MGMT 823
Selected Topics in Organizational Behavior
Fall 2014; Mondays, 10-12:50 (DMSB Rm. #108)
Instructor:
Office:
E-mail:
Office Hours:
Sherry M.B. Thatcher
Darla Moore School of Business, Rm. 406F
sherry.thatcher@moore.sc.edu
By appointment
I respond quickly to email (usually within 4-6 hours, except on Sundays).
When I am in my office, I have an open door policy. If I have it closed,
just knock.
Course Description
We will examine theoretical and empirical research within selected topics in organizational
behavior – more specifically, interpersonal relationships and groups / teams. Our focus will be
on meso-OB topics. Meso-organizational behavior is a middle ground between micro- and
macro-organizational behavior and focuses primarily on understanding the behaviors of people
working together in groups and teams. The course seeks to develop a thorough understanding of
the ontological (the “what” of the topic) and epistemological (the “how we research”)
foundations of the topics covered. As such, we will explore and critique frameworks, theories,
methodologies, and conclusions from prior research, and develop our own perspectives on the
topics.
Readings will include articles and chapters that are conceptual/theoretical in nature, original
empirical studies, research literature reviews, and meta-analyses. The seminar itself will be a
collaborative effort between the students and instructor aimed at producing thoughtful analysis
and discussion.
A key component of the class is individual, in-depth work on a specific topic. This is your
chance to adapt the course to your own research interests by focusing on specific organizational
behavior research topics that have relevance to your own research.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of the course you should be able to:
1. Competently review theoretical and empirical meso-organizational behavior manuscripts.
2. Identify worthwhile meso-organizational behavior issues to study.
3. Theorize and operationalize research questions on important meso-organizational
behavior topics.
Course Components: Deliverables and Grading
I have attempted to build a skills-based course in which the “deliverables,” assignments, and inclass activities on which you work will help you in your career as a world-class organizational
scholar. In my opinion, a scholar needs to be able to discuss, evaluate, review, generate, present,
1
and write about significant ideas (Colquitt & George, 2011, 54(3), pp. 432-435, Academy of
Management Journal Editorial). It is the idea that counts…. But you have to present your idea so
others can understand and use the idea in a significant way….
Your course grade will be determined with reference to the following components:
1) Class participation and discussion leadership (40%)
2) Proposal, review, and final theory paper (40%)
3) Paper presentation and presentation review (20%)
Readings
Please see the syllabus for the list of readings for a particular week.
As an organizational scholar, there are two basic activities that will be the bulk of your existence
– (1) reading and (2) writing. Of course, implicit in this process is another foundational activity –
Thinking! So, we will spend a lot of our time reading, processing, and then writing about our
“processing” or thinking.
Each week, we will read a variety of theoretical and empirical research articles and some book
chapters. For each 3-hour class, I've selected a number of articles – both theoretical and
empirical – to focus our discussion. I have assigned articles that are “closest” to the management
journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes) although we must recognize that our
foundational disciplines are psychology, sociology, and the like. As management or
organizational scholars, we must be familiar with and conversant in the language of the
management journals.
For each week’s session, I have tried to select a literature review or theoretical article that
provides some overview of the area and context within which to place and discuss the other
articles (these are marked by an asterisk). You should read the review article first. I reserve the
right to make minor changes in required readings as the semester progresses if a “must read”
article comes along.
Some weeks will have more readings than other weeks. I will also provide additional references
that are good for those interested in reading and learning more about the particular topic.
Note: There are readings for the first day of class, so be sure to come to class prepared to discuss
these readings.
Class Participation & Discussion Leadership
1. Class Participation
a. To make valuable contributions to the class, it is essential for ALL students to prepare for and
participate actively in EACH class. This means reading and thinking critically about
2
assignments BEFORE class. It means making quality contributions to class discussions by
listening carefully to the comments of others and building on their ideas.
Each week, one person will be responsible for facilitating the discussion and structure for the
session (see “Discussion Leader” section below). This does not mean, however, that if it is not
your week you are “off the hook”—you always need to come prepared.
