Chapter 1: Introduction to Organizational Behavior - An Evidence-Based Approach - PDF

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Organizational Behavior:...

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach LEARNING OBJECTIVES S All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Provide an overview of the major challenges and the paradigm shift facing management F now and in the future. Outline an evidence-based approach to organizational behavior. O Summarize the Hawthorne studies as the starting point of the study of organizational behavior. O Explain the methodology that is used to accumulate knowledge and facilitate under- standing of organizational behavior. R 1 Relate the various theoretical frameworks that serve as a foundation for the study of P 2 organizational behavior. 0 Present the social cognitive model of organizational behavior that serves as the concep- tual framework for the text. P IA © 2 Every era laments about daunting challenges. However, even previous generations would probably agree that effectively managing today’s organizations is very difficult. Ask anyone today—management professors, practitioners, or students—what the major chal- lenges are in today’s environment, and the answer will be fairly consistent: Recovery from the Great Recession and dangerous geopolitics preoccupy everyone’s concerns. However, at the organization level, understanding global competition and diversity, and trying to solve ethical problems and dilemmas come to the fore. These are unquestionably major issues facing contemporary organizations and are given major attention in this text. How- ever, the basic premise and assumptions of the field of organizational behavior in general, and of this text in particular, are that managing the people—the human resources of an orga- nization—have been, are, and will continue to be, the major challenge and critical compet- itive advantage. Globalization, diversity, and ethics serve as very important environmental or contex- tual dimensions for organizational behavior. However, as Sam Walton, the founder of Wal- Mart and richest person in the world when he died, declared to the first author over lunch a number of years ago when asked what the answer was to successful organizations—“People are the key!” The technology can be purchased and copied; it levels the playing field. The Copyright 2021. Information Age Publishing. people, on the other hand, cannot be copied. Although it may be possible to clone human bodies, their ideas, personalities, motivation, and organization cultural values cannot be copied. This idea is reflected in Jeff Bezos’s famous employment strategy at Amazon when he said that people were there to “have fun, work hard and make history.” The human resources of an organization and how they are managed represent the competitive advan- tage of today’s and tomorrow’s organizations. A study of over three hundred companies for over 20 years provides evidence for this statement. The researchers found that management EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT AN: 2527726 ; Fred Luthans.; Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach Fourteenth Edition Account: s3563253.main.eds  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 3 of human resources through extensive training and techniques such as empowerment resulted in performance benefits, but operational initiatives such as total quality manage- ment or advanced manufacturing technology did not.1 At first employees were considered a cost, then human resources, and now are becom- ing widely recognized as “human capital”2 (what you know—education, experience, skills). Considerable research indicates that investing in this human capital results in desired performance outcomes such as increased productivity and profits, even during dif- ficult economic conditions.3 Going beyond human capital are more recently recognized “social capital”4 (who you know—networks, connections, friends) and “positive psycho- logical capital”5 (who you are in terms of confidence, hope, optimism, resiliency, and, more importantly, who you can become, i.e., one’s possible authentic self). Although Chapter 7 will be specifically devoted to positive organizational behavior in general and psychological capital in particular, let it be simply noted here that there is growing research S evidence that employees’ psychological capital is positively related to their performance and desired attitudes.6 As many business leaders have astutely observed: “The value of my F company walks out the door every evening.” O Interestingly, whereas the technology dramatically changes, sometimes monthly or even weekly, the human side of enterprise has not changed and will not change that fast. O As noted by well-known international management scholar Geert Hofstede, “Because management is always about people, its essence is dealing with human nature. Since R 1 human nature seems to have been extremely stable over recorded history, the essence of management has been and will be equally stable over time.”7 The nature of work and the P 2 workplace itself,8 the traditional employment contract,9 and the composition of the work- 0 force10 are all dramatically changing and given attention in this text. Yet, the overriding P 2 purpose of the first edition, now 42 years ago, of trying to better understand and effectively manage human behavior in organizations remains the essence of this 13th edition. IA © This introductory chapter gives the perspective, background, methodology, and evi- dence-based approach to the field. After a brief discussion of the current environmental challenges and the paradigm shift facing management and why an evidence-based approach is needed, the historical background is touched on. Particular attention is given to the famous Hawthorne studies, which are generally recognized to be the beginning of the systematic study and understanding of organizational behavior. Next, an overview of the methodology used in the scientific study of organizational behavior is given. The chapter concludes by defining exactly what is involved in organizational behavior and by provid- ing a conceptual model for the rest of the text. THE CHALLENGES FACING MANAGEMENT The academic field of organizational behavior has been around for about a half century. However, as the accompanying OB in Action: Some Things Never Really Change clearly indicates, problems facing managers of human organizations have been around since the beginning of civilization. This case, with but a few word modifications, is taken from the Old (not New) Testament of the Bible (Exodus 18:13–27), recognized by the Jewish, Christian, and Islam religions. The case took place over 3,000 years ago, the charismatic leader was Moses (when he led his people from Egypt to Palestine), the well-known con- sultant was Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and the higher authority was God. Embedded in the case are many topics covered in this text—for example, charismatic leadership, man- agement of conflict, empowerment, management of change, and nonfinancial incentives. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  4 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OB IN ACTION: SOME THINGS NEVER REALLY CHANGE A powerful, charismatic leader is having problems. A should be truthful, not driven by material gain. The well-known consultant is called in to help. The new structure should resolve all daily issues at the consultant notices that the leader tries to handle all lowest possible level; only the big and difficult issues problems and conflicts of his people himself. People should be brought before the leader. He should focus queue up before his office; because he is overwhelmed, on strategy—on dealing with the higher authority, on he cannot handle all the business. So the consultant has establishing new approaches and teaching these to the a private talk with the leader and tells him to structure people, on showing them the way to go and the work to his organization by delegating authority, empowering be done. The case states that the leader listens to the subordinates to handle the workload. These consultant and carries out the reorganization, which is subordinates should be selected not only on their a success, and the consultant returns home. leadership abilities, but also on their character: They FS Although the problems with human organizations and the solutions over the ages have not really changed that much, the emphasis and surrounding environmental context cer- O tainly have changed. For example, in the 1980s to the mid-1990s managers were preoccu- pied with restructuring their organizations to improve productivity and meet the O competitive challenges in the international marketplace and quality expectations of cus- tomers. Although the resulting “lean and mean” organizations offered some short-run ben- R 1 efits in terms of lowered costs and improved productivity, instead of making significant P 2 changes to meet the changing environment, most organizations continued with more of the 0 same. For example, one analysis of Fortune 500 firms between 1995 and 2005 found the most prominent initiatives were restructuring (downsizing), cost reduction programs, glo- P 2 balizing supply chains, creating shared services and Lean Six Sigma (almost perfect) qual- ity programs.11 During this era, top management compensation was primarily tied to stock IA © options (covered in Chapter 4) and thus the firm’s stock price, which in turn led to high- risk mergers, acquisitions, and a highly regulated, winner-take-all environment.12 For example, the head of nearly century-old investment house Merrill Lynch bet his firm— and ultimately lost—on the subprime financial market and outsized leverage and then took a whopping $160 million severance package on the way out the door.13 This type of behavior, and of course many other social, economic, and geopolitical factors, led to the financial crisis and stock market crash starting at the end of 2008. Although most of the focus has been on financial markets, government intervention through the so-called bailouts, and massive unemployment, the impact on those not laid off, the remaining employees, human resources of organizations, has been slighted. As an expert on the psychology of the corporate environment noted, “after years of downsizing, outsourcing, and a cavalier corporate attitude that treats employees as costs rather than assets, most of today’s workers have concluded that the company no longer values them. So they, in turn, no longer feel engaged in their work or committed to the company.”14 This turmoil has certainly left employees hurt and fearful, and feeling very vulnerable. There is also powerful evidence from the Gallup World Poll (a representative sample of the population of over 100 countries) that by far the single most dominant thought and primary driver of almost everyone, in every corner of the plant, is, “I want a good job.”15 As the head of Gallup, Jim Clifton, concluded on the basis of this evidence, “Work is crucial to every adult human because work holds within it the soul of the relationship of one citizen to one government and one country.”16 In other words, even though recent history has been tough not only on the economy but also on organizations and employees, the burning desire for a good job still prevails among all people. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 5 In the tradition of an effective strategy of turning threats into opportunities, such an environment as the world has experienced in recent times may ironically be the ideal time to meet the challenges facing the management of human resources. As in the words of pop- ular leadership author (Good to Great) Jim Collins, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”17 The time has come to not only recognize and appreciate the importance of human resources, but also to use recent history as a catalyst for paradigmic change in the way we understand and manage human resources. This process starts with understanding what is meant by a paradigm shift, not just keeping up with incremental change, but a new way of thinking about and managing human resources in today’s dramatically changed workplace. UNDERGOING A PARADIGM SHIFT S The term paradigm comes from the Greek paradeigma, which translates as “model, pat- F tern, or example.” First introduced years ago by the philosophy of science historian Thomas Kuhn,18 the term paradigm is now used to mean a broad model, a framework, a O way of thinking, or a scheme for understanding reality.19 In the words of popular futurist Joel Barker, a paradigm simply establishes the rules (written or unwritten), defines the O boundaries, and tells one how to behave within the boundaries to be successful.20 The impact of globalization, diversity, and ethics given detailed attention in the next chapter, a R 1 turbulent, very problematic economy,21 and a workforce described as a “blend of tradition- P 2 ally trained baby boomers, in-your-face Gen Xers, people with inadequate literacy skills from disadvantaged areas, and techies raised on computers,”22 has led to a paradigm shift. 0 For example, James Brian Quinn offers the “intelligent enterprise” as new paradigm. He P 2 believes that “the organization of enterprises and effective strategies will depend more on IA © development and deployment of intellectual resources than on the management of physical assets.”23 These human and intellectual resources have moved into the new paradigm, with a new set of challenges and required ways of thinking. In other words, for today’s and tomorrow’s organizations and management, there are new rules with different boundaries requiring new and different behavior inside the boundaries for organizations and manage- ment to be successful. Paradigm shifts have invalidated advantages of certain firms (e.g., consider the well-known problems of almost all auto, financial, and retail firms in recent years) and created new opportunities for others (e.g., Google, Alibaba, GoPro, and Zap- pos). Those who study paradigm shifts, such as the shift that took place in the basic sciences from deterministic, mechanistic Cartesian-Newtonian to Einstein’s relativity and quantum physics, note that “real controversy takes place, often involving substantial restructuring of the entire scientific community under conditions of great uncertainty.”24 Commonly called the “paradigm effect,” a situation arises in which those in the existing paradigm may not even see the changes that are occurring, let alone reason and draw logical inferences and perceptions about the changes. This effect helps explain why there is considerable resis- tance to change and why it is very difficult to move from the old management paradigm to the new. There is discontinuous change in the shift to the new paradigm. As one observer of the needed new paradigm organization noted: The depth of change required