Org Behavior Exam 1

Organizational behavior (OB)

The science of behavior in work organizations; an applied social science drawing on psychology, sociology, and economics to explain what people do at work, why, and how to boost performance. Apply: like medicine, OB measures variables and predicts outcomes (e.g., CEO narcissism predicts extreme ROA).

OB vs. conventional wisdom

Conventional wisdom is intuition/common sense and is often wrong; OB tests claims with data, so it beats gut feeling. Apply: pay incentives don't always work, correcting the common assumption that pay drives effort.

Employee engagement (textbook)

The emotional and mental connection an employee feels toward their job, team, or organization that drives discretionary effort (effort beyond the minimum). Apply: an engaged employee fixes a problem no one told them to fix.

Rational decision-making model (3 assumptions)

Assumes people (1) know and consider all choices/outcomes, (2) interpret information objectively with no bias, and (3) can rank-order preferences to pick the optimal option. Apply: a baseline OB then shows is unrealistic (e.g., your college decision).

Bounded rationality

We have effective but limited information-processing capacity, so we can't optimize; instead we satisfice: pick the first satisfactory and sufficient option from limited alternatives. Apply: hiring the first "good enough" candidate instead of interviewing all 200.

Overconfidence bias

Overestimating your ability to predict future events. Apply: 69% of drivers use phones while driving but 89% think other phone-users are dangerous; they overrate their own driving.

Availability bias (textbook)

Judging how likely something is by how easily examples come to mind; recent, vivid, or emotional events feel more common than they are. Apply: refusing to fly after seeing a crash on the news, though driving is riskier.

Confirmation bias

Seeking only evidence that supports what you already believe and discounting contradicting evidence; you see what you expect. Apply: Dartmouth-Princeton football (1951), where each school's students counted more penalties by the other team.

Framing bias

Being influenced by HOW a choice is presented rather than the facts. Apply: "90% survival" vs. "10% death" are identical but drive different choices; opt-out organ donation beats opt-in.

Escalation of commitment (sunk cost bias)

Continuing a failing course of action to justify the original investment; strongest when you personally made the first decision (saving face). Apply: pouring more money into a losing project to "turn it around."

Attribution theory

How we decide why someone behaved as they did: internal cause (character/personality) vs. external cause (the situation). Apply: someone bumps you; were they rude (internal) or late and distracted (external)?

Fundamental attribution error (Lebel's version)

The tendency to blame OTHERS' behavior on their character while blaming YOUR OWN behavior on the situation. Note: differs from the textbook definition. Apply: coworker misses a deadline = "lazy"; you miss one = "I was slammed."

Reducing decision biases

Look for disconfirming evidence, use counterfactual thinking, assign a devil's advocate, avoid leading questions, use multiple viewpoints and outside third parties; for escalation, separate original decision-makers from evaluators. Apply: a bank has different officers review problem loans than those who approved them.

How emotion influences behavior

Emotions drive thinking: no emotions means no preferences means no decisions; cognition and emotion are intertwined (fast/emotional vs. slow/rational). Apply: people with damaged emotional processing can list pros/cons but can't actually choose.

Why emotions are helpful at work

Positive emotions "broaden and build" thinking; EI people share ideas better; a MODERATE level of emotion improves performance (day traders made fewer errors); EI and positive mood link to higher performance and pay. Apply: "just be rational" is wrong; moderate emotion sharpens judgment.

Emotional labor

Regulating your feelings and expressions for the job's purposes. Apply: a service worker managing their emotional display for customers.

Surface acting

Faking the emotional display you don't actually feel (forcing a smile). Apply: worse long-term because it creates emotional dissonance.

Deep acting

Trying to actually FEEL the emotion you need to display. Apply: a flight attendant reminding herself passengers are scared to summon real warmth; superior to surface acting.

Emotional dissonance

The gap between what you feel and what you're required to express; causes stress, burnout, and turnover. Apply: the hidden cost of surface acting.

Emotional intelligence (EI)

The ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions in yourself and others; NOT being positive all the time and NOT a fixed trait (it can be developed). Apply: three components below.

EI component 1: Perceive and express emotions

Reading and accurately expressing emotion through face and tone. Apply: Mehrabian: 7% words, 38% tone, 55% body language, which is why email/text loses so much meaning.

EI component 2: Understand emotions

Comprehending emotions and their relationships; emotional granularity = naming specific, precise emotions rather than "good/bad." Apply: distinguishing "anxious" from "frustrated" to respond correctly.

EI component 3: Manage/regulate emotions

Managing emotions in yourself and others to match what the situation needs. Apply: reappraising pre-exam anxiety as excitement (same arousal, better frame).