When reading the articles the point is to think deeply about the readings. Beyond just doing the
readings, understand (1) the purpose of the study or article, (2) primary results, (3) strengths and
weaknesses of the theory/method/results, (4) contributions of the research, and (5) research
questions raised by the study that need to be addressed in follow-up research. To be honest, 1-5
are easy. What’s more difficult, and much more important, is to identify the one or two most
important lessons learned, and how this new knowledge fits in with other things you know.
Each week (except for the first class meeting, the last class meeting, and the week when you are
the discussion leader), you will write a 1-2 page (single-spaced) memo/journal of typed notes
and reflections on the readings. Submit your review (upload through Blackboard assignments)
by 4 pm the day before our class (put your last name and date in the document title).
In this memo, you should go beyond simply summarizing each paper. You can do summaries on
your own if you like, but for the memo you turn in to me, I want you to develop and refine the
habit of deeper critical thinking about the readings (i.e., understanding and perhaps questioning
the assumptions in the papers, integrating and comparing across papers, thinking about
implications for future research and for practice, etc.). You may want to highlight different
points of view or apparent contradictions in the various readings, or relate the papers to previous
weeks’ readings, or go in depth on a particular concept or theme that shows up in several articles.
Your weekly write-up should always conclude with the following: (1) at least one or two points
or questions you could raise to enrich the discussion in class, and (2) at least one research
question or idea that comes to mind that is in some way related to the readings.
I review each of these write-ups every week to ensure that the members of the class are
understanding the readings, etc. I will periodically comment on them, either in person or by
email to you, highlighting some interesting insights or suggesting alternative ways to improve
your critical thinking. I will not respond to every single write-up every week.
A little tip: Might I suggest the following to prepare…. (1) I would first scan all the article
abstracts to “get a sense” of what the “literature” is saying as a whole. (2) Then, I would read the
most recent theory or conceptual review piece. (3) Then, I would read the remaining articles
placing their findings within the context of the overall review. An addition tip: Don’t read to
memorize like you did in your other educational pursuits. You should read to be a part of the
research conversation.
b. Class participation also includes providing high quality feedback to other members of the
class. This includes noting strengths and weaknesses (including suggestions for improvement)
of the research paper proposal/outline that each student will do.
3
Important point: It is easy to be critical of others’ work. The greater skill is in (1) developing
the ability to give constructive criticism (How might it be done better?), and (2) recognizing that
there are always trade-offs in research; every manuscript you read has both strengths and
weaknesses. It is important to be able to recognize both, and not just point out the flaws. You
will find that these skills come in handy as you review others’ work, either informally, as a
friendly reviewer, or formally, as a reviewer for a conference and/or journal.
c. Please let me know in advance if you will miss class. Absences may affect your participation
grade as you must be present to be able to participate.
2. Discussion leadership
During the semester, each student will serve as a discussion leader for one or two sessions.
Discussion leaders will help to guide the group discussion about the topic, including discussion
across articles. Your role is to guide the discussion of individual articles, integrate the arguments
of the articles, ensure coverage of various perspectives on the topic, summarize major trains of
thought and/or themes in the articles, and identify future research streams. You must read the
required articles (as well as the other articles listed). You are responsible to provide three
deliverables to me (as the instructor) and, more importantly, your colleagues:
1. A brief integrative summary of the articles (maximum 2 pages). You should include an
integrative figure or typology that brings together the different readings.
2. Discussion questions to be discussed in class.
3. Two recent articles (published within the last three years and in top management
journals) that you think reflect important developments on the topic, as post-reading for
the session.
Please email these three deliverables to the class (me included) the evening before that particular
session. The following questions may help you as you prepare to lead your session:







What is the nature of the problem that led to the theory, topic, or research stream? Does
the theory, topic, or research stream matter? Why or why not?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, topic, or research stream? Is there
anything you disagree with or find controversial? Why?
What underlying assumptions have been made?