demands that those charged with charting a passage through hurricane-like seas do more than run up a new set of sails. What is involved equates to a quantum shift in, not just learning, but how we learn; not just doing things differently, but questioning whether we should be doing many of the things we cur- EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  6 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT rently believe in, at all; not just in drawing together more information but in questioning how we know what it is (we think) we know.25 This text on organizational behavior has the goal of helping today’s and tomorrow’s managers make the transition to the new paradigm. Some of the new paradigm character- istics include Chapter 2’s coverage of globalization, diversity, and ethics; Chapter 3 on the organizational context of design and culture; and Chapter 4 on reward systems. The new paradigm sets the stage for the study, understanding, and application of the time-tested microcognitive processes (Chapters 5–7), dynamics (Chapters 8–11), and the final part on managing and leading for high performance (Chapters 12–14). However, before getting directly into the rest of the text, we must know why management needs a new perspective to help meet the environmental challenges and the shift to the new paradigm. We must gain an appreciation of the historical background, methodology, and theoretical frameworks S that serve as the basis of this text’s perspective and model for organizational behavior. A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR MANAGEMENT O F How is management going to meet the environmental challenges and paradigm shift out- O lined above? Management is generally considered to have three major dimensions—tech- 1 nical, conceptual, and human. The technical dimension consists of the manager’s R functional expertise in accounting or engineering or marketing and increasingly in infor- P 2 mation technology and managing in the supply chain. There seems little question that 0 today’s managers are competent in their functional specialization. Overall, however, although managers are certainly more aware and becoming competent in their functional/ P 2 technical component, few today would question that, at least in the past, most practicing IA © managers either slighted the conceptual and human dimensions of their jobs or made some overly simplistic assumptions. Following the assumptions that pioneering management scholar Douglas McGregor labeled many years ago as Theory X, most managers thought, and many still think, that their employees were basically lazy, that they were interested only in money, and that if you could make them happy, they would be high performers. When such Theory X assumptions were accepted, the human problems facing management were relatively clear- cut and easy to solve. All management had to do was devise monetary incentive plans, ensure job security, and provide good working conditions; morale would then be high, and good performance would result. It was as simple as one, two, three. Human relations experts, industrial/organizational psychologists, and industrial engineers supported this approach, and human resource managers implemented it. Unfortunately, this approach no longer works with the current environmental demands under the new paradigm. Although good pay, job security, and working condi- tions are necessary, it is now evident that such a simplistic approach falls far short of pro- viding a meaningful solution to the complex challenges facing today’s human resource management. For example, a report in The Economist in reference to McGregor’s Theories X and Y include that “companies are coming to realize that knowledge workers, who have been identified as the creators of future wealth, thrive only under Theory Y. Theory X is becoming extinct.”26 The major fault with the traditional approach is that it overlooks and oversimplifies far too many aspects of the problem. Human behavior at work is much more complicated and diverse than is suggested by the economic-security–working-conditions approach. The new perspective assumes that employees are extremely complex and that there is a need for EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 7 theoretical understanding backed by rigorous empirical research before applications can be made for managing people effectively. In the academic world, transition has now been completed. The traditional human relations approach no longer has a dominant role in busi- ness and applied psychology education. Few people would question that the organizational behavior approach, with its accompanying body of knowledge and applications, dominates the behavioral approach to management education now and will do so in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, still only a minority of practicing managers and their organization cultures really buy into, fully implement, and then stick with this research-based organiza- tional behavior approach to management practice. Stanford professor Jeff Pfeffer has summarized the status of the organizational behav- ior approach to real-world management as a “one-eighth” situation.27 By one-eighth he means that roughly half of today’s managers really believe and buy into the importance of the human side of enterprise and that the people are truly the competitive advantage of their S organizations. Taken a step further, however, only about half of those who believe really do something about it. Thus, he says that only about one-fourth are fully implementing the F high performance work practices (HPWPs) that flow from organizational behavior theory O and research—such as pay for performance, self-managed teams, 360 degree (multisource) feedback systems, behavioral management, and investing in psychological capital. Most O organizations have tried one or a few of the approaches and techniques emphasized in the chapters of this text, but only about a fourth fully implement the whole approach. So now R 1 that we are down to one-fourth, where does the one-eighth come from? Well, Pfeffer esti- 2 mates that only about one-half of the one-fourth who implement the approach stick with it P over time. Thus, only about one-eighth ( 1/2  1/2  1/2 = 1/8 ) of today’s organizations believe 0 it, do it, and stick with it (the “3 Its”). The so-called one-eighth organizations have as their P 2 organizational cultural values the importance of human capital and the techniques in place to carry it out over time. Importantly, as Pfeffer well documents in his book Human Equa- IA © tion, these one-eighth organizations are world class, the best in the world—such as General Electric, Zappos, Southwest Airlines, Google, Gallup, and SAS (the software development firm). Today there is ample accumulated research findings and documented practices of the best firms to prove the value of the human factor. Pfeffer and Sutton felt compelled to try to explain why most managers today know this importance and how to implement the approach to improve organizational performance, but still are not doing it (i.e., The Know- ing-Doing Gap).28 They identify five sources that seem to prevent the majority of manag- ers from effective implementation and sustainability: (1) hollow talk, (2) debilitating fear, (3) destructive internal competition, (4) poorly designed and complex measurement sys- tems, and (5) mindless reliance on precedent. They are convinced that if these obstacles (i.e., resistance to change) can be