Behavior in Organizations -9/E

Over the years we’ve taught untold thousands of college students not only facts in figures but, more importantly, how to be critical thinkers and impartial analysts of behavior in organizations. In so doing, we’ve also learned a great deal from them. By Listening care fully to their insights, drawing on their experience, and discussing the world of work with them we’ve come away with a strong sense of what they want to knowabout human dynamics in the work place. After all most of today’s student alrady have a held job, or are working while completing their studies, and chance are that they have given more thanpassing though to jobs they will be performing in the future. As it becomes apperent to students that knowing about the field of organitational behavior (OB) can provide valuableinsight into behavior on the job, we habee bee there to guide them

Solving the Mystery of Myelodysplasia

The author reviews key research on the biology underlying treatment response in myelodysplasia, including a new study inPLoS Medicine

Social comparison processes in organizations

We systematically analyze the role of social comparison processes in organizations. Specifically, we describe how social comparison processes have been used to explain six key areas of organizational inquiry: (1) organizational justice, (2) performance appraisal, (3) virtual work environments, (4) affective behavior in the workplace, (5) stress, and (6) leadership. Additionally, we describe how unique contextual factors in organizations offer new insight into two widely studied sub-processes of social comparison, acquiring social information and thinking about that information. Our analyses underscore the merit of integrating organizational phenomena and social comparison processes in future research and theory

'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions

Data-driven decision-making consequential to individuals raises important questions of accountability and justice. Indeed, European law provides individuals limited rights to 'meaningful information about the logic' behind significant, autonomous decisions such as loan approvals, insurance quotes, and CV filtering. We undertake three experimental studies examining people's perceptions of justice in algorithmic decision-making under different scenarios and explanation styles. Dimensions of justice previously observed in response to human decision-making appear similarly engaged in response to algorithmic decisions. Qualitative analysis identified several concerns and heuristics involved in justice perceptions including arbitrariness, generalisation, and (in)dignity. Quantitative analysis indicates that explanation styles primarily matter to justice perceptions only when subjects are exposed to multiple different styles---under repeated exposure of one style, scenario effects obscure any explanation effects. Our results suggests there may be no 'best' approach to explaining algorithmic decisions, and that reflection on their automated nature both implicates and mitigates justice dimensions.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'18), April 21--26, Montreal, Canad

In Support of a Patient-Driven Initiative and Petition to Lower the High Price of Cancer Drugs

Comment in Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--III. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--I. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--IV. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] In Reply--Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] US oncologists call for government regulation to curb drug price rises. [BMJ. 2015

Behavior in organizations

xxiv, 775 p. : il.; 28 c

Managing Behavior in Organizations

476.;xxi.;24 c

A taxonomy of organizational justice theories

A taxonomy is presented that categorizes theories of organizational justice with respect to two independent dimensions: a reactiveproactive dimension and a process-content dimension. Various theories within each of the four resulting categories are identified. The implications of the taxonomy are discussed with respect to clarifying theoretical interrelationships, tracking research trends, and identifying needed areas of research. Stimulated by conceptualizations of justice in organizations by such theorists as Homans (1961), Adams (1965), and Walster, Berscheid, and Walster (1973), organizational researchers devoted considerable attention in the 1960s and 1970s to testing propositions about the distribution of payment and other work-related rewards derived from equity theory (for reviews, see Campbell &amp

Behaviour in organizations

720 p. : il.; 28 c