What boundary conditions can you identify? In other words, in what contexts might this
theory, topic, or research stream apply or not apply?
How do you see this theory, topic, or research stream related to other topics?
Was the methodology used the most appropriate to study the phenomenon? If not, what
other approaches would you recommend?
Do you trust the data analysis and interpretation? If not, what leads you to be skeptical?
Although it is critical to spend some time discussing and critiquing individual readings, you will
notice that the majority of the questions require that you integrate the readings - compare and
contrast perspectives - summarize primary themes and contributions of the overall set of readings
- identify gaps and potential areas for future research.
4
With respect to the discussion questions, be sure you provide thought-provoking discussion
questions that stimulate engaging class interaction. In addition, as discussion leader, be sure to
facilitate the participation of all class members and manage the discussion so we stay focused on
the topic. Plan the class discussion so that we focus on comparison, contrast, and integration of
the articles. In other words, you should make sure we do not run out of time to do this part.
As a group, our goal is to listen carefully to each other and build on prior comments. We will
concentrate on depth of thinking and critical engagement (not on simple summaries or
descriptions of the papers).
Proposal and Theory Paper
Each colleague must write a paper on an organizational behavior topic. This must be an
original paper written solely for this class. That said you are strongly encouraged to find
synergies with papers you are writing for other courses or for your 1st year and/or 2nd year
papers. The paper you submit must be no longer than 25 pages of text, double-spaced, 12 point
font. Any papers longer than 25 pages of text will be returned for editing. Papers should be
anywhere between 18 pages to 25 pages in text (not including references, appendices, figures,
tables). Please follow AMR style guide and submission guidelines.
The goal of the paper should be to make a contribution to the organizational behavior literature.
There are many ways one can contribute to the literature. One approach is to review a large body
of literature that has not been previously brought together, offering new insights and research
directions. Another approach is to apply theory from another discipline to an organizational
behavior topic. A third approach is to develop a new organizational behavior model based upon
literature from other fields. Finally, you could take a particular theoretical framework and apply
it across organizational behavior topic areas. The Academy of Management Review publishes
these types of manuscripts. Journal of Management publishes review articles in their annual
review edition. Although your paper should include an in-depth review of the literature on your
specific topic, the primary focus of the paper should be your own unique contribution, insights,
and extension of prior research (see paper guidelines at the end of this syllabus).
I expect you to begin working on these papers very soon and to work on them throughout the
semester. If you are interested in working on a topic we are covering later in the semester (e.g.,
diversity, faultlines, creativity), it will be a good idea to read the papers assigned to that topic
area as soon as possible. Constructive feedback is a fact of academic life and helps improve the
quality of papers. I (and your peers) will be providing feedback to you - see below.
Evaluation of the final paper will be based upon the clarity of purpose and presentation, the
extent to which the paper makes a contribution to the organizational behavior literature (what is
the added value?), and the extent to which the paper is "interesting" and moves us to think about
something in a new way. “A” papers are those that are worthy of submission to a professional
conference at the time they are turned in. “A-” papers are those that will be worthy of such a
submission with a moderate of additional work. You should think about these papers as potential
submissions to the Academy of Management Conference (deadline is early January 2015).
5
Process and deadlines
You will first prepare a proposal of your idea and paper outline and submit to me and to the class
for feedback. The proposal, outline for the paper, and a brief presentation is due during Week 6:
September 29, 2014. This written proposal should include a 2-3 page description of your
specific research topic, how it will contribute to the literature, and why you think the idea is
interesting, and a rough, 1-page outline of the paper. If you have a theoretical model in mind, go
ahead and include a figure if you like. Submit 3 copies of your proposal, one for me and one for
each of two classmates who will be providing feedback on the proposal. Also prepare a brief 5minute presentation of your idea to present to the class.
At the next class meeting (Week 7: October 6, 2014), each member of class will bring two
copies of written feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions (2 pages single-spaced) on
the proposals of two other students. One copy of your feedback is for me and the other copy is
for the students whose proposal you read.
