Rutgers Business School
Theory and Research in Organizational Behavior
Spring 2008
Class: Eng 201
Professor: Ya-Ru Chen
Office: MEC 323
Telephone: 973-353-1112
Cell: 646-642-1352
Fax: 973-353-1664
E-mail: yaruchen@business.rutgers.edu
Course Overview
The primary objective of this course is to provide you with an organizing framework of the
micro-organizational behavior literature. This entails reading seminal pieces and several broad
overview articles that will cover the classic areas of research in the field. We will also read
recent papers that reanalyze and reframe many of the classic variables of micro-OB, trying to
alter the dominant perspective, bring in new theory, and integrate conflicting approaches. It is
critical that you read the required readings before class and spend some time thinking about the
implications of the readings, both separately and as a collection. We will use these readings to
gain a sense of the important perspectives and approaches in the field, not as a set of findings
that are simply to be digested or summated.
Course Requirements
The course requirements are as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Class Participation
Weekly One-page Synthesis Assignment
Three Innovation Papers
Term Paper and Presentation
A. Class participation is based on: (1) active engagement in classroom discussion, (2) acting as a
session leader, (3) evaluating a colleague’s paper.
The success of this course depends on how actively engaged students are. Thus, enthusiastic
seminar participation, including presentations on assigned topics and contributions to the work of
your classmates, will be a central requirement of the course. More specifically:
1. Active engagement in class discussion. Each student must be prepared to discuss all the
required readings for each class session. As you review each reading, you might want to
consider the following issues:
1






What is the basic formulation of the theory (constructs and relationships among them), and
what drives the theory?
What are the underlying assumptions?
What is the main contribution of this paper? What are the interesting ideas?
Do you agree with the argument made? What would it take to convince you?
What are the boundary spanning conditions of the argument; in other words, under what
circumstances does the argument apply and not apply?
What are the critical differences between this author’s argument and others you have read?
Can these differences be resolved through an empirical test? What would that study look
like?
And, for empirical papers, you might also consider:


How are the variables operationalized? Is this consistent with the theory?
Are the data analyzed and interpreted effectively?
2. Session leader. Each student is required to act as a session leader once during the semester.
The role of the session leader is to briefly provide the class with observations that highlight
the main issues, strengths, weaknesses, controversies, and gaps in the readings for that week,
as well as to facilitate discussion on the topic for the given week. A session leader for each
class will be assigned in our first class.
3. Evaluating a classmate’s paper. One of the duties of a scholar is to review research from
colleagues. To hone your critical reviewing skills and get you in the practice of thinking and
writing as though you are a reviewer of your own work, you will be asked to serve as an
anonymous reviewer for one of your classmates. Your job will be to read that person’s final
paper and provide a constructively critical review of it (approximately 3-5 pages). Two
copies of this review will be due during finals week: one for the classmate, and the other one
for me. The review process will be single-blind (i.e. reviewer identity will not be disclosed to
the author). I will provide more details about this assignment toward the end of the semester.
B. Weekly one-page synthesis assignment (starting the first week). Except for the weeks
when you will submit the innovative papers, you are required to submit a one-page short
assignment that synthesizes the required readings each week. Possible questions you might
consider when integrating the readings include:
1. What are the common themes across the readings assigned?
2. Are there distinct theoretical perspectives that you can identify from the readings for the
given topic?
3. What are the assumptions behind each approach?
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach? When and for whom each
approach might be more applicable?
5. Can you think of a new conceptual angle (or a new set of hypotheses) to examine
outcomes or processes of the given topic?
C. Three innovation short papers. You will be asked to prepare three “innovation” papers
(roughly 2-3 pages), which are brief discussions of novel hypotheses (something not already
2
known or immediately obvious to researchers in OB). In each paper, you will need to state a
hypothesis (or a set of hypotheses), and, preceding it, a justification about why it is likely to
be true and interesting. The papers may focus on anything relevant to the study of individual
behavior in organizations. Also, feel free to use these short papers as a means to developing a
more comprehensive final term paper idea.
