See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313793130

Social Psychology of Organizations

Chapter · January 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3059-1

CITATIONS READS

6 31,647

1 author:

Francesca Flood, Ed.D.

Hope Verdad LLC
14 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post-incarceration meaning in life View project

Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance – Contribution: Social Psychology of Organizations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesca Flood, Ed.D. on 19 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

S

and the lens through which

Social Psychology of Organizations
they see their world
(Goethals 2003).
Francesca Flood
Genotypic: Adjective for genotype; the
Hope Verdad, LLC, VA, USA
genetic makeup of an
organism or group of
organisms regarding a single
Synonyms
trait, set of traits, or an entire
complex of traits
Agency: Free will; Cognition: Awareness;
(“genotypic,” n.d.).
Coherent: Consistent; Typologies: Classification
Moral A term from social
disengagement: psychology for the process
of convincing the self that
Definitions
ethical standards do not
apply to oneself in a
Competing Commonly used to assess
particular context. This is
Values business culture (Cameron
done by separating moral
Framework: and Quinn 2006).
reactions from inhumane
Dynamogenesis: Triplett’s theory concerning
conduct and disabling the
whether competition
mechanism of self-
affected individual behavior
condemnation (“moral
or if the mere presence of
disengagement,” n.d.).
others did (Goethals 2003).
Social Observing that the presence
Epistemological: The theory of knowledge,
facilitation: of others enhanced the
especially about its methods,
performance of the
validity, and scope.
individual (Goethals 2003).
Epistemology is the
Social Examines human behavior
investigation of what
psychology: as influenced by others and
distinguishes justified belief
the social context in which
from opinion
this behavior occurs
(“epistemological,” n.d.).
(McLeod 2007).
Field theory: When combined, internal
and environmental forces
influence behavior of people
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3059-1
2 Social Psychology of Organizations
Introduction
While psychologists focus on a micro approach to
examine individuals, sociologists take a macro
view of the landscape in which we live. Social
psychology serves as the bridge connecting these
two fields of study (Katz and Kahn 1978). It
examines human behavior as influenced by
others, the social context in which this behavior
occurs, and our interactions (McLeod 2016).
“What is relevant to social psychology is directly
relevant to organizations” (Dashtipour 2015,
p. 189). Numerous and varied types of organiza-
tions turn to social psychology to better under-
stand culture, leadership, identify systemic
problems, examine communication, strategic
direction, conflict, performance, and other areas
within the enterprise.
Organizational conduct and, more specifically,
the people within them have increasingly become
case studies for social psychology of organiza-
tions and are frequently reported in traditional
and social media (Stangor 2016). Understanding
how individual behaviors affect the group, how
external factors impact the overall organizational
behavior, and how malfeasance becomes norma-
tive are keen areas of study within social psychol-
ogy of organizations (Staw 2016).
History of Social Psychology
As a field of study, social psychology emerged in
the late nineteenth century (Dashtiour 2015;
Stangor 2016). In the mid to late 1800s, Steinthal,
Lazarus, LeBon, and Tarde placed an emphasis on
collective thinking, group mind, and suggestibil-
ity where individual thought gave way to the
communal group to which the person belonged.
Personality developed because of group, commu-
nity, and cultural influences. Individual, rational
thought subjugated to the will of the group
(Dashtipour 2015; McLeod 2016). In 1895, Tri-
plett conducted the first experiments in social
psychology examining how competition and the
presence of others affected an individual’s perfor-
mance as compared to when the person was alone.
Through his theory of dynamogenesis, Triplett
questioned whether it was competition or the
mere presence of others that affected behavior
(Goethals 2003).
In the early 1900s, William McDougall’s An
Introduction to Social Psychology created the
foundation of a new discipline, separating it
from sociology and general psychology.
McDougall posited that social behavior was
grounded in biology, innate and instinctive and
therefore individualistic (McLeod 2016). At the
same time, E.A. Ross’s Social Psychology
focused on the power of suggestion and imitation,
where people influenced the thoughts and behav-
iors of others as applied in religion, marriage,
crowds, social movements, and class (Goethals
2003).
In the 1920s, Floyd Henry Allport changed the
focus from the group mind perspective to exam-
ining individual behavior since it is individuals
who think, behave, and feel (Dashtipour 2015).