The next deliverable will be a literature review and annotated bibliography (Week 10: October
27, 2014). The purpose of this deliverable is to demonstrate that you have read the majority of
the literature for your paper by this time and will leave sufficient time for thinking, crafting of
ideas, and writing. This deliverable should contain the following components:
a. A complete list of references.
b. Annotations (original summaries of the readings that include some sense of
how the reading will contribute to the paper – please do NOT simply
reproduce published abstracts). They should be short - e.g., 50-100 words
c. At the front, include a one page summary that provides some sense of how
you think these readings are going to work together to create a “whole” paper.
d. Reference lists should include a minimum of 30 articles and/or books
e. Include a “tentative” 2 page introduction that promotes the research question
and contribution of “your” theory.
Two copies of your final written paper accompanied by your proposal and outline (with my
original feedback attached) are due by 5:00 p.m. on the last day of class: Monday, December 1,
2014.
Paper Presentation
A presentation forces us to think more logically about our idea and put it into a “digestable”
format. You will present your initial paper idea during Week 6: September 29, 2014. You will
be presenting your paper during Week 12: November 10, 2014. In other words, it will help you
to try to “teach” your idea to someone else. You should plan to prepare a PowerPoint
presentation of your paper, similar to what you would do for an academic conference or job talk
(except shorter, approximately15 minutes). At the beginning of the presentation, provide each
class member with a two-page, single-spaced written handout (not an outline) that describes the
6
key points in your paper, including a figure of your model. During the presentation, describe
your specific research topic, your model, proposed relationships, the theoretical justification for
your propositions, and the key contributions of your paper. Your goal is to stimulate our
thinking and class discussion. You should be prepared for questions from the audience. The
presentations and presentation reviews are intentionally scheduled about two weeks before the
paper is due so that you can incorporate any feedback or address any issues that arise as a result
of preparing and presenting the paper.
Like the initial peer proposal reviews, you will also provide a written review of the presentations.
For the two colleagues whose proposals you initially reviewed, prepare a 2-page written review
of content and style of their presentation. As in your initial review, note strengths, weaknesses,
and suggestions for improvement. The review must address issues associated with both the
presentation itself (e.g., speaking style, mannerisms, powerpoint slides) as well as the content of
the presentation (e.g., organization of topic, clarity of the research question, conciseness of the
literature review, clarity of the theoretical logic). The reviews are due on November 17, 2014;
each member of the class will bring two copies of the reviews (2 pages single-spaced) on the
presentations of two other students. One copy of your feedback is for me and the other copy is
for the students whose presentation you critiqued.
Assignments & Due Dates
It is your responsibility to complete graded assignments in a timely manner. Assignments are
due when specified. Turning in an assignment late may result in a grade of zero. Exceptions will
be considered only under extenuating circumstances that you discuss with me in advance of the
due date and time.
Word to the wise OB students
You will need to prepare for qualifying exams in the future, and one way to help yourself in this
endeavor is to begin to develop good study and organizational habits now. I would advise that
you find some way that works for you to organize your readings in this course (and other
seminars), perhaps even preparing outlines as you go, so that you will be somewhat more
organized when you are studying for qualifying exams. Check with more senior students to see
what they have done in this regard (or what they wish they had done in hindsight!).
Professional conduct
This course adheres to the policies associated with the USC Honor Code (see below). You are
expected to practice the highest possible standards of academic integrity. Any deviation from this
expectation will result in a minimum of your failing the assignment, and may result in additional,
more severe disciplinary measures. This includes improper citation of sources, using another
student’s work, and any other form of academic misrepresentation.
7
Session
Topics
Week 1: Aug. 25
What is OB? What is theory? What is our role in
academic research?
