MANG 780: Current Topics in Organizational Behavior
Fall, 2014; Wednesday 2:30-5:20; Room B&E 131
Professor: Jodi S. Goodman
Phone: 304-293-7941
E-mail: jsgoodman@mail.wvu.edu
Office: College of Business & Economics, 116
Office Hours: T/TH 2:15-3:45 or by appointment
Course website: ecampus.wvu.edu
In this course, we will survey the field of organizational behavior, primarily at the individual-level
of analysis, but also at the group/team level. The emphasis will be on exploring current concepts,
theory, and empirical research to develop foundational knowledge in several key OB topic areas
and in how we go about studying our subject matter. Since the field is so broad, we will not be
able to cover a large number of OB topics, but you will have a good foundation from which to
explore other topics.
Course objectives
1. To increase and deepen your understanding of theories and assumptions in OB.
2. To improve your skills in interpreting and evaluating academic research.
3. To further develop your scholarly writing skills.
4. To have an opportunity to sit around and discuss ideas and research!
Course readings
There is no required textbook for this course. We will be using published articles and book
chapters, which I posted on our eCampus website.
I recommend that you subscribe to “journal alerts” for major journals (e.g., Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Management, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Administrative Science Quarterly, Organizational Research Methods,
Organization Science, Personnel Psychology) to receive tables of contents via email when new
issues of the journals are published. You’ll be able to access most articles of interest on-line
through the WVU library. I also recommend that you browse review journals (e.g., Annual Review
of Psychology, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Psychological Bulletin).
Expectations
This will be a demanding course. What you get out of the course will be a function of what you put
into it. I expect that everyone will have read and thought about the assigned material prior to
each class meeting and will be prepared to discuss each topic thoroughly. In addition to assigned
readings, I included a number of background references for various topics. These are not
required, but you will only get the bare essentials out of this course if you chose to skip the
recommended material.
Participants are expected to lead discussions on the articles assigned. This should be viewed as
an opportunity to sharpen discussion leadership and teaching skills, as well as increase depth of
understanding. Those who are not leading a particular discussion are expected to actively
participate in and contribute to the class discussion.
1
Performance Assessment
Class members will be evaluated on the following items:
Item
Weight
Discussion leadership
10%
Contributions to class discussions
20%
Written paper
40% (see course outline for due dates)
Final exam (take home)
30%
Grading scale: ‘A’ > 90%, ‘B’ 80 - 89.99%, ‘C’ 70 - 79.99%, ‘D’ 60 - 69.99%, ‘F’ < 60
Class Contribution and Discussion Leadership
Responsibility for leading discussions of the articles will be rotated among the students in the
course. Each class member is expected to contribute to class discussions, regardless of who is
leading the discussion. Everyone will read each article assigned and be prepared to contribute to
the discussion. Those who are not assigned a discussion leadership role for a particular class
period will post (on eCampus Discussions) two items for discussion specific to the week’s
readings no later than the Tuesday night before class. The discussion leader will try to
incorporate these items into the discussion.
Class discussions should address the following issues, in addition to other issues class members
deem relevant and important. Discussion leaders should modify these questions to fit the
specifics of the articles, as needed, but ensure that these issues are discussed. All class
members should use these questions to guide their preparation for class.
Since the articles for the first topic differ in nature from those for the remaining topics, I developed
a separate set of issues for discussion.
First topic: The interplay of theory and research design.
1. What constitutes a theoretical contribution?
2. How does our field’s focus on theory development add to and/or detract from the
advancement of scientific and practical knowledge?
3. How are theory and research design interrelated?
4. How can or should the ideas in the articles impact your approach to doing research?
5. What kinds of skills are needed to be a good researcher?
Remaining topics:
1. What are the articles’ contributions to the field (theoretical and empirical)? What have
we learned from the articles? How do the articles compare to one another in terms of
their contributions?
2. Is the theory used or developed in the articles ‘good theory’? How so?
3. How were the papers constructed? Examine the way the paper was written, organized,
positioned in the literature, the role played by the paper’s introduction, etc.
