Organizational Behavior

3rd Quarter, 2009-2010

Course Information:
Location: TBA
Instructor: Michael R. Bashshur, Ph.D.; Office: 20.2E10

Office Hours:
By appointment. Send an email to me at michael.bashshur@upf.edu and we will
work out a time to meet that is mutually agreeable.

Course Objectives:
Organizational behavior explores how aspects of employees interact with aspects of their
workplace to impact both employee well-being and organizationally-relevant outcomes.
The basic goal of this course is to delve deep into the theory and research such that
students will be able to form research questions pertinent to the study of organizational
behavior and develop research studies with which to test them.

I realize that some (or many) of you will not be going into academia, but for the rest of
your lives you will be consumers (and maybe implementers) of the results of other
peoples’ research. As such, this course aims to provide students an opportunity to: (1)
hone their analytic and information presentation skills, (2) learn to recognize and dissect
“management-speak”, and, (3) become wise consumers and implementers of research.

Course Requirements:

1. Active Class Discussion

This is a seminar course, and as such participation and dialogue is essential. The goal of
each session is that you develop your own point of view of the literature under discussion
and are able to articulate it to the rest of the group. To achieve this, students are expected
to write at least two paragraphs on each required reading that covers issues such as:
interesting avenues for further research, inconsistencies with past research, flaws in
methods and/or theory development and so on. This is NOT to be a summary of the
reading. I have read the articles already (many times). This is meant to be a discussion
of your own thoughts and reactions to the paper.

Finally, every student is expected to contribute to the class discussion. Students who do
not voluntarily contribute will be “encouraged” to contribute by the professor. In other
words, I will deliberately put you on the spot. It is important for every student to read all
the assigned articles and to contribute to the class discussion because the quality of this
course will be heavily influenced by the quality of the discussion. During class
discussion, students should feel free to disagree with each other (and with me).

2. Research Proposal: Class presentations & Term Paper

Each student is required to propose an original research project. In practical terms, the
end product will essentially be the “introduction” section of an empirical journal article.
That is, you will first review the literature on a particular topic and then propose your
own hypotheses. Each hypothesis should be preceded by a sound rationale. In addition,
you will need to explain how you would test your idea.

This is a proposal for basic research, and should focus on constructs relevant to
Organizational Behavior and their inter-relationships. A paper discussing an applied
research problem (e.g., a consulting project) is inappropriate and will receive a failing
grade.

The topic should be specific. For example, whereas “leadership” or even “leader-member
exchange” are too broad, something like “ecological momentary assessment of the
temporal development of leader-member exchange” would be more appropriate. You
should propose original research: though our discipline should have a place for
replications, the current paper is designed in part to assess your creativity—therefore,
replications are not suitable here.

The idea is for students to use this opportunity to develop research proposals in areas
relevant and interesting to them. For example, a well-thought-out proposal might
eventually grow into a master’s thesis or dissertation.

For both your sanity and mine, the term paper will be fairly short: 7-9 pages of text -
excluding title page, references, and any tables or figures you may have. You do not need
an abstract, and you do not need a results or discussion section. Note, however, that a
good introduction section will foreshadow the results and discussion sections. Thus,
although these sections are not included in the paper, they need to be given some thought.

The short length of the paper does not obviate the necessity of thoroughness.

To facilitate viable research proposals, the submission of the paper will be preceded by
the following steps:
1. A two-page bulleted outline, which you will submit to me
2. A class presentation

The length of the presentation will be 10-20 minutes (exact length to be determined
later), not including time for questions. Presentations should be via MS PowerPoint.

Excessive use of “animation” (in PowerPoint) should be avoided.

Grading:
- Class participation = 25%
- Research reaction papers = 30%
- Research proposal = 30%
- Presentation = 15%
 Course Schedule and Reading List:
Note: “*” indicates a reading that is not required, but that is warmly recommended for
personal development.

Day 1 : Intro to the course, Organizational Behavior and the Meaning of Work
• No Readings

Day 2 : Evidence Based Management

• Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2006). “Why every company needs evidence based
management” In Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense, pp.1-27,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (handed out in class)
• Cascio, W.F. (2007). Evidence based management and the marketplace for ideas.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1009-1012.
• Hulin, C.L. (2001). Applied psychology and science: Differences between research
and practice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 225-234.
• *Jensen, A., Why the Best Technology for Escaping from a Submarine is No
Technology. American Heritage of Invention and Technology, Summer 1986, 44-49
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1986/1/1986_1_44.shtml
• *Rynes, S. Brown, K.G., & Colbert, A.E. (2002). Seven common misconceptions
about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs.
Academy of Management Executive, 16 (3), 92-102.