Emotion regulation strategies

Reframe the present, future time travel ("will this matter in a year?"), draw on the past, seek constructive support; avoid numbing, displaced aggression, and drinking. Apply: label the feeling first, then choose how to handle it; ignoring it is not regulation.

Performance = Motivation x Ability x Environment

Performance needs all three; it's multiplicative, so if any one is zero, performance is zero (Motivation = desire; Ability = skills; Environment = outside factors like resources/support). Apply: a skilled, motivated employee with no tools still fails.

Expectancy theory

Effort depends on three beliefs, all of which must be "yes": expectancy (E to P), instrumentality (P to O), and valence. Apply: Hausser Foods, where hitting the target raised next year's quota (low valence), killing motivation.

Expectancy (E to P)

"If I put in effort, will I actually perform?" Apply: fix by building skills/self-efficacy and removing obstacles.

Instrumentality (P to O)

"If I perform, will I actually get the reward?" Apply: fix by clearly linking performance to outcomes.

Valence

"Do I actually value that reward?" Apply: a $500 bonus means nothing if the employee doesn't value it.

Equity theory

People judge fairness by comparing their output/input (O/I) ratio to a referent (someone else); inputs = effort/skill/time, outputs = pay/recognition. Apply: learning a peer does less for more pay creates perceived inequity.

Underpayment inequity

You contribute more inputs but get the same or fewer outputs than the referent. Apply: doing more work than a coworker for equal pay.

Overpayment inequity

You contribute the same inputs but get more outputs than the referent. Apply: being paid more than peers for identical work.

Reactions to inequity (the six)

(1) Distort perceptions, (2) reduce own input, (3) increase own outcomes (negotiate or steal), (4) change referent, (5) leave the situation, (6) seek legal action. Apply: Jeff brought in $1.1M and got no raise; he could quit, coast, or file a complaint.

Distributive justice

Fairness of the OUTCOME: "Was I rewarded fairly?" Apply: whether your raise amount felt fair.

Procedural justice

Fairness of the PROCESS: "Were the rules used to decide fair and consistent?" Apply: a transparent, consistent raise process.

Interactional justice

Fairness of TREATMENT: "Was I treated with dignity and respect?" Apply: a boss explaining a decision respectfully; people accept smaller outcomes when process and treatment are fair.

SMART goals (Lebel: A = Aggressive)

Goals work best when Specific, Measurable, Aggressive, Realistic, Time-specific; "do your best" is a dumb, vague goal. Apply: "increase sales" becomes "increase Q4 sales 15% by Dec 31."

Why a SMART goal can fail

Specific/difficult goals only work with (1) ability/self-efficacy, (2) high goal commitment, and (3) feedback plus small wins. Apply: a perfect SMART goal does nothing if the person isn't committed.

Goal commitment

How bound someone feels to a goal; raise it by making the goal public, explaining why it matters, giving supportive supervision and feedback, and removing obstacles. Apply: announcing a goal to your team increases follow-through.

Psychology of small wins

Breaking a big goal into small achievable pieces; each win builds confidence, cuts stress, and makes the next easier. Apply: "finish the outline today" instead of "write the 20-page paper."

Downsides of goal-setting

Tunnel vision (ignoring what's not tied to the goal), decreased helping/cooperation, and increased unethical behavior. Apply: Sears Auto quotas led to unnecessary repairs; Wells Fargo cross-sell goals led to fake accounts.

Extrinsic motivation

Driven by external rewards: pay, bonuses, promotions. Apply: coding for the paycheck.

Intrinsic motivation

Driven by the work itself: autonomy (control), mastery (getting better), purpose (impact on others). Apply: coding because solving the problem is satisfying.

Extrinsic reward bias

Managers underestimate how much intrinsic factors motivate people, so they over-rely on money. Apply: managers ranked "good wages" first; employees actually ranked "appreciation" and "feeling in on things" first.

When extrinsic rewards work best

On mechanistic, specific, discrete tasks with clear rules or one right answer. Apply: piece-rate pay fits assembly-line work.

When intrinsic rewards work best

On complex, creative, open-ended tasks. Apply: autonomy and purpose fit creative R&D; money can backfire there.

Risks of extrinsic rewards (the four)

(1) Unethical behavior (Sears, Wells Fargo), (2) quantity over quality (Safelite), (3) inequity (pay gaps hurt cooperation; big-gap sports teams perform worse), (4) undermining intrinsic motivation. Apply: name the relevant risk for any "what could go wrong with a bonus?" question.

Scientific management

Early job design using job specialization: break work into the simplest tasks and assign each worker a few; efficient but boring. Apply: an assembly line or McDonald's; fast and cheap to train, but demotivating.

Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham)

Five core job characteristics lead to three psychological states, which lead to outcomes (higher motivation/performance/satisfaction, lower absenteeism/turnover). Apply: raise the five characteristics to motivate a job.

JCM: 5 core characteristics

Skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Apply: giving autonomy and feedback creates responsibility and knowledge of results.

JCM: 3 psychological states

Experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results. Apply: these are what the five characteristics produce, driving the outcomes.

Job rotation

Moving employees across different tasks AT THE SAME skill level; prevents boredom and cross-trains. Apply: working different sections of a store.

Job enlargement

Adding more tasks to a job; adds BREADTH (variety). Apply: a worker taking on client interaction plus their existing duties.

Job enrichment

Giving greater autonomy and responsibility; adds DEPTH (ownership and meaning). Apply: letting an employee decide how to improve a process.

Job crafting

Bottom-up, employee-driven changes so a job fits their strengths/goals: task crafting (add/drop tasks), relational crafting (reshape interactions), cognitive crafting (reframe meaning). Apply: a janitor who sees himself as part of healing patients (cognitive crafting).

Personality trait

Relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavior patterns; each trait is a continuum, most people fall in the middle, and judgments are relative. Apply: "extraverted" is a position on a scale, not yes/no.

Big Five (OCEAN)

The five broad personality dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism; the most valid, cross-cultural, stable framework. Apply: match traits to jobs.

Openness

Curious, creative, open to new ideas. Strength: adaptable. Challenge: unfocused. Apply: valuable for a brand manager or innovation role.

Conscientiousness

Organized, dependable, disciplined, achievement-oriented. Strength: achieves goals. Challenge: rigid, misses the forest for the trees. Apply: key trait for an auditor.

Extraversion

Outgoing, assertive, energized by stimulation. Strength: leads and networks. Challenge: impulsive, can overwhelm introverts. Apply: helps in sales and leadership.

Agreeableness

Kind, cooperative, trusting, warm. Strength: builds relationships. Challenge: gets taken advantage of, compromises values. Apply: strong for team and service roles.

Neuroticism (low emotional stability)

Prone to anxiety and negative emotion. Strength: planning and vigilance. Challenge: overreacts, struggles under pressure. Apply: often reported as its converse, emotional stability.

Personality inventory

A test measuring where someone falls on personality traits; used for selection/hiring, self-awareness, and team composition. Apply: screening candidates for conscientiousness in a detail-heavy role.

Validity of personality tests

They predict about 10-15% of individual job performance: modest but real; limits are faking and scores shifting over time. Apply: use as one signal, not the sole hiring basis.

Preventing faking / improving validity

Use other-ratings (observers fake less and are often more accurate than self-reports), check stability over time, and use cross-culturally validated tests. Apply: get peer ratings instead of relying on self-report.

Person-job fit

Matching a person's skills, personality, and knowledge to the JOB'S demands; assumes there's a "right person" for the job. Apply: hiring a coder who aces the technical test.

Person-organization fit

Matching a person's values, personality, and goals to the ORGANIZATION'S culture; assumes an employee can be trained for the job. Apply: hiring someone who fits a scrappy startup culture and training them up.

Career success = Talent x Preparation x Opportunity

Success is three categories multiplied together; talent alone doesn't explain it. Apply: elite performers had talent AND practice AND lucky timing.

Talent (competence + warmth)

Two dimensions others judge you on: competence (can you do the job?) and warmth (can you work with others?); we judge warmth FIRST (friend or foe). Apply: brilliant but cold hurts you because warmth is read before competence.

Preparation (10,000-hour rule)

Success takes roughly 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, fueled by intrinsic motivation and goal-setting. Apply: the Beatles' Hamburg gigs and Bill Gates' early computer access.

Opportunity (and luck)

Resources and luck you didn't earn: timing, birthdate, access; often invisible but decisive. Apply: Outliers, where elite hockey players cluster in early birth months due to the age cutoff.

Career trajectories (textbook/Outliers)

Careers generally do NOT move in a neat, linear, stepwise way; they're uneven, shaped by luck and timing, with lateral moves, plateaus, and jumps. Apply: if asked "are careers linear/stepwise?", the answer is no.

Social networks

Personal connections as resources: advice, help, and support (warmth) plus expertise and knowledge (competence). Apply: your network is a career asset, not just socializing.

Strong ties

Close, direct connections; give trust and shared perspective but mostly REDUNDANT information. Apply: your close friends know what you already know.

Weak ties

Acquaintances; give NOVEL information and efficiency by reaching networks you're not in. Apply: one of the best predictors of finding a job is the number of weak ties (Granovetter); the LinkedIn study confirmed weak ties drove more job switches.