D. Term paper and presentation. You must prepare a 15-25 page paper integrating a field of
research and highlighting a new research question (e.g., adding new knowledge or bringing a
new perspective to old findings within the field). Include a set of propositions/hypotheses
that might be worth pursuing in the future. If you are so inclined, take the paper as far as
possible in terms of developing a design and a possible empirical test of the ideas (note that
this is encouraged, but not required). Two copies of the paper (one for me and one for the
reviewer) are due in the last class. A one-page proposal for this paper will be due in the 7th
week of class.
A note about the term paper. While you must incorporate what you have learned from this
course in your final paper, I aim to be flexible on the topic of your paper. The last thing I
want is for you to write a paper that you are not interested in developing further. Indeed, my
hope is that this paper will eventually develop into a publishable journal article (e.g., for
Academy of Management Review, or the basis for an empirical paper for Administrative
Science Quarterly).
3
Course Outline
I have assigned readings for each week of the course. The reading list outlines required and
recommended. You are only asked to read the required readings before each class, and provide a
one-page synthesis for the readings—note that I have decided to favor your reading everything
that is assigned with comprehension rather than just skimming the work. However, you are
encouraged to read the recommended readings (perhaps to prepare for your comprehensive exam
or your dissertation, or to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic that interests
you). If you are interested in a particular topic and would like to focus on it in your final paper,
you may want to read the recommended readings I have listed for that topic, plus your own
research of additional works that are relevant to your idea. You will find that there is always
more to read.
The readings for the course will be organized as follows:
Session 1: Introduction to OB and Theorizing
Session 2: Person-Situation Debate
Session 3: Motivation
Session 4: Emotion and Affect
Session 5: Decision making and sense making
Session 6: Organization Identification, Commitment, and Citizenship Behavior
Session 7: Organizational/National Culture
Session 8: Justice, Trust, Ethics in Social Exchange
Session 9: Power, Status, and Influence
Session 10: Demography and Diversity
Session 11: Groups and Teams
Session 12: Leadership
Session 13: Paper Presentation
NOTE: I would like to ask you to obtain the required readings for the course from the second
week forward. The required readings for the first session have been posted on blackboard for you
to access. Members assigned for a particular week need to compile the readings a week prior to
the session. To make these documents available for others in the class as well as for your future
use, please either email me the PDF files (if this format is available) or leave hard copies of them
in my mailbox on the 3rd floor of MEC so that I can scan and upload them to our blackboard
website. The required reading for the first week has been posted under the course document
directory on blackboard.
4
Session 1 (January 28): An introduction to micro-OB and theorizing
Required Reading:
Davis, M. (1971). That’s interesting! Philosophy of Social Science, 309-344.
Sutton, R.I., & Staw, B.M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40:
371-384.
Mowday, R.T., and Sutton, R.I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups
to organizational contexts. 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.
Greenberg, J.& Tomlinson, E. (2004). Situated experiments in organizations. Journal of
Management, 30, 703-724.
Chen, Y., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?”
The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural Fairness. Organization
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 1-15.
Recommended Readings:
Weick, K. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 516-531.
James, L., Mulak, S., & Brett, J. 1982. Causal analysis. pp. 11-54. New York: Sage.
Staw, B.M. 1984. Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s outcome
variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 627-666.
O’Reilly, C. 1991. Organizational behavior: Where we have been, where we’re going. Annual
Review of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advancement of organizational science: Paradigm development
as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.
Staw, B. 1995. Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor. In Cummings & Frost (eds.)
Publishing in the organizational sciences (2nd. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 96-107.
Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254-285.
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring
inter-textual coherence and “problematizing” organizational studies. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 1023-1062.
5
Pfeffer, J. 1998. Understanding organizations: Concepts and controversies. Handbook of social
psychology.
Session 2 (February 4): Person-Situation Debate
Required Reading:
Chatman, J.A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. 1986. Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in
organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385-400.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Staw, B.M., Bell, N., & Clausen, J. 1986. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime
longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.
Chatman, J., & Barsade, S. 1995. Personality, culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a
business situation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 423-443.
Chen, Y., Mannix, E.A., & Okumura, T. (2003). The importance of who you meet: Effects of
self-versus other-concerns among negotiators in the United States, the People’s Republic of
China, and Japan. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 1-15.