4. Empirical articles: Critique the research methods used (research design, fit with the
arguments and constructs, sampling, measures, analyses). Are the studies examples of
solid empirical research? How so? What are the potential threats to the validity of the
conclusions? Do the interpretations and conclusions follow from the results of the study?
How could the methods be improved?
5. Where do we go from here? What are the implications for future research?
6. Once you’ve gotten to philosophy of science in your Philosophy of Research course:
What philosophy of science perspective(s) do the authors seem to be following? How did
the authors’ perspectives impact their research? (Note that this will rarely, if ever, be
explicitly stated, and the authors may be unaware of their own assumptions.)
2
Written paper
To assist you with developing and refining your scholarly research skills, you will write a
combination theory piece and research proposal. This will involve developing testable
hypotheses (i.e., theory building) and describing how you would go about testing them (i.e.,
proposed research methods).
Your paper must be original and practically feasible. By original, I mean that the ideas
(arguments, hypotheses, etc.) must be your own and must be significantly different from those
you’ve developed in the past (in other classes, for your summer paper, Masters Thesis, etc.), and
the proposed study must not have been implemented previously in published or unpublished
work, including your own. You may consult with faculty or other students to help you develop,
evaluate, and refine your thinking, but the ideas and work must be your own. By practically
feasible, I mean the hypotheses must be testable and the proposed study could be executed over
a reasonable period of time, with a reasonable level of resources. I encourage you to choose a
topic you are interesting in pursuing, run your study or experiment after the course is over, and
submit a paper to a conference for presentation and/or to a peer reviewed journal for publication.
This will be a semester long effort. Thus, several weeks into the semester, you will summit a
short project proposal (no more than two pages) of the content area you wish to pursue for your
paper and rough research questions and hypotheses you have in mind. This way we can head
off any potential concerns/problems early on. A detailed outline or draft of the paper is due midterm, and the final paper is due toward the end of the semester. Students will present their papers
during class toward the end of the semester. See the course outline for due dates.
A few guidelines:
1. The paper is not to exceed 30 double-spaced pages in a 12-point font with 1” margins on
all sides. This limit only pertains to text and does not include references, tables, figures,
or appendices.
2. Use APA Guidelines (or a similar style, e.g., AOM, AMA) for structuring and formatting
your manuscript. Purdue’s Owl website is a great resource for APA style
(http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/).
3. For the front end, I expect more development of theoretical arguments than you’ll
generally find in Academy of Management Journal, but less than you’ll find in Academy of
Management Review.
4. The research methods section will include a detailed description of your proposed design,
sample, measures, manipulations (if it’s an experiment), procedures, analyses, and a
discussion of the limitations of the proposed methods. If you have access to data and
would like to include actual analyses and results, feel free to do so, but data are not
required.
5. See the “From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ” series, Parts 1 - 7, Academy of Journal,
2011, 54(3) through 2012, 55(3) for helpful advice.
Final exam
There will be a take-home final exam. Essay questions will be designed to facilitate integration of
issues discussed in the readings and during class. The questions will require you to combine or
go beyond the material. Simply reiterating the material we covered will not be sufficient. Your
answers will be typed, and there will be an upper page limit.
Important Additional Items
Academic Conduct
The integrity of the classes offered by any academic institution solidifies the foundation of its
mission and cannot be sacrificed to expediency, ignorance, or blatant fraud. Therefore, I will
3
enforce rigorous standards of academic integrity in all aspects and assignments of this course.
Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to: plagiarism, having someone else do your
academic work, and turning in work completed for another purpose (e.g., another course, an
assistantship, summer paper, Master’s thesis). Depending on the act, a student could receive an
F grade on the assignment and/or F grade for the course, and could be suspended or expelled
from the University. For the detailed policy of West Virginia University regarding the definitions of
acts considered to fall under academic dishonesty and possible ensuing sanctions, please see
the Student Conduct Code at http://campuslife.wvu.edu/office_of_student_conduct. If you have
any questions about possibly improper research citations or references, or any other activity that
may be interpreted as an attempt at academic dishonesty, please see me before the assignment
is due to discuss the matter.
Social Justice
“The West Virginia University community is committed to creating and fostering a positive
learning and working environment based on open communication, mutual respect, and inclusion.
