الاصول تاريخ سلوك

ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR 3
This page intentionally left blank
ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR 3
HISTORICAL ORIGINS,
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS,
AND THE FUTURE
JOHN B. MINER
O Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 2006 by M.E. Sharpe
Published 2015 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA
Routledge is an im print o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an inform a business
Copyright © 2006, Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by

any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notices
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise,
or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas
contained in the material herein.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and
knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or
experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should
be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for
whom they have a professional responsibility.
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and

are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Miner, John B.
Organizational behavior 1. Essential theories of motivation and leadership
Organizational behavior 2. Essential theories of process and structure
Organizational behavior 3. Historical origins, theoretical foundations, and the future /
by John B. Miner,
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Vol. 1: ISBN 0-7656-1523-1 (cloth : alk. paper)— ISBN 0-7656-1524-X (pbk : alk. paper)
Vol. 2: ISBN 0-7656-1525-8 (cloth : alk. paper)— ISBN 0-7656-1526-6 (pbk : alk. paper)
Vol. 3: ISBN 0-7656-1527-4 (cloth : alk. paper)— ISBN 0-7656-1528-2 (pbk : alk. paper)
1. Employee motivation. 2. Leadership. 3. Organizational behavior. I. Title: Organiza
tional behavior one. Essential theories of motivation and leadership. II. Title: Organizational
behavior. 1, Essential theories of motivation and leadership. III. Title: Essential theories of
motivation and leadership. IV. Title.
HF5549.5.M63M5638 2005
302.3'5—dc22 2005003746
ISBN 13: 9780765615282 (pbk)

ISBN 13: 9780765615275 (hbk)
DEDICATION
To the memory of the intellectual leaders who made this book possible:
Chester I. Barnard
William J. Dickson
Henri Fayol
Mary Parker Follett
Kurt Lewin
Elton Mayo
Fritz J. Roethlisberger
Frederick W. Taylor
Max Weber
Building on M iner’s Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, ¿md Analyses (Ox
ford University Press, 2002) the M.E. Sharpe Organizational Behavior series consists of the
following volumes—
1. Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership (2005)

2. Essential Theories of Process and Structure (2005)
3. Historical Origins, Theoretical Foundations, and the Future (2006)
4. From Theory to Practice (2006)
CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures ix

Preface xi
Acknowledgments xv
PART I. THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE OF

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Chapter 1. Science and Its Theory 7

Chapter 2. Theory Building and Kinds of Theories 16
Chapter 3. M easurement of Variables and Design of Research 24
Chapter 4. Knowledge of Organizational Behavior 32
C hapter 5. The Context of Theory as Organizational Behavior Emerged 44
PART II. MULTIDISCIPLINARY ORIGINS OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR
Chapter 6. Elton Mayo and Hawthorne 59

Chapter 7. Chester Barnard’s Views on Management 70
Chapter 8. Kurt Lewin— Personality Theory and Social Psychology Arrive 79
Chapter 9. Mary Parker Follett— Social Philosopher and Prophet of Management 89
Chapter 10. M ax Weber and His Theory of Bureaucracy 99
Chapter 11. Classical Management Theorists: The Antiheroes—
Henri Fayol and Frederick Taylor 111
PART III. ESTABLISHING THE GROUND AGAINST WHICH

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR BECAME FIGURE
Chapter 12. The Foundations, Their Reports, and the Aftermath 129
Chapter 13. The M anagement Laureates 143
Chapter 14. Psychologists in Business Schools 160
Chapter 15. The Uncertai nty Factor 173
Chapter 16. A Personal and Theoretical Odyssey 183
PART IV. THE IMPORTANCE, VALIDITY, PRACTICAL USEFULNESS,

AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR THEORIES
Chapter 17. M ethodology of the Importance, Validity, and Usefulness Analyses 201
Chapter 18. Findings from the Importance, Validity, and Usefulness Analyses 216
vii
viii CONTENTS
Chapter 19. Background and Hypotheses for the Institutionalization Analyses 226
Chapter 20. Methodology of the Institutionalization Analyses 240
Chapter 21. Findings from the Institutionalization Analyses 248
PART V. FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION
Chapter 22. The Historical Core and Inherent Identity of Organizational

Behavior 263
Chapter 23. A Vision for Ensuing Generations 277
Name Index 293

Subject Index 302
About the Author 317
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
5.1 Koontz’s Schools in the Management-Theory Jungle at Two Points in Time 47

5.2 William Scott’s (1968) Implicit Schools 49
II. 1 Dates of M ajor Contributions Toward the Development of Organizational
Behavior of In flu e n tia l Noted in Part II 57
6.1 Chronology of the Hawthorne Research 61
8.1 M ethods Used to Create Leadership Climates 82
10.1 Findings from Meta-Analysis Regarding Determinants of Innovation Rate 107
11.1 Fayol’s Hypothesized Ability Requirements at Various Occupational Levels 114
12.1 Views Concerning the Appropriateness of Current Emphasis in the Business
Schools Curriculum on Quantitative and Organizational Behavior Subject
M atter 138
13.1 Origins of Sixty Scholars Nominated for Inclusion in the Laureates Series—
Volumes I-V I (Bedeian 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1996, 1998, 2002) 144
13.2 Percentages of Autobiographically Consequential Events Devoted to Various
Professional Activities 156
14.1 Responses to Selected Questions— 1962 Survey 162
14.2 Courses Taught in the Organizational Behavior Area— 1962 Survey 164
14.3 Areas of Specialization and Students Taught for Psychologists Associated with
Schools of Business and Industrial Administration— 1964 Survey (N = 145) 169
16.1 Schema of Strategic Factors That May Contribute to Ineffective Performance 187
17.1 Theories Included in Study Sample and Evaluation Data for Each 203
18.1 Estimated Scientific Validity in Relation to Mean Organizational Behavior
Importance Rating 217
18.2 Estimated Usefulness in Practice in Relation to Mean Organizational
Behavior Importance Rating 217
18.3 Relationship Between Estimated Usefulness in Practice and Estimated
Scientific Validity 218
18.4 The Validity-Usefulness Matrix in Terms of Areas of Theory Formulation 219
19.1 The Roles and Workings of Cognitive, Normative, and Regulative Processes 229
20.1 Kolmogorov-Smimov Test of Goodness of Fit of Observed Frequencies to the
Normal Curve for Mean Importance Ratings of Organizational Behavior
Scholars and for the Percentages of Theory Ratings Falling in the 5-7 Zone 241
20.2 Reliabilities for Variables Used in the Research 244
21.1 Theories Established as Institutionalized by Virtue of Their
Institutionalization Score and Chi-Square Analysis with Possible Correlates 249
21.2 Individual Judges Established as Institutionalizers by Virtue of Their
Institutionalization Score and Chi-Square Analysis 251
ix
x LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
22.1 Percentages of United States and International M embers of the Academy of

Management Who Are Employed by Institutions Classified as Having
Various Levels of Research Orientation 271
FIGURES
1.1 The Components of Theories and How They Function 11

5.1 Sequence of Schools Proposed by Luthans (1973) 50
8.1 Kurt Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis of the Change Process 83
11.1 Fayol’s Scalar Chain and the Gangplank 116
11.2 Taylor’s Functional Foreman Concept 120
13.1 Interaction Patterns among Management Laureates 154
16.1 Steps in the Control Process as Applied to Instances of Ineffective
Performance 188
23.1 Clustering of Divisional Overlaps within the Academy of M anagement 288
PREFACE
This treatment of organizational behavior presents a framework for viewing the world of
organizations. It is a way in, a basis for orientation, an approach to getting one’s bearings.
Broadly speaking, the intended audience is anyone in search of knowledge or with special
interests regarding the scientific foundations, early contributors, historical origins, status of
theory, and future of the field of organizational behavior. Some of the ideas presented are
original; many more derive from others. My intent is to provide an introduction for those
who lack an extensive familiarity with how organizational behavior came to emerge as a
field of specialization in the business schools, as well as a commentary on the present state
and future directions of the field. I believe that even those who are conversant with the
foundations and origins of the field will find new ideas and interpretations here.
Who then might be interested in reading this book? Certainly anyone who is consider
ing studying organizational behavior, or who is engaged in such study, or who has studied
in the field previously (especially where a major in organizational behavior is involved);
this is true w hether the study is at the undergraduate, masters, or doctoral level. Managers
and adm inistrators in any type of organization constitute a potential audience (given what
we know about their concerns, this should be particularly true of those at the higher lev
els). M any professionals and scholars within organizational behavior or in related disci
plines will find the book relevant. This includes people in industrial/organizational
psychology, organizational sociology, economics, political science, cultural anthropol
ogy, hum an resources and industrial relations, educational administration, and public ad
m inistration; it also encompasses contingent disciplines in the business schools, such as
strategic m anagem ent, entrepreneurship, and operations management, as well as those
involved in areas that interact with organizational behavior there, such as accounting and
marketing, and business school deans. Finally, those with a specialty in business or man
agement history will find much of interest here.
To provide a better idea of whether in fact this is a book that would be of interest to you,
and from which you might leam, let me outline the content in more detail.
In Part I the initial chapter deals with the relationships to practice and with the philosophy
of science, especially theorizing. Chapter 2 focuses on theory in more detail. This is fol
lowed by a chapter on the conduct of research and another dealing with the way scientific
knowledge accrues in a field such as organizational behavior. Part I concludes with a treat
ment of the historical course that idea-development has followed, starting with philosophy
and ending with the embedding of scientific theory in organizational behavior. The discus
sion throughout this part is intended to show how the field has moved to become a science
and what specific meaning this process carries.
Part II takes up the sets of ideas that predated the emergence of organizational behavior,
and the people who espoused them— Elton Mayo and those at Western Electric (including
W illiam Dickson) and the Harvard Business School (including Fritz J. Roethlisberger) who
worked with him; Chester Barnard at New Jersey Bell and at Harvard; Kurt Lewin, the
xi
xii PREFACE
psychologist, at universities in Germany and the United States; Mary Parker Follett, who
had a career as a social worker in Boston and later as a speaker; M ax Weber, the legal
scholar in Germany, who became widely recognized as a sociologist; Henri Fayol, the French
manager; and Frederick Taylor, the Philadelphia engineer and m anagement consultant. The
treatment in Part II is historical, an attempt to position these diverse people in terms of their
impact on the field of organizational behavior as it came into being and on the vitality they
gave to its theories.
Part III considers the actual emergence of organizational behavior against the back
ground of the environmental forces that impinged upon it. First were several reports on the
business schools that gave major consideration and impetus to what ultim ately was called
organizational behavior. Second was the recruiting of social scientists into the business
schools. Third was the strong influence that psychology exerted on the em ergence of orga
nizational behavior. Fourth was the prevailing clim ate of uncertainty that existed both
within the business schools of the time and in the outside environm ent that affected them.
Fifth was the creation of an intellectual environment that com m ingled ideas from num er
ous disciplines, illustrated in this instance by a discussion of the ideas that influenced my
own theoretical work.
In Part IV, I present a set of research studies intended to assess the status of organizational
behavior theory over the period since the field’s beginning. This presentation follows the
outline typically characteristic of research treatments in the social science literature and
draws heavily upon the material considered in Chapter 3. Chapters 17 and 18 take up a study
concerned with the importance, validity, and usefulness of the various theories. Chapters 19
through 21 delve into the institutionalization of these same theories. This latter research is
prefaced with a treatment of institutional theory as it relates to theories generally, and of
conformity theory from psychology. The methodology of this research and the findings are
new and have not been published previously.
Part V takes the history presented in the preceding four parts and maps it onto identity
theory to create a picture of organizational behavior’s identity. This picture is then used in
the final chapter to project my vision for organizational behavior’s future. This vision is
predicated on an expectation of continued growth— into practical applications, and derived
from disciplinary consolidations. It makes a case for the synergistic expansion of both MBA
and PhD programs.
At several points in this book the theories developed in organizational behavior are given
attention, but more as to their overall effectiveness and impact than with regard to the specif
ics of each theory and the research on each. A comprehensive discussion of the individual
theories, however, is presented in two other books of this series containing theoretical state
ments, relevant research, practical applications, and a critical evaluation theory by theory.
These books are titled Essential Theories o f Motivation and Leadership and Essential Theo
ries o f Process and Structure.
Although the structure of each chapter in the following is typically determined by its
unique content, certain features are retained throughout. All chapters are introduced with an
outline covering the various headings of the chapter. This outline provides a road map facili
tating progress through the discussion, and serves as a guide to finding a way out should the
reader get lost en route.
Each chapter, and the part introductions, contains a listing of references employed in the
presentations. These are used partly to document statements made in the text, but they also
provide sources to use for follow-up should the reader wish to learn more about a particular
PREFACE xiii
subject. The total number of these chapter-end references amounts to almost 800. As might
be expected the recency of these references varies with the recency of the material covered.
Thus parts II and III, dealing with the historical origins, contain many historical references,
of which only 25 percent date from 2000 on. However, parts I and IV contain references
published in 2000 or later at rates in the lower range of 40 percent, and in Part V, dealing
with the here and now and with the consequences of history, 70 percent of its references are
from 2000 and later. In spite of the historical emphasis, this volume is thoroughly up to date.
John B. Miner
Eugene, Oregon
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A major debt in preparing this book is acknowledged in the dedication. Without the efforts of
these forebears, the field of organizational behavior, and this book, may well have never
existed.
I am also indebted to Oxford University Press for giving me permission to use material
from Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses wherever in the present
volume it proved appropriate. Harry Briggs at M.E. Sharpe has shown himself to be both a
very helpful person and a highly proficient editor; it has been a pleasure to work with him.
Amy Odum, my project editor, has been equally helpful.
Finally, in the absence of any university support, my wife, Barbara, has taken on all of the
numerous tasks involved in the preparation of this book, other than writing it. I thank her not
only for her dedication and efficiency, but for her support and love.
XV
ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR 3
PARTI
THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE

OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
W hat is organizational behavior? It is a social science discipline— much like cultural an
thropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. This means that it uti
lizes the scientific method to establish truth and to validate its theories. It is a discipline that
historically has had its intellectual home in business schools. It is a new discipline relative to
the other social sciences, having its origins in the mid-twentieth century. The key points are
that it is a science and that it has a history, which, though short, has been quite turbulent.
Although the exact boundaries of the discipline are somewhat fuzzy (see Blood 1994),
organizational behavior’s focus is clearly on the world of organizations. The concern is first
with the behavior and nature of people within organizations, and second with the behavior
and nature of organizations within their environments. The term organizational behavior
initially referred only to the behavior and nature of people in organizations. Given the fuzziness
of its boundaries, the discipline always had a tendency to stretch beyond that domain, how
ever. By the time it approached twenty-five years of age it clearly had staked a claim to
incorporating the behavior and nature of organizations as well (see Miles 1980). This is
historically consistent in that both the study of the behavior and nature of people and the
study of the behavior and nature of organizations emerged in the business schools in the
same places at the same times.
In line with its professional school origins, organizational behavior is an applied discipline,
concerned with matters of practice and application. Despite this orientation, it currently has
relatively few members who actually devote their primary professional efforts to the practice
of organizational behavior in business and other organizational settings; rather, most are con
centrated in academia— teaching, writing, and conducting research. In my opinion this is un
fortunate; the field would be better off not by reducing its academic efforts, but by expanding
its practitioner efforts. W e will return to this theme in various ways throughout this book.
Several other term s have become intertwined with organizational behavior over the years,
although none has achieved quite the same level of acceptance. One is organization theory ,
which has come to refer almost exclusively to the study of the behavior and nature of orga
nizations in their environments. A second is organizational) science, which appears to cover
3
4 THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE
essentially the same ground as organizational behavior, and which in many respects I prefer
as a designation for our field (see Miner 1984). However, right now organizational behavior
has won the day. Finally, there is the term organization studies, which also has a broad
connotation extending, at least in the recent period, beyond the science of organizations to
incorporate several different philosophic positions (see Clegg, Hardy, and Nord 1996).
Having explained what organizational behavior is, I need to say something about what it
is not. It is not strategic management, a field that has emerged and achieved stature more
recently than organizational behavior (see Schendel and Hofer 1979) and has differentiated
itself at the border that previously existed between organizational behavior and economics,
borrowing from and overlapping with each. Furthermore, organizational behavior is not
economics, although in recent years there has been some confounding of the two fields and
there are those who foresee a possible future takeover of organizational behavior by eco
nomics (see, e.g., Pfeffer 1995). There is even some theory as to how this takeover might
come about (Ferraro, Pfeffer, and Sutton 2005). However, economics was well established
in business schools long before organizational behavior arrived, and organizational behav
ior was spawned, in large part at the behest of economists, as a separate and distinct disci
pline. Historically, the two are clearly different entities with very different origins.
Finally, organizational behavior is not philosophy. That, however, is a rather complex
story. As a science our field is closely tied to, though separate from, the philosophy of sci
ence. In this respect it is like all other sciences, and the relationship can be expected to
continue as long as organizational behavior defines itself as a social science. But philosophy
has been threaded into organizational behavior in other respects as well from the very begin
ning, not always to the benefit of either field. Sometimes, in the hands of certain individuals,
organizational behavior and philosophy have become almost indistinguishable from one
another. Understanding what is involved here requires a background in the nature of science,
scientific theory, scientific research, and in the history of science— in short in the scientific
foundations of the field. It also requires a background in the ways in which philosophy has
become threaded into organizational behavior at various points in time. These matters are
considered in the chapters of Part I.
The primary focus of this book, however, is on the heritage of organizational behavior,
both within science and within the historical roots of the field. In point of fact, we all partici
pate in various organizations such as schools, companies, and hospitals throughout our lives,
and we devote a large percentage of our time to such participation. M ost people would like
to function more effectively in organizations and to contribute to more effective functioning
of the organizations themselves. It seems logical that the more we know about organizations
and the way they operate, the better our chances of coping with them adequately and of
achieving our own goals within them and for them. Giving us this knowledge is what orga
nizational behavior aims to do.
In writing this book I attempt to establish the Zeitgeist, the intellectual climate, within which
organizational behavior emerged and gained acceptance. An idea too outlandish even to be
considered at one point in time in one cultural context may win wide acclaim later after times
have changed (Boring 1950). Thus, an understanding of the backgrounds out of which ideas
came to the fore, and of the values that nurtured and thwarted them, is crucial to a real apprecia
tion of any field. The context that spawned organizational behavior, including certain ideas
and theories that were already on the scene under other disciplinary names, is therefore of
prime importance in understanding the true meaning of what the field has become.
As a foundation for understanding what is involved here, it is essential to know what scien-
THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE 5
tific theory is and what it is not, as well as how theory relates to research, and where organiza
tional behavior stands relative to the dictates of science. These are the concerns of Part I.
REFERENCES
Blood, Milton R. (1994). The Role o f Organizational Behavior in the Business School Curriculum. In Jerald
Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State o f the Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
207-20.
Boring, Edwin G. (1950). A History o f Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Clegg, Stewart R., Hardy, Cynthia, and Nord, Walter R. (1996). Handbook o f Organization Studies. Lon
don: Sage.
Ferraro, Fabrizio Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Sutton, Robert I. (2005). Economics Language and Assumptions:
How Theories Become Self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30, 8-24.
Miles, Robert H. (1980). Resource Book in Macro Organizational Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Miner, John B. (1984). The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science.
Academy o f Management Review 9: 297-306.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1995). Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles o f Theory. Organization
Science 6: 681-86.
Schendel, Dan E., and Hofer, Charles W. (1979). Strategic Management: A New View o f Business Policy and
Planning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
CHAPTER 1
SCIENCE AND ITS THEORY
Theory and Practice

Science Defined
The Role of Theory in Science
Theory Defined
How Theory Works
Assumptions of Science
Rules of Scientific Inquiry
Conclusions
Theory is the cornerstone of any science. It provides the ideas that fuel research and practice.
Theories of organizational behavior are potentially as useful when applied to organizations
as theories of physics and chemistry are when used in developing new manufacturing tech
nologies and consumer products, or theories of biology are in advancing medical practice.
However, the relationship between theory and practice (or application, or usefulness) in
organizational behavior is often misunderstood. For many people the term theory evokes
images of a speculative, ivory-towered world, far removed from reality.
THEORY AND PRACTICE
Theories do not sound helpful in understanding the practical facts of organizational life. Yet
one hears such statements as that of the eminent psychologist Kurt Lewin (1945), who said
that “nothing is so practical as a good theory.” And this dictum has continued to receive
widespread acceptance over the years since (see, e.g., Van de Ven 1989 and more recently,
Lundberg 2004).
Confusion on this score is in fact widespread; the subject requires consideration here
at the outset because a particular reader’s preconceptions regarding the theory-practice
relationship (or the lack thereof) can color that person’s thinking about the entire field.
The idea that theory is somehow “ivory tow er” while practice is “real w orld”— and that
the two are distinct and separate— has often permeated discussions of business school
education and of the role of the organizational behavior discipline (Raelin 1993; Wren,
Buckley, and M ichaelson 1994), and it continues to do so (Das 2003; Donaldson 2002).
Even attem pts to clarify this situation seem to lead only to deepening confusion (Brief
and Dukerich 1991).
What then is the state of the situation at the interface between academic theory and research,
and the world of application? What do studies tell us? One of the most comprehensive of such
studies deals with the research knowledge, much of it theory based, of human resource (HR)
managers (Rynes, Brown, and Colbert 2002; Rynes, Colbert, and Brown 2002). This investi
gation indicated that these managers were not very knowledgeable regarding the research evi
dence; they were only neutral on the value of research findings for practice, and most read very
7
little in the research literature. Yet those few who were more conversant with the research
worked for more financially successful companies. A difficulty appears to be that many HR
managers rely almost entirely on the popular press for knowledge input (Mazza and Alvarez
2000), and often get wrong information from such sources. Not surprisingly, the popular press
tends to pick up on temporary fads and fashions that are “hot” at the time, many of which are
simply recycled versions of old ideas that had been discarded (Spell 2001).
Another study, focused on a specific theory, failed to find evidence of an understanding
of this theory among managers, although MBA students were better informed (Priem and
Rosenstein 2000). Thus, practicing managers could not go in the directions prescribed be
cause they lacked the knowledge to do so. Although value and motivational differences are
involved here (see Brooks, Grauer, Thombury, and Highhouse 2003), this in itself would not
logically account for the academic-managerial gap found; the problem appears to be in not
going to appropriate sources of information (Roehling, Cavanaugh, Moynihan, and Boswell
2000). Research to this effect continues to mount with additional study (Nowicki and Rosse
2002).
The data thus seem to indicate a substantial gap between theory and perceived usefulness
in practice. Yet there are reasons to believe that this gap can be reduced under appropriate
circumstances (Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft 2001). One objective of this volume is to facili
tate this process and accordingly to narrow the gap so that practitioners will come away with
a greater appreciation of the value that organizational behavior theory can bring to practice.
Examples of recent academic-practitioner collaborations on research studies (Ford, Duncan,
Bedeian, Ginter, Rousculp, and Adams 2003; Rynes and McNatt 2001) and of increasing
concern about linking theory to practice (Cooper and Locke 2000) give reason for optimism
in this regard; so, too, does the recent finding that there is a positive correlation between a
managerial panel’s assessment of practical relevance and an objective index of the academic
quality of published articles (Baldridge, Floyd, and Markoczy 2004). The publication of a
special issue of Human Resource Management dealing with the contributions of theory and
research to closing science-practice knowledge gaps represents a particularly fortuitous sign
(Burke, Drasgow, and Edwards 2004).
In this context let me return to Lew in’s (1945) dictum. What Lewin meant by a good
theory is one that is validated by adequate research. To be truly useful, a theory must be
intimately intertwined with research, and to the extent that it is, it has the potential for mov
ing beyond philosophic speculation to become a sound basis for action. Good theory is thus
practical because it advances knowledge in a field, guides research to important questions,
and enlightens practice in some manner (Van de Ven 1989).
Some theories are obviously more concerned with application than others. Some, at the
time of inception, may fail to meet the test of usefulness, only to find their way to a junc
ture with practice later on. Some theories are never tested, or fail the test of research, and
they are not very good theories, at least as far as anyone can tell. In any event a good
theory has the potential for valid applications and thus can prove useful if correctly ap
plied. A theory in an applied field, such as organizational behavior, that is so divorced
from application (so ivory tower?) that it has no potential for speaking to practice is very
unlikely to be a good theory. Yet, one must recognize that some of organizational behavior’s
premier theorists eschew practical relevance in favor of knowledge for its own sake (see,
e.g., March 2003), and some from organizational behavior who have moved to the world
of practice find little of value in the theories of their field (Greiner 2002, on Steve Kerr).
Unanimity here is hard to come by.
SCIENCE AND ITS THEORY 9
SCIENCE DEFINED
Keeping in mind this desideratum on relationships to practice, let us turn now directly to the
matter of science. Science is an enterprise by which a particular kind of ordered knowledge
is obtained about natural phenomena by means of controlled observations and theoretical
interpretations. Ideally, this science, of which organizational behavior is a part, lives up to
the following:
1. The definitions are precise

2. The data-collecting is objective
3. The findings are replicable
4. The approach is systematic and cumulative
5. The purposes are understanding and prediction, plus, in the applied arena, control
(Berelson and Steiner 1964).
The usually accepted goals of scientific effort are to increase understanding and to facili
tate prediction (Dubin 1978). At its best, science will achieve both of these goals. However,
there are many instances in which prediction has been accomplished with considerable pre
cision, even though true understanding of the underlying phenomena is minimal; this is
characteristic of much of the forecasting that companies do as a basis for planning, for ex
ample. Similarly, understanding can be far advanced, even though prediction lags behind.
For instance, we know a great deal about the various factors that influence the level of
people’s work performance, but we do not know enough about the interaction of these fac
tors in specific instances to predict with high accuracy exactly how well a certain individual
will do in a particular position.
In an applied field, such as organizational behavior, the objectives of understanding and
prediction are joined by a third objective— influencing or managing the future, and thus achieving
control. An economic science that explained business cycles fully and predicted fluctuations
precisely would represent a long step toward holding unemployment at a desired level. Simi
larly, knowledge of the dynamics of organizations and the capacity to predict the occurrence of
particular structures and processes would seem to offer the possibility of engineering a situa
tion to maximize organizational effectiveness. To the extent that limited unemployment or
increased organizational effectiveness are desired, science then becomes a means to these
goals. In fact much scientific work is undertaken to influence the world around us. To the
extent applied science meets such objectives, it achieves a major goal.
THE ROLE OF THEORY IN SCIENCE
Scientific method evolves in ascending levels of abstractions (Brown and Ghiselli 1955). At
the most basic level it portrays and retains experience in symbols. The symbols may be
mathematical, but to date in organizational behavior they have been primarily linguistic.
Once converted to symbols, experience may be mentally manipulated, and relationships
may be established.
Description utilizes symbols to classify, order, and correlate events. It remains at a low
level of abstraction and is closely tied to observation and sensory experience. In essence it is
a matter of ordering symbols to make them adequately portray events. The objective is to
answer “what” questions.
Explanation moves to a higher level of abstraction in that it attempts to establish mean