Taking a methodological and investigatory
approach, Allport proposed examining behaviors
that were observable. While Ross and
McDougall’s work laid the foundation for social
psychology, Allport ushered in the field as we
know it today (Goethals 2003). He stressed that
this field was a “science . . . which studies the
behavior of the individual in so far as his behavior
stimulates other individuals, or is itself a reaction
to this behavior” (1942, p. 12). Allport coined the
term social facilitation observing that the pres-
ence of others enhanced the performance of the
individual, but Gustave Le Bon would later posit
that persons within groups lose their identity
becoming highly suggestible and an uglier version
of themselves (Goethals 2003). Allport dealt with
topics such as emotion, conformism, and the
impact of an audience’s presence on individual
behavior. Topics are still relevant today
(McLeod 2016).
By the 1930s, social psychology was firmly
established as a scientific discipline (Goethals
2003). Kurt Lewin would eventually become a
giant in the field and is often considered the father
of social psychology (McLeod 2016). Using his
field theory, Lewin posited that when combined,
internal and environmental forces influence
Social Psychology of Organizations
behavior and the lens through which people see
their world (Goethals 2003).
During the 1940s and 1950s, Lewin and his
protégé, Leon Festinger, advanced the investiga-
tive and experimental approach to study behavior,
thus solidifying social psychology as a rigorous
scientific field. As an editor of Research Methods
in the Behavioral Sciences, Festinger along with
other social psychologists is called for rigorous
measurement and use of laboratory experiments
to test hypotheses about social behavior (Stangor
2016). Additionally, Muzafer Sherif conducted
experiments that examined conformity, obedi-
ence, and influence, experiments that would
impact the orientation of the field and set the
stage for new examination (Hepburn 2003).
In the 1960s and 1970s, two now infamous
experiments demonstrated conformity pressures
in group settings and how the authoritative role
could induce obedience even at the expense of
causing severe harm to others (Stangor 2016).
Using experimenters, confederates, and theatrics,
participants were encouraged to administer pain-
ful or dangerous levels of shock to supposed
learners as part of a study on punishment in
Milgram’s Shock Experiment. The number of
participants who willingly followed the experi-
menters’ order even though they knew the shock
was harmful confounded the researchers
(Milgram 1963). The study received much criti-
cism for its deception in design and lack of ethical
standards. As a result, strict research procedures
endorsed by the American Psychological Associ-
ation and administered by the U.S. federal gov-
ernment were put into place (Goethals 2003). The
Stanford Prison Experiment (Haney et al. 1973)
recruited a group of young men and randomly
assigned a role of prisoner or guard. Almost
immediately, participants adapted to their respec-
tive role with “guards” became aggressive, abu-
sive, and exceeding boundaries, while “prisoners”
became subjugated and contrite. The behavior of
those appointed guards escalated in viciousness,
while prisoners displayed mental, physical, and
emotional anguish. Both the Milgram and
Stanford Prison Experiments demonstrated the
power of social influence, allowing the phenome-
non to be observed and tested (McLeod 2016).
3
During the 1970s and 1980s, how people behaved
within the context of an organization was
explained through a theoretical lens using psy-
chology, sociology, and economics (Staw 2016).
Since the 1980s, social cognition has been the
dominant tradition in social psychology where
cognition enables people to make sense of others
and themselves. How we process, store, and apply
information about others and social situations
play a vital role in how we think, feel, and relate
to the world around us and others within it
(Greenwood 2014).
Organizational Typologies and Cultures
The mission, structure, culture, and legal forma-
tion of organizations differ greatly. As human
constructs, organizational environments differ
based on the motives and behaviors of the indi-
viduals who work within them (Katz and Kahn
1978). “Organizations come in a variety of
shapes, sizes and types, including for instance,
governments, armies, religious denominations,
charities, and businesses” (Brief and Smith-
Crowe 2016).
Organizations also have a genotypic function
where it performs as a subsystem of larger society.
Four such genotypic functions include productive
or economic organizations that provide goods/
services such as corporations, maintenance orga-
nizations that focus on the socialization and train-
ing of people such as schools and churches,
adaptive organizations such as research labs or
universities, and managerial-political organiza-
tions that focus on the coordination and control
of human and other resources such as national and
state governmental agencies, military, labor
unions, and special-interest groups (Kahn and
Katz 1978).