If you are a person with a disability and anticipate needing any type of accommodation in order to
participate in this class, please advise me and make appropriate arrangements with the Office of
Accessibility Services (304-293-6700). For more information on West Virginia University’s
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, please see http://diversity.sandbox.wvu.edu/ddei.”
http://diversity.wvu.edu/ddei/resources/syllabi
4
Course Outline
The course outline is subject to change at my discretion. I will, however, keep changes to a
minimum and provide sufficient notice to class members.
Date
Topic & Assigned Reading
1. August 19
INTRODUCTION & ORGANIZATION
2. August 26
THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERPLAY OF THEORY & RESEARCH
DESIGN
Required readings:
Porter, L.W. & Schneider, B. (2014). What was, what is, and what may be in OP/OB.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 1-21.
(A) Aguinis, H. & Vandenberg, R.J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 569-595.
(B) Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What
constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36, 1232.
(C) Leavitt, K., Mitchell, R. R., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to
reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13,
644-667.
(D) Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The presence of something or the
absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research.
Organizational Research Methods, 13, 668-689.
Recommended:
Academy of Management Journal (2007), 50(6). Editor’s Forum: AMJ Turns 50!
Looking Back and Looking Ahead.
Academy of Management Review (2011), 36(2). Special Topic Forum: Where are
the New Theories of Organization?
Academy of Management Review (2007), 32(4). Special Issue: The Interplay
Between Theory and Method.
Academy of Management Review (1989), 14(4). Special Issue: Nothing Is Quite So
Practical as a Good Theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly (1995), 40(3). ASQ Forum: What Theory Is Not.
Organizational Research Methods (2010), 13(4). Feature Topic: Theoretical
Progress in Organizational and Management Research.
Perspectives on Psychological Science (2011), 62(2). Special Section: Strengths
and Limitations of Theoretical Explanations in Psychology.
5
3. September 3
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY
Required readings:
Mischel W, Shoda Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality: Integrating
dispositions and processing dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing
system (CAPS). In John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, Eds). Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford, pp. 208-241.
(E) Meyer R. D., Dalal R. S., José I., Hermida R., Chen T. R., Vega R. P., Brooks
C. K., & Khare V. (2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and
assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior.
Journal of Management, 40, 1010-1041.
(F) Judge, T.A. & Zapata, C.P. (in press). The person-situation debate revisited:
Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five
personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management
Journal.
(G) Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012).
Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of
Management, 38, 81-128.
(H) Wu, C.H. & Griffin, M. A. (2012). Longitudinal relationships between core selfevaluations and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 331-342.
Recommended:
Hampson, S.E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality
traits “get outside the skin.” Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339.
Kanfer, R., Wolf, M. B., Kantrowitz, T. M. and Ackerman, P. L. (2010). Ability and
trait complex predictors of academic and job performance: A person–situation
approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59: 40–69.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of
situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36: 121140.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 1–22.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-286.
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., &
Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments.
American Psychologist, 67, 130–159.
Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., Ryan, R., & Hanges, P. J.
(2012). Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a research program on g in I–O psychology.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5,
128–148. (Also see the commentaries and authors’ response in the volume.)
6
Shaffer, J.A. & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: a meta-analytic
investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized
personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65, 445–494.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19,
151–188.
“Point-Counter Point” on Core Self-Evaluations (CSE):
Spector, P.E. (2012). Introduction: General versus specific measures and the
special case of core self‐evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 151–
152.
Chen, G. (2012). Evaluating the core: Critical assessment of core self‐evaluations
theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 153–160.
Chen, G. (2012). Evaluating the core: Critical assessment of core self-evaluations
theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 153–160.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). General and specific measures in
organizational behavior research: Considerations, examples, and recommendations
for researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 161–174.
4. September 10
JOB ATTITUDES AND AFFECT
Short project
proposal due
Required readings:
Judge, T.A. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2011). Job attitudes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 341–367.
(D) Diestel, S., Wegge, J., & Schmidt, K. (2014). The impact of social context on
the relationship between individual job satisfaction and absenteeism: The roles
of different foci of job satisfaction and work-unit absenteeism. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 353-382.
(C) Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011).