ings behind events. It attempts to identify causal, or at least concomitant, relationships so
that observed phenomena make some logical sense.
Theory Defined
At its maximal point, explanation creates theory. Scientific theory is a patterning of logical
constructs, or interrelated symbolic concepts, into which the known facts regarding a phenom
enon, or theoretical domain, may be fitted. A theory is a generalization, applicable within
stated boundaries, that specifies the relationships between factors. Thus, it is an attempt to
make sense out of observations that in and of themselves do not contain any inherent and
obvious logic (Dubin 1976). The objective is to answer “how,” “when,” and “why” questions.
Since theory is so central to science, a certain amount of repetition related to this topic
may be forgiven. Campbell (1990) defines theory as a collection of assertions, both verbal
and symbolic, that identifies what variables are important for what reasons, specifies how
they are interrelated and why, and identifies the conditions under which they should be
related or not. Sutton and Staw (1995) place their emphasis somewhat differently, but with
much the same result. For them, theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story
about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. It emphasizes the nature of causal
relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of events. It is laced with a
set of logically interconnected arguments. It can have implications that we have not previ
ously seen and that run counter to our common sense.
How Theory Works
Figure 1.1 provides a picture of the components of a theory. A theory is thus a system of
constructs and variables with the constructs related to one another by propositions and the
variables by hypotheses. The whole is bounded by the assumptions, both implicit and ex
plicit, that the theorist holds with regard to the theory (Bacharach 1989).
Constructs are “terms which, though not observational either directly or indirectly, may
be applied or even defined on the basis of the observables” (Kaplan 1964, 55). They are
abstractions created to facilitate understanding. Variables are observable, they have multiple
values, and they derive from constructs. In essence, they are operationalizations of con
structs created to permit testing of hypotheses. In contrast to the abstract constructs, vari
ables are concrete. Propositions are statements of relationships among constructs. Hypotheses
are similar statements involving variables. Research attempts to refute or confirm hypoth
eses, not propositions per se.
All theories occupy a domain within which they should prove effective and outside of
which they should not. These domain-defining, bounding assumptions (see Figure 1.1) are
in part a product of the implicit values held by the theorist relative to the theoretical content.
These values typically go unstated, and, if that is the case, they cannot be measured. Spatial
boundaries restrict the effective use of the theory to specific units, such as types of organiza
tions or kinds of people. Among these, cultural boundaries are particularly important for
theory (Cheng, Sculli, and Chan 2001). Temporal boundaries restrict the effective use of the
theory to specific time periods. To the extent they are explicitly stated, spatial and temporal
boundaries can be measured and thus made operational. Taken together, they place some
limitation on the generalizability of a theory. These boundary-defining factors need not op
S C IE N C E A N D ITS T H E O R Y 11
F ig u re 1.1 T h e C o m p o n e n ts o f T h e o r ie s a n d H ow T h ey F u n ctio n
C o n stru c ts V a riab les
C o n stru c ts V a riab les T h e e x te n t o f

g e n era liz ab ility
P ro p o sitio n s H v p o theses o f a theory
C o n stru c ts V a riab les
etc.
e tc -
T h eo re tic a l b o u n d a rie s e stab lish e d in term s o f the valu es, sp aces, c u ltu res, and
tim e s, e tc ., to w hich a th eo ry applies.
erate only to specify th e dom ain o f a th e o ry , h o w ev er; all m ay se rv e in statin g p ro positions

and h y p o th eses as w ell. F o r ex am p le, time has recen tly rec eiv e d co n sid erab le attention as a
v ariab le that m ay en ter into h y p o th e ses (G eo rg e an d Jo n es 2 0 0 0 ; M itch ell an d Jam es 2001).
O rgan izatio n al b e h a v io r h as often b ee n criticiz ed fo r u tilizin g h ig h ly am b ig u o u s th eo reti
cal co n stru c ts— it is not at all clea r w h at they m ean (see, e.g ., S an d elan d s and D razin 1989).
T his sam e am b ig u ity can exten d to b o u n d ary d efin itio n s an d d o m a in statem en ts. In a rath er
cynical vein, A stley an d Z am m u to (1992) even arg u e th a t th is am b ig u ity is fu n ctio n al for a
th eo rist in that it in c reases th e co n c ep tu al appeal o f a th e o ry . C o n flic tin g p o sitio n s do not
b ec o m e read ily ap p a ren t and th e d o m ain o f ap p licatio n m ay a p p e a r m u ch g rea ter than the
em pirical reality . S uch purposeful am b ig u ity creatio n can ca u se th e co n stru c ts an d ideas o f a
theory to be ex ten d ed in to th e w o rld o f p ractice to an e x te n t th a t is n o t em p irically w ar
ranted. N o t su rp risin g ly th ese view s im m ed iately m et su b stan tial o p p o sitio n (see, e.g., B ey er
1992). T h e im p o rta n t point, how ev er, is that scien ce d o es n o t c o n d o n e th is ty p e o f th eo reti
cal am biguity. P recise d efin itio n s are n eed ed to m ak e scien c e e ffec tiv e (L o ck e 2003), and a
theory that reso rts to am b ig u ity is to th a t ex ten t a p o o r th eo ry .
ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
S cien ce m u st m ake c e rta in assu m p tio n s ab o u t th e w o rld aro u n d us. T h ese assu m p tio n s m ight
n o t be factu ally true, an d to the extent they are n o t, sc ien c e w ill h av e less value. H ow ever, to
th e extent scien ce o p erates on th e se assu m p tio n s and p ro d u ce s a d eg re e o f v alid u n d erstan d
ing, pred ictio n , and in flu en ce, it appears m ore w o rth w h ile to u tilize th e assu m p tio n s.
S cien ce assu m es, first, th a t certain natural g ro u p in g s o f p h en o m en a ex ist, so th at classifi
cation can o cc u r and g en e raliz atio n w ith in a categ o ry is m e an in g fu l. F o r som e years, fo r
instance, the field th en ca lled b u sin e ss policy, o p era tin g fro m its o rig in s in th e case m ethod,
assu m ed th a t each co m p an y is essen tially uniqu e. T h is as su m p tio n effectiv ely b lo ck ed the
development of scientific theory and research in the field. Increasingly, however, the as
sumption of uniqueness has been disappearing, and generalizations applicable to classes of
organizations have emerged (see, e.g., Steiner and Miner 1986). As a result, scientific theory
and research are burgeoning in the field of strategic management.
Second, science assumes some degree of constancy, or stability, or permanence in the
world. Science cannot operate in a context of complete random variation; the goal of valid
prediction is totally unattainable under such circumstances. Thus, objects and events must
retain some degree of similarity from one time to another. In a sense this is an extension of
the first assumption, but now over time rather than across units (see McKelvey 1997 for a
discussion of these premises). For instance, if organizational structures, once introduced, did
not retain some stability, any scientific prediction of their impact on organizational perfor
mance would be impossible. Fortunately, they do have some constancy, but not always as
much as might be desired.
Third, science assumes that events are determined and that causes exist. This is the
essence of explanation and theorizing. It may not be possible to prove a specific causation
with absolute certainty, but evidence can be adduced to support certain causal explana
tions and reject others. In any event, if one does not assume some kind of causation, there
is little point in scientific investigation; the assumption of determinism is what sparks
scientific effort. If, for instance, one assumes that organizational role prescriptions do not
influence individual performance, then the whole area of organizational design moves
outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Organizational behavior must assume some kind of
causal impact of the organization on its members. It then becomes the task of science to
determine the nature of this impact.
Finally, because science is firmly rooted in observation and experience, it is necessary
to assume some degree of trustworthiness for the human processes of perceiving, remem
bering, and reasoning. This trustworthiness is always relative, but it must exist to some
degree. The rules under which science operates are intended to increase the degree of
reliability with which scientific observation and recording operate. The purpose is to achieve
an objective, rational, replicable result that will be convincing to those who are knowl
edgeable in the area of study.
RULES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
First, if the findings of research are to be replicated and the generalizations from research are
to be valid, concepts must be clearly defined in terms of the procedures used to measure
them. This has been a problem in the field of organizational behavior. On occasion, theoreti
cal concepts are stated in such an ambiguous manner and the conditions for their measure
ment left so uncertain that the researcher is hard put to devise an adequate test of a theory.
Second, scientific observation must be controlled so that causation may be attributed
correctly. The objective is to be certain that an outcome is in fact produced by what is be
lieved to produce it and not by something else. Control of this kind is achieved through the
use of various experimental designs, or through measurement and statistical adjustment as
discussed later in Part I. In the complex world of organizational functioning, establishing
controls sufficient to pin down causation has often proved to be difficult.
Third, because science is concerned with generalization to contexts that extend far be
yond a given experiment, it is essential that research utilize samples that are adequate in both
size and conditions of their selection. One must have confidence that the results obtained are
generalizable and can be put to use outside the research situation. The field of statistics
becomes important for organizational behavior because of its potential for determining how
much confidence can be placed in a particular research outcome.
Fourth, and this bears repeating, science requires that its propositions, hypotheses, and theo
ries be stated in terms that can be tested empirically. This is where philosophy and science part
company. Unfortunately, in the past, organizational behavior has not always clearly separated
scientific from philosophic statements. The result has been considerable confusion, and on
occasion effort has been wasted on attempts to test theories that are not really testable as stated.
Bacharach (1989) provides a good discussion of this falsifiability requirement.
These rules of scientific inquiry serve to influence research design and the conduct of
research. M cKelvey (1997) labels the rules as indicative of an “organizational realist” ap
proach to organizational behavior.
CONCLUSIONS
The philosophy of science as set forth here places considerable emphasis on the role of
theory. The reason is that although quantum leaps in science are very rare in any event, they
are only possible if theory provides the opportunity. Organizational behavior has had its
share of theories, and enough of these have proved useful to move the field forward quite
rapidly. However, it is important to understand that further progress requires more good
theories, and these will be created only if the field fully recognizes what theory is and how it
operates. Yet, theory only becomes useful if it is validated by research. Managers should not
accept theories and apply them to their work unless there is reason to believe that the theories
are empirically valid. At the same time, research results are the agents that determine whether
theories are true or false. How good research is conducted is discussed later in Part I, but first
we need to consider how good theories are constructed.
REFERENCES
Astley, W. Graham, and Zammuto, Raymond F. (1992). Organization Science, Managers, and Language
Games. Organization Science, 3, 443-60.
Bacharach, Samuel B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy o f Manage
ment Review, 14, 496-515.
Baldridge, David C., Floyd, Steven W., and Markoczy, Livia (2004). Are Managers from Mars and Acade
micians from Venus? Toward an Understanding of the Relationship Between Academic Quality and
Practical Relevance. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1063-74.
Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary (1964). Human Behavior: An Inventory o f Scientific Findings. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Beyer, Janice M. (1992). Metaphors, Misunderstandings, and Mischief: A Commentary. Organization Sci
ence, 3, 467-74.
Brief, Arthur P., and Dukerich, Janet M. (1991). Theory in Organizational Behavior: Can It Be Useful?
Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 327-52.
Brooks, Margaret E., Grauer, Eyal, Thombury, Erin E., and Highhouse, Scott (2003). Value Differences
between Scientists and Practitioners: A Survey of SIOP Members. Industrial-Organizational Psycholo
gist, 40(4), 17-23.
Brown, Clarence W., and Ghiselli, Edwin E. (1955). Scientific Method in Psychology. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Burke, Michael J., Drasgrow, Fritz, and Edwards, Jack E. (2004). Closing Science-Practice Knowledge
Gaps: Contributions of Psychological Research to Human Resource Management. Human Resource
Management, 43, 299-304.
Campbell, John R (1990). The Role of Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In Marvin D.
Dunnette and Leaetta M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 39-73.
Cheng, Tsz-kit, Sculli, Domenic, and Chan, Fiona S. (2001). Relationship Dominance: Rethinking Manage
ment Theories from the Perspective of Methodological Relationalism. Journal o f Managerial Psychol
ogy, 16, 97-105.
Cooper, Cary L., and Locke, Edwin A. (2000). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory
with Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Das, T.K. (2003). Managerial Perceptions and the Essence o f the Managerial World: What Is an Interloper
Business Executive to Make of the Academic-Researcher Perceptions o f Managers? British Journal o f
Donaldson, Lex (2002). Damned by Our Own Theories: Contradictions Between Theories and Management
Education. Academy o f Management Learning and Education, 1, 96-106.
Dubin, Robert (1976). Theory Building in Applied Areas. In Marvin D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook o f Indus
trial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 17-39.
. (1978). Theory Building. New York: Free Press.
Ford, Eric W., Duncan, W. Jack, Bedeian, Arthur G., Ginter, Peter M., Rousculp, Mathew D., and Adams,
Alice M. (2003). Mitigating Risks, Visible Hands, Inevitable Disasters, and Soft Variables: Management
Research That Matters to Managers. Academy o f Management Executive, 17, 46-60.
George, Jennifer M., and Jones, Gareth R. (2000). The Role o f Time in Theory and Theory Building. Jour
nal o f Management, 26, 657-84.
Greiner, Larry (2002). Steve Kerr and His Years with Jack Welch at G.E. Journal o f Management Inquiry,
11, 343-50.
Kaplan, Abraham (1964). The Conduct o f Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Lewin, Kurt (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute o f Technology.
Sociometry, 8, 126-35.
Locke, Edwin A. (2003). Good Definitions: The Epistemological Foundation o f Scientific Progress. In Jerald
Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State o f the Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 4 1 5 ^ 4 .
Lundberg, Craig C. (2004). Is There Really Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory? Business Horizons,
47(5), 7-14.
March, James G. (2003). A Scholar’s Quest. Journal o f Management Inquiry, 112, 205-7.
Mazza, Carmelo, and Alvarez, José L. (2000). Haute Couture and Prêt-à-Porter: The Popular Press and the
Diffusion of Management Practices. Organization Studies, 21, 567-88.
McKelvey, Bill (1997). Quasi-natural Organization Science. Organization Science, 8, 352-80.
Mitchell, Terence R., and James, Lawrence R. (2001). Building Better Theory: Time and the Specification of
When Things Happen. Academy o f Management Review, 26, 530-47.
Nowicki, Margaret D., and Rosse, Joseph G. (2002). Managers’ Views o f How to Hire: Building Bridges
Between Science and Practice. Journal o f Business and Psychology, 17, 157-70.
Priem, Richard L., and Rosenstein, J. (2000). Is Organization Theory Obvious to Practitioners? A Test of
One Established Theory. Organization Science, 11, 509-24.
Raelin, Joseph A. (1993). Theory and Practice: Their Roles, Relationships, and Limitations in Advanced
Management Education. Business Horizons, 36(3), 85-89.
Roehling, Mark V., Cavanaugh, Marcie A., Moynihan, Lisa M., and Boswell, Wendy R. (2000). The Nature
of the New Employment Relationship: A Content Analysis o f the Practitioner and Academic Literatures.
Human Resource Management, 39, 305-20.
Rynes, Sara L., Bartunek, Jean M., and Daft, Richard L. (2001). Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation
and Transfer between Practitioners and Academics. Academy o f Management Journal, 44, 340-55.
Rynes, Sara L., Brown, Kenneth G., and Colbert, Amy L. (2002). Seven Common Misconceptions about
Human Resource Practices: Resource Findings versus Practitioner Beliefs. Academy o f Management
Executive, 16, 92-102.
Rynes, Sara L., Colbert, Amy L., and Brown, Kenneth G. (2002). HR Professionals’ Beliefs about Effective
Human Resource Practices: Correspondence between Research and Practice. Human Resource Manage
ment, 41, 149-74.
Rynes, Sara L., and McNatt, D. Brian (2001). Bringing the Organization into Organizational Research: An
Examination of Academic Research inside Organizations. Journal o f Business and Psychology 16, 3-19.
Sandelands, Lloyd, and Drazin, Robert (1989). On the Language of Organization Theory. Organization
Studies, 10, 457-78.
Spell, Chester S. (2001). Management Fashions— Where Do They Come from and Are They Old Wine in
New Bottles? Journal o f Management Inquiry, 10, 358-73.
Steiner, George A., and Miner, John B. (1986). Management Policy and Strategy. New York: Macmillan.
Sutton, Robert I., and Staw, Barry M. (1995). What Theory Is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
371-84.
Van de Ven, Andrew H. (1989). Nothing Is Quite So Practical as a Good Theory. Academy o f Management
Review, 14, 486-89.
Wren, Daniel A., Buckley, M. Ronald, and Michaelsen, Larry K. (1994). The Theory/Application Balance in
Management Pedagogy: Where Do We Stand? Journal o f Management, 20, 141-57.
References
PART I. THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE

OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Blood, Milton R. (1994). The Role of Organizational

Behavior in the Business School Curriculum. In Jerald
Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State o f the
Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 207-20.
Boring, Edwin G. (1950). A History o f Experimental

Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Clegg, Stewart R., Hardy, Cynthia, and Nord, Walter R.

(1996). Handbook o f Organization Studies. Lon don: Sage.
Ferraro, Fabrizio Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Sutton, Robert I.

(2005). Economics Language and Assumptions: How Theories
Become Self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30,
8-24.
Miles, Robert H. (1980). Resource Book in Macro

Organizational Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Miner, John B. (1984). The Validity and Usefulness of

Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science. Academy o
f Management Review 9: 297-306.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1995). Mortality, Reproducibility, and

the Persistence of Styles of Theory. Organization Science
6: 681-86.
Schendel, Dan E., and Hofer, Charles W. (1979). Strategic

Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown. This page intentionally left
blank
1 Chapter 1. Science and Its Theory
Astley, W. Graham, and Zammuto, Raymond F. (1992).

Organization Science, Managers, and Language Games.
Organization Science, 3, 443-60.
Bacharach, Samuel B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some

Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Manage ment Review,
14, 496-515.
Baldridge, David C., Floyd, Steven W., and Markoczy, Livia

(2004). Are Managers from Mars and Acade micians from
Venus? Toward an Understanding of the Relationship Between
Academic Quality and Practical Relevance. Strategic
Management Journal, 25, 1063-74.
Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary (1964). Human

Behavior: An Inventory o f Scientific Findings. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Beyer, Janice M. (1992). Metaphors, Misunderstandings, and

Mischief: A Commentary. Organization Sci ence, 3, 467-74.
Brief, Arthur P., and Dukerich, Janet M. (1991). Theory in

Organizational Behavior: Can It Be Useful? Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13, 327-52.
Brooks, Margaret E., Grauer, Eyal, Thombury, Erin E., and

Highhouse, Scott (2003). Value Differences between
Scientists and Practitioners: A Survey of SIOP Members.
Industrial-Organizational Psycholo gist, 40(4), 17-23.
Brown, Clarence W., and Ghiselli, Edwin E. (1955).

Scientific Method in Psychology. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Burke, Michael J., Drasgrow, Fritz, and Edwards, Jack E.

(2004). Closing Science-Practice Knowledge Gaps:
Contributions of Psychological Research to Human Resource
Management. Human Resource Management, 43, 299-304.
Campbell, John R (1990). The Role of Theory in Industrial

and Organizational Psychology. In Marvin D. Dunnette and
Leaetta M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 39-73.
Cheng, Tsz-kit, Sculli, Domenic, and Chan, Fiona S. (2001).

Relationship Dominance: Rethinking Manage ment Theories
from the Perspective of Methodological Relationalism.
Journal o f Managerial Psychol ogy, 16, 97-105.
Cooper, Cary L., and Locke, Edwin A. (2000). Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory with Practice.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Das, T.K. (2003). Managerial Perceptions and the Essence of

the Managerial World: What Is an Interloper Business
Executive to Make of the Academic-Researcher Perceptions o
f Managers? British Journal o f Management, 14, 23-32.
Donaldson, Lex (2002). Damned by Our Own Theories:

Contradictions Between Theories and Management Education.
Academy o f Management Learning and Education, 1, 96-106.
Dubin, Robert (1976). Theory Building in Applied Areas. In

Marvin D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook o f Indus trial and
Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp.
17-39.
. (1978). Theory Building. New York: Free Press.
Ford, Eric W., Duncan, W. Jack, Bedeian, Arthur G., Ginter,

Peter M., Rousculp, Mathew D., and Adams, Alice M. (2003).
Mitigating Risks, Visible Hands, Inevitable Disasters, and
Soft Variables: Management Research That Matters to
Managers. Academy o f Management Executive, 17, 46-60.
George, Jennifer M., and Jones, Gareth R. (2000). The Role

of Time in Theory and Theory Building. Jour nal o f
Greiner, Larry (2002). Steve Kerr and His Years with Jack
Welch at G.E. Journal o f Management Inquiry, 11, 343-50.
Kaplan, Abraham (1964). The Conduct o f Inquiry. San

Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Lewin, Kurt (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics

at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8,
126-35.
Locke, Edwin A. (2003). Good Definitions: The

Epistemological Foundation of Scientific Progress. In
Jerald Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State
o f the Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 4 1 5 ^
4 .
Lundberg, Craig C. (2004). Is There Really Nothing So

Practical as a Good Theory? Business Horizons, 47(5),
7-14.
March, James G. (2003). A Scholar’s Quest. Journal o f
Management Inquiry, 112, 205-7.
Mazza, Carmelo, and Alvarez, José L. (2000). Haute Couture

and Prêt-à-Porter: The Popular Press and the Diffusion of
Management Practices. Organization Studies, 21, 567-88.
McKelvey, Bill (1997). Quasi-natural Organization Science.

Mitchell, Terence R., and James, Lawrence R. (2001).

Building Better Theory: Time and the Specification of When
Things Happen. Academy o f Management Review, 26, 530-47.
Nowicki, Margaret D., and Rosse, Joseph G. (2002).

Managers’ Views of How to Hire: Building Bridges Between
Science and Practice. Journal o f Business and Psychology,
17, 157-70.
Priem, Richard L., and Rosenstein, J. (2000). Is

Organization Theory Obvious to Practitioners? A Test of
Raelin, Joseph A. (1993). Theory and Practice: Their Roles,

Relationships, and Limitations in Advanced Management
Education. Business Horizons, 36(3), 85-89.
Roehling, Mark V., Cavanaugh, Marcie A., Moynihan, Lisa M.,

and Boswell, Wendy R. (2000). The Nature of the New
Employment Relationship: A Content Analysis of the
Practitioner and Academic Literatures. Human Resource
Rynes, Sara L., Bartunek, Jean M., and Daft, Richard L.

(2001). Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and
Transfer between Practitioners and Academics. Academy o f
Rynes, Sara L., Brown, Kenneth G., and Colbert, Amy L.

(2002). Seven Common Misconceptions about Human Resource
Practices: Resource Findings versus Practitioner Beliefs.
Academy o f Management Executive, 16, 92-102.
Rynes, Sara L., Colbert, Amy L., and Brown, Kenneth G.

(2002). HR Professionals’ Beliefs about Effective Human
Resource Practices: Correspondence between Research and
Practice. Human Resource Manage ment, 41, 149-74.
Rynes, Sara L., and McNatt, D. Brian (2001). Bringing the

Organization into Organizational Research: An Examination
of Academic Research inside Organizations. Journal o f
Business and Psychology 16, 3-19. SCIENCE AND ITS THEORY 15
Sandelands, Lloyd, and Drazin, Robert (1989). On the

Language of Organization Theory. Organization Studies, 10,
457-78.
Spell, Chester S. (2001). Management Fashions—Where Do They

Come from and Are They Old Wine in New Bottles? Journal o
f Management Inquiry, 10, 358-73.
Steiner, George A., and Miner, John B. (1986). Management

Policy and Strategy. New York: Macmillan.
Sutton, Robert I., and Staw, Barry M. (1995). What Theory

Is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-84.
Van de Ven, Andrew H. (1989). Nothing Is Quite So Practical

as a Good Theory. Academy o f Management Review, 14,
486-89.
Wren, Daniel A., Buckley, M. Ronald, and Michaelsen, Larry

K. (1994). The Theory/Application Balance in Management
Pedagogy: Where Do We Stand? Journal o f Management, 20,
141-57.
2 Chapter 2. Theory Building and Kinds of
Theories
Christensen, Clayton M., and Raynor, Michael E. (2003). Why

Hard-Nosed Executives Should Care about Management Theory.
Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 61-1 A.
Donaldson, Lex (1996). For Positivist Organization Theory.

London: Sage.
Doty, D. Harold, and Glick, William H. (1994). Typologies

as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improving
Understanding and Modeling. Academy of Management Review,
19, 230-51.
Dubin, Robert (1978). Theory Building. New York: Free Press.
Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The

Discovery o f Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gottfredson, Linda S. (1983). Creating and Criticizing

Theory. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 23, 203-12.
Hartman, Edwin (1988). Conceptual Foundations o f

Organization Theory. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Hemingway, Monica A. (2001). Qualitative Research in 1-0

Psychology. Industrial-Organizational Psy chologist,
38(3), 45-51.
House, Robert, Rousseau, Denise M., and Thomas-Hunt,

Melissa (1995). The Meso Paradigm: A Frame work for the
Integration of Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior.
Research in Organizational Be havior, 17, 71-114.
Ketchen, David J., and Shook, Christopher, L. (1996). The

Application of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management
Research: An Analysis and Critique. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 441-58.
Klein, Katherine J., and Zedeck, Sheldon (2004). Theory in

Applied Psychology: Lessons (Re)Leamed. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 89, 931-33.
Lammers, Comelis (1988). Transience and Persistence of

Ideal Types in Organizational Theory. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 6, 203-24.
Locke, Karen (2001). Grounded Theory in Management

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
. (2002). The Grounded Theory Approach to Qualitative
Research. In Fritz Drasgow and Neal Schmitt (Eds.),
Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations: Advances
in Measurement and Data Analysis. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 17-43.
McKelvey, Bill (1997). Quasi-natural Organization Science.

Meckler, Mark, and Baillie, James (2003). The Truth about

Social Construction in Administrative Science. Journal o f
Management Inquiry, 12, 273-84.
Miller, Danny (1996). Configurations Revisited. Strategic

Miner, John B. (1997). A Psychological Typology of

Successful Entrepreneurs. Westport, CT: Quorum.
. (2005). Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories o f

Motivation and Leadership. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Process and Structure. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Mone, M.A., and McKinley, William (1993). The Uniqueness

Value and Its Consequences for Organization Studies.
Journal o f Management Inquiry, 2, 284-96.
O’Connor, GinaC., Rice, Mark R, Peters, Lois, and Veryzer,

Robert W. (2003). Managing Interdisciplinary, Longitudinal
Research Teams: Extending Grounded Theory-building
Methodologies. Organization Sci ence, 14, 353-73.
Parry, Ken W. (1998). Grounded Theory and Social Process: A

New Direction for Leadership Research. Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 85-105.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1991). Organization Theory and Structural

Perspectives on Management. Journal o f Man agement, 17,
789-803.
Rich, Philip (1992). The Organizational Taxonomy:

Definition and Design. Academy o f Management Review, 17,
758-81.
Sanchez, Julio C. (1993). The Long and Thorny Way to an

Organizational Taxonomy. Organization Studies, 14, 73-92.
Staw, Barry M. (1991). Dressing Up Like an Organization:
When Psychological Theories Can Explain Organizational
Action. Journal o f Management, 17, 805-19.
Tosi, Henry L. (1992). The Environment/Organization/Person

Contingency Model: A Meso Approach to the Study o f
Organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, Barry A. (1983). The Use of Grounded Theory for the

Qualitative Analysis of Organizational Behav ior. Journal
o f Management Studies, 20, 333-48.
Webster, Jane, and Starbuck, William H. (1988). Theory

Building in Industrial and Organizational Psychol ogy.
International Review o f Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 3, 93-138.
Weiss, Richard M. (2000). Taking Science out of

Organization Science: How Would Postmodernism Recon struct
the Analysis of Organizations? Organization Science, 11,
709-31.
Wright, Patrick M., and Boswell, Wendy R. (2002).

Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of Micro and
Macro Human Resource Management Research. Journal o f
3 Chapter 3. Measurement of Variables and
Design of Research
Bagozzi, Richard P., Yi, Youjae, and Phillips, Lynn W.