Organizational cultures, though less complex
than cities or countries, are social systems rooted
in anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Cul-
ture is the unwritten rules that inform accepted
and unaccepted behavior within the organization
and is examined through shared values, geogra-
phy, group behavior, and individual behavior
(Gupta 2009). It is the totality of attitudes,
4 Social Psychology of Organizations
customs, roles, norms, values, and beliefs that
distinguish one group from another. Cultural dif-
ferences between geographies cannot be over-
estimated as behaviors between east and west are
markedly different (Staw 2016). Over the past two
decades, the views of culture in psychology and
sociology have converged. Culture is no longer
viewed as static and coherent but a fluid and
dynamic construct (DiMaggio and Markus
2010). Additionally, utilizing the competing
values framework, Cameron and Quinn (2006)
devised four cultural categories including clan,
adhocracy, market, and hierarchy. Clan culture
functions like a large family environment.
Adhocracy culture is similar to an entrepreneurial
environment with risk taking and revenue growth.
Market culture is competitive with an emphasis on
getting the job done, and hierarchy is a formalized
and structured work environment. People shape
culture and, in turn, culture shapes people. Orga-
nizational culture is comprised of individuals,
who despite their personal value system alter
their thoughts and behaviors to fit in, accepting
the new normal. A poignant example of cultural
loyalty is the solidarity of the men and women in
law enforcement. The understood credo is that the
people in blue take care of each other, support
each other, and in subcultures do not turn on
each other even if there is wrongdoing (Ashford
and Anand 2003).
Social Psychology: Theories and
Perspectives
The definition of social psychology depends on
the epistemological, theoretical, and geographical
perspective of the person queried (Dashtipour
2015). According to Harre (1997), social psychol-
ogy is juxtaposed between conflicting perspec-
tives: one that seeks to explain the causal and
universal explanation for human behavior and
the other the context-specific thoughts and behav-
ior underscored by culture and language.
Two important social psychology theories that
are essential for business leaders include observa-
tional learning theory and social contagion the-
ory. As its title suggests, observational learning
theory is based on behavioral modeling.
A leader’s behavior outweighs his/her verbal mes-
saging because conduct, good or bad, is emulated
by personnel. Social contagion theory suggests
that behaviors can spread like a contagious virus
affecting worth ethic, manners, approachability,
and a host of other organizational behaviors
(Plante 2013).
“Many phenomena in organizations have their
theoretical foundation in the cognition, affect,
behavior, and characteristics of individuals,
which through social interaction, exchange, and
amplification—have emergent properties that
manifest at higher levels” (Kozlowski and Klein
2000, p. 15). Depending on theoretical perspec-
tive, explaining these phenomena can vary
greatly.
Given the broad collection of theories and per-
spectives on social psychology, readers who
desire a more comprehensive understanding of
this topic should refer to the Handbook of Theo-
ries of Social Psychology (VanLange et al. 2011).
This book explores more than 50 theories on
social psychology providing a deeper understand-
ing on the subject.
Social Psychology of Organizations
Social psychology of organizations is concerned
with understanding organizational phenomena,
challenges, and matters of organizational life.
Examining social psychology of organizations is
accomplished using qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods of research using real-time, obser-
vational, and archived data. More than psychol-
ogy research, context is the primary focus of the
study where researchers examine upward, out-
ward, and downward influences within the orga-
nization (Staw 2016).
Wilde (2016) posited that when workplaces
lose their humanity, they become toxic environ-
ments adversely impacting the effectiveness of the
individuals working within them, the organiza-
tion, and society. Toxicity can begin at the indi-
vidual behavioral, cognitive, and emotional level
with motivation and ego. Moral disengagement
can occur at both the individual and group level,
Social Psychology of Organizations
where self-regulatory processes fail and unethical
actions can be justified by euphemistic labelling.
Such labelling enables denial of a victim or
wrongdoing (Ashford and Anand 2003). This
ability to disengage explains a broad spectrum of
atrocities and behaviors that society deems repre-
hensible yet occurs in military situations, corpo-
rate malfeasance, and organizational corruption
(Moore et al. 2012).