overcome, then “Competitive advantage comes from being able to do something others don’t do. When most companies are stuck talking about what should be done, those that get down to business and actually do will emerge as star performers.”29 This new perspective is now called evidence-based management or simply EBM and, as indicated by the subtitle, is the approach taken by this text. EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT Although the academic study and research of management in general and organizational behavior in particular is thriving (e.g., membership in the academic professional associa- tion Academy of Management is rapidly expanding), there is growing concern that the EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  8 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT divide, the gap, between theory/research and practice seems to be widening. As noted in the introductory comments of a special issue of the Academy of Management Journal, devoted to the problem, “It is hardly news that many organizations do not implement prac- tices that research has shown to be positively associated with employee productivity and firm financial performance,” and this “gap between science and practice is so persistent and pervasive that some have despaired of its ever being narrowed.”30 The problem largely comes from the fact that when it comes to people, everyone is an expert. However, management academics add to the gap by too often concentrating only on the creation of knowledge by rigorous scientific methods and pay too little attention on the translation and diffusion of research findings to practice.31 Both management consultants and journalists (and popular book authors) also contribute to the problem. Too often con- sultants tend to conduct “in house” (not peer-reviewed scientific process) research and S depend only on narrow personal or client experience, and the journalists tell interesting sto- ries and make interpretations based on some facts, but also depend too much on limited F anecdotes and personal experience.32 O Obviously, the bridge to help close the theory/research-practice gap must be built from both sides, practice and academic. Traditionally, practitioners have neither had the O time nor the desire to read and translate rigorous academic research and academics have not had the time, desire, nor talent to write (translate the research) for practitioners.33 In R 1 other words, practitioners must take on more of a “Practitioner-Scientist” role and academ- P 2 ics must assume a more “Scientist-Practitioner” role. This movement to not only recognize, 0 but also do something about what Pfeffer and Sutton called the “Knowing-Doing Gap,” is the emerging movement toward evidence-based management (EBM). P 2 Drawing from how professions such as education and especially medicine have han- IA © dled this similar gap problem, Denise Rousseau in her presidential speech to the Academy of Management called for the field to take an evidence-based approach. She defined evi- dence-based management or EBM as “translating principles based on best evidence into organizational practices. Through evidence-based management, practicing managers develop into experts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and organizational research—part of the zeitgeist moving professional decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experience toward those based on the best available scientific evidence.”34 The historical roots for this EBM can be traced back to one of the founding fathers of social psychology, Kurt Lewin, who astutely observed many years ago that there is nothing so practical as a good theory and “No action without research, no research without action.”35 Following this sage advice, advocates of EBM stress the need to refocus management education based on valid theory and research, translated for effec- tive practice. As indicated, this text from the beginning and through subsequent editions has been known for and prided itself on the theory and research foundation for everything presented. Whereas other texts typically have no theoretical framework and relatively few research citations per chapter, this text has a theoretical model to tie all the chapters together (pre- sented at the end of this chapter) and a great number (in some cases over two hundred) of research citations in each chapter. In other words, this text takes an EBM approach to con- tribute to the reader/student to become a Practitioner-Scientist. The starting point in this journey of closing the science-practice gap and becoming a Practitioner-Scientist is to have an understanding and appreciation of history and research methods. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 9 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES Most of today’s organizational behavior texts have dropped any reference to history. Yet, the position taken in this evidence-based approach is that history always has important les- sons to teach, and as was recently brought out again, “It is an interesting phenomenon that which is touted as fundamentally ‘new management practice’ is essentially the readapting of existing ‘old management truths.’”36 There is no question that the early practicing man- agement pioneers, such as Henri Fayol, Henry Ford, Alfred P. Sloan, and even the scien- tific managers at the end of the nineteenth century such as Frederick W. Taylor, recognized the behavioral side of management. However, they did not emphasize the human dimen- sion; they let it play only a minor role in comparison with the roles of hierarchical structure, specialization, and the management functions of planning and controlling. An example would be the well-known Nobel Prize–winning French engineer turned executive Henri S Fayol. About the time of World War I Fayol headed up what was at that time the largest coal- F mining firm in Europe. Writing the generally considered first book about management, he O emphasized that the purpose of the organization was to get the work done in specialized, machinelike functions. He did not emphasize that the organization is made up of people; it O is not a machine. Yet, perhaps the most widely recognized management expert in modern times, Peter Drucker, stated, “The organization is, above all, social. It is people.”37 There R 1 were varied and complex reasons for the emergence of the importance of the organization 2 as a social entity, but it is the famous Hawthorne studies that provide historical roots for the P notion of a social organization made up of people and mark the generally recognized start- 0 ing point for the academic field of organizational behavior. P IA © 2 The Illumination Studies: A Serendipitous Discovery In 1924, the studies started at the huge Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company outside of Chicago. The initial illumination studies attempted to examine the relationship between light intensity on the shop floor of manual work sites and employee productivity. A test group and a control group were used. The test group in an early phase showed no increase or decrease in output in proportion to the increase or decrease of illu- mination. The control group with unchanged illumination increased output by the same amount overall as the test group. Subsequent phases brought the level of light down to moonlight intensity; the workers could barely see what they were doing, but productivity increased. The results were baffling to the