Bowditch, James L., and Anthony F. Buono. A Primer on Organizational Behavior. 7th ed.

New
York: Wiley, 2007.
DeCenzo, David A., and Stephen P. Robbins. Fundamentals of Human Resource Management.
9th ed. New York: Wiley, 2006.
Hersey, Paul H., Kenneth H. Blanchard, and Dewey E. Johnson. Management of Organizational
Behavior. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007.
Hitt, Michael A., C. Chet Miller, and Adrienne Colella. Organizational Behavior: A Strategic
Approach. New York: Wiley, 2005.
Hofstede, Geert, and Gert Jan Hofstede. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 2nd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
2004.
Schermerhorn, John, James G. Hunt, and Richard N. Osborn. Organizational Behavior. 10th ed.
New York: Wiley, 2008.
Staw, Barry, ed. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 28. London: JAI Press, 2008.

When you are talking about organizational behavior, the biggest variable is
people. You can never really know how people are going to act. You could
say you will study an organization and change...

Organisational BehaviourWith examples, discuss dependent and independent

variables.
Homework Help > Business

document Download PDF

Asked on October 19, 2012 at 9:00 AM by miuten

like 0dislike 0

3 Answers | Add Yours

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Distinguished Educator

Posted on October 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM
When you are talking about organizational behavior, the biggest variable is people. You can
never really know how people are going to act. You could say you will study an organization
and change...
Read the Rest of this Answer for Free

Please view an ad from one of our sponsors to see the rest of this answer.
Get Answer
like 0dislike 0

Lorraine Caplan | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on October 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM
In research, an independent variable is the variable that is the "input" and the dependent variable
is the outcome or perceived outcome. In organizational behavior, one example would be to
measure productivity in an entity with a "flat" organizational structure, as opposed to an
organization with a layered hierarchy. In such a case, the independent variable would be
structure and the dependent variable would be productivity.
The difficulty in research that has qualitative variables is always in isolating the independent
variable in order to show some cause and effect, a way of demonstrating that it is only the
independent variable that causes a particular dependent variable. Using the above example, one
might look at two organizations with different structures and measure productivity, concluding
that the flatter structure produces better results. But there are so many other variables that could
create the outcome, for example, a different work culture, a different management style, a bettertrained workforce, and so on. How do we know that what we have called the independent
variable is creating the dependent outcome? Sometimes, we simply do not.
A well-designed study tries to control for stray independent variables to the degree possible,
trying to match the two groups as closely as possible with the exception of the independent
variable. So, a study looking at structure and productivity would try to "match" for work culture,
management style, the training of the workforce, and any other attribute that could influence
productivity.

One can find a correlation between an independent and dependent variable, but without a good
match of all other variables, it becomes difficult to infer causation. It is hard to know if an
independent variable causes a dependent variable if other variables cloud the picture.
Most of the managers that adopted Demings theory were able to transfer to their employees a
number of capacities, such as hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resiliency. In turn employees new
way of perceiving firm goals positively influenced firm strategic behavior and performance.
What is Positive Organizational Behavior (POB)?
The case study above, written by Walton 20 years ago, is still a good
illustration of POB and its influence on firms strategy and performance.
POB is defined by Luthans (2002) as the study and application of
positively-oriented human resource strengths and psychological
capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed
for performance improvement in todays workplace (p.52). Luthans and Youssef (2007),
define Self-efficacy, Hope, Optimism, and Resiliency as four key psychological resource
capacities that best meet the inclusion criteria for POB, which enhances managing effectiveness and
organizational performance.
The four POB psychological capacities
Self-efficacy, defined by Bandura as the belief that one has the capabilities to execute the
courses of actions required to manage prospective situations, represents the best fit with all the
criteria of POB among all the four capacities. Self-efficacy belief appears to determine how much
effort people will spend on a task and how long they will persist with it.

Hope is defined by Snyder, Irving, and Anderson as a positive motivational

state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1)
agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals).
With the hope to achieve certain goals, employees have the sense of agency or internalized control
that creates the determination and motivation (willpower) to accomplish their goals. They would also
be able to create and use alternative pathways and contingency plans to achieve their goals and
overcome obstacles (waypower).
Optimism is defined by positive psychologists as a cognitive characteristic in
terms of an expectancy of positive outcome and/or a positive causal attribution.
However, Christopher Peterson, the Science Director of the VIA Institute on
Character, has once noted that managers should keep in mind that Optimism is
not simply cold cognition, and if we forget the emotional flavor that pervades
optimism, we can make little sense of the fact that optimism is both
motivated and motivating.
Resiliency is defined by Luthans (2002) as the capacity to rebound or
bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events,
progress, and increased responsibility. Unlike traditional
conceptualizations of resiliency as an extraordinary capacity that can only
be observed and admired in highly unique individuals, the positive
psychology perspective in management on resilience is that it is a learnable capacity that can be
developed in the most ordinary of people and measured as state like. Luthans and Youssef
proposed that resiliency in workplace embraces a proactive dimension that promotes discrepancy
creation even in the absence of external threats.

Why is POB special?

First, instead of focusing on peoples weaknesses, POB encourages
managers and leaders to build on peoples strengths, rather than just
focusing on fixing weaknesses.
Second, the four key POB capacities are state-like, not trait-like, which
means they can be learned and developed. This implies that performance can be improved by
focusing on self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency more effective than trying to change
fundamental personality traits.
Third, POB not only improves performance and management effectiveness, it results in positive
behaviors such as altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, sportsmanship, and courtesy. POB
encourages principled actions and appropriate whistle-blowing.
Examples of practicing POBs in workplace
With such promising impact on work performance and employee well-being, how is POB actually
practiced in the workplace? Examples include:

Empowering employees and encouraging them to express their opinions on the

firms issues. Companies like Starbucks and Virgin are among the best examples of
employee empowerment.
Developing and maintaining optimism in workplace, especially during adverse
times. American Express Financial Advisors once used optimism in developing its
associates. Such optimism training follows specific guidelines leading to significant
enhancements of work outcomes (Luthans, 2002).
Developing a more comprehensive recruitment or appraisal system,
analyzing strengths rather than weaknesses. Banduras work suggests strengthbased systems would enhance employees self-efficacy. The experience of Norwich
Union (here) might offer you some insights.

Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, claimed that the basic assumptions
underlying much of what is taught and practiced in the name of management are
hopelessly out of date and wrong in his publication, In Managements New Paradigms. With
the positive psychology movement, as well as the application of positive management or POB, it is
very likely that we are on the right track adding value to modern management.