Healthy organizations inculcate a sense of pur-
pose and mission and acknowledge the contribu-
tion of its members (Wilde 2016). When an
organization’s culture is misaligned to its core
ideology and desired results, it must undergo
assessment to alter employee thoughts, behaviors,
and emotional states. Perspective taking may pro-
vide an additional filtering process where incen-
tives and accountability can motivate behaviors. It
involves an active, cognitive process where par-
ticipants examine through empathetic reasoning,
the views of others in the organizations (Ku et al.
2015). Without adjustment, individual thought,
behavior, and emotion may maladaptively align
to the group’s creating atrocious outcomes.
According to Zimbardo (2007), when suffi-
cient social or organizational pressure is applied,
even a person with clear ethical standards can do
bad things. Zimbardo asserted that while society
tries to explain abhorrent behavior as the result of
wayward individuals, it is not the individual but
the environment and the people within it that
foster bad behavior.
The Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments
demonstrated just how far people were willing to
go to obey authority figures. Yet while results
proved alarming, these experiments could be ter-
minated, evaluated, and reconstructed. Such is not
the case in the real-world context of sanctioned
torture, widespread corporate malfeasance, unbri-
dled power, and brutality. This behavior occurs
within the ranks of those we trust and depends on
to uphold the law, or turn to for succor, only to
receive abuse. Incidents of such occurrence
appear frequently in the headlines, providing a
glimpse into the social psychology of organiza-
tions when things go wrong. Conversely, there are
examples of altruism, heroism, and good citizen-
ship that emerge because of the people and/or
5
leadership within the organization. However, little
research focuses on the collective good of an
organization as we benefit more from examining
which behaviors and practices to eliminate (Staw
2016).
By examining social psychology of organiza-
tions, we learn how and why individuals can
modify their beliefs and behaviors to accommo-
date the group and its impact on the organization.
Social psychology of organizations may begin
with the individual and his or her agency. It is
the incremental actions of a singular person that
can manifest into significant evil for the company
(Brief and Smith-Crowe 2016). When individuals
experience power working in organizations,
behaviors such as self-assertion, creativity, and
risk taking change (Galinsky et al. 2006; Brief
and Smith-Crowe, 2006). As the self-serving
goals of the individual increase, the needs of
others and the organization diminish. The individ-
ual becomes rude and may undertake unethical
behavior (Staw 2016). According to Brief and
Smith-Crowe (2016):
Research on wrongdoing in organizations falls into
one of two categories: either under-socialized,
roughly where individuals are assumed to essen-
tially follow their self-interest in a social vacuum,
and over-socialized, roughly where individuals are
assumed to enact the assumptions, values, beliefs,
and norms of the groups in which they are embed-
ded. (p. 6)
Positions of power convey authority, setting
the tone for what is acceptable and expected,
regardless of collateral damage. The greater the
power, the less likely others will express opinion
or dissention (Locke and Anderson 2015).
Authoritative figures can be incompetent,
unethical, or antithetical to the culture of the orga-
nization but will go unchallenged.
Having power does not have to be synonymous
with deviant behavior, provided leaders can rec-
ognize the needs of others and possess compas-
sion (Staw 2016). In some situations, having
power can translate to a sense of responsibility
for others, the organization, and accomplishing
the mission, traits desired from world leaders
(Tost 2016). Effective leadership is not defined
by tyrannical force but rather the skills to inculcate
6 Social Psychology of Organizations
zest and enthusiasm for the organization’s vision
and mission (Staw 2016). Moreover, if measure-
ments that hold people accountable are monitored
by others or carefully constructed incentives are
put into place, there is less likelihood of error
and/or bad behavior.
Productive Organizations: Corporations
Within organizations such as corporations, there
are inherent bias where managers overpromise on
goals to position themselves for promotion. Exec-
utives responsible for these managers will typi-
cally deflate estimates recognizing this inflation.
Likewise, similar bias exists, where companies
exaggerate or use hyperbole about their products,
expected results, or optimistic projections (Staw
2016). It is not that a corporation sets out to
deliberately to do wrong. It is an aggregation of
behavior or behaviors over time that sets the stage
and seemingly recruits actors to play their parts.
By their pyramid design, with less and less seats at
the top, organizations serve as a host of competi-
tiveness among contenders for executive seats.