The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job
satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal,
54(1), 159-181.
(B) Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2011). Moving forward from project
failure: Negative emotions, affective commitment, and learning from the
experience. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1229-1259.
(A) Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional
labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal,
54, 116-136.
Recommended:
Bohner, G. & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62, 391–417.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A
quantitative review and test of its relations with a contextual performance.
7
Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and
resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and metaanalytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5): 834-848.
Hausknecht, J. P., Sturman, M. C., & Roberson, Q. M. (2011). Justice as a dynamic
construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4): 872-880.
Klein, Howard J.; Molloy, Janice C.; Brinsfield, Chad T. (2012). Reconceptualizing
workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions
and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37, 130-151.
Le, H., Schmidt, F.L., Harter, J.K., Lauver, K.J. (2010). The problem of empirical
redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 112–125.
Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A., & Ashforth, B. (2012). The way you make me feel and
behave: Supervisor triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1146-1168.
Toegel, G., Kilduff, M., & Anand, N. (2013). Emotion helping by managers: an
emergent understanding of discrepant role expectations and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 56, 334-357.
5. September 17
ATTACHMENT AND WITHDRAWAL
Required readings:
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W., & Eberly, M.B. (2008). Turnover and
retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a
venture into the future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231-274.
(H) Shipp, A. J., Furst-Holloway, S., Harris, T. B. and Rosen, B. (2014), Gone
Today but here Tomorrow: Extending the Unfolding Model of Turnover to
Consider Boomerang Employees. Personnel Psychology, 67, 421–462.
(G) Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. 2011. Dynamic aspects of voluntary turnover:
An integrated approach to curvilinearity in the performance-turnover
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 233-246.
(F) Holtom BC, Tidd ST, Mitchell TR, & Lee TW. (2013). A demonstration of the
importance of temporal considerations in the prediction of newcomer turnover.
Human Relations, 66, 1337–52.
(E) Fugate, M., Prussia, G.E., & Kinicki, A.J. (2012). Managing employee
withdrawal during organizational change: The role of threat appraisal. Journal of
Management, 38, 890-914.
Recommended:
Allen, D. G., Hancock, J. I., Vardaman, J. M. and Mckee, D. N. (2014), Analytical
mindsets in turnover research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S61–S86.
Batt, R., & S. Colvin, A. J. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover:
8
Human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(4), 695-717.
Direnzo, M. S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2011). Job search and voluntary turnover in a
boundaryless world: A control theory perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 36, 567-589.
Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation,
empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The
mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64, 315350.
Hancock, J.I., Allen, D.G., Bosco, F.A., McDaniel, K.R., & Pierce, C.A. (2013).
Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance.
Journal of Management, 39, 573-603.
Hausknecht, J. P., & Trevor, C. O. (2011). Collective turnover at the group, unit, and
organizational levels: Evidence, issues, and implications. Journal of Management,
37, 352-388.
Liu, D., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W., Brooks, Holtom, B., & Hinkin, T.R. (2012).
When employees are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectory and
dispersion influence individual- and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 1360-1380.
Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Lee, T. W. (2011). The effects of autonomy and
empowerment on employee turnover: Test of a multilevel model in teams. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96, 1305-1316.
Park, T. & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 268-309.
Siebert, W. S., & Zubanov, N. (2009). Searching for the optimal level of employee
turnover: A study of a large UK retail organization. Academy of Management
Journal, 52, 294-313.
Zimmerman, R.D., Boswell, W.R., Shipp, A.J., Dunford, B.B., & Boudreau, J.W.
(2012). Explaining the pathways between approach-avoidance personality traits and
employees’ job search behavior. Journal of Management, 38, 1450-1475.
6. September 24
TEAM EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORKS
Required readings:
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness
1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal
of Management, 34(3), 410-476.
(C) Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Jundt, D. K., DeRue, D. S., & Harmon, S. J.
(2011). Mixing individual incentives and group incentives: Best of both worlds
and social dilemma? Journal of Management, 37, 1611-1635.
(D) Resick, C.J, Murase, T., Randall, K.R, DeChurch, L.A. (2014). Information
elaboration and team performance: Examining the psychological origins and
environmental contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 124, 165-176.