(1991). Assessing Construct Validity in Organiza tional
Research. Administrative Science Quarterly; 36, 421-58.
Bazerman, Max H. (2005). Conducting Influential Research:

The Need for Prescriptive Implications. Acad emy of
Management Review, 30, 25-31.
Belasco, James A., and Trice, Harrison M. (1969). The

Assessment o f Change in Training and Therapy. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Blackburn, Richard S. (1987). Experimental Design in

Organizational Settings. In Jay W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook
o f Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 126-39.
Cook, Thomas D., Campbell, Donald T., and Peracchio, Laura

(1990). Quasi-Experimentation. In Marvin D. Dunnette and
Leaetta M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 491-576.
Cortina, Jose M. (2002). Big Things Have Small Beginnings:

An Assortment of “Minor” Methodological Misunderstandings.
Journal of Management, 28, 339-62.
Drasgow, Fritz, and Schmitt, Neal. (2002). Measuring and

Analyzing Behavior in Organizations: Advances in
Measurement and Data Analysis. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, Jeffrey R. (2003). Construct Validation in

Organizational Behavior Research. In Jerald Greenberg
(Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 327-71.
Evans, Martin G. (1999). Donald T. Campbell’s

Methodological Contributions to Organization Science. In
Joel A. C. Baum and Bill McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in
Organization Science: In Honor o f Donald T. Campbell.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 311-38.
Frost, Peter J., and Stablein, Ralph E. (1992). Doing

Exemplary Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Glaser, Dale (2004). Measurement and Statistical Miscues

and Fallacies. Industrial-Organizational Psy chologist,
42(2), 41-44.
Greenberg, Jerald, and Tomlinson, Edward C. (2004).

Situated Experiments in Organizations: Transplanting the
Lab to the Field. Journal o f Management, 30, 703-24.
Hemphill, James F. (2003). Interpreting the Magnitudes of

Correlation Coefficients. American Psychologist, 58,
78-79.
Hunt, Jerry G., and Ropo, Arja (2003). Longitudinal

Organizational Research and the Third Scientific Dis
cipline. Group and Organization Management, 28, 315-40.
Lam, Simon S.K., and Schaubroeck, John. (2000). The Role of

Locus of Control in Reactions to Being Promoted and to
Being Passed Over: A Quasi Experiment. Academy o f
Lindell, Michael K., and Whitney, David John (2001).

Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross- sectional
Research Designs. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 86,
114—21.
Locke, Edwin A. (1986). Generalizing from Laboratory to

Field Settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
. (2003). Good Definitions: The Epistemological Foundation

of Scientific Progress. In Jerald Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational Behavior: The State o f the Science. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 415-^14.
Loo, Robert (2002). A Caveat on Using Single-item Versus

Multiple-item Scales. Journal o f Managerial Psychology,
17, 68-75.
Markham, Steven E., Scott, K. Dow, and McKee, Gail H.

(2002). Recognizing Good Attendance: A Longi tudinal,
Quasi-experimental Field Study. Personnel Psychology, 55,
639-60.
Morgeson, Frederick R, and Campion, Michael A. (2002).

Minimizing Tradeoffs When Redesigning Work: Evidence from
a Longitudinal Quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55,
589-612.
Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., Lee, Jeong-Yeon,

and Podsakoff, Nathan P. (2003). Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature
and Recommended Rem edies. Journal o f Applied Psychology,
88, 879-903.
Price, James L., and Mueller, Charles W. (1986). Handbook

of Organizational Measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Probst, Tahira M. (2003). Exploring Employee Outcomes of

Organizational Restructuring: A Solomon Four- group Study.
Group and Organizational Management, 28, 416-39.
Scandura, Terri A., and Williams, Ethlyn A. (2000).

Research Methodology in Management: Current Prac tices,
Trends, and Implications for Future Research. Academy o f
Schmidt, Frank L., Viswesvaran, Chockalingam, and Ones,

Deniz S. (2000). Reliability Is Not Validity and Validity
Is Not Reliability. Personnel Psychology, 53, 901-24.
Williams, Larry J., Edwards, Jeffrey R., and Vandenberg,

Robert J. (2003). Recent Advances in Causal Modeling
Methods for Organizational and Management Research. Journal
o f Management, 29, 903-36.
5 Chapter 5. The Context of Theory as
Organizational Behavior Emerged
Bennis, Warren G. (1966). Changing Organizations: Essays on

the Development and Evolution of Human Organization. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Boring, Edwin G. (1950). A History o f Experimental

Psychology New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Duncan, W. Jack (2004). A Case for Great Books in

Management Education. Academy o f Management Learning and
Education, 3, 421-28.
Dunnette, Marvin D., and Bass, Bernard M. (1963).

Behavioral Scientists and Personnel Management. Industrial
Relations, 2, 115-30.
Engwall, Lars (2004). The Americanization of Nordic

Management Education. Journal o f Management Inquiry, 13,
109-17.
Etzioni, Amitai (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goodrick, Elizabeth (2002). From Management as a Vocation

to Management as a Scientific Activity: An Institutional
Account of a Paradigm Shift. Journal o f Management, 28,
649-68.
Gordon, Paul J. (1963). Transcend the Current Debate on

Administrative Theory. Academy o f Management Journal, 6,
290-302.
Gordon, Robert A., and Howell, James E. (1959). Higher

Education for Business. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Heidbreder, Edna (1933). Seven Psychologies. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hofstede, Geert, and Kassem, M. Sami (1976). European

Contributions to Organization Theory. Amsterdam: Van
Gorcum.
Kaufman, Bruce E. (2001). The Theory and Practice of

Strategic HRM and Participative Management— Antecedents in
Early Industrial Relations. Human Resource Management
Review, 11, 505-33.
Kieser, Alfred (2004). The Americanization of Academic
Management Education in Germany. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 13, 90-97.
Kipping, Matthias, Usdiken, Behllil, and Puig, Nuria

(2004). Imitation, Tension, and Hybridization: Mul tiple
“Americanizations” of Management Education in Mediterranean
Europe. Journal o f Management Inquiry, 13, 98-108.
Koontz, Harold (1961). The Management Theory Jungle.

Journal o f the Academy of Management, 4, 174—88.
(1962). Making Sense of Management Theory. Harvard Business

Review4 40(4), 24-48.
(1980). The Management Theory Jungle Revisited. Academy of

Krupp, Sherman (1961). Patterns in Organization Analysis: A

Critical Examination. Philadelphia, PA: Chilton.
Lawrence, Paul R. (1987). Historical Development of

Organizational Behavior. In Jay W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook
Hall, 1-9.
Luthans, Fred (1973). The Contingency Theory of Management:

A Path Out of the Jungle. Business Hori zons, 16(3),
67-72.
McKinley, William, Mone, Mark A., and Moon, Gyewan (1999).

Determinants and Development of Schools in Organization
Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 634-48.
Miner, John B. (1971). Management Theory. New York:

Macmillan.
Patten, Thomas H. (1964). Criticism and Comment: Behavioral

Scientists and Personnel Management. In dustrial
Relations, 3, 109-14.
Perrow, Charles (1973). The Short and Glorious History of

Organizational Theory. Organizational Dynam ics, 2(1),
2-15.
Pugh, Derek S. (1966). Modem Organization Theory: A

Psychological and Sociological Study. Psychologi cal
Bulletin, 66, 235-51.
Roberts, Karlene H., Hulin, Charles L., and Rousseau,

Denise M. (1978). Developing an Interdisciplinary Science
o f Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rush, Harold M.F. (1969). Behavioral Science—Concepts and

Management Application. New York: Na tional Industrial
Conference Board.
Scott, William G. (1961). Organization Theory: An Overview

and an Appraisal. Journal o f the Academy o f Management,
4, 7-26.
. (1968). Technology and Organization Government: A

Speculative Inquiry into the Functionality of Management
Creeds. Academy o f Management Journal, 11, 301-13.
Thompson, Kenneth R. (2004). A Conversation with Milton

Blood: The New AACSB Standards. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3, 429-39.
Tiratsoo, Nick (2004). The “Americanization” of Management

Education in Britain. Journal o f Manage ment Inquiry, 13,
118-26.
Üsdiken, Behlül (2004). Americanization of European

Management Education in Historical and Compara tive
Perspective. Journal o f Management Inquiry, 13, 87-89.
Wadia, Maneck S. (1968). Management and the Behavioral

Sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Woodworth, Robert S., and Sheehan, Mary R. (1964).

Contemporary Schools o f Psychology. New York: Ronald.
Woolf, Donald A. (1965). The Management Theory Jungle

Revisited. A dvanced Management Journal, 30(4), 6-15.
PART II. MULTIDISCIPLINARY ORIGINS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Adams, Richard N., and Preiss, Jack J. (1960). Human

Organization Research: Field Relations and Tech niques.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Bedeian, Arthur G. (1998). Exploring the Past. Journal o f

Management History, 4(1), 4-15.
Bedeian, Arthur G., and Wren, Daniel A. (2001). Most

Influential Management Books of the 20th Century.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 221-25.

Behavior in the Business School Curriculum. In J. Greenberg
(Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 207-20.
Davis, Keith (1992). A Journey through Management in

Transition. In Arthur G. Bedeian (Ed.), Manage ment
Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Vol. 1.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 269-400.
Gardner, Burleigh B., and Moore, David G. (1945). Human

Relations in Industry. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Gilmer, B. von Haller (1981). The Early Development of

Industrial-Organizational Psychology. In Joseph A. Sgro
(Ed.), Virginia Tech Symposium on Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 1. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 3-16.
Goodman, Paul S., and Whetten, David A. (1998). Fifty Years

of Organizational Behavior from Multiple Perspectives. In
Maurice F. Neufeld and Jean T. McKelvey (Eds.), Industrial
Relations at the Dawn of the New Millenium. Ithaca, NY:
New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell Uni versity, 33-53.
Goodrick, Elizabeth (2002). From Management as a Vocation

to Management as a Scientific Activity: An Institutional
Account of a Paradigm Shift. Journal o f Management, 28,
649-68.
Greiner, Larry E. (1979). A Recent History of

Organizational Behavior. In Steven Kerr (Ed.), Organiza
tional Behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid, 3-14.
Hoopes, James (2003). False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created

Modern Management and Why Their Ideas Are Bad for Business
Today. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Hall, 1-9.
Leavitt, Harold J. (1958). Managerial Psychology: An

Introduction to Individuals, Pairs, and Groups in
Organizations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McCormick, Blaine (2001). Benjamin Franklin: Founding

Father o f American Management. Business Hori zons, 44,
1-10.
Miner, John B. (1971). Management Theory. New York:

Macmillan.
. (1997). Participating in Profound Change. Academy o f

. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories,

and Analyses. New York: Oxford Univer sity Press.
Pollard, Harold R. (1974). Developments in Management

Thought. New York: Crane, Russak.
Porter, Lyman W., and Bigley, Gregory A. (1995). Human

Relations: Theory and Developments. Aldershot, UK:
Dartmouth.
Prusak, Laurence, and Davenport, Thomas H. (2003). Who Are

the Gurus’ Gurus? Harvard Business Re view, 81(12), 14-16.
Pugh, Derek S., and Hickson, David J. (1993). Great Writers

on Organizations: The Omnibus Edition. Aldershot, UK:
Dartmouth.
Roberts, Karlene H., Weissenberg, Peter, Whetten, David,

Pearce, Jone, Glick, William, Bedeian, Arthur, Miller,
Howard, and Klimoski, Richard (1990). Reflections on the
Field o f Organizational Behavior. Journal o f Management
Systems, 2(1), 25-38.
Scott, W. Richard (2004). Reflections on a Half-Century of

Organizational Sociology. Annual Review o f Sociology, 30,
1-21.
Whyte, William F. (1983). Worker Participation:

International and Historical Perspectives. Journal o f Ap
plied Behavioral Science, 19, 395-407.
Witzel, Morgen (2003). Fifty Key Figures in Management.

London: Routledge.
Wren, Daniel A., and Greenwood, Ronald G. (1998).

Management Innovators: The People and Ideas That Have
Shaped Modern Business. New York: Oxford University Press.
6 Chapter 6. Elton Mayo and Hawthorne
Bramel, Dana, and Friend, Ronald (1981). Hawthorne, the

Myth of the Docile Worker, and Class Bias in Psychology.
American Psychologist, 36, 867-78.
Brief, Arthur P. (2000). Still Servants of Power. Journal o

f Management Inquiry, 9, 342-51.
Cass, Eugene L., and Zimmer, Frederick G. (1975). Man and

Work in Society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Dickson, William J., and Roethlisberger, F.J. (1966).

Counseling in an Organization: A Sequel to the Hawthorne
Researches. Boston, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School
of Business Administration.
Franke, Richard H., and Kaul, James D. (1978). The

Hawthorne Experiments: First Statistical Interpreta tions.
American Sociological Review, 43, 623-43.
Gillespie, Richard (1991). Manufacturing Knowledge: A

History o f the Hawthorne Experiments. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Highhouse, Scott (1999). The Brief History of Personnel

Counseling in Industrial-Organizational Psychol ogy.
Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 55, 318-36.
Hoopes, James (2003). False Prophets—The Gurus Who Created

Modern Management and Why Their Ideas Are Bad fo r
Business Today. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 129-59.
Kahn, Robert L. (1975). In Search of the Hawthorne Effect.

In Eugene L. Cass and Frederick G. Zimmer (Eds.), Man and
Work in Society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 49-63.
Mahoney, Kevin T., and Baker, David B. (2002). Elton Mayo

and Carl Rogers: A Tale of Two Techniques. Journal o f
Vocational Behavior, 60, 437-50.
Mayo, Elton (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial

Civilization. New York: Macmillan.
---------. (1945). The Social Problems of an Industrial

Civilization. Boston, MA: Harvard University, Gradu ate
School of Business Administration.
Miner, John B. (2006). Organizational Behavior 2: Essential

Theories o f Process and Structure. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
O’Connor, Ellen S. (1999). The Pohtics of Management

Thought: A Case Study of the Harvard Business School and
the Human Relations School. Academy of Management Review,
24, 117-31.
Olson, Ryan, Verley, Jessica, Santos, Lindsey, and Salas,

Coresta (2004). What We Teach Students about the Hawthorne
Studies: A Review of Content within a Sample of
Introductory 1-0 and OB Textbooks. Indus
trial-Organizational Psychologist, 41(3), 23-39.
Roethlisberger, F.J. (1953). The Administrator’s Skill:

Communication. Harvard Business Review, 31(6), 55-62.
Roethlisberger, F.J., and Dickson, William J. (1939).