Work coexists alongside politics, with staff
aligning alongside of their candidate. By examin-
ing these hierarchies, we can understand how an
organization can undertake good or evil (Brief and
Smith-Crowe 2016).
Employee response to questions vis-a-vis job
satisfaction will differ depending on who is
administering the questions. Asked by the man-
agement, one response is recorded; asked by a
union representative, an alternate answer is pro-
vided; or asked by a colleague, still another
response is given (Staw 2016). The myriad
dynamics that comprise an organization suggest
that understanding the social psychology of orga-
nizations is a complex field of study.
Although it occurred more than 30 years ago,
we still discuss the catastrophic event afflicted by
Union Carbide in Bhopal, India. More than
40 tons of methylisocyanate gas leaked affecting
more than 600,000 lives. While eight Indian exec-
utives were convicted of negligence, the more
important aspect of examination is to understand
how such behavioral malfeasance could occur
(Brief and Smith-Crowe 2016). In more recent
times, the financial debacle of Enron, WorldCom,
and the ruin of Wall Street companies in 2008 left
us to wonder how an entire organization could
either complicity go along with bad behavior or
apathetically turn a blind eye. Antecedents such as
incentives, motivation, time pressure, sense of
camaraderie, accountability, power, and other fac-
tors serve as cognitive and behavioral catalysts
(Kuet al. 2015). In addition to following a leader’s
bad ethical behavior, employees can be seduced
by socialization with peers to surrender their
ethics for the perceived rewards or seeing partic-
ipation as an evitable part of their job. Indeed,
non-willing participants can be shamed or made
to feel guilty because they are not team players
when corrupt practices are normative and non-
participation seen as harming the organization
(Brief and Smith-Crow 2016). Yet not all malfea-
sance is born of bad intention. Indeed, a substan-
tial number of ethical violations develop because
misguided employees try to help the corporation
or the team.
The recent events at Wells Fargo Bank, where
employees set up fake accounts to achieve goals,
may speak to this phenomenon. If we set aside
those employees who sought individual compen-
sation, there are employees who cheated to help
their branch, department, or division achieve its
goal. Whether to help meet sales goals, thwart
layoffs, and/or avoid bankruptcy, misguided
errors in judgment can be construed as corporately
endorsed and the wrong behavior occurs as a
group (Brief and Smith-Crowe 2016). In the
2010 Tour de France race, those who played a
crucial role had high self-expectations and were
dependent on their peers, superiors, and subordi-
nates to carry the race and were far more likely to
use illegal, performance-enhancing drugs (Brief
and Smith-Crowe 2016). When the overarching
mission of the organization becomes paramount
in the minds of its members, the means can justify
the ends. What may not have been an acceptable
behavior before becomes the new normal, where
people look to others for signs of what is expected
of them.
Leaders, departmental heads, or others in a
position of power can greatly influence employee
Social Psychology of Organizations
commitment to a course of action that translates to
the very survival of the company, project, or ven-
ture. People within the organization become so
enmeshed within the ideology that leaving is not
considered a viable option (Ross and Staw 1986).
Though sometimes a losing course of action,
employees erroneously follow along with the
group, even if it leads to disaster or the demise
of the entity. Conversely, new product break-
through, public service, or philanthropy as in
Salesforce, Microsoft, Tesla, Google, or Apple
require further research to explain and understand
the occurrence of positive group behavior (Brief
and Smith-Crowe 2016; Staw 2016).
There are at least three major ways that psycholog-
ical forces can influence the behavior of organiza-
tions: (a) Autonomous agents can represent the
organization to outside publics; (b) powerful mem-
bers can influence organizational structures, reputa-
tions, and performance; and (c) the aggregation of
individual traits, emotional states, and beliefs can
shape organizational attributes and behavior (Staw
2016, p. 12).
While boards and leadership within organiza-
tions may articulate a vision for the organization,
such vision can be easily sabotaged by employees
who tacitly nod in agreement only to collectively
drag their feet during implementation (Staw
2016). Contagious behavior within the organiza-
tion can stem from one individual and radiate out
to groups and the entire corporation. External
incidents may also impact the organization, and
the effect will trickle down into the employee
base. In either scenario, by understanding the
event, we may have greater insight into the sub-
sequent behavior (Morgeson et al. 2015).