researchers. Obviously, some variables in the experiment were not being held constant or under control. Something besides the level of illumination was causing the change in productivity. This something, of course, was the complex human variable. It is fortunate that the illumination experiments did not end up in the wastebasket. Those responsible for the Hawthorne studies had enough foresight and spirit of scientific inquiry to accept the challenge of looking beneath the surface of the apparent failure of the experiments. In a way, the results of the illumination experiments were a serendipitous dis- covery, which, in research, is an accidental discovery. The classic example of serendipity is the breakthrough for penicillin that occurred when Sir Alexander Fleming accidentally discovered green mold on the side of a test tube. That the green mold was not washed down the drain and that the results of the illumination experiments were not thrown into the trash can be credited to the researchers’ not being blinded by the unusual or seemingly worthless EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  10 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT results of their experimentation. The serendipitous results of the illumination experiments provided the impetus for the further study of human behavior in the workplace. Subsequent Phases of the Hawthorne Studies The illumination studies were followed by a study in the relay room, where operators assembled relay switches. This phase of the study tried to test specific variables, such as length of workday, rest breaks, and method of payment. The results were basically the same as those of the illumination studies: each test period yielded higher productivity than the previous one. Even when the workers were subjected to the original conditions of the experiment, productivity increased. The conclusion was that the independent variables (rest pauses and so forth) were not by themselves causing the change in the dependent vari- S able (output). As in the illumination experiments, something was still not being controlled F that was causing the change in the dependent variable (output). Still another phase was the bank wiring room study. As in the preceding relay room O experiments, the bank wirers were placed in a separate test room. The researchers were reluctant to segregate the bank wiring group because they recognized that this would alter O the realistic factory environment they were attempting to simulate. However, for practical reasons, the research team decided to use a separate room. Unlike the relay room experi- R 1 ments, the bank wiring room study involved no experimental changes once the study had P 2 started. Instead, an observer and an interviewer gathered objective data for study. Of par- 0 ticular interest was the fact that the department’s regular supervisors were used in the bank wiring room. Just as in the department out on the factory floor, these supervisors’ main P 2 function was to maintain order and control. IA © The results of the bank wiring room study were essentially opposite to those of the relay room experiments. In the bank wiring room there were not the continual increases in productivity that occurred in the relay room. Rather, output was actually restricted by the bank wirers. By scientific management analysis—for example, time and motion study— the industrial engineers had arrived at a standard of 7,312 terminal connections per day. This represented 2 1/2 equipments (banks). The workers had a different brand of rationality. They decided that 2 equipments was a “proper” day’s work. Thus, 2 1/2 equipments repre- sented the management norm for production, but 2 equipments was the informal group norm and the actual output. The researchers determined that the informal group norm of 2 equipments represented restriction of output rather than a lack of ability to produce at the company standard of 2 1/2 equipments. Of particular interest from a group dynamics standpoint were the social pressures used to gain compliance with the group norms. The incentive system dictated that the more a worker produced, the more money the worker would earn. Also, the best producers would be laid off last, and thus they could be more secure by producing more. Yet, in the face of this management rationale, almost all the workers restricted output. Social ostracism, ridi- cule, and name-calling were the major sanctions used by the group to enforce this restric- tion. In some instances, actual physical pressure in the form of a game called “binging” was applied. In the game, a worker would be hit as hard as possible, with the privilege of return- ing one “bing,” or hit. Forcing rate-busters to play the game became an effective sanction. These group pressures had a tremendous impact on all the workers. Social ostracism was more effective in gaining compliance with the informal group norm than money and secu- rity were in attaining the scientifically derived management norm. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 11 Implications of the Hawthorne Studies Despite some obvious philosophical,38 theoretical,39 and methodological limitations by today’s standards of research (which will be covered next), the Hawthorne studies did provide some interesting insights that contributed to a better understanding of human behavior in organizations.40 For instance, one interesting aspect of the Hawthorne studies is the contrasting results obtained in the relay room and the bank wiring room. In the relay room, production continually increased throughout the test period, and the relay assem- blers were very positive. The opposite was true in the bank wiring room; blatant restriction of output was practiced by disgruntled workers. Why the difference in these two phases of the studies? One clue to the answer to this question may be traced to the results of a questionnaire administered to the subjects in the relay room. The original intent of the questions was to determine the health and habits of the workers. Their answers were generally inconclusive S except that all the operators indicated they felt “better” in the relay test room. A follow-up F questionnaire then asked about specific items in the test room situation. In discussions of the Hawthorne studies, the follow-up questionnaire results, in their entirety, usually are not O mentioned. Most discussions cite the subjects’ unanimous preference for working in the test room instead of the regular department. Often overlooked, however, are the workers’ O explanations for their choice. In order of preference, the workers gave the following rea- sons: 1. Small group P R 21 0 2. Type of supervision 3. Earnings P 2 4. Novelty of the situation IA © 5. Interest in the experiment 6. Attention received in the test room41 It is important to note that novelty, interest, and attention were relegated to the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions. These last three areas usually are associated with the famous “Hawthorne effect.” Many social scientists imply that the increases in the relay room pro- ductivity can be attributed solely to the fact that the participants in the study were given special attention and that they were enjoying a novel, interesting experience. This is labeled the Hawthorne effect and is, of course, a real problem with all human experimental subjects. But to say that all the results of the relay room experiments were due to such an effect on the subjects seems to ignore the important impact of the small group, the type of supervision, and earnings. All these variables (that is, experimental design, group dynam- ics, styles of leadership and supervision, and rewards), and much more, separate the old human relations movement and an evidence-based approach to the field of organizational behavior. So do the refinement and fine-tuning of the research methodology used to accu- mulate meaningful evidence about organizational behavior. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE VALID EVIDENCE An evidence-based approach to organizational behavior depends on rigorous research methodology. Accumulating valid evidence of why people behave the way they do is a very delicate and complex process. In fact, the problems are so great that many scholars, chiefly from the physical and engineering sciences, argue that there can be no precise sci- EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  12 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ence of behavior. They maintain that humans cannot be treated like chemical or physical elements; they cannot be effectively controlled or manipulated. For example, the critics state that, under easily controllable conditions, 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen will always result in water and that no analogous situation exists in human behavior. Human variables such as motives, bias, expectations, learning, perception, values, and even a Haw- thorne effect on the part of both subject and investigator confound the controls that are attempted. For these reasons, behavioral scientists in general and organizational behavior researchers in particular are often on the defensive and must be very careful to comply with accepted methods of science.42 The Overall Scientific Perspective S Behavioral scientists in general and organizational behavior researchers in particular strive to attain the following hallmarks of any science: 1. 2. O F The overall purposes are understanding/explanation, prediction, and control. The definitions are precise and operational. O 3. The measures are reliable and valid. 4. The methods are systematic. R 1 5. The results are cumulative. P 2 Figure 1.1 summarizes the relationship between the practical behavioral problems and 0 unanswered questions facing today’s managers, research methodology, and the existing P 2 body of valid evidence. When a question arises or a problem evolves, the first place to turn for an answer is the existing body of valid evidence. It is possible that the question can be IA © answered immediately or the problem solved without going any further. Unfortunately, the answer is not always found in the body of valid evidence and must be discovered through appropriate research methodology. Although behavioral science in general compared to the physical and biological sci- ences is relatively young, and the field of organizational behavior is even younger—its direct origins really go back only to the early 1970s—there is now enough accumulated valid research that an evidence-based text on organizational behavior can be provided for the effective management of human behavior in organizations. In particular, the research technique of meta-analysis providing the quantitative synthesis and testing of all available studies is drawn from as much as possible in this evidence-based text. As Williams points out, meta-analysis “shows what works and the conditions under which management tech- niques may work better or worse in the ‘real world.’ Meta-analysis is based on the simple idea that if one study shows that a management technique doesn’t work and another study shows that it does, an average of those results is probably the best estimate of how well that management practice works (or doesn’t work).”43 Although there are now enough research studies in organizational behavior to have this evidence-based text, it is also recognized that many questions and problems in organi- zational behavior cannot yet be answered or solved directly by existing evidence or, cer- tainly not just common sense. A working knowledge of research methodology becomes especially important to practitioner-scientists, both as knowledgeable and critical consum- ers of the rapidly expanding literature reporting the results of organizational behavior research and as practitioner-scientists who are capable of applying appropriate research methods to solve difficult problems in the workplace. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 13 FIGURE 1.1. Simple Relationships Among Problems, Methodology, and Valid Evidence BODY OF VALID EVIDENCE Research Problems and questions about methodology organizational behavior FS O Starting With Theory O Although theory is often devalued as being unrealistic and overly complicated by practitioners, as noted earlier Lewin may have been right when he declared there is nothing R 1 as practical as a good theory. As the editors of the Journal of Applied Psychology reminded, “Theory tells us why something occurs, not simply what occurs.”44 Yet students P 2 and practitioners of organizational behavior are usually “turned off” by all the theories that 0 pervade the field. The reason for all the theories, of course, is the still relative newness of P 2 the field and the complexity and multidimensionality of the variables involved.45 The pur- pose of any theory, including those found in organizational behavior, is to explain and pre- IA © dict the phenomenon in question; theories allow the researcher to deduce logical propositions or hypotheses that can be tested by acceptable research designs. However, as Don Hambrick points out, “A theory, by its very nature, is a simplification of reality. When we develop or test theories, we inevitably exclude an array of factors that might potentially affect the phenomena under examination.”46 Thus, theories are ever changing on the basis of the empirical results. In other words, theory and research go hand in hand in evidence- based management. After pleading for more and stronger theory in organizational behavior, Sutton and Staw have pointed out that references, data, lists of variables or constructs, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory. Instead, they note that theory is the answer to queries of why. Theory is about the connections among phenom- ena, a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events. Strong theory, in our view, delves into the underlying processes so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence.47 Such theorizing is not easy. “Theorizing takes scientists on mental journeys between the world of observed events, such as falling apples, and the imagined world of hypotheti- cal concepts, such as gravity. Bridging gaps between concrete experience and abstract con- cepts presents a challenge.”48 As Sumantra Ghoshal noted, “Our theories and ideas have done much to strengthen the management practices that we are all now so loudly condemn- ing.”49 There is also the danger that theories can become self-fulfilling without empirical verification. As recently noted by Ferraro, Pfeffer, and Sutton, “Theories can ‘win’ in the EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  14 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT marketplace for ideas, independent of their empirical validity, to the extent their assump- tions and language become taken for granted and normatively valued, therefore creating conditions that make them come ‘true.’”50 However, as Karl Weick, perhaps