Day 3: Writing an original research paper

• Bem, D. J. (2004). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna,
& H. L. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A Practical guide for the
beginning social scientist (2nd ed., pp. 185-220). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
• AMJ Style Guide for Authors

Day 4: Performance
• Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial
and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Ed. (Vol. 1, pp.688-732). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Motowidlo, S.J. (2003). Job performance. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & W. C.
Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.) Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 12.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 39-53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
• *Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D.S. (2000). Perspective on models of job performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216-266.
• *Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much
more than g. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in
Organizations (pp. 3-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Day 5: Selection and Performance Appraisal

• Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual
Review of Psychology, 48, 299-337.
• Schmidt, N., Cortina, J., Ingerick, M. J., & Wiechmann, D. (2002). Personnel election
and employee performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Kimoski (Eds.),
Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 12: Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (pp. 77-105). New York, NY: Wiley.
• *Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-
directed behavior. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,10, 121-
185.
• *Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

Day 6: Attitudes & Emotions:

• Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical
discussion of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Hulin, C. L. & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & W.
C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.) Handbook of Psychology: Vol.
12. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
• *Beal, D.J., Weiss, H.M., Barros, E.,& MacDermid, S.H. (2005). An episodic
process model of affective influence on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(6), 1054-1068.
• *Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job
attitudes? Meta-Analytic comparisons of intergrative behavioural outcomes and time
sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305–325.
• *Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. (2003). The relationship of emotional
exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160-169.
• *Hom, P. (2002). The legacy of Charles Hulin’s work on turnover thinking and
research. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoretically
based empirical research (pp. 169-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Day 7: Organizational Justice:

• Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions
of economics. Journal of Business, 59, 8285-8300.
• *Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta analytic
review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444 -458.
• *Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice:
Tunnelling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317-372).
Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.

Day 8: Leadership:
• Den Hartog, D. N. & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. P. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of
 Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 166-187). London,
U.K.: Sage Publications.
• Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of
consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 36-51.
• * Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member
exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and
data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.
• *Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational
Dynamics, 28, 82-94.

Day 9: Motivation:
• Latham, G.P. & Pinder C.C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the
dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
• Kerr, S. (1975/1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of
Management Executive, 9, 7-14.
• Dalal, R.S. & Hulin, C.L. (in press) Motivation for what? Multivariate dynamic
perspective of the criterion.
• *Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
• *Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives
related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.
• *Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
• *Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of
Applied Psychology - Monograph, 74, 657-690.
• *Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) &
W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.) Handbook of Psychology:
Vol. 12. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 225-254). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.

Day 10: Stress & Harassment/Discrimination and Diversity:

• Fitzgerald, L. F. (2000). Sexual harassment. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed). Encyclopedia of
psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 251-254). Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological
Association.
• Sonnentag, S. & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In I. B. Weiner (Series
Ed.) & W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.) Handbook of
Psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 453-491).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Mannix, E. & Neale, M. A. (2005). What difference makes a difference? The promise
and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 6, 31-55. [Preceded by a brief editorial by David Kravitz—yes, please
read that as well.]
• *Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An
analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 1-28.
• *Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on
sexual harassment. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual Harassment in the Workplace:
Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies. London, England: Sage
Publications.

Day 11: Groups & Teams:

• Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in
Organizations: From Input-Process-Output models to IMOI models. Annual Review
of Psychology, 56, 517–43.
• Kozlowski, S. & Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and
teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. [Preceded by a
brief editorial by Michelle Marks—yes, please read that as well.]
• *Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations.
In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol.
Eds.) Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(pp. 333-376). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• *Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., & Burke, C. S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in
organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 19, pp. 47-91). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
• *McGrath, J. E. (1984). A typology of tasks. In J. E. McGrath (Au.), Groups:
Interaction and Performance (pp. 51-66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Day 12: Climate and Culture

• Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and
climate. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski
(Vol. Eds.) Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (pp. 565-594). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Mayer, D. Nishii, L., Schneider, B. & Goldstein, H. (2006). The precursors and
products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal
consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929-963.
• *John Van Maanen (1991), Chapter 4: “The Smile Factory: Work at Disneyland.” In
Reframing Organizational Culture, pp. 58-75. New York: Sage.
• *Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C., Shaw, J.D., Johnson, J.L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The
social context of undermining behaviour at work. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 101, 105-126.

Day 13: Organizational Theory, Change, & Development:

• Sinangil, H. K., & Avallone, F. (2001). Organizational development and change. In
N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran, (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial, work, and organizational psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 332-345). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
• *Davis, G. F. & Powell, W. W. (1992). Organization-environment relations. In M.
D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (pp. 315-375).

Day 14: Theory, too much of a good thing?

• Locke, E.A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management,
33(6), 867-890.
• Hambrick, D.C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of
a good thing? The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346-1351. (emailed)

Day 15 and 16 Overflow

Last 4 classes: Student Presentations