Maintenance Organizations
Over the millennia, churches have played a vital
role by offering spiritual guidance, providing suc-
cor, and helping millions of faithful find answers
to life’s deeper questions. Yet U.S. Catholic
Church officials admitted that several key admin-
istrators systematically covered up the predatory
behaviors of pedophile priests, harming genera-
tions of followers (Miller and France 2002).
7
Summoned before a United Nations committee,
the Vatican addressed questions about how it has
handled the crisis of priests who raped and
molested tens of thousands of children and the
bishops who covered up for them. With more
than 2,500 priests sanctioned and nearly
850 defrocked, the Catholic Church has acknowl-
edged that the culture at the time allowed this to
happen (Associated Press 2014). It is hard to
fathom how an institution that should represent
the bulwark of goodness, propriety, and morality
could serve as a host to such egregious acts and
corruption. To perhaps understand how such cor-
ruption can become normalized in the minds of
the offenders and institutionalized, we turn to
Ashford and Anand (2003):
There are three pillars that contribute to the normal-
ization of corruption in an organization: (1) institu-
tionalization, the process by which corrupt
practices are enacted as a matter of routine, often
without conscious thought about their propriety;
(2) rationalization, the process by which individ-
uals who engage in corrupt acts use socially
constructed accounts to legitimate the acts in their
own eyes; and (3) socialization, the process by
which newcomers are taught to perform and accept
the corrupt practices. (p. 3)
In the instant case of child abuse within the
Church, by failing to acknowledge and deal with
the problem, the Church as an institution obfus-
cated the issue by transferring the abusers rather
than purge them. While the objective might have
been to maintain the reputation of the Church, the
inability to confront the issue and correct it effec-
tively gave tacit permission to the perpetrators.
The lie that the problem was being dealt with
became the internal truth. The three pillars
(Ashford and Anand 2003) worked independently
and collectively reinforcing each other.
Political Organizations
The images of Abu Ghraib shocked Americans,
and the world as soldiers smiled for the camera
alongside the victims they tortured and deni-
grated. Outraged citizens wanted to understand
whether these soldiers acted unilaterally or upon
the orders of commanding officers. While finger-
8 Social Psychology of Organizations
pointing laid blame outside the circle of power,
low-level, enlisted men and women were tried for
the atrocities. Then vice president Dick Cheney
(2011) would later claim that it was a few bad
apples, not indicative of a rotten barrel. Yet psy-
chologist Zimbardo (2007), chief architect of the
Stanford Prison Experiment, disagrees and testi-
fied at military hearings.
The torture of detainees by U.S. soldiers at Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq was the result of systemic
failure and culture. When soldiers put on their
uniform, they are essentially being given a license
to kill (Zimbardo 2007). Once home, the uniform
comes off and, along with it, their license. In Abu
Ghraib, there was perceived anonymity and the
lack of any personal responsibility for the events.
Soldiers believed they had the tacit approval of
military commanders. Under conditions of war,
the enemy is dehumanized. Once this occurs, the
lack of identifying another person as human
enables the evil side within us to emerge allowing
us to commit egregious acts (Mbugua 2005).
Conclusion
Social psychology of organizations is a complex
field of study. It incorporates multiple disciplines,
theories, and perspectives of those who study
behavior of individuals and groups inside organi-
zations and work settings. Social psychology and
organizational context are inextricably linked. In
this way, researchers examine upward, down-
ward, and outward behavior within the organiza-
tion to recognize the resultant phenomena
produced as a result of the individual and group
thoughts and actions.
Cross-References
▶ Absenteeism in Organizations
▶ Authority in Organizations
▶ Causes of Organizational Conflict
▶ Community Based Organizations
▶ Culture and Organizations
▶ History of Organizations
▶ Leadership in Organizations
▶ Managing Conflict in Organizations
▶ Motivation-Based Theories of Organization
▶ Organizational Citizenship Behavior
▶ Organizational Reputation
▶ Performance Management and Culture
▶ Risk and Organizations
References
Allport FH (1942) Methods in the study of collective action
phenomena. J Soc Psychol 15(1):165–185
Ashford BE, Anand V (2003) The normalization of cor-
ruption in organizations. Res Organ Behav 25:1–52.
doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25001-2
Associated Press (2014) Vatican reveals how many priests
defrocked for sex abuse since 2004. Retrieved
from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-reveals-
how-many-priests-defrocked-for-sex-abuse-since-2004/
Brief AP, Smith-Crowe K (2016) Organizations matter. In:
Miller AG (ed) The social psychology of good and evil,
2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York
Cameron KS, Quinn RE (2006) Diagnosing and changing
organizational culture: based on the competing values
framework. Jossey-Bass, San Franscisco
Cheney D (2011) In my time. A personal and political
memoir. Threshold Editions, New York
Dashtipour P (2015) Social psychology: a commentary of
organizational research. In: Parker I (ed) Handbook of
critical psychology. Routledge, London/New York
DiMaggio P, Markus HR (2010) Culture and social psy-
chology. Soc Psychol Q 73(4):347–352. doi:10.1177/
0190272510389010
Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Inesi ME, Gruenfeld DH
(2006) Power and perspectives not taken. Psychol Sci
17(12):1068–1074
Goethals GR (2003) A century of social psychology: indi-
viduals, ideas, and investigations. In: Hogg MA, Coo-
per J (eds) The Sage book of social psychology. Sage
Publications, London, pp 3–23
Greenwood J (2014) The social in social psychology. Soc
Personal Psychol Compass 8(7):303–313. doi:10.1111/
spc3.12113
Gupta, A (2009) Organizational culture. Retrieved
from http://practical-management.com/Organization-
Development/Organization-Culture.html
Haney C, Banks WC, Zimbardo PG (1973) Study of pris-
oners and guards in a simulated prison. Nav Res Rev
9:1–17. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research
Harre R (1997) Social life as rule-governed patterns of joint
action. In: McGary C, Haslam SA (eds) The message of
social psychology. Blackwell, Oxford
Hepburn A (2003) An introduction to critical social psy-
chology. Sage Publications, London
Katz D, Kahn RL (1978) The social psychology of orga-
nizations, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Social Psychology of Organizations
Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to
theory and research in organizations: contextual, tem-
poral and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski
SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research and methods in
organizations. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–91
Ku G, Wang C, Galinsky A (2015) The promise and
perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Res
Organ Behav 35:79–102
Locke CC, Anderson C (2015) The downside of looking
like a leader: power, nonverbal confidence, and partic-
ipative decision-making. J Exp Soc Psychol 58:42–47
McLeod S (2007) Social psychology. Retrieved from http://
www.simplypsychology.org/social-psychology.html
Mbugua M (2005) Zimbardo blames military brass for Abu
Ghraib torture. Retrieved from http://www1.udel.edu/
PR/UDaily/2006/dec/zimbardo120705.html
Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience.
J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67(4):371
Miller L, France D (2002) Sins of the fathers. Newsweek
139(9):42–46, 48–49, 51–52.
Moore C, Deter JR, Trevino LK, Baker VL, Mayer DM
(2012) Why employees do bad things: moral disen-
gagement and unethical organizational behavior. Pers
Psychol 65:1–48
Morgeson FP, Mitchell TR, Liu D (2015) Event system
theory: an event-oriented approach to the organiza-
tional sciences. Acad Manag J 40(4):515–537
View publication stats
9
Plante TG (2013) Two psychology theories all leaders
should know. Retrieved from https://www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201307/
two-psychological-theories-all-leaders-should-know
Ross J, Staw BM (1986) Expo 86: an escalation prototype.
Adm Sci Q 31:274–297
Stangor, C (2016) Principles of social psychology.
Retrieved from http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.
com/bookhub/2105?e=stangorsocial_1.0-ch01_s01
Staw BM (2016) Stumbling toward a social psychology of
organizations: an autobiographical look at the direction
of organizational research. Annu Rev Organ Psychol
Organ Behav 3:1–19. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
041015-062524
Tost LP (2016) When, why, and how do powerholders
“feel the power”? Examining the links between struc-
tural and psychological power and reviving the con-
nection between power and responsibility. Res Organ
Behav 35:29–56
Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET
(2011) Handbook of theories of social psychology.
Sage, Thousand Oaks
Wilde J (2016) The social psychology of organizations:
diagnosing toxicity and intervening in the workplace.
Routledge, New York
Zimbardo P (2007) The Lucifer effect: understanding how
good people turn evil. Random House, New York