Team models and multi-level issues
Week 2 : Sep. 1
(Sep. 1 is Labor
Day; we will find
another time to meet
this week)
Week 3: Sep. 8
Week 4: Sep. 15
Week 6: Sep. 29
Relationships at work
Relational and team/group development: It’s about
time… AND
Special mini-workshop on the reviewing process
Inputs: Individual differences and organizational
influences
Inputs: Identity and status
Week 7: Oct. 6
Structure: Team composition and diversity
Week 8: Oct. 13
Week 9: Oct. 20
Week 10: Oct. 27
Structure: Team faultlines and subgroups
FALL BREAK – NO CLASS
Relational processes and states: Forgiveness and
trust
Week 11: Nov. 3
Week 12: Nov. 10
Leadership and leading teams
Group processes: Affective, behavioral (conflict),
and cognitive (team mental models, transactive
memory systems)
Outcomes: Decision-making, cohesion, social
loafing, performance, creativity
Week 5: Sep. 22
Week 13: Nov. 17
Week 14: Nov. 24
Week 15: Dec. 1
THANKSGIVING BREAK – NO CLASS
Making an impact: Scholarly processes
Discussion
Leaders/Assignments
due
Discussion Leader:
Thatcher
DL:
DL:
DL:
DL:
Paper proposal due
(bring 3 copies of the
proposal)
Paper proposal
presentation due
DL:
Reviews of paper
proposals due (bring 2
copies of the reviews)
DL:
DL:
Literature review and
annotated bibliography
due
DL:
DL:
Paper presentations due
DL:
Reviews of presentation
due (bring 2 copies of
the reviews
DL:
Final papers due
Answer the questions
attached to the reading
list
DL: Thatcher
8
Week 1: August 25
What is OB? What is theory? What is our role in academic research?
Bem, D.J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 172177.
Colquitt, J.A., & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade
study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303.
Folger, R., & Turillo, C.J. (1999). Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 742-758.
Heath, C., & Sitkin, S.B. (2001). Big-B versus big-O: What is organizational about organizational
behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 43-58.
Sutton, R.I. & Staw, B.M. (1995), What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384.
Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14,
490-495.
Whetten, D.A. (2001). What matters most. Academy of Management Review, 26, 175-178.
9
Week 2: September 1
Team models and multilevel issues
Domain Overview
*Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the
shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From inputprocess-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
*Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L.L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410476.
Multilevel Issues
Bliese, P.D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analyses. In K.J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,
and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
*Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of
analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
*Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 This is a LONG chapter. Please read quickly. I would focus on pages 55 to the end of the
chapter.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G.T., Grand, J.A., Braun, M.T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel
research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16,
581-615.
Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M., & Michels, L.C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria.
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202-220.
Morgeson, F.R. & Hofmann, D.A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs:
Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 249-265.
Additional reading (not required for class, but good for interested parties):
Hollenbeck, J.R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M.E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A
dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review,
37, 82-106.
10
Week 3: September 8
Relationships at Work
*Andersen, S., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory.
Psychological Review, 109, 619-645.
Ballinger, G.A., & Rockmann, K.W. (2010). Chutes versus ladders: Anchoring events and a punctuatedequilibrium perspective on social exchange relationships. Academy of Management Review, 35,
373-391.
*Ferris, G.R., Liden, R.C., Munyon, T.P., Summers, J.K., Basik, K.J., & Buckley, M.R. (2009).
Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work
relationships. Journal of Management, 35, 1379-1403.
*Gersick, C.J.G., Dutton, J.E., & Bartunek, J.M. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance of
relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1026-1044.
Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 393-417.
*Kenny, D., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., Kashy, D.A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from
small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137.
Kram, K.E., & Isabella, L.A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career
development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132.
Settoon, R., & Mossholder, K. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of
person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
255-267.
11
Week 4: September 15
Relational and team/group development: It’s about time…
AND Special mini-workshop on the reviewing process
Readings for relational and team/group development: It’s about time…
*Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
*Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: Toward a new
understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 106-117.
*Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 48, 101-116.
Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. (2005). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on
subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49,
438-471.
*Gersick, C.J. 1989. Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 274-309.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H., & Florey, A.T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance:
Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.
*Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Morgan, B.B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A.S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The
Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277-291.
Murnighan, J.K., & Conlon, D.E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string
quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165-186.