Management and the Worker: An Account o f a Re search
Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company:
Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Strauss, George (1998). Is Money Enough? The Early

Contributions of the Behavioral Sciences to Industrial
Relations. Perspectives on Work, 1(3), 7-11.
Trahair, Richard S.C. (1984). The Humanist Temper: The Life

and Work o f Elton Mayo. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Whitehead, Thomas N. (1938). The Industrial Worker: A

Statistical Study o f Human Relations in a Group of Manual
Workers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wren, Daniel A. (1987). Management History: Issues and

Ideas for Teaching and Research. Journal of Management,
13, 339-50.

Yorks, Lyle, and Whitsett, David A. (1985). Hawthorne,

Topeka, and the Issue of Science Versus Advocacy in
Organizational Behavior. Academy of Management Review, 10,
21-30.
7 Chapter 7. Chester Barnard’s Views on
Management
Barnard, Chester I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
. (1948). Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.
. (1958). Elementary Conditions of Business Morals.

California Management Review, 1, 1-13.

Business. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. (1978). The Social

Psychology o f Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Keller, Robert T. (1984). The Harvard “Pareto Circle” and

the Historical Development of Organization Theory. Journal
o f Management, 10, 193-203.
Locke, Edwin A. (2000). The Prime Movers—Traits o f the

Great Wealth Creators. New York: AMACOM.

Sharpe.
Pareto, Vilfredo (1935). The Mind and Society. New York:

Harcourt, Brace (English translation).
Scott, William G. (1992). Chester I. Barnard and the

Guardians o f the Managerial State. Lawrence: Univer sity
of Kansas Press.
Simon, Herbert A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study

o f Decision-Making Processes in Administra tive
Organization. New York: Free Press.
Thompson, James D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New

York: McGraw-Hill.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1990). Organization Theory: From

Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wolf, William B. (1974). The Basic Barnard: An Introduction

to Chester I. Barnard and His Theories o f Organizational
Management. Ithaca: New York State School o f Industrial
and Labor Relations, Cornell University.

8 Chapter 8. Kurt Lewin—Personality
Theory and Social Psychology Arrive
Ash, Mitchell G. (1992). Cultural Contexts and Scientific

Change in Psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 198-207.
Berg, David N. (2003). A World with Limitations:

Implications for Applied Behavioral Science. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 486-96.
Bradford, Leland P., Gibb, Jack R., and Benne, Ken D.

(1964). T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method. New York:
Wiley.
Burke, W. Warner (2002). Organizational Change: Theory and

Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bumes, Bernard (2004). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach

to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal o f Management Studies,
41, 977-1002.
Canned, Charles F., and Kahn, Robert L. (1984). Some

Factors in the Origins and Development of the Institute
for Social Research, the University of Michigan. American
Psychologist, 39, 1256-66.
Eagly, Alice H., Johannesen-Schmidt, Mary, and van Engen,

Marloes L. (2003). Transformational, Transac tional, and
Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing
Women and Men. Psychologi cal Bulletin, 129, 569-91.
Goldstein, Jeffrey (1993). Beyond Lewin’s Force Field: A

New Model for Organizational Change Interven tions.
Advances in Organization Development, 2, 72-88.
Greenwood, Royston, Suddaby, Roy, and Hinings, C.R. (2002).

Theorizing Change: The Role of Profes sional Associations
in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields. Academy
o f Management Journal, 45, 58-80.
Hall, Calvin S., and Lindzey, Gardner (1957). Theories o f

Personality. New York: Wiley.
Hilgard, Ernest R. (1948). Theories o f Learning. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kaufman, Bruce E. (2004). Theoretical Perspectives on Work

and the Employment Relationship. Champaign, IL: Industrial
Relations Research Association.
Korman, Abraham K. (1988). The Outsiders: Jews and
Corporate America. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Lewin, G.W. (1948). Resolving Social Conflict. London:

Harper and Row.
Lewin, Kurt (1936). Psychology of Success and Failure.

Occupations, 14, 926-30.
. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time.”

Psychological Review, 50, 292-310.
88 MULTIDISCIPLINARY ORIGINS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and

Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social
Change. Human Relations, 1, 5 -4 1.
. (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. In Eleanor E.

Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (Eds.),
Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt,
197-211.
Lewin, Kurt, Dembo, Tamara, Festinger, Leon, and Sears,

Pauline S. (1944). Level of Aspiration. In J. McVicker
Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the Behavior Disorders. New
York: Ronald, 333-78.
Lewin, Kurt, and Grabbe, Paul (1945). Conduct, Knowledge,

and Acceptance of New Values. Journal of Social Issues 13
56-64.
Lewin, Kurt, Lippitt, Ronald, and White, Ralph K. 1939.

Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created
Social Climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-99.
Lewin, M. (1992). The Impact of Kurt Lewin’s Life on the

Place of Social Issues in His Work. Journal o f Social
Issues, 48(2), 15-29.
Lippitt, Ronald, and White, Ralph K. (1958). An

Experimental Study of Leadership and Group Life. In
Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psy chology. New York:
Henry Holt, 496-511.
Lundberg, Craig C. (2004). Is There Really Nothing So

Practical as a Good Theory? Business Horizons, 47(5),
7-14.
Marrow, Alfred J. (1969). The Practical Theorist: The Life
and Work o f Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books.
. (1972). The Failure o f Success. New York: AMACOM.
Marshak, Robert J. (1993). Lewin Meets Confucius: A Re-view

of the OD Model of Change. Journal o f Applied Behavioral
Science, 29, 393-415.
Miner, John B. (2002). Organizational Behavior:

Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Murphy, Gardner (1949). Historical Introduction to Modern

Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Papanek, Miriam Lewin (1973). Kurt Lewin and His

Contributions to Modern Management Theory. Acad emy of
Management Proceedings, 33, 317-22.
Wolf, William B. (1973). The Impact of Kurt Lewin on

Management Thought. Academy o f Management Proceedings,
33, 322-25.
Wren, Daniel A. (1994). The Evolution of Management

Thought. New York: Wiley.
9 Chapter 9. Mary Parker Follett—Social
Philosopher and Prophet of Management
Bennis, Warren G., Benne, Kenneth D., and Chin, Robert

(1969). The Planning o f Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Boje, David M., and Rosile, Grace A. (2001). Where’s the

Power in Empowerment? Answers from Follett and Clegg.
Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 90-117.
Cyr, Dianne, and Reich, Blaize H. (1996). Scaling the Ivory

Tower: Stories from Women in Business School Faculties.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Daiute, Robert J. (1964). Scientific Management and Human

Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 30-36.
Follett, Mary P. (1924). Creative Experience. New York:

Longmans, Green.
—------. (1926). The Illusion of Final Authority. Bulletin

of the Taylor Society, 2(5).
---------. (1927). Management as a Profession. In Henry C.

Metcalf (Ed.), Business Management as a Pro fession.
Chicago, IL: A.W. Shaw, 73-87.
----------. (1955). When Business Management Becomes a

Profession. Advanced Management Journal, July, 22-26.
Fox, Elliot M., and Urwick, Lyndall F. (1973). Dynamic

Administration: The Collected Papers o f Mary Parker
Follett. London: Pitman.
Graham, Pauline (1995). Mary Parker Follett—Prophet of

Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Business. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 101-28.
Kaufman, Bruce E. (2001). The Theory and Practice of

Strategic HRM and Participative Management: Antecedents in
Early Industrial Relations. Human Resource Management
Review, 11, 505-33.
Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W. (1967). Organization

and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.
Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business Administration,
Harvard University.
Likert, Rensis, and Likert, Jane G. (1976). New Ways of

Managing Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, Douglas (1967). The Professional Manager. New

York: McGraw-Hill (edited posthumously by Caroline
McGregor and Warren G. Bennis).
Metcalf, Henry C., and Urwick, Lyndall F. (1940). Dynamic

Administration: The Collected Papers o f Mary Parker
Follett. New York: Harper.
Parker, L.D. (1984). Control in Organizational Life: The

Contribution of Mary Parker Follett. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 736-45.
Sethi, Narendra K. (1962). Mary Parker Follett: Pioneer in

Management Theory. Journal o f the Academy of Management,
5, 214-21.
98 MULTIDISCIPLINARY ORIGINS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Squires, Geoffrey (2001). Management as a Professional

Discipline. Journal o f Management Studies, 38, 473-87.
Tonn, Joan C. (2003). Mary Parker Follett: Creating

Democracy, Transforming Management. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Urwick, Lyndall F. (1949). Freedom and

Coordination—Lectures in Business Organization by Mary
Parker Follett. London: Management Publications Trust.
Walton, Richard E., and McKersie, Robert B. (1965). A

Behavioral Theory o f Labor Negotiations: An Analysis o f
a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Witzel, Morgen (2003). Fifty Key Figures in Management.

London: Routledge, 102-9.
10 Chapter 10. Max Weber and His Theory
of Bureaucracy
Abrahmsson, Bengt (1977). Bureaucracy or Participation: The

Logic o f Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aldrich, Howard E., and Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1976).

Environments of Organizations. Annual Review of Sociol
ogy, 2, 79-105.
Ashcraft, Karen L. (2001). Organized Dissonance: Feminist

Bureaucracy as Hybrid Form. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 1301-22.
Camisón-Zomoza, César, Lapiedra-Alcami, Rafael,

Segarra-Ciprés, Mercedes, and Boronat-Novarro, Montserrat
(2004). A Meta-analysis of Innovation and Organizational
Size. Organization Studies, 25, 331-61.
Clegg, Stewart R. (1995). Of Values and Occasional Irony:

Max Weber in the Context of the Sociology of
Organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,
13, 1-46.
Conger, Jay A. (1993). Max Weber’s Conceptualization of

Charismatic Authority: Its Influence on Organi zational
Research. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 277-88.
Daft, Richard L. (1982). Bureaucratic versus

Nonbureaucratic Structure and the Process of Innovation and
Change. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1,
129-66.
Damanpour, Fariborz (1991). Organizational Innovation: A

Meta-analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators.
Academy o f Management Journal, 34, 555-90.
Damanpour, Fariborz, and Gopalakrishnan, Shanthi (2001).

The Dynamics of the Adoption of Product and Process
Innovations in Organizations. Journal o f Management
Studies, 38, 45-65.
DiMaggio, Paul (2001). The Twenty-First-Century Firm:

Changing Economic Organization in Interna tional
Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gouldner, Alvin (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.

New York: Free Press.
Hage, Jerald T. (1999). Organizational Innovation and

Organizational Change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25,
597-622.
Kraakman, Reinier (2001). The Durability of the Corporate

Form. In Paul DiMaggio (Ed.), The Twenty- First-Century
Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International
Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
147-59.
Leavitt, Harold J. (2003). Why Hierarchies Thrive. Harvard

Business Review, 81(3), 97-102.
McNeil, Kenneth (1978). Understanding Organizational Power:

Building on the Weberian Legacy. Adminis trative Science

Theories o f Motivation and Leadership. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.

Nohria, Nitin, Joyce, William, and Roberson, Bruce (2003).

What Really Works. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 43-52.
Pearce, Jone L., Branyiczki, Imre, and Bigley, Gregory A.

(2000). Insufficient Bureaucracy: Trust and Com mitment in
Particularistic Organizations. Organization Science, 11,
148-62.
Satow, Roberta L. (1975). Value-Rational Authority and

Professional Organizations: Weber’s Missing Type.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 526-31.
Selznick, Philip (1949). TV A and the Grass Roots.

Berkeley: University of California Press.
Swedberg, Richard (2003). The Changing Picture of Max

Weber’s Sociology. Annual Review o f Sociology, 29,
283-306.
Thompson, Victor A. (1961). Modern Organization. New York:

Knopf.
Turner, Stephen P. (1983). Weber on Action. American

Sociological Review, 48, 506-19.
Vibert, Conor (2004). Theories o f Macro Organizational

Behavior: A Handbook o f Ideas and Explanations. Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Weber, Marianne (1975). Max Weber: A Biography, trans. and

ed. Harry Zohn. New York: Wiley.
Weber, Max (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons. London: Allen and
Unwin.
. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. and

ed. Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford
University Press.
. (1947). The Theory o f Social and Economic Organization,

trans. and ed. Talcott Parsons and A.M. Henderson. New
York: Free Press.
. ([1924] 1968). Economy and Society, Vols. I—III, trans.

and ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. New York:
Bedminster.
Weiss, Richard M. (1983). Weber on Bureaucracy: Management

Consultant or Political Theorist? Academy o f Management
Review, 8, 242-48.
PART III. ESTABLISHING THE GROUND AGAINST
WHICH ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR BECAME
FIGURE
Barley, Stephen R., and Kunda, Gideon (1992). Design and

Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of
Control in Managerial Discourse. Administrative Science
Bedeian, Arthur G. (1998). Exploring the Past. Journal o f

Management History, 4(1), 4-15.
Ellis, Willis D. (1950). A Source Book o f Gestalt

Psychology. New York: Humanities Press.
Erez, Miriam (1996). Rhythms of an Academic’s Life:

Crossing Cultural Borders. In Peter J. Frost and M. Susan
Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms o f Academic Life: Personal Accounts
o f Careers in Academia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 19-29.
14 Chapter 14. Psychologists in Business
Schools
Leavitt, Harold J. (2003). Why Hierarchies Thrive. Harvard

Business Review, 81(3), 96-102.
Miner, John B. (1963a). Psychology and the School of

Business Curriculum. Journal o f the Academy of
. (1963b). The Psychologist’s Impact upon Collegiate

Management Education. Academy o f Manage ment Proceedings,
23, 62-68.
. (1966). Psychologists in Marketing Education. Journal o f

Marketing, 30(1), 7-9.
. (1990). The Role of Values in Defining the “Goodness” of

Theories in Organizational Science. Organization Studies,
11, 161-78.