Recommended Readings:
Barrick M.R. and Mount, M.K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Kenrick, & Funder, D. 1988. Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation
debate. American Psychologist, 43: 23-34.
Digman, J.M., 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review
of Psychology, 41: 417-440.
Kilduff, M., & Day, D. 1994. Do chameleons get ahead: The effects of self-monitoring on
managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047-1060.
Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. 1985. The dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 469-480.
House, R., Shane, & Arnold. 1996. Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly
exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 203-224.
6
Schneider, B., Smith, D.B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. 1998. Personality and organizations: A test
of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 462-470.
Session 3 (February 11): Motivation
Required Reading:
Latham, G. P & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the
Twenty-First Century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
Steers, R. M, Mowday, R. T, & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The
future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29, 379-387. (Also skim
through other articles in this special topic volume.)
Jin, P. (1993). Work motivation and productivity in voluntarily formed work teams: A field
study in China. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 133-155.
Igalens, J. & Roussel, P. (1999). A study of the relationships between compensation package,
work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1003-1025.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models:
Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 854-864.
Recommended Reading:
Earley, P.C., Connolly, T., & Ekegren, G. 1989. Goals, strategy development, and task
performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74:
24-33.
Locke, E., & Latham, G.P. 1990. A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Prentice-Hall,
Chapters 1&2.
Staw, B., & Boettger, R. 1990. Task revision: A neglected form of work performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 33: 534-559.
Erez, M., Kleinbeck, U., Thierry, H. (2001). Work motivation in the context of a globalizing
economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Session 4 (Feburary 18): Emotion and Affect
First Innovation Paper Due Today
7
Lazarus, R. 1982. Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American
Psychologist. 37, 1019-1024.
Staw, B.M., & Barsade, S. (1991). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-butwiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at
work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403.
Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of
negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 86-94.
Recommended Reading:
Barrick M.R. and Mount, M.K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. 1999. Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition
and emotion, Vol. 13(5), 505-521.
Sutton, R., 1991. Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2): 245-268.
Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
organizational behavior, Vol. 18, 1-74.
Wong, & Law. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance
and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.
Morris, M., & Keltner, D. (2000). How emotions work: An analysis of the social functions of
emotional expression in negotiations. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 1-50.
Watson, D., & Slack, A.K. (1993). General factors of affective temperament and their relation to
job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 181202.
Session 5 (February 25): Decision-Making, and Sense-making
8
Required Reading:
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Cohen, March, & Olsen, (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
Weick, K. 1993. The collapse of sense-making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
Elsbach, K. D., Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings:
Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 283-301.
Galinsky, A. D, Leonardelli, G. J, Okhuysen, G. A., Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory Focus at
the Bargaining Table: Promoting Distributive and Integrative Success. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087-1098.
Recommended Reading:
Medvec, V.H., Madey, S.F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking
and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
603-610.
Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641-651.
Bazerman, M. (1990). Biases. Chapter 2 of Managerial Decision Making (second edition). New
York: John Wiley.
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the ‘Planning fallacy’: Why people
underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
366-381.
Funder. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment.
Psychological Bulletin, 101(1): 75-90.
Ilgen, M., & Tower. (1994). The cognitive revolution in organizational behavior. In J.
Greenberg (Ed.) Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, p. 1-22.
Northcraft, G.B., & Neale, M. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-andadjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 39: 84-97.
9
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. (2004). Predicting Risk Sensitivity in Humans and Lower
Animals: Risk as Variance or Coefficient of Variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430-445.
Session 6 (March 6): Organizational Identification, Commitment, and Citizenship Behavior
Required Reading:
Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats:
Encountering and countering the Business Session rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly,
41, 442-476.
Morrison, E. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance
of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on pro-social behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 3, 492-499.
Organ, D. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In L.
Cummings & B. Staw, (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 12.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
765-802.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the Relationships
Between Coworkers' Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Fellow Employees' Attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.
Recommended Reading:
Batson, C.D., et al. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic vs.
altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the
heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10
Elsbach, K.D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In R.I. Sutton, &
B.M.Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol., 21, pp. 163-200). Stamford, CT:
JAI Press.
Withey, M.J., & Cooper, W.H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521-539.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Hui, C., Lee, C., Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in China: Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 311-321.