Readings for special mini-workshop on the reviewing process
NOTE: Please read all the AMJ articles (editorials) below. They are short and sweet. Then, peruse (that
is, scan, look at, laugh at, explore) the compilation of documents that encompasses the submission and
subsequent revisions of an in-press AMJ article (Maruping et al., AMJ). I will provide these documents to
you. The AMJ example is designed to give you feel of the revision and “responding to reviewer” process.
Please come prepared with questions about the revision process.
Reviewing
Harrison, D. (2002). Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 1079-1084.
12
Responding To Reviews
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. (2006). Reap rewards: Maximizing benefits
from reviewer comments. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 191-196.
The Review Process
Seibert, S. E. (2006). Anatomy of an R&R (or, reviewers are an author's best friends...). Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 203-207.
Rynes, S. L. (2006). Observations on "Anatomy of an R&R" and other reflections. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 208-214.
Example:
*Maruping, L., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S.M.B., & Patel, P. C. (In press). Folding under pressure or
rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal
leadership. Academy of Management Journal.
13
Week 5: September 22
Inputs: Individual differences and organizational influences
*Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
377-391.
*DeShon, R.P., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Schmidt, A.M., Milner, K.R., & Wiechmann, D. 2004. A multiplegoal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1035-1056.
Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J. Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed
teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait
variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885-892.
*Johnson, M.D., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Ilgen, D.R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C.J. 2006. Cutthroat
competition: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of
Management Journal, 49: 103-119.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. I., Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the
performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 803-811.
*Marks, M.A., Sabella, M.J., Burke, C.S., & Zaccaro, S.J. (2002). The impact of cross training on team
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The
importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 583-611.
Additional reading (not required for class, but good for interested parties):
Chen, G., Donahue, L.M., & Klimoski, R.J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational
teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 27-40.
DeMatteo, J.S., Eby, L.T., & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team-based rewards: Current empirical evidence and
directions for future research. In L.L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14
Week 6: September 29
Input: Identity and status
*Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management
Review, 14: 20-39.
*Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept
orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35, 516-538.
*Haslam, S.A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of
responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037-1052.
Kreiner, G.E., Ashforth, B.E., & Sluss, D.M. (2006). Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work:
Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organization Science, 17, 619636.
Meister, A., Jehn, K.A., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (in press). Feeling misidentified: The consequences of
internal identity asymmetries for individuals at work. Academy of Management Review.
*Sluss, D.M., & Ashforth, B.E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through
work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32: 9-32.
*Thatcher, S.M.B. & Greer, L.L. (2008). Does it really matter if you recognize who I am? The
implications of identity comprehension for individuals in work teams. Journal of Management,
34(1), 5-24.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Working for the self or working for the group: How selfversus group affirmation affects collective behavior in low-status groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 96, 183-202.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and
distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
538-553.
15
Week 7: October 6
Structure: Group composition and diversity
*Bell, S.T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595-615.
*Ely, R.J. & Thomas, D.A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on
work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
*Harrison, D.A. & Klein, K.J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety,
or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741763.
*Joshi, A., Liao, H., & Jackson, S.E. (2006). Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales
performance and pay. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 459-481.
Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P., & Swann, W.B.J. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in
small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324.
*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(6),
1008-1022.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Homan, A.C., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D.R., & Van Kleef, G.A.
(2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup
differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51,
1204-1222.
Pieterse, A.N., van Knippenberg, D., van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team
performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56,
782-804.
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., & Singh, G. 2011. Inclusion and
diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37,
1262-1289.
16
Week 8: October 13
Structure: Faultlines and subgroups
Bezrukova, K, Jehn, K.A., Zanutto, E.L., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or
hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization
Science, 20(1), 35-50.
*Carton, A.M. & Cummings, J.N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of
Management Review, 37(3), 441-470.
*Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional
dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325-341.
*Meyer, B. & Glenz, A. (2013). Team faultline measures: A computational comparison and a new
approach to multiple subgroups. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 393-424.
Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities, and personality traits: Do
faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14: 173-193.
Polzer, J.T., Crisp, C.B., Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Kim, J.W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to
geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679-692.
*Thatcher, S.M.B. & Patel, P.C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1119-1139.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Cooper, D., Patel, P.C., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2014). It depends: Environmental context and the effects of
faultlines on top management team performance. Organization Science, 25(2), 633-652.
Lau, D.C. & Murnighan, J.K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of
demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645-659.
Pearsall, M.J., Ellis, A.P., & Evans, J.M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team
creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225-234.
Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sanchez-Manzanares, M. & Van der Vegt, G.S. (2007). The effects of diversity
faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of
Management, 33, 111-132.
Thatcher, S.M.B. & Patel, P.C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future
research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969-1009.
17
Week 9: FALL BREAK (NO CLASS)
Week 10: October 27
Relational processes and states: Forgiveness and trust
*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(3): 653-668.
*Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A metaanalytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 909-927.
de Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task
dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 16251637.
*Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, N. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its
situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914.
Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the
effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34, 105-126.
*Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective
and multilevel conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34, 401-422.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protégé internal locus of
control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 358-367.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn't come to shove:
Interpersonal forgiveness in workplace relationships. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 209216.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, Jr., E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A
research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality & Social Psychology Review,
7, 337-348.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while
the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336.
18
Week 11: November 3
Leadership and leading teams
*Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future
directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
*DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. 2010. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership
identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35, 627-647.
Grant, A.M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance
effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 458-476
*Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: The antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.
*Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of
conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 885-900.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. 2010. Leadership in teams: A functional approach to
understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39.
*Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus
hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559-577.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. 2011. Trait and behavioral theories of
leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology,
64, 7-52.
 Gives a very integrative and comphrensive theoretical and empirical view of the inputs,
processes, and outputs of leadership. Great for “comps” and those interested in research
leadership.
Druskat, V.U., & Wheeler, J.V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of selfmanaging work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435-457.
Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30,
267-289.
Morgeson, F.P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of
novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497-508.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
19
Week 12: November 10
Group processes: Affective, behavioral (conflict), cognitive (team mental models, transactive
memory systems)
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict
resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management
strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188.
Chattopadhyay, P., Finn, C., Ashkanasy, N.M. (2010). Affective responses to professional dissimilarity:
A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 808-826.
Cole, M.S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to
performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
945-958.
*Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group
and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596-616.
*Jiang, J.Y., Zhang, X., & Tjosvold, D. (2013). Emotion regulation as a boundary condition of the
relationship between team conflict and performance: A multi-level examination. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34, 714-734.
*Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup
conflict. Journal of Management, 34, 1222-1252.
*Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604.
*Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The influence of
shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273283.
*Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood
of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
295-305.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Anger-Elfenbein, H. (2007). Emotion in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 37-41.
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart's content: A model
of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802-836.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.
20
Collins, A.L., Lawrence, S.A., Troth, A.C., Jordon, P.J. (2013). Group affective tone: A review and future
research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S43-S62.
Conlon, D. E., Moon, H., & Ng, K. Y. (2002). Putting the cart before the horse: The benefits of
arbitrating before mediating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 978-984.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99-130.
Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., & Rentsch, J. R. 2000. The measurement of team mental models: We have
no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 123-165.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Hartel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective
events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561-581.
21
Week 13: November 17
Outcomes: Decision-making, cohesion, social loafing, performance, creativity
Baltes, B.B., Dickson, M.W., Sherman, M.P., Bauer, C.C., & LaGanke, J.S. (2002). Computer-mediated
communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179.
*Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J., & McLendon, C.L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups:
A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.
*de Jong, B., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The
mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 535549.
George, J.M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy
of Management Journal, 35, 191-202.
*Perry-Smith, J.E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85-101.
*Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics
on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-958.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A
multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315-330.
*Van der Vegt, G.S., & Bunderson, J.S. (2005). Learning and performance in multi-disciplinary teams:
The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-377.