Rynes, Sara L., Trank, Christine Q., Lawson, Anne M., and
Ilies, Remus (2003). Behavioral Coursework in Business
Education: Growing Evidence of a Legitimacy Crisis. Academy
o f Management Learning and Education, 2, 269-83.
Scott, W. Richard (2004). Reflections on a Half-Century of

Organizational Sociology. Annual Review o f Sociology, 30,
1-21.
Wall, Toby D., Wood, Stephen J., and Leach, Desmond J.

(2004). Empowerment and Performance. Interna tional Review
o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 1-46.
15 Chapter 15. The Uncertainty Factor
Adams, Sheila A., and Davis, Keith (1986). Academy of

Management Journal: The First Decade. In Daniel A. Wren
and John A. Pearce (Eds.), Papers Dedicated to the
Development of Modern Management. Briarcliff Manor, NY:
Academy of Management, 89-94.
Anderson, John R. (2001). Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001).

American Psychologist, 56, 516-18.
Augier, Mie (2001). Simon Says: Bounded Rationality

Matters, Introduction and Interview. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 10, 268-75.
Augier, Mie, and Kreiner, Kristian (2000). An Interview

with James G. March. Journal o f Management Inquiry, 9,
284-97.
Bailey, James R. (2003). Walter Nord as Intellectual and

Pedagogical Hero. Academy of Management Learning and

Behavior in the Business School Curriculum. In J.
Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the
Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 207-20.
Cummings, Larry L. (1978). Toward Organizational Behavior.

Academy of Management Review, 3, 90-98.
Gordon, Paul J. (1997). Recollections of a Publishing

Enthusiast. Academy o f Management Journal, 40, 1414-17.
Kerpelman, Larry C. (1972). Activists and Nonactivists: A

Psychological Study o f American College Stu dents. New
York: Behavioral Publications.

o f Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1-9.
Leavitt, Harold J., and Whisler, Thomas L. (1958).

Management in the 1980s. Harvard Business Review, 36(6),
41-48.
Lipset, Seymour M., and Schaflander, Gerald M. (1971).

Passion and Politics: Student Activism in America. Boston,
MA: Little, Brown.
Miner, John B. (1974). The Human Constraint: The Coming
Shortage o f Managerial Talent. Washington, DC: BNA Books.
. (1997). Participating in Profound Change. Academy o f

Mowday, Richard T. (1997). Celebrating 40 Years of the

Academy o f Management Journal. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 1400-13.
Myers, Charles A. (1967). The Impact o f Computers on

Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nord, Walter R. (1972). Concepts and Controversy in

Organizational Behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
. (1996). Research/Teaching Boundaries. In Peter J. Frost

and M. Susan Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of Academic Life:
Personal Accounts o f Careers in Academia. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 83-89.
Peterson, Richard E. (1968). The Scope of Organized Student

Protests in 1967-1968. Princeton, NJ: Educa tional Testing
Service.
Priem, Richard L., Love, Leonard G., and Shaffer, Margaret

A. (2002). Executives’ Perceptions of Uncertainty Sources:
A Numerical Taxonomy and Underlying Dimensions. Journal o f
Manage ment, 28, 725-46.
Reif, William E. (1968). Computer Technology and Management

Organization. Iowa City: College of Busi ness
Administration, University of Iowa.
Schein, Edgar H. (1993). The Academic as Artist: Personal

and Professional Roots. In Arthur G. Bedeian (Ed.),
Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical
Essays, Vol. III. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 31-62.
Simon, Herbert A. (1991). Models o f My Life. New York:

Basic Books.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden Two. New York: Macmillan.
Vroom, Victor H. (1993). Improvising and Muddling Through.

In Arthur G. Bedeian (Ed.), Management Laureates: A
Collection o f Autobiographical Essays, Vol. III.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 257-84.
Whisler, Thomas L. (1970). The Impact o f Computers on
Organizations. New York: Praeger.
Wrege, Charles W. (1986). The Inception, Early Struggles,

and Growth o f the Academy of Management. In Daniel A.
Wren and John A. Pearce (Eds.), Papers Dedicated to the
Development o f Modern Manage ment. Briarcliff Manor, NY:
Academy of Management, 78-88.
17 Chapter 17. Methodology of the
Importance, Validity, and Usefulness
Analyses
Bedeian, Arthur G., ed. (1992-1998). Management Laureates:

A Collection o f Autobiographical Essays, Vols. I-V.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Donaldson, Lex (1995). American Anti-Management Theories o

f Organization: A Critique o f Paradigm Proliferation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hébert, Richard (2004). ‘Highly Cited,’ Highly

Controversial. APS Observer, 17(3), 1, 35-40.
Lee, Cynthia, and Earley, P. Christopher (1992).

Comparative Peer Evaluations of Organizational Behavior
Theories. Organization Development Journal, 10(4), 37-42.
Locke, Edwin. A., and Henne, Douglas (1986). Work

Motivation Theories. International Review o f Indus trial
and Organizational Psychology, 1, 1-35.
Mathur, Navin (1990). Life and Work o f Management

Thinkers. Agra, India: Sahitya Bhawan.

f Management Review, 9, 296-306.

11, 161-78.
---------. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Foundations,

Theories, and Analyses. New York: Oxford Univer sity
Press.
----------. (2005). Organizational Behavior 1: Essential

Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
---------. (2006). Organizational Behavior 2: Essential

Sharpe.
Pollard, Harold (1974). Developments in Management Thought.
New York: Crane, Russak.
(1978). Trends in Management Thinking: 1960-70. Houston,

TX: Gulf.
Priem, Richard L., and Rosenstein, Joseph (2000). Is

Organization Theory Obvious to Practitioners? A Test of
Pugh, Derek S., and Hickson, David J. (1993). Great Writers

on Organizations: The Omnibus Edition. Aldershot, UK:
Dartmouth.
Rogelberg, Steven G., and Luong, Alexandra (1998).

Nonresponse to Mailed Surveys: A Review and Guide. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 60-65.
Shadish, William R. (1989). The Perception and Evaluation

of Quality in Science. In Barry Gholson, Will iam R.
Shadish, Robert A. Neimeyer, and Arthur C. Houts (Eds.),
Psychology o f Science: Contributions to Metascience.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 383^426.
Tosi, Henry L. (1984). Theories o f Organization. New York:

Wiley.

18 Chapter 18. Findings from the
Importance, Validity, and Usefulness
Analyses
Dacin, M. Tina, Goodstein, Jerry, and Scott, W. Richard

(2002). Institutional Theory and Institutional Change:
Introduction to the Special Research Forum. Academy of
Latham, Gary P., and Pinder, Craig C. (2005). Work

Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the
Twenty-first Century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
485-516.

Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science. Academy o f
. (2003). The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and

Practical Usefulness of Organizational Be havior Theories:
A Quantitative Review. Academy o f Management Learning and

Sharpe.

Sharpe.
Nord, Walter R., and Fox, Suzy (1996). The Individual in

Organizational Studies: The Great Disappearing Act? In
Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord,
(Eds.), Handbook o f Organization Stud ies. London: Sage,
148-74.

Field of Organizational Behavior. Journal o f Management
Systems, 2(1), 25-38.
Weick, Karl E. (1987). Theorizing about Organizational

Communication. In Frederic M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam,
Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W Porter (Eds.), Handbook o f
Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 97-122.
21 Chapter 21. Findings from the
Institutionalization Analyses
Bedeian, Arthur G., and Wren, Daniel A. (2001). Most

Influential Management Books of the 20th Century.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 221-25.
Breaugh, James A. (2003). Effect Size Estimation: Factors

to Consider and Mistakes to Avoid. Journal o f Management,
29, 79-97.
Dacin, M. Tina, Goodstein, Jerry, and Scott, W. Richard

(2002). Institutional Theory and Institutional Change:
Introduction to the Special Research Forum. Academy of
Deephouse, David L. (2000). Media Reputation as a Strategic

Resource: An Integration of Mass Communi cation and
Resource-Based Theories. Journal o f Management, 26,
1091-112.
Duncan, W. Jack (2004). A Case for Great Books in

Management Education. Academy o f Management Learning and
Harvey, Michael, and Buckley, M. Ronald (2002). Assessing

the “Conventional Wisdoms” of Management for the 21st
Century Organization. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 368-78.

f Management Review, 9, 297-306.
. (1990). The Role o f Values in Defining the “Goodness” of

11, 161-78.
---------. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Foundations,

Theories, and Analyses. New York: Oxford Univer sity
Press.

Practical Usefulness of Organizational Be havior Theories:
A Quantitative Review. Academy of Management Learning and

Sharpe.
Staw, Barry M., and Epstein, Lisa D. (2000). What
Bandwagons Bring: Effects of Popular Management Techniques
on Corporate Performance, Reputation, and CEO Pay.
Tolbert, Pamela A., and Zucker, Lynne G. (1983).

Institutional Sources of Change in Organizational Sci
ence: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935.
Van Fleet, David D., and Wren, Daniel A. (2005). Teaching

History in Business Schools: 1982-2003. Acad emy o f
Management Learning and Education, 4, 44-56.
Westphal, James D., Gulati, Ranjay, and Shortell, Stephen

M. (1997). Customization or Conformity: An Institutional
and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of
TQM Adoption. Administra tive Science Quarterly, 42,
366—94.
Zucker, Lynne G. (1983). Organizations as Institutions.

Research in the Sociology o f Organizations, 2, 1-47. This
page intentionally left blank
PART V. FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION

Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 207-20.
French, Wendell L. (1982). The Emergence and Early History

of Organization Development: With Refer ence to Influences
on and Interaction Among Some of the Key Actors. Group and
Organization Studies, 7, 261-78.

Relations at the Dawn o f the New Millennium. Ithaca: New
York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell Univer sity, 33-53.
Greiner, Larry E. (1979). A Recent History of

Organizational Behavior. In Steven Kerr (Ed.), Organiza
tional Behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid, 3-14.

Hall, 1-9.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1998). Understanding Organizations:

Concepts and Controversies. In Daniel J. Gilbert, Susan T.
Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social
Psychology, Vol. II. New York: McGraw-Hill, 733-77.
Porras, Jerry I., and Bradford, David L. (2004). A

Historical View of the Future of OD: An Interview with
Jerry Porras. Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 40,
392-402.

Field of Organizational Behavior. Journal o f Management
Systems, 2(1), 25-38.
Strauss, George (1993). Present at the Beginning: Some

Personal Notes on OB’s Early Days and Later. In Arthur G.
Bedeian (Ed.), Management Laureates: A Collection o f
Autobiographical Essays, Vol. Ill, Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, 147-90. This page intentionally left blank
22 Chapter 22. The Historical Core and
Inherent Identity of Organizational
Behavior
Albert, Stuart, Ashforth, Blake E., and Dutton, Jane E.

(2000). Organizational Identity and Identification:
Charting New Waters and Building New Bridges. Academy o f
Management Review; 25, 13-17.
Albert, Stuart, and Whetten, David A. (2004).

Organizational Identity. In Mary Jo Hatch and Majken
Schultz (Eds.), Organizational Identity: A Reader. New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 89-118.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Mael, Fred (2004). Social Identity

Theory and the Organization. In Mary Jo Hatch and Majken
Schultz (Eds.), Organizational Identity: A Reader. New
York: Oxford University Press, 134-60.
Augier, Mie, March, James G., and Sullivan, Bilian N.

(2005). Notes on the Evolution of a Research Commu nity:
Organization Studies in Anglophone North America,
1945-2000. Organization Science, 16, 85-95.
Beyer, Janice M. (1992). Metaphors, Misunderstandings, and

Mischief: A Commentary. Organization Sci ence, 3, 467-74.

Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 207-20.

Corley, Kevin G., and Gioia, Dennis A. (2004). Identity

Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin-off.
Cummings, Larry L. (1978). Toward Organization Behavior.

Academy o f Management Review, 3, 90-98.
Donaldson, Lex (2002). Damned by Our Own Theories:

Contradictions Between Theories and Management Education.
Academy o f Management Learning and Education, 1, 96-106.
. (2005). For Positive Management Theories While Retaining

Science: Reply to Ghoshal. Academy o f Management Learning
and Education, 4, 109-13.
Dukerich, Janet M., Golden, Brian R., and Shortell, Stephen
M. (2002). Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder: The Impact o
f Organizational Identification, Identity, and Image on the
Cooperative Behaviors o f Physi cians. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47, 507-33.
Foreman, Peter, and Whetten, David A. (2002). Members’

Identification with Multiple-Identity Organiza tions.
Ghoshal, Sumantra (2005). Bad Management Theories Are

Destroying Good Management Practices. Acad emy o f
Management Learning and Education, 4, 75-91.
Gioia, Dennis A., Schultz, Majken, and Corley, Kevin G.

(2000). Organizational Identity, Image, and Adap tive
Instability. Academy o f Management Review, 25, 63-81.

Hambrick, Donald C. (2005). Just How Bad Are Our Theories?

A Response to Ghoshal. Academy o f Man agement Learning
and Education, 4, 104-7.
Hatch, Mary Jo, and Schultz, Majken (2004). Organizational

Identity: A Reader. New York: Oxford Univer sity Press.
Hill, Ronald P. (2002). Managing across Generations in the

21st Century: Important Lessons from the Ivory Trenches.
Hogg, Michael A., and Terry, Deborah J. (2000). Social

Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Orga
nizational Contexts. Academy o f Management Review, 25,
121-40.
Howard, Judith A. (2000). Social Psychology of Identities.

Annual Review o f Sociology, 26, 367-93.
Huff, Anne S. (2000). Changes in Organizational Knowledge

Production. Academy o f Management Review, 25, 288-93.
Humphreys, Michael, and Brown, Andrew D. (2002). Narratives

of Organizational Identity and Identifica tion: A Case
Study of Hegemony and Resistance. Organization Studies, 23,
421-47.

Hall, 1-9.
Lawrence, Paul R., and Lawrence, Anne T. (1993). Doing

Problem-Oriented Research: A Daughter’s Inter view. In
Arthur G. Bedeian (Ed.), Management Laureates: A Collection
o f Autobiographical Essays, Vol. II. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, 111-48.
Leavitt, Harold J. (2005). Top Down: Why Hierarchies Are

Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More Effectively.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Miner, John B. (1980). The Role of Managerial and

Professional Motivation in the Career Success of Man
agement Professors. Academy o f Management Journal, 23,
487-508.
. (1984). The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an

Emerging Organizational Science. Academy o f Management
Review, 9, 296-306.

