective:
New Links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 47: 205-246.
Class 6. Motivation
Katzell, R.A. & Thompson, D.E. 1990. Work Motivation: Theory and Practice. American
Psychologist, 45, 2, 144-153.
Latham, G.P., Erez, M., Locke, E.A. 1988. Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design
of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding
participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(73), 753-772.
Deci, E. 1972. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), April, 113-120.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.H. 1976. Motivation through the design of work.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 250-279.
Higgins, E.T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
6
Eden, D. 1989. Expectations, motivation, and performance: Why do workers achieve what
they expect? (Chapter 3) from Pygmalion in Management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

Dipboye, R.L. 1982. Self-fulfilling prophecies in the selection-recruitment interview.
Academy of Management Review, 1982, 7, 4, 579-586.
Class 7: JOB ATTITUDES & BEHAVIOR
Baron, R.A. 1993. Affect and organizational behavior: When and why feeling good (or bad)
matters. In J.K.Murnighan (Ed.) Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory
and Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 63-88.
Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L. & Abraham, L.M. Job satisfaction: Environmental
and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 2(74), 187-192.
Salancik, G.R. & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Seligman, M.E. & Shulman, P. 1986. Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and
quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4(50), 832-838.
Salancik, G. & Pfeffer, J. 1977. An examination of need satisfaction models of job attitudes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427-456.
Meyer, J., Pauonen, S., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R. & Jackson, D. 1989. Organizational
commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.
Class 8. Social Networking and Knowledge Transfer
Krackhardt. D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in
organizaions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 342-369.
Krackhardt, D. & Kilduff, M. 1990. Friendship patterns and culture: The control of
organizational diversity. American Anthropologies, 92, pp. 142-154.
Burkhardt, M.E. 1994. Social interaction effects following a technological change: A
longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869-898.
Larson, J.R., Christense, C., Abbott, A.S., & Franz, R.M. 1996. Diagnosing groups: Charting
the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 315-330.
7
Argot, L. & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 1550-169.
Hargadon, A. Sutton, R.I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product
development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749
Levin, D.Z., Cross, R., Abrams, L.C. 2002. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The
mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Under review at Academy of
Management Journal.
Class 9: Procedural Justice and Trust
Lind, E.A. & Tyler, T. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. (Chapters 2, 6, 10)
Brockner, J. & Wiesenfeld, B. 1996. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to a
decision: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
189-208.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 3(20), 709-734.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 3(23), 393-404.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Daly, J., Tyler, T. & Martin, C. 1997. When trust matters: The
moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 3, 558-583.
McAllister, D.J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 24-59.
Chen, C.C. Chen, Y.R. & Xin, K. 2002. The Downside of Managerial Guanxi Practice in the
People’s Republic of China: A Procedural Justice Perspective. Under review at
Organizational Science
Class 10: Leadership and Power
Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. 1989. Theory and research on leadership in organizations, pp.147197.
Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications.
NY, NY: The Free Press. Ch. 13: Power and Leadership (225-251)
Jago, A.G. & Vroom, V.H. 1977. Hierarchical level and leadership style. Organization
Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 131-145.
8
House, R.J., Spangler, W.D., & Woycke. 1991. Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 364-396.
Avolio, B.J., Howell, J.M. & Sosik, J.J. 1999. A funny thing happened on the way to the
bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 2, 219-227.
Tyler, T.R. & Caine, A. 1981. The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with
formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 4, 642-655.
Class 11: Conflict and Negotiations
Neale, M. A. and Bazerman, M. H. 1991. Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation,
Chapters 3 and 4. Pp. 41-80. New York: Free Press.
Thompson, L. & Hrebec, D. 1996. Lose-lose agreements in interdependent decision making.
Psychological Bulletin, 120: 396-409.
Carnevale, P., and Pruitt, D. G. 1992. Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of
Psychology, 43: 531-582.
Thompson, L., and Lowenstein, G. 1992. Egocentric perceptions of fairness and
interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51: 176197.
Moore, D., Kurtzberg, T., Thompson, L., & Morris, M. (1999). Long and short routes to
success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(1), 22-43.
Kurtzberg, T. (1998). Creative thinking, cognitive aptitude, and integrative joint gain: A
study of negotiator creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 283-293.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256-282.
Greenhalgh, L. 1995. Competition in a collaborative context: Toward a new paradigm. In
R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki and B. H. Sheppard (eds.), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, 5: 251-270.
Class 12: Groups
Argote, L., and McGrath, J. E. 1993. Group processes in organizations: Continuity and
change. In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, New York: Wiley.
9
McGrath, J. E. 1997. Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of
the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics, 1: 7-27.
Bettenhausen, K. L., and Murnighan, J. K. 1991. The development of an intragroup norm
and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly,
36: 20-35.
Ancona, D., and Caldwell, D. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
Guzzo, R. E., and Dickson, M. W. 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 307-338.
Gersick, C. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9-41.
Class 13. PRESENTATIONS
Class 14. PRESENTATIONS