the most widely recognized theorist in organizational behavior, notes: a good theory explains, pre- dicts, and delights.51 The Use of Research Designs Research design is at the very heart of scientific inquiry and evidence-based manage- ment; it can be used to answer practical questions or to test theoretical propositions/ hypotheses. The three designs most often used in organizational behavior research today are the experiment, the case, and the survey. All three have played important roles in the S development of EBM. The experimental design is borrowed largely from psychology where it is used extensively; the case and survey designs have traditionally played a bigger F role in sociology. All three designs can be used effectively for researching organizational behavior. O A primary aim of any research design is to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. O The experimental design offers the best possibility of accomplishing this goal. All other factors being equal, most organizational behavior researchers prefer this method of testing R 1 hypotheses. Simply defined, an experiment involves the manipulation of independent vari- 2 ables to measure their effect on, or the change in, dependent variables, while everything P else is held constant or controlled. If possible, an experimental group and a control group 0 are randomly assigned so that the participants are equivalent. The experimental group P 2 receives the input of the independent variables (the intervention), and the control group does not. Any measured change in the dependent variable in the experimental group can be IA © attributed to the independent variable, assuming that no change has occurred in any other variable and that no change has occurred in the control group. The controls employed are the key to the successful use of the experimental design. If all intervening variables are held constant or equal, the researcher can conclude with a high degree of confidence that the independent variable caused the change in the dependent variable. The Validity of Studies The value of any evidence is dependent on its validity. In particular, research results must have both internal validity and external validity in order to make a meaningful con- tribution to evidence-based management. A study has internal validity if there are no plau- sible alternative explanations of the reported results other than those reported. The threats to internal validity include uncontrolled intervening events that occur between the time the pre-experiment measurement is taken and the time the post-experiment measurement is taken or does A cause B, or does B cause A, a problem with correlational studies. The threats to internal validity can be overcome with careful design of the study. However, this is not always true of external validity, which is concerned with the general- izability of the results obtained. In order for a study to have external validity, the results must be applicable to a wide range of people and situations. Field studies tend to have bet- ter external validity than laboratory studies because at least the study takes place in a real setting. In general, the best strategy is to use a number of different designs or mixed meth- ods (including qualitative research) to answer the same question. The weaknesses of the EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 15 various designs can offset one another and the problem of common method variance (the results are due to the design, rather than the variables under study) can be overcome. Normally, the research would start with a laboratory study to isolate and manipulate the variable or variables in question. This would be followed by an attempt to verify the findings in a field setting. This progression from the laboratory to the field may lead to the soundest conclusions. However, free observation in the real setting should probably pre- cede laboratory investigations of organizational behavior problems or questions. Specifi- cally, in recent years qualitative methods are being suggested as a starting point or supplement, if not an alternative, to quantitatively based and statistically analyzed methods of researching organizational behavior. Van Maanen explains that this qualitative approach “seeks to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world.”52 Multiple designs and multiple measures have the best chance for valid, meaning- S ful research contributing to an evidence-based approach to organizational behavior. DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR O F O With a rich historical background such as the Hawthorne studies and using an accepted sci- R 1 entific methodology as briefly outlined above, the field of organizational behavior is now an accepted academic discipline. As with any other relatively new academic endeavor, P 2 however, there have been some rough spots and sidetracks along the way. Besides the 0 healthy academic controversies over theoretical approach or research findings, perhaps the P 2 biggest problem that organizational behavior had to overcome was an identity crisis. Early on, the field of organizational behavior had to answer questions such as: Is it an attempt to IA © replace all management with behavioral science concepts and techniques? How, if at all, does it differ from traditional applied or industrial psychology? Fortunately, these ques- tions have now been answered to the satisfaction of most management academicians, behavioral scientists, and management practitioners. Figure 1.2 shows in very general terms the relationships between and emphases of organizational behavior (OB) and the related disciplines of organization theory (OT), orga- nization development (OD), and human resource management (HRM). As shown, OB tends to be more theoretically oriented and at the micro level of analysis. Specifically, OB draws from many theoretical frameworks of the behavioral sciences that are focused on understanding and explaining individual and group behavior in organizations. As with other sciences, OB accumulates evidence and tests theories by accepted scientific methods of research. In summary, organizational behavior can be defined as the understanding, pre- diction, and management of human behavior in organizations. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Although organizational behavior is extremely complex and includes many inputs and dimensions, the cognitive, behavioristic, and social cognitive theories can be used to develop an overall framework for an evidence-based approach. After the major theories are briefly summarized, the last section of the chapter presents a model that is used to concep- tually link and structure the rest of the text. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  16 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT FIGURE 1.2. The Relationship of Organizational Behavior to Other Closely Related Disciplines OT OB THEORETICAL (Organization (Organizational theory) behavior) OD HRM (Human APPLIED (Organization resource development) management) MACRO MICRO Cognitive Framework FS O The cognitive approach to human behavior has many sources of input. The micro- oriented chapters in the next part provide some of this background. For now, however, it O can be said simply that the cognitive approach gives people much more “credit” than the other approaches. The cognitive approach emphasizes the positive and freewill aspects of R 1 human behavior and uses concepts such as expectancy, demand, and intention. Cognition, 2 which is the basic unit of the cognitive framework, can be simply defined as the act of P knowing an item of information. Under this framework, cognitions precede behavior and 0 constitute input into the person’s thinking, perception, problem solving, and information P 2 processing. Concepts such as cognitive maps can be used as pictures or visual aids in com- prehending a person’s “understanding of particular, and selective, elements of the thoughts IA © (rather than thinking) of an individual, group or organization.”53 The classic work of Edward Tolman can be used to represent the cognitive theoretical approach. Although Tolman believed behavior to be the appropriate unit of analysis, he felt that behavior is purposive, that it is directed toward a goal. In his laboratory experiments, he found that animals learned to expect that certain events would follow one another. For example, animals learned to behave as if they expected food when a certain cue appeared. Thus, Tolman believed that learning consists of the expectancy that a particular event will lead to a particular consequence. This cognitive concept of expectancy implies that the organism is thinking about, or is conscious or aware of, the goal. Thus, Tolman and others espousing the cognitive approach felt that behavior is best explained by these cognitions. Contemporary psychologists carefully point out that a cognitive concept such as expectancy does not reflect a guess about what is going on in the mind; it is a term that describes behavior. In other words, the cognitive and behavioristic theories are not as opposite as they appear on the surface and sometimes are made out to be—for example, Tolman considered himself a behaviorist. Yet, despite some conceptual similarities, there has been a controversy throughout the years in the behavioral sciences on the relative con- tributions of the cognitive versus the behavioristic framework. As often happens in other academic fields, debate has gone back and forth through the years.54 Because of the recent advances from both theory development and research findings, there has been what some have termed a “cognitive explosion” in the field of psychology. For example, an analysis of articles published in the major psychology journals found by far the greatest emphasis is on the cognitive school over the behavioral school starting in the 1970s.55 Applied to the field of organizational behavior, a cognitive approach has tra- EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 17 ditionally dominated units of analysis such as personality, perception, and attitudes (Chap- ter 5), motivation and goal setting (Chapter 6), and positive constructs such as psychological capital (Chapter 7). Recently, there has been renewed interest in the role that cognitions can play in organizational behavior in terms of advancement in both theory and research on social cognition. This social cognitive process can be a unifying theoretical framework for both cognition and behaviorism. However, before getting into the specifics of social cognitive theory, which serves as the conceptual framework for this text, it is nec- essary to have an understanding of the behavioristic approach as well. Behavioristic Framework Chapter 12 discusses in detail the behavioristic theory in psychology and its applica- S tion to organizational behavior. Its historical roots can be traced to the work of Ivan Pavlov F and John B. Watson. These pioneering behaviorists stressed the importance of dealing with observable behaviors instead of the elusive mind that had preoccupied earlier psycholo- O gists. They used classical conditioning experiments to formulate the stimulus-response (S- R) explanation of human behavior. Both Pavlov and Watson felt that behavior could be O best understood in terms of S-R. A stimulus elicits a response. They concentrated mainly R 1 on the impact of the stimulus and felt that learning occurred when the S-R connection was 2 made. P Modern behaviorism marks its beginnings with the work of B. F. Skinner. Deceased 0 for a number of years, Skinner is widely recognized for his contributions to psychology. P 2 For example, a recent study drawing from publication citations and a large survey of psy- chologists ranked Skinner as the most influential psychologist of the twentieth century.56 IA © He felt that the early behaviorists helped explain respondent behaviors (those behaviors elicited by stimuli) but not the more complex operant behaviors. In other words, the S-R approach helped explain physical reflexes; for example, when stuck by a pin (S), the person will flinch (R), or when tapped below the kneecap (S), the person will extend the lower leg (R). On the other hand, Skinner found through his operant conditioning experiments that the consequences of a response could better explain most behaviors than eliciting stimuli could. He emphasized the importance of the response-stimulus (R-S) relationship. The organism has to operate on the environment (thus the term operant conditioning) in order to receive the desirable consequence. The preceding stimulus does not cause the behavior in operant conditioning; it serves as a cue to emit the behavior. For Skinner and the behav- iorists, behavior is a function of its contingent environmental consequences. Both classical and operant conditioning and the important role of reinforcing conse- quences are given detailed attention in Chapter 12. For now, however, it is important to understand that the behavioristic approach is environmentally based. It posits that cogni- tive processes such as thinking, expectancies, and perception may exist but are not needed to predict and control or manage behavior. However, as in the case of the cogni- tive approach, which also includes behavioristic concepts, some modern behaviorists feel that cognitive variables can be behaviorized.57 However, the social cognitive theory that incorporates both cognitive and behavioristic concepts and principles may be the most unifying and comprehensive foundation for an evidence-based approach to organiza- tional behavior. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/2/2022 3:13 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SHREVEPORT. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use  18 PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT Social Cognitive Framework The cognitive approach has been accused of being mentalistic, and the behavioristic approach has been accused of being deterministic. Cognitive theorists argue that the S-R model, and to a lesser degree the R-S model, is much too mechanistic an explanation of human behavior. A strict S-R interpretation of behavior seems justifiably open to the criti- cism of being too mechanistic, but because of the scientific approach that has been metic- ulously employed by behaviorists, the operant model in particular has made a significant contribution to the study and meaning of human behavior58 and in turn an evidence-based approach to organizational behavior. The same can be said of the cognitive approach. Much research has been done to verify its importance as an explanation of human behavior in general and organizational behavior in particular. Instead of polarization and uncon- structive criticism between the two approaches, it now seems time to recognize that each S can make an important contribution to the understanding, prediction, and control of orga- nizational behavior. The social cogni