RV UNIVERSITY

BALE ROBE CAMPUS

DEPARTEMENT: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ASSIGNMENT: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND
DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW LITERATURE: CONTRIBUTING
DISCIPLINES TO ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOR
NAME ID
Jeylan Alo 0041/19
Jemal Mama 0039/19
Jibril Aman 1002/19
Abstract
The core disciplines of the behavioral sciences are psychology, sociology and anthropology.
Although each of these disciplines is concerned with human behavior and nature, there are little
commonly accepted theories among them. In fact, there is widespread disagreement about the
problems that need to be analyzed within the organizations and society. As different disciplines
will focus the individual problems from its own point of view with different perspectives, there
will not be a common understanding among them. The behavioral science emphasis and
approach follows closely the following fundamental steps of scientific inquiry: theory leads to
research, which leads to application (theory-->researchApplication).

The behavioral scientists are working diligently at improving the predictability of behavior.
Because people and environments do change, their work focuses on attempting to predict how
most people are likely to behave in a given set of circumstances and conditions. Each discipline
applies its own methodology to the prediction problem, and each provides managers with insight
into such important areas as individual differences, cultural influences, motivation and
organizational design.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON CONTRIBUTING DISCIPLINES TO

ORGANISATINAL BEHAVIOUR
Organizational behavior is an applied behavioral science that is built on contributions from a
number of behavioral disciplines. There are some important disciplines in the organizational
behavior field which developed it extensively. Due to an increase in organizational complexity,
various types of knowledge are required and help in many ways. Contributing Disciplines to the
Organization Behavior Field are:

Psychology:
Psychology has perhaps the most influence on the field of organizational behavior because it is a
science of behavior. Almost all aspects of behavior are studied by psychologist. Psychology
deals with studying human behavior that seeks to measure, explain and sometimes change the
behavior of humans and other animals. Psychologists primarily interested to predict the behavior
of individuals to great extent by observing the dynamics of personal factors, environmental and
situational factors. Those who have contributed and continue to add to the knowledge of OB are
learning theorists, personality theorists, counseling psychologists and most important, industrial
and organizational psychologist.

Some of the numerous areas of interest within the disciplines of psychology are:

 General Psychology
 Experimental Psychology
 Clinical Psychology
 Consumer Psychology
 Personality and Social Psychology
 Industrial Psychology
 Counseling Psychology
 Educational Psychology
 Consulting Psychology

Understanding Psychological principles and its models help significantly in gaining the
knowledge of determinants of individual behavior such as learning process, motivation
techniques, personality determinants and personality development, perceptual process and its
implications, training process, leadership effectiveness, job satisfaction, individual decision
making, performance appraisal , attitude measurement, employee selection, job design and work
stress.

Learning is important in understanding organizational behavior because of the concepts and

generalizations that have developed from it. Managers are more interested to seek solutions to
the following key aspects:

 What are the causes of Behavior?

 What are the goals and purposes of particular Behavior?
 What are the roles of genetic and environmental factors on the formation of particular
Behavior?
 What are the common values, attitudes and characteristics that are binding people
together, though individuals differ from one another in personal values, personalities and
attitudes?
  To what extent individual’s identification or belongingness with others will help shape
his or her behavior?
 To what extent social learning is associated to motivational level of individual?

All these generalizations are associated with learning, which occurs throughout a person’s life.
One of the most important attributes of psychology is the emphasis on the scientific study of
behavior. Psychologists attempt to understand behavior on the basis of rational, demonstrable
cause-effect relationships. Although learning and motivation are the main focus of psychology,
the immediate applications to the field of organizational behavior are widespread. Basic
knowledge of human behavior is important in work design, leadership, organizational design,
communication, decision making, performance appraisal systems and reward programs. These
issues are falling within the domain of organizational behavior.

Sociology:

The major focus of sociologists is on studying the social systems in which individuals fill their
roles. The focus of attention is centered on group dynamics. They have made their greatest
contribution to OB through their study of group behavior in organization, particularly formal and
complex organizations. Sociological concepts, theories, models and techniques help significantly
to understand better the group dynamics, organizational culture, formal organization theory and
structure, organizational technology, bureaucracy, communications, power, conflict and inter-
group behavior. Psychologists are primarily interested to focus their attention on the individual
behavior.

Key concepts of Sociology:

Most sociologists today identify the discipline by using one of the three statements: i) Sociology
deals with human interaction and this interaction is the key influencing factor among people in
social settings. ii) Sociology is a study of plural behavior. Two or more interacting persons
constitute a plurality pattern of behavior. iii) Sociology is the systematic study of social systems.
A social system is an operational social unit that is structured to serve a purpose. It consists of
two or more persons of different status with different roles playing a part in a pattern that is
sustained by a physical and cultural base.
When analyzing organizing as social system, the following elements exist:

i) People or actors
ii) Acts or Behavior
iii) Ends or Goals
iv) Norms, rules, or regulation controlling conduct or behavior
v) Beliefs held by people as actors
vi) Status and status relationships
vii) Authority or power to influence other actors
viii) Role expectations, role performances and role relationships.