11, 161-78.

Practical Usefulness o f Organizational Behavior Theories:
A Quantitative Review. Academy o f Management Learning and

Sharpe.
. (2006). Organizational Behavior 2: Essential Theories o

f Process and Structure. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Mumighan, J. Keith (2002). The Delights of History, the

Thrill of the Present, and Hopes for the Future: Looking
at a New Millennium for the Field of Organizational
Behavior— Observations, Reflections, and Anticipation .
Oviatt, Benjamin M., and Miller, Warren D. (1989).

Irrelevance, Intransigence, and Business Professors.
Academy o f Management Executive, 3, 304-12.
Polzer, Jeffrey T. (2000). Review of Whetten and Godfrey’s

Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through
Conversations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45,
625-28.
Porter, Lyman W., and McKibbin, Lawrence E. (1988).

Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into
the 21st Century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pratt, Michael G., and Rafaeli, Anat (2004). Organizational

Dress as a Symbol of Multilayered Social Iden tities. In
Mary Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz (Eds.), Organizational
Identity: A Reader. New York: Ox ford University Press,
275-312.
Riketta, Michael (2005). Organizational Identification: A

Meta-analysis. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 66,
358-84.

Field o f Organizational Behavior. Journal o f Management
Systems, 2(1), 25-38.
Rynes, Sara L., Trank, Christine Q. Lawson, Anne M., and

Ilies, Remus (2003). Behavioral Coursework in Business
Education: Growing Evidence of a Legitimacy Crisis. Academy
o f Management Learning and Education, 2, 269-83.
Tung, Rosalie L. (2005). Reflections on Engendering a

Sustainable Community within the Academy. Acad emy o f
Weick, Karl E. (1987). “Theorizing About Organizational

Communication.” In Frederic M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam,
Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook o
f Organizational Communica tion: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 97-122.
23 Chapter 23. A Vision for Ensuing
Generations
Allen, Mark, ed. (2002). The Corporate University Handbook:

Designing, Managing, and Growing a Suc cessful Program.
New York: American Management Association.
Augier, Mie, March, James G., and Sullivan, Bilian N.

(2005). Notes on the Evolution of a Research Com munity:
Organizational Studies in Anglophone North America.
Baldwin, Timothy T., and Danielson, Camden C. (2000).

Building a Learning Strategy at the Top: Inter views with
Ten of America’s CLOs. Business Horizons, 43(6), 5-14.
Bazigos, Michael N., and Burke, W. Warner (1997). Theory

Orientation of Organization Development (OD)
Practitioners. Group and Organization Management, 22,
384-408.
Bedeian, Arthur G. (2002). The Dean’s Disease: How the

Darker Side of Power Manifests Itself in the Office of
Dean. Academy o f Management Learning & Education, 1,
164-73.
Bradford, David L., and Burke, W. Warner (2004).

Introduction— Is OD in Crisis? Journal o f Applied Be
havioral Science, 40, 369-73.
Church, Allan H., Burke, W. Warner, and Van Eynde, Donald

F. (1994). Values, Motives, and Interventions of
Organization Development Practitioners. Group &
Organization Management, 19, 5-50.
Connolly, Michael (2003). The End of the MBAs as We Know

It? Academy o f Management Learning & Education, 2,
365-67.
Cross, Rob, Borgatti, Stephen P., and Parker, Andrew.

(2002). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social
Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration.
California Management Review 44 (2), 25-46.
Cummings, Larry L. (1978). Toward Organization Behavior.

Academy o f Management Review, 3, 90-98.
Durand, Rodolphe, and McGuire, Jean (2005). Legitimating

Agencies in the Face of Selection: The Case of AACSB.
Organization Studies, 26, 165-96.
Ferraro, Fabrizio, Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Sutton, Robert I.
(2005). Economics Language and Assumptions: How Theories
Can Become Self-Fulfilling. Academy o f Management Review,
30, 8-24.
Ghoshal, Sumantra (2005). Bad Management Theories Are

Destroying Good Management Practices. Acad emy o f
Management Learning & Education, 4, 75-91.

Hambrick, Donald C. (1994). What If the Academy Actually

Mattered? Academy o f Management Review, 19, 11-16.
. (2004). The Disintegration of Strategic Management: It’s

Time to Consolidate Our Gains. Strategic Organization, 2,
1-98.
Hauser, Markus, and House, Robert J. (2000). Lead through

Vision and Values. In Edwin A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell
Handbook o f Principles o f Organizational Behavior.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 257-73.
Hoskisson, Robert E., Hitt, Michael A., Wan, William P.,

and Yiu, Daphne (1999). Theory and Research in Strategic
Management: Swings of a Pendulum. Journal o f Management,
25, 417-56.
Huff, Anne S. (2000). Changes in Organizational Knowledge

Production. Academy o f Management Review, 25, 288-93.
Humphreys, John (2004). The Vision Thing. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 45(4), 96.
Jost, John T., Blount, Sally, Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and

Hunyady, Gyorgy (2003). Fair Market Ideology: Its Cogni
tive-Motivational Underpinnings. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 25, 53-91.
Judge, Timothy A. (2003). Marginalizing the Journal o f

Applied Psychology, Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 40(3), 56-59.
Klaas, Brian S., Gainey, Thomas W., McClendon, John A., and
Yang, Hyuckseung (2005). Professional Employer
Organizations and Their Impact on Client Satisfactions with
Human Resource Outcomes: A Field Study of Human Resource
Outsourcing in Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal o f
Manage ment, 31, 234-54.
Langbert, Mitchell (2000). Professors, Managers, and Human

Resource Education. Human Resource Man agement, 39, 65-78.
Meister, Jeanne C. (1998). Corporate Universities: Lessons

in Building a World-Class Work Force. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Miner, John B. (1980). The Role of Managerial and

Professional Motivation in the Career Success of Man
agement Professors. Academy o f Management Journal, 23,
487-508.
. (1993a). Role Motivation Theories. New York: Routledge.
. (1993b). Pursuing Diversity in an Increasingly

Specialized Organizational Science. In Arthur G. Bedeian
(Ed.), Management Laureates: A Collection o f
Autobiographical Essays. Vol. II,. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, pp. 283-319.
Mintzberg, Henry (2004). Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at

the Soft Practice o f Managing and Man agement
Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mintzberg, Henry, and Gosling, Jonathan (2002). Educating

Managers Beyond Borders. Academy o f Man agement Learning
& Education, 1, 64-76.
Mitroff, Ian I., and Swanson, Diane L. (2004). An Open

Letter to the Deans and the Faculties of American Business
Schools: A Call for Action. Academy o f Management News,
35(2), 7-8.
Moulton, Harper W. (2004). Leadership through Executive

Education. Business Horizons, 47(2), 7-14.
Mowday, Richard T. (1997a). Celebrating 40 Years of the

Academy o f Management Journal. Academy o f Management
Journal, 6, 1400-413.
. (1997b). Reaffirming Our Scholarly Values. Academy o f

Management Review, 22, 335-^15.
Pearce, Jone (2003). President’s Message: A Bifurcated

Academy. Academy o f Management News, 34, 1-2.
Petroff, Margie (2005). A Message from the BPS Division

Chair. Business Policy and Strategy Division Newsletter,
(Spring) 3-4.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1998). Understanding Organizations:

Concepts and Controversies. In Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T.
Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook o f Social
Psychology, Vol. II. New York: McGraw-Hill, 733-77.
(2004). Review of Henry Mintzberg’s Managers Not MBAs: A

Hard Look at the Soft Practices o f Managing and Management
Development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 476-79.
(2005). Why Do Bad Management Theories Persist? A Comment

on Ghoshal. Academy o f Manage ment Learning & Education,
4, 96-100.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Fong, Christina T. (2002). The End of

Business Schools? Less Success than Meets the Eye. Academy
o f Management Learning & Education, 1, 78-95.
. (2003). Assessing Business Schools: Reply to Connolly.

Academy o f Management Learning & Education, 2, 368-70.
. (2004). The Business School “Business”: Some Lessons from

the US Experience. Journal o f Man agement Studies, 41,
1501-20.
Porras, Jerry I., and Bradford, David L. (2004). A

Historical View of the Future of OD: An Interview with
Jerry Porras. Journal o f Applied Behavior Science, 40,
392-402.
Ramos-Rodríguez, Antonio-Rafael, and Ruíz-Navarro, José

(2004). Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic
Management Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Strategic
Management Journal, 1980- 2000. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, 981-1004.
Rynes, Sara L. (2004). Where Do We Go from Here? Imagining

New Roles for Human Resources. Journal o f Management
Inquiry, 13, 203-13.
. (2005). From the Editors: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead.

Academy o f Management Journal, 48, 9-15.
Rynes, Sara L., and Trank, Christine Q. (1999). Behavioral

Science in the Business School Curriculum: Teaching in a
Changing Institutional Environment. Academy o f Management
Review, 24, 808-24.
Schendel, Dan E., and Hofer, Charles W. (1979). Strategic

Management: A New View o f Business Policy and Planning.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Scott, W. Richard (2004). Reflections on a Half-century of

Organizational Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30,
1-21.
Siegel, Gilbert B. (2000). Outsourcing Personnel Functions.

Public Personnel Management, 29, 225-36.
Singh, Jitendra V. (2001). McKinsey’s Managing Director

Rajat Gupta on Leading a Knowledge-based Global Consulting
Organization. Academy o f Management Executive, 15(2),
34-^4.
Starkey, Ken, Hatchuel, Armand, and Tempest, Sue (2004).

Rethinking the Business School. Journal o f Management
Studies, 41, 1521-31.
Thompson, Kenneth R. (2004). A Conversation with Milton

Blood: The New AACSB Standards. Academy o f Management
Learning & Education, 3, 429-39.
Trank, Christine Q., and Rynes, Sara L. (2003). Who Moved

Our Cheese? Reclaiming Professionalism in Business
Education. Academy o f Management Learning & Education 2,
189-205.
Van De Water, Thomas J. (1997). Psychology’s Entrepreneurs

and the Marketing of Industrial Psychology. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 82, 486-99.
Waclawski, Janine, and Church, Allen H. eds. (2002).

Organization Development: A Data-driven Approach to
Organizational Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Worley, Christopher G., and Feyerherm, Ann E. (2003).

Reflections on the Future of Organization Develop ment.
Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 97-115.
Zickar, Michael J. (2003). Remembering Arthur Kornhauser:

Industrial Psychology’s Advocate for Worker Well-being.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 88, 363-69.

الاصول تاريخ سلوك

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

الاصول تاريخ سلوك

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORGANIZATIONAL

Published 2015 by Routledge

Routledge is an im print o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an inform a business

Copyright © 2006, Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 13: 9780765615282 (pbk)

1. Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership (2005)

List of Tables and Figures ix

PART I. THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE OF

Chapter 1. Science and Its Theory 7

PART II. MULTIDISCIPLINARY ORIGINS OF ORGANIZATIONAL

Chapter 6. Elton Mayo and Hawthorne 59

PART III. ESTABLISHING THE GROUND AGAINST WHICH

PART IV. THE IMPORTANCE, VALIDITY, PRACTICAL USEFULNESS,

PART V. FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION

Chapter 22. The Historical Core and Inherent Identity of Organizational

Name Index 293

5.1 Koontz’s Schools in the Management-Theory Jungle at Two Points in Time 47

22.1 Percentages of United States and International M embers of the Academy of

1.1 The Components of Theories and How They Function 11

THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE

SCIENCE AND ITS THEORY

Theory and Practice

THEORY AND PRACTICE

1. The definitions are precise

THE ROLE OF THEORY IN SCIENCE

Explanation moves to a higher level of abstraction in that it attempts to establish mean­

How Theory Works

C o n stru c ts V a riab les

C o n stru c ts V a riab les T h e e x te n t o f

erate only to specify th e dom ain o f a th e o ry , h o w ev er; all m ay se rv e in statin g p ro positions

RULES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

PART I. THEORY, RESEARCH, AND KNOWLEDGE

Blood, Milton R. (1994). The Role of Organizational

Boring, Edwin G. (1950). A History o f Experimental

Clegg, Stewart R., Hardy, Cynthia, and Nord, Walter R.

Ferraro, Fabrizio Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Sutton, Robert I.

Miles, Robert H. (1980). Resource Book in Macro

Miner, John B. (1984). The Validity and Usefulness of

Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1995). Mortality, Reproducibility, and

Schendel, Dan E., and Hofer, Charles W. (1979). Strategic

Astley, W. Graham, and Zammuto, Raymond F. (1992).

Bacharach, Samuel B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some

Baldridge, David C., Floyd, Steven W., and Markoczy, Livia

Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary (1964). Human

Beyer, Janice M. (1992). Metaphors, Misunderstandings, and

Brief, Arthur P., and Dukerich, Janet M. (1991). Theory in

Brooks, Margaret E., Grauer, Eyal, Thombury, Erin E., and

Brown, Clarence W., and Ghiselli, Edwin E. (1955).

Burke, Michael J., Drasgrow, Fritz, and Edwards, Jack E.

Campbell, John R (1990). The Role of Theory in Industrial

Cheng, Tsz-kit, Sculli, Domenic, and Chan, Fiona S. (2001).

Das, T.K. (2003). Managerial Perceptions and the Essence of

Donaldson, Lex (2002). Damned by Our Own Theories:

Dubin, Robert (1976). Theory Building in Applied Areas. In

. (1978). Theory Building. New York: Free Press.

Ford, Eric W., Duncan, W. Jack, Bedeian, Arthur G., Ginter,

George, Jennifer M., and Jones, Gareth R. (2000). The Role

Kaplan, Abraham (1964). The Conduct o f Inquiry. San

Lewin, Kurt (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics

Locke, Edwin A. (2003). Good Definitions: The

Lundberg, Craig C. (2004). Is There Really Nothing So

Explanation moves to a higher level of abstraction in that it attempts to establish mean