Session 7 (March 10): Org./National Culture
Second Innovation Paper Due Today
Required Reading:
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Schein, E. (1985). What is culture? In Organizational culture and leadership (pp. 243-253).
Sackmann, S.A. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 140-161.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
Review, 96, 506-520.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Oyserman, D. Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
128, 3-72. (Skim this paper)
Brewer, M.B., & Chen, Y. (2007). Where (and who) are collectives in collectivism:
Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological
Review, 114, 133-151.
Recommended Reading:
11
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J.C. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and
commitment. In B. Staw, & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. (Vol.
18, 157-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Bettenhausen, K.L. & Murnighan, J.K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision
making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.
Earley, P.C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the
People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.
Harrison, J.R., Carroll, G.R. (1991). Keeping the faith: A model of cultural transmission in
formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 552-582.
Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the making of policeman. Human Organization, 32,
407-418.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
March 17: No Class Spring Break
Session 8 (March 24): Justice, Trust, and Ethics in Social Exchange
Required Readings:
Mayer, R., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Colquitt, J. A, Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005).What Is Organizational Justice? A
Historical Overview. In Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. A (Eds). Handbook of organizational
justice. (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Moore, D.A., Tetlock, P.E., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M.H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the
case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 10-29.
Stahl, T., Vermunt, R., & Ellemers, N. (2008). For love or money? How activation of relational
versus instrumental concerns affect reactions to decision-making procedures. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 80-94.
12
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J.A., & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable:
Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597-1609.
Recommended Reading:
Rousseau, D., & Parks, J.M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research
in organizational behavior, 15, 1-43.
Blader, S. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the
meaning of a "fair" process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747-758.
Greenberg, J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum Press.
Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J.A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice (Ed). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Prooijen, J., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Procedural justice and intragroup
status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 664-676.
Session 9 (March 31): Power, Status, and Influence
Third Innovation Paper Due Today
Required Reading:
House, R. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. In B. Staw and L.
Cummings, Research in organizational behavior, 10, 305-357.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotypes. American
Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the
effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173-187.
13
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallwaorth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Pschology, 67, 741-763.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Erickson, K.G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American
Journal of Sociology, 106, 579-615.
Jost, J. T. & Banaji, D. (1994). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and
system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 293-305.
Recommended Reading:
Yukle and Tracey (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and
the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 3341.
Langer 1975. The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311328.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Galinsky, A. D, Gruenfeld, D. H., &; Magee, J. C. (2003). From Power to Action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
Session 10 (April 4): Demography and Diversity
Required Reading:
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
Jehn, K. A, Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study
of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
741-763.
Chatman, J. A., & O'Reilly, C.A. (2004). Asymmetric Reactions to Work Group Sex Diversity
among Men and Women. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 93-208.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J.,Cohen, R. R.; Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business:
Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72-97.
14
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W, & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work Group Diversity and
Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global
Organization. Management Science, 50, 352-364.
Recommended Reading:
Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.
O'Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F., & Barnett, W.P. 1989. Work group demography, social
integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.
Pelled, L. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening
process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631.
Pierce, J. 1995. Gender Trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships
among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-238.
Swann, W. B Jr.; Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C. , & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity:
Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management
Review, 29, 9-27.
Session 11 (April 7): Groups and Teams
Required Reading:
Hambrick, D.C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration
of the “team” label. Research in organizational behavior, 16, 171-213.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Levine, J. M & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In Daniel T, Fiske, Susan T. and Lindzey,
Gardner (Eds). The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 415-469). New York, NY, US:
McGraw-Hill.
Moreland, R. L. & Argote, L. (2003). Transactive memory in dynamic organizations. Peterson,
Randall S and Mannix, Elizabeth A (Eds). Leading and managing people in the dynamic
organization. (pp. 135-162). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
15
Hackman, J. R. & Wageman, R. (2005). A Theory of Team Coaching. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 269-287.
Ericksen, J. & Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the Start: Exploring the Effects of Early Team Events
on Subsequent Project Team Development and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
49, 438-471.
Recommended Reading:
Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product
design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 685-718.
Turner, Marlene E (Ed). (2001). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority versus minority influence.
Psychological Review, 93: 23-32.