Therefore, organizations are viewed by sociologies as consists of a variety of people with

different roles, status and degree of authority. The organization attempts to achieve certain
generalized and specific objectives. To attain some of the abstract ends such as the development
of company loyalty, the organization’s leaders appeal to the shared cultural base.

The discipline of sociology has been associated with the following characteristics of a science.

i) It is empirical: it is based on observation and reasoning, not on supernatural

revelation, and its results are not speculative
ii) It is theoretical; I attempts to summaries complex observations in abstract, logically
related propositions that purport to explain causal relationships in the subject matter.
iii) It is cumulative; theories build upon one another, new theories correcting, extending
and refining the older ones.
iv) It is no ethical; the scientists do not ask whether particular social actions are good or
bad; they seek merely to explain them.

Social Psychology

It has been defined as the scientific investigation of how the thoughts, feelings and behavior of
individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presents of others. What makes
social psychology social is that it deals with how people are affected by other people who are
actually physically present or who are imagined to be present or even whose presence is implied.
In general sociology focuses on how groups, organizations, social categories and societies are
organized, how they function, how they change. The unit of analysis is the group as a whole
rather than the individuals who compose the group. Social Psychology deals with many of the
same phenomenal but seeks to explain whole individual human interaction and human cognition
influences culture and is influenced by culture. The unit of analysis is the individual within the
group. In reality, some forms of sociology are closely related to social psychology.

Social Psychologists study an enormous range of topics including conformity, persuasion, power,
influence, obedience, prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, sexism and racism, small groups,
social categories, inter-group behavior, crowd behavior, social conflict, social change, decision
making etc. Among them the most important topics relevant to organizational behavior field are
behavioral change, attitude change, communication, group process and group decision making.
Social psychologists making significant contributions in measuring, understanding and changing
attitudes, communication patterns they ways in which groups can satisfy individual needs and
group decision making process.

Anthropology

The main aim of anthropology is to acquire a better understanding of the relationship between
the human being and the environment. Adaptations to surroundings constitute culture. The
manner in which people view their environment is a part of culture. Culture includes those ideas
shared by groups of individuals and languages by which these ideas are communicated. In
essence, culture is a system of learned behavior.

Their work on culture and environment has helped us to understand differences in fundamental
values, attitudes and behavior among people in different countries and within different
organizations. Much of our current understandings of organizational culture, organization
environments and differences between national cultures are the results of the work of
anthropologists or those using their methodologies.

The world is the laboratory of anthropologists, and human beings must be studied in the natural
habitat. Understanding the importance of studying man in natural settings over time enables one
to grasp the range of anthropology. Familiarity within same of the cultural differences of
employees can lead to a greater managerial objectivity and depth in the interpretation of behavior
and performance. Anthropologists contribute to study the following aspects in organizational
settings – comparative values, comparative attitudes, cross-cultural analysis between or among
the employees.

Political Sciences:

Contributions of political scientist are significant to the understanding of behavior in

organizations. Political scientists study the behavior of individuals and groups within a political
environment. They contribute to understand the dynamics of power centers, structuring of
conflict and conflict resolutions tactics, allocation of power and how people manipulate power
for individual self-interest.

In a business field, organizations wanted to attain supremacy in their own field and indulge in
politicking activities to gain maximum advantages by following certain tacks like
Machiavellianism, coalition formation, malpractices etc.

The knowledge of political science can be utilized to the study the behavior of employees,
executives at micro as well as macro level.

Economics

Economics contributes organizational behavior to great extent in designing the organizational

structure. Transaction cost economics influence the organization and its structure. Transaction
costs economics implies costs components to make an exchange on the market. This transaction
cost economics examines the extent to which the organization structure and size of an
organization varies in response to attempts to avoid market failures through minimizing
production and transaction costs within the constraints of human and environmental factors.
Costs of transactions include both costs of market transactions and internal co-ordination. A
transaction occurs when a good or service is transferred across a ‘technologically separable
barrier” Transaction costs arise for three main reasons: They are as follows.

i) Uncertainty/Complexity: Due to incomplete information, limited skills, time, the transaction

is highly complex and uncertain. Signing a meaningful market contract minimizes such
uncertainty which increases transactions costs. Both sides have to spend time and money on
agreeing ex ante conditions of the contract. Suitable organization structural relationships will
facilitate to meet this objective.

ii) Opportunism (seeking self-interest or exploiting situation-cheating others): If there are

large number of sellers, the chances of being exploited is relatively diminished – market
mechanism controls transaction costs. If small number of players exist in the market,
opportunism becomes more difficult to control due to dependency on seller. Creating legal
contract or developing liaison with buyers can help minimize this problem – a cost is paid to
minimize exploitations. When faced with opportunism, there are three possible organizational
design: they are as follows: a) Market co-ordination b) Hierarchies-Organization co-ordination
and c) Hybrid –Network Structure

iii) Asset Specificity (Creating special assets to provide a special good or service):
Developing specific human or physical assets to provide special good or service which cannot be
redeployed for other purposes. The higher the degree of asset specificity, the higher the potential
transaction costs because of post contractual opportunism. Designing suitable organizational
structure – Inter-firm networks or hierarchies will help to control this type of transaction cost

Economic Pressures determine the suitable structure either through markets, hybrid network
structures or hierarchy to organize transactions effectively. Failure to organize in the appropriate
way will lead to the firm being deselected by the market. As environment is so dynamic,
organization must respond to change its structure. Shifts from large firm hierarchies to networks
or to market relations are in terms of changing conditions of the economizing function.

