Voice of a “Seasoned” OB Professor

I will be making some highly personalized comments on the Aguinis et al. article* concerning rigor vs. relevance, renaming/rebranding I-O psychology, and I-O psychology vs. business school OB. Before commenting, however, I feel compelled to briefly frame my remarks from the perspective of my 50-year academic career. For example, I think it is important to note that I go back to the early 1960s at the University of Iowa, College of Business. I was studying for my Ph.D. in the just emerging field of management and organizations (nothing was offered called organizational behavior or strategic management). However, and very unusual for the times for management majors, I also took a minor in the psychology department concentrating on social and I-O psychology. Also, after receiving my Ph.D. in 1965, for my two-year military obligation, after infantry officer training I was assigned to West Point and taught cadets the required psychology course and military leadership. This background had a formative and lasting impact on my thinking about OB and I-O psychology

Faculty Promotions: An Analysis of Central Administrative Control

Very little significant research has been conducted on the university as an organized activity. This study helps to fill solve of this void. The concept of central administrative control is used as a framework to empirically analyze faculty promotion policies and practices. The universities of today are recognized as extremely important organizations in our society. Faculty members conduct significant research which advances knowledge in their particular fields of study. For instance, in the management departments of our universities, professors devote most of their research efforts to developing knowledge and insights into industrial organizations. In a few cases these professors have also researched hospital, government, and military organizations. They have not bothered to take an introspective analysis of the university itself as a functioning organization. This study was undertaken to describe and analyze one phase of the university as an organized activity — the faculty promotion process. The analysis utilized the administrative concept of central administrative control. Control is simply defined as making sure things go according to plan and becomes especially important in large decentralized organizations. In these situations some degree of central control over organizational participants becomes necessary to achieve coordination and a unity of purpose. In fact, effective personnel controls may be the most important requirement for organizational success.^ Such controls do not imply strict bureaucratic standards and rules such as are found in the budgeting process but rather are based on effective personnel policies and practices

The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior

This essay draws from the emerging positive psychology movement and the author’s recent articles on the need for and meaning of a positive approach to organizational behavior. Specifically, the argument is made that at this time, the OB field needs a proactive, positive approach emphasizing strengths, rather than continuing in the downward spiral of negativity trying to fix weaknesses. However, to avoid the surface positivity represented by the non-sustainable best-sellers, the case is made for positive organizational behavior (POB) to take advantage of the OB field’s strength of being theory and research driven. Additional criteria for this version of POB are to identify unique, state-like psychological capacities that can not only be validly measured, but also be open to development and performance management. Confidence, hope, and resiliency are offered as meeting such POB inclusion criteria. The overall intent of the essay is to generate some positive thinking and excitement for the OB field and ‘hopefully’ stimulate some new theory building, research, and effective application

Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital

With the rising recognition of human resources as a competitive advantage in today’s global economy, human capital and, more recently, social capital are being touted in both theory, research, and practice. To date, however, positive psychological capital has been virtually ignored by both business academics and practitioners. “Who I am” is every bit as important as “what I know” and “who I know.” By eschewing a preoccupation with personal shortcomings and dysfunctions and focusing instead on personal strengths and good qualities, today’s leaders and their associates can develop confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience, thereby improving both individual and organizational performance

Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital

With the rising recognition of human resources as a competitive advantage in today’s global economy, human capital and, more recently, social capital are being touted in both theory, research, and practice. To date, however, positive psychological capital has been virtually ignored by both business academics and practitioners. “Who I am” is every bit as important as “what I know” and “who I know.” By eschewing a preoccupation with personal shortcomings and dysfunctions and focusing instead on personal strengths and good qualities, today’s leaders and their associates can develop confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience, thereby improving both individual and organizational performance

What knowledge managers really do: An empirical and comparative analysis

The advent of information technology has generated not only interest in how to acquire, store and ‘‘mine’’ data, but also how to manage knowledge. Yet, there is still considerable confusion and a lack of understanding of what today’s knowledge managers really do. Continuing a stream of previous research on the behavior activities of traditional managers, this study investigated the relative amount of time today’s knowledge managers (N = 307) spend on traditional management functions, communications, human resources and networking. Besides identifying what knowledge managers really do, this study examined what successful knowledge managers do. Comparisons are then made with managers in the 1980s. Finally, the role that information technology plays in knowledge managers carrying out their managerial activities was assessed. The implications of some surprising findings and conclusions end the paper

What knowledge managers really do: An empirical and comparative analysis

The advent of information technology has generated not only interest in how to acquire, store and ‘‘mine’’ data, but also how to manage knowledge. Yet, there is still considerable confusion and a lack of understanding of what today’s knowledge managers really do. Continuing a stream of previous research on the behavior activities of traditional managers, this study investigated the relative amount of time today’s knowledge managers (N = 307) spend on traditional management functions, communications, human resources and networking. Besides identifying what knowledge managers really do, this study examined what successful knowledge managers do. Comparisons are then made with managers in the 1980s. Finally, the role that information technology plays in knowledge managers carrying out their managerial activities was assessed. The implications of some surprising findings and conclusions end the paper

The Impact of the Computer on the Choice Activity of Decision Makers: A Replication with Actual Used of Computerized MIS

University of Nebraska-Lincoln A previous study on the impact of computer generated information on the choice activity of student subjects found that those with computer experience were less influenced by computer generated information than they were by information presented in a more traditional mimeograph format. Subjects who had little, if any, computer experience were more influenced in their choice activity by computer generated information than by the identical information presented in the more traditional mimeograph format (Luthans & Koester, 1976). The results of that study seemed to have definite implications for users of computerized information systems, suggesting that computer generated information per se may bias users. Those