Baer, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. K. (2010). Win or lose the battle for
creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53,
827-845.
Dane, E. and Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 33-54.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & West, M.A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of
participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.
George, J.M. & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and goods ones don’t:
The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687-697.
Gilson, L.L, Mathieu, J.E., Shalley, C.E. & Ruddy, T.M. (2005). Creativity and standardization:
Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,
48, 521-531.
22
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’
engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453-470.
Karau, S.J., & Williams, K.D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
Kahneman, A. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Litchfield, R.C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management
Review, 33, 649-668.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R. & Pratt, M.G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contribution of work
and non-work creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 757-768.
Moorhead, G., & Montanari, J.R. (1986). An empirical investigation of the groupthink phenomenon.
Human Relations, 39, 399-410.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Pirola Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:
Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235-257.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Ahearne, M. (1997). Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the
relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
974-983.
Schnake, M.E. (1991). Equity in effort: The “sucker effect” in co-acting groups. Journal of Management,
17, 41-55.
Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. (1997). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design
firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 685-718.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-Five Years of Groupthink Theory and Research:
Lessons from the Evaluation of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 73, 105-115.
Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink reconsidered. Academy of Management Review, 14, 40-56.
23
Week 14: THANKSGIVING BREAK (NO CLASS)
Week 15: December 1
Making an impact: Scholarly success
*Hollenbeck, J.R., & Mannor, M.J. (2007). Career success and weak paradigms: The role of activity,
resiliency, and true scores. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 933-942.
*Trevino, L.K. (2008). Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 8-10.
*Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Colbert, A.E., & Rynes, S.L. 2007. What causes a management article to be
cited—Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 491-506.
Additional reading (not required for class but good for interested parties):
Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor- relevance debate in
management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 775-782.
Leung, K. (2007). The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 510-513.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. III. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for
doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 769-774.
Questions – Scholarly Processes (jot down your answers and be prepared to discuss in class):
1. What aspects of being an academic are most intrinsically motivating to you now?
2. How might this change over the next five years/ten years?
3. Describe a research question that you would pursue if you had unlimited resources.
24
Paper Guidelines
1. Title
a. Attract interest and attention to your idea
b. Specify key theories and/or constructs so readers can anticipate your topic
2. Topic and research focus
a. In one sentence, summarize your theory building research project
b. Focus on a particular aspect of the topic (choose a relatively narrow topic)
c. Explain why this is an important topic
3. Theoretical framework
a. State the one theory that provides the foundation for your work: this theory should be the source of
the key constructs in your model, dimensions of key concepts, proposed relationships, etc.
b. Provide citations to the original theory
c. Indicate other theoretical perspectives that you considered
4. Key concepts and definitions of key concepts
a. Predictors/Outcomes/Mediators/Moderators
5. Proposed relationships
a. State the propositions in your model
b. Support these proposed relationships based on theory
c. Attach a model/diagram that summarizes your propositions and depicts proposed relationships
6. Boundary conditions
a. Describe the focus and limits of your theory building
b. Describe the contexts where your proposed relationships should be relevant: This could include
type of organization, group, job, geographic location, cultures, etc.
7. Level of conceptualization
For example - is your primary focus on actions, decisions, individuals, groups, or organizations?
8. Empirical test of your model
While the primary focus of this paper is on developing and communicating theory, you should also
devote a bit of thought to how someone (maybe you) might test this idea in the future. What sort of
sample and study design would be appropriate? What challenges could you anticipate running into?
-- This section should be one page long, two at the most.
9. That’s interesting; potential contributions
Explain why your theory building is interesting Link your model back to your theoretical foundation
and back to practical issues Explain the potential contribution of your model to research and to
practice
Miscellaneous
Make sure your final product has been proofed, spell-checked, and is in proper format, including the
reference list. You may use the format specified in the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (“APA format”), or you may use another style guide/format that is
appropriate and accepted for top journals in your area (e.g., the format used for Academy of
Management journals. To find this, see the information for authors at the AMJ website and download
the style guide there).
25