Conclusion:

The behavioral sciences have had a significant impact on the field of organizational behavior.
They have provided a reference that encourages the use of the scientific method.

Some of the more generally agreed upon influences of behavioral science on organizational
behavior are:

i) the systematic use of theories and theory building to explain behavior

ii) An empirical base to study individuals, group, and organization.
iii) The increased use of rigorous research methods
 iv) Less use of arm chair speculation in reaching managerial decisions
v) Efforts to communicate theories, research and ideas to practicing managers as well as
members of the field.

References
Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on
perceptions of power bases. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 455-469.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in Organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new
frontiers in Organizational Behavior research. Journal of Management; 28(3), 307–338.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Humphrey, R. H., & Huy, Q. N. (2017). Integrating emotions and affect in
theories of management. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 175–189.
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct
redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly,
29(1), 236-251.
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of
impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080– 1109.
Bonaccio, S., O’Reilly, J., O’Sullivan, S. L., and Chiocchio, F. (2016). Nonverbal behavior and
communication in the workplace. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1044–1074.
Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (1994). The effect of organizational culture on communication and
information. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), 807–828.
Bruce J. Avolio; William L. Gardner (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the
root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 315-338
Carnes, C. M., Xu, K., Sirmon, D. G., & Karadag, R. (2019). How competitive action mediates
the resource slack–performance relationship: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Management
Studies, 56(1), 57-90.
Carnes, C. M., Xu, K., Sirmon, D. G., & Karadag, R. (2018). How competitive action mediates
the resource slack-performance relationship: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Management
Studies, 56(1), 57-90.
Cascio, W. F., and Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 349–375.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and
meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103.
Clark, M. A., Robertson, M. M., & Young, S. (2018). “I feel your pain”: A critical review of
organizational research on empathy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 166-192
Cooper, H. M. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 3–9.
Donia, M. B. L., Johns, G., Raja, U., & Khalil Ben Ayed, A. (2017). Getting credit for OCBs:
potential costs of being a good actor vs. a good soldier. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 27(2), 188–203.
Eldor, L. (2016). Work engagement. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 317–339.
Ferris, G. R., Ellen, B. P., McAllister, C. P., & Maher, L. P. (2019). Reorganizing Organizational
Politics research: A review of the literature and identification of future research directions.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 299–323.
Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro‐Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation and job
satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (8), 765-779
Götz, M., Bollmann, G., and O’Boyle, E. H. (2018). Contextual undertow of workplace deviance
by and within units: A systematic review. Small Group Research, 50(1), 188203
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and
image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 356-365.
Hiller, N. J., Sin, H. P., Ponnapalli, A. R., & Ozgen, S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as
weirdly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from
152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165-184.
Hjerto, K. B. (2017). Burning hearts in conflict: new perspectives on the intragroup conflict and
team effectiveness relationship. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(4), 536-536.
Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2016). Building work engagement: A systematic review
and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 792–812.
Kudret, S., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2019). Self‐monitoring personality trait at work: An
integrative narrative review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
40(2), 193-208.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice-
Hall, Inc. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior.
Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–349.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007:
A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3),
410–476. Pandey,
J. (2019). Factors affecting job performance: An integrative review of literature. Management
Research Review, 42(2), 263-289.
Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., and Phua, J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 15(1), 44–52.
Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723–
1746.
Smith, M. B., Hill, A. D., Wallace, J. C., Recendes, T., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Upsides to dark
and downsides to bright personality: A multidomain review and future research agenda. Journal
of Management, 44(1), 191-217.
Swab, R. G., & Johnson, P. D. (2019). Steel sharpens steel: A review of multilevel competition
and competitiveness in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 147-165
Upasna A. Agarwal, Vishal Gupta, (2018). Relationships between job characteristics, work
engagement, conscientiousness and managers’ turnover intentions: A moderated mediation
analysis. Personnel Review, 47(2), 353-377
Weikamp, J. G., and Göritz, A.S. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior and job
satisfaction: The impact of occupational future time perspective. Human Relations, 69(11),
2091–2115.
Youssef, C. M., and Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace.
Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A
critical review. Applied Psychology, 33(3), 371-399.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, P. J., Hinings, C. R., and Turner, C. (1968), “Dimensions of organization
structure”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 65-105.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, P. J., Hinings, C. R., and Turner, C. (1969), “The context of organization
structure”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 94-114.
Ryder, P. A. and Southey, G. N. (1990), “An exploratory study of Jones and James
organizational climate scales”, Asia pacific Human Resource Management, pp. 45-52.
Schneider, B. (1972), “Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational
realities”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 211-217.
Schneider, B. and Bartlett, J. (1968), “Individual differences and organizational climate I: The
research plan and questionnaire development”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 323-333.