Session 12 (April 25—Friday?) Leadership
Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of
leadership-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Hollander, E. and Offerman, L. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in
transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179-189.
House, R., Spangler, W., & Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the U.S. Presidency:
A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
Meindl, J., Ehrlich, S., & Dukerich, J. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
Sutton, R.I., & Galunic, D.C. 1996. Consequences of public scrutiny for leaders and their
organizations. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 18, 201-250.
Bono, J. E & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The Advice and Influence Networks of Transformational
Leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1306-1314.
Flynn, F. J. & Staw, B.M. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effects of charismatic leadership
on external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 309-330.
Recommended Reading:
16
Stodgill (1974). Historical trends in leadership theory and research. Journal of Contemporary
Business, Autumn, 1-17.
Vecchio (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451.
Howell, J., & Frost, P. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.
Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R., Hanna, B., & Knopoff, K. 1999. Faith in supervision and the selfenhancement bias: Two psychological reasons why managers don’t empower workers. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology.
House, R. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.
Messick, David M (Ed); Kramer, Roderick M (Ed). (2005). The psychology of leadership: New
perspectives and research. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Session 13 (April 28) Presentation Day
17
A taste of what we didn’t have time to cover
Papers on Innovation:
Amabile, T. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
organizational behavior. Vol. 10: JAI Press.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R.I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation: Evidence from a
product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Kanter, R.M. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social
conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in
organizational behavior. Vol. 10.
Nemeth, C., & Staw, B. 1989. The tradeoffs of social control and innovation within groups and
organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 22,
Academic Press: 175-210.
Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5, 14-37.
Papers on Social Network:
Podolny, J.M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Relationships and resources: Social networks and mobility
in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673-693.
Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent values of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
339-365.
Brass, D. J. 1995. A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 39-79.
Bian, Y. 1997. Bring strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searchers in
China. American Sociological Review, 62, 366-385.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360-1380.
18
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In
In N. Nohria & R.G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action
(pp. 216-239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Stevenson, K. & Zelen, M. (1989). Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples. Social
Networks, 11, 1-37.
Lawler, E. J. & Yoon, J. (1998). Network structure and emotion in exchange relations. American
Sociological Review, 63, 871-894.
Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467487.
Ibarra, Herminia & Andrews, Steven B. (1993). Power, social influence and sense making:
Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38, 227-303.
Kameda, Tatsuya. Ohtsubo, Yohsuke. Takezawa, Masanori. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive
networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 296-309
Papers on Levels of Analysis Issues:
House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the
integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in org. behavior. Vol. 17, 71114.
Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L., & Dutton, J. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational
behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501-524.
Ehrhart, M.G. & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Work Groups:
A Group Norms Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960-974.
Sacco, Joshua M; Schmitt, Neal. A Dynamic Multilevel Model of Demographic Diversity and
Misfit Effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 203-231.
Klein, K., Danserau, F., & Hall, R. (1994). Level issues in theory development, data collection,
and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 195-229.
19
Appendix 1: Helpful readings for doctoral students
Becker, H. Writing for social scientists.
Editorial, 1993. A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles. Personnel Psychology, 45,
705-718.
Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants. Ad hoc committee on
Ethical Standards in Psychological Research, (pp. 1-17). Washington, D.C.: APA.
Kennedy, P. A guide to econometrics. (3rd Edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Melesky, T. 1991. The mechanics of the Ph.D. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27,
444-451.
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (4th Edition) Washington,
D.C.: APA. 1994.
Strunk, W., & White, E.B. 1979. The elements of style. (3rd Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Publishers.
Vogt, W.P. 1993. Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A non-technical guide for the
social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage.
Zanna, M., & Darley, J. 1987. The compleat academic. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Zinser, W. 1987. On writing well (4th Ed.). New York: Harper.
Appendix 2: Some of the major books in micro-OB
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. Harper.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard.
Katz & Kahn (1978). The social psychology of organizations, Second edition. Wiley.
March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
Roethlisberger & Dickson. (1968). Management attitudes and performance. Irwin Dorsey.
Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior. Free Press. 1976 (3rd edition).
Weick, K. (1995). The social psychology of organizing. McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The handbook of social psychology, 4th
Edition (Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.
20