9
(A) Lanaj, K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Barnes, C. M., & Harmon, S. J.
(2013). The double-edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam
systems. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 735-757.
(B) Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2012).
Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual
team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 342–365.
Recommended:
Cronin, M.A., Weingart, L.R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we
there yet? The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571-612.
de Wit, F. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and
taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization. Academy of Management
Review, 37, 82-106.
Journal of Organizational Behavior (2012), 33(3). Special issue. The changing
ecology of teams: New forms, new work, new leadership – Not your grandfather's
work team.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year
review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876-910.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are
changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 2–24.
(Also see the commentaries and authors’ response in the volume.)
Thatcher, S.M.B. & Patel, P.C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and
guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38, 969-1009
See the work of Richard Hackman and Joe McGrath.
7. October 1
CREATIVITY
Required readings:
Zhou, J. & Hoever, I.J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and
redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1, 333–359.
(G) Bledow R, Rosing K, Frese M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56,432–50.
(H) Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity,
incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 730-743.
(E) Liangding, J., Shaw, J. D., Tsui, A. S., & Tae-Youn, P. (2014). A social–
structural perspective on employee–organization relationships and team
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 869-891.
10
(F) Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources.
Academy of Management Journal, 57, 814-848.
Recommended:
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K, & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in
organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333.
Dong, L., Hui, L., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level
investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187-1212.
Gong, Y., Kim, T.Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D.R. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal
orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 56, 827-851.
Zhou, J. & Shalley, C.E. (2008). Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. October 8
LEADERSHIP: LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX)
Required readings:
Martin, R., Epitropaki, O, Thomas, G., & Topakas, A. (2010). A review of leadermember exchange research: Future prospects and directions. In G.P. Hodgkinon &
J.K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Volume 25, pp. 35-88). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
(B) Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2012).
A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member
exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of
Management, 38, 1715-1759.
(A) Vidyarthi, P. R., Erdogan, B., Anand, S., Liden, R. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2014).
One member, two leaders: Extending leader–member exchange theory to a
dual leadership context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 468-483.
(D) Zhou, L., Wang, M., Chen, G., & Shi, J. (2012). Supervisors' upward exchange
relationships and subordinate outcomes: Testing the multilevel mediation role
of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 668-680.
(C) Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A. And Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of
leader– member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and
team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65: 49–78.
Recommended:
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. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a
complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125-150.
Glynn, M., & Dejordy, R. (2010). Leadership through an organizational behavior
11
lens: A look at the last half-century of research. In R. Khurana & N. Nohria (Eds.),
Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 115–143). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership—
development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years—applying a multilevel multidomain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219–247.
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for
outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37, 1137-1177.
Krasikova, D., & LeBreton, J. M (2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory
and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
739-757.
van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S.B. (2013) A Critical assessment of charismatic—
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of
Management Annals, 7, 1-60.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader–
member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader
and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108, 256–266.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multi-level
review. Journal of Management, 37, 185-222.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective Leadership Behavior: What we know and what questions
need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66-85.
9. October 15
MOTIVATION: SELF-REGULATION
Detailed outline
or draft of paper
due
Required readings:
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen:
A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.
(F) Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of
the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 134-150.
(E) Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Dekas, K. (2011). The
performance implications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous
and controlled motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 116, 241-251
(H) Raub, S., & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the right thing without being told: Joint
effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive
customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 651-667.
(G) Bateman, T. S., & Barry, B. (2012). Masters of the long haul: Pursuing longterm work goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 984-1006.
12
Recommended:
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited
Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.

See also the commentaries that follow Bandura’s article and
Yeo, G.B. & Neal, A. (2013). Revisiting the functional properties of selfefficacy: A dynamic perspective. Journal of Management, 39, 1385-1396.
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on
group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 12891304.
Miles, E.W. & Clenney, E.F. (2012). Extremely difficult negotiator goals: Do they
follow the predictions of goal-setting theory? Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 118, 108-115.
Parker, S.K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development,
health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661-691.
Sitkin, S. B., See, K. E., Miller, C., Lawless, M. W., & Carton, A. M. (2011). The
paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible.
Academy of Management Review, 36, 544-566.
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: a metaanalysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their
incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 44-96.
Wanberg, C.R., Zhu, J., & van Hooft, E.A.J. (2010). The job-search grind: Perceived
progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(4), 788-807.
Background material on self-regulatory theories:
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 1, 164-180.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in
work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal
setting. European Psychologist, 12, 290-300.
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: 1–32.
13
Locke, E. A. & G. P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task
Performance. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Control theory perspective
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual
framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological
Bulletin, 92, 111–135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the Self-regulation of Behavior. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lord, R.G., Diefendorff, J.M., Schmidt, A.M., & Hall, R.L. (2010). Self-regulation at
work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543-568.
Sitzmann, T. and Yeo, G. (2013), A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person
self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of
future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66: 531–568.
Vancouver, J.B., Weinhardt, J.M., & Vigo, R. (2014). Change one can believe in:
Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 124, 56-74.
10. October 22
MOTIVATION: REGULATORY FOCUS AND GOAL ORIENTATIONS
Required readings:
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the
study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 86: 35-66.
(A) Ferris, D., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C., & Tan, J. A.
(2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and
approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation between core
self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 342353.
(B) Gino, F. & Margolis, J.D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory
focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115,145-156.
(C) Dierdorff, E.C. & Ellington, J.K. (2012). Members matter in team training:
Multilevel and longitudinal relationships between goal orientation, selfregulation, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 65: 661–703.
(D) Noordzij, G., van Hooft, E. A. J., van Mierlo, H., van Dam, A. and Born, M. Ph.
(2013). The effects of a learning-goal orientation training on self-regulation: a
field experiment among unemployed job seekers. Personnel Psychology, 66,
723–755.
Recommended background material on Regulatory Focus Theory and Goal
Orientations:
Button S.B., Mathieu J.E., Zajac D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational
research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and
14
Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.
Dweck C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1041–1048.
Dweck C.S., Leggett E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park,
P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological
network: Work-related antecedents and con- sequences. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 160–172.
Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–
1300.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30: 1-46.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related
outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998-1034.
VandeWalle D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal
orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.
11. October 29
DECISION MAKING
Required readings:
Weber EU, Johnson EJ. 2009. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual
Reiew of Psychology. 60, 53–86.
(E) Dane, E., Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. 2012. When should I trust my gut?
Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 187-194.
(F) Laureiro-Martinez, D. (2014) Cognitive control capabilities, routinization
propensity, and decision-making performance. Organization Science, 25, 11111133.
(G) Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning
up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 541-562.
(H) Schultze, T., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Biased information
processing in the escalation paradigm: Information search and information
evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 16-32.
Recommended:
Bazerman, M.H. & Moore, D.H (2009). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cornelissen, J.P. & Werner, M.D. (2014). Putting Framing in perspective: A review
of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature.
15
Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181-235.
Dalal, RS, Bonaccio, S, Highhouse, S, Ilgen, DR, Mohammed, S., Slaughter, J.E.
(2010). What if industrial-organizational psychology decided to take workplace
decisions seriously? Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 3(4), 386-405. (See also commentary that follows article.)
Evans, B.T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social
cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review
of Psychology, 62, 451–482.
Guler, I. (2007). Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional
influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 248–285.
Hastie R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 653–83.
Hastie, R. & Dawes, R.M. (2001). Rational Choice In An Uncertain World: The
Psychology of Judgment And Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information
processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211237.
Hodgkinson, G.P. & Starbuck, W. H. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded
rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Kahneman, D. & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to
disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 515–526.
Miller, D. & Sardais, C. (2013). How our frames direct Us: A poker experiment.
Organization Studies, 34, 1381-1405.
Moore, D.A. & Flynn, F.J. (2008). The case for behavioral decision research in
organizational behavior. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 399-431.
Malhotra, D. & Bazerman, M.H. (2008). Psychological influence in negotiation: An
introduction long overdue. Journal of Management, 34, 509-531.
Northcraft, G.B. Tenbrunsel, AE. (2011). Effective matrices, decision frames, and
cooperation in volunteer dilemmas: A theoretical perspective on academic peer
review. Organization Science, 22, 1277-1285.
Salas, E., Rosen, M.A., & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Expertise-based intuition and
decision making in organizations. Journal of Management, 36, 941-973.
Simon, H.A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral
16
science. The American Economic Review, 49, 253-283.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment
to a chosen course of action’. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
16, 27–44.
Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy
of Management Review, 6, 577–87.
van Oorschot, K., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. (2013)
Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy
of Management Journal, 56, 285-307.
Zhong, C.B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberate decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 1–25.
See the work of Herbert Simon and other prominent authors cited in these articles.
12. November 5
LEARNING PROCESSES
Required readings: (I’ll ask for volunteer discussion leaders for today.)
Frese, M. & Keith, N. (forthcoming, 2015) Action errors, error management, and
learning in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66.
(TBD) Carter M, Beier ME. 2010. The effectiveness of error management training
with working-aged adults. Personnel Psychology 63: 641-75
(TBD) Goodman, J.S., Wood, R.E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity,
information processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 115, 253-267.
(TBD) Vashdi, D., Bamberger, P., & Erez, M. (2013). Can surgical teams ever
learn? Towards a theory of transitive team learning in action teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 56, 945–971.
(TBD) Deichmann, D. & van den Ende, J. (2014). Rising from failure and learning
from success: The role of past experience in radical initiative taking.
Organization Science, 25, 670-690.
Recommended:
Overview of several learning theories:
Goodman, J. S. & O’Brien, J. (2012). Teaching and Learning Using EvidenceBased Principals. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Handbook of Evidence-Based
Management: Companies, Classrooms, and Research. Oxford University Press.
ACT-R:
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89,
369-406.
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004).
An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.
Error management:
Keith, N. & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-
17
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59–69.
Cognitive load theory:
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), 25. Special issue.
Instructional Science (2004), 32. Special issue.
Educational Psychologist (2003), 38(1), Special issue.
Dual-space theory:
Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning.
Cognitive Science. 12, 1-48.
Simon, H. A. & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view.
In Lee W. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and Cognition (pp.105-127). MD: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Rolison, J. R., Evans, J. St. B. T., Dennis, I., & Walsh, C. R. (2012). Dual-processes
in learning and judgment: Evidence from the multiple cue probability learning
paradigm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 189–202.
Expertise:
Bjork, R. (2009). Structuring conditions of training to achieve elite performance:
Reflections on elite training programs and related themes in Chapters 10-13. In K.
Anders Ericsson (Ed.), Development of Professional Expertise: Toward
Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal Learning Environments
(pp. 312-329). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, V.M. & Brophy, S. (2006). Adaptive expertise: theory, methods, findings,
and emerging issues. Symposium Report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=479
Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A
cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579603.
Ericsson, K.A. (Ed.). (2009). Development of Professional Expertise: Toward
Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal Learning Environments
(pp. 449-469). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J., & Hoffman, R.R. (Eds.). (2006). The
Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge, UK :
Cambridge University Press.
Macnamara, B.N., Hambrick, D.Z., & Oswald, F.L. (2014). Deliberate practice and
performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Science, 25, 1608-1618.
Motor and cognitive learning:
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good
way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R.
W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world:
Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56-64). New York:
Worth Publishers.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs,
techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
18
http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/research.html (for more of Bjork’s work).
Christina, R. W., & Bjork, R. A. (1991). Optimizing long-term retention and transfer.
In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), In the mind’s eye: Enhancing human
performance (pp. 23–55). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Holyoak, K.J., & Morrison, R.G. (Eds.) (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of
Thinking and Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork RA. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 3, 105–119.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common
principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological
Science, 3, 207–217.
13. November 12
No class. I will be attending the SMA conference.
14. November 1820
Work on take home final exam (no class on Nov 19). Due Nov 20 by 7:00 PM.
15. November 26
Thanksgiving Break
16. December 3
Paper presentations (1/2 of class)
17. December 5
Paper presentations (1/2 of class)
Proposed date:
We’ll discuss.
18. December 10
Submit an electronic file and a hardcopy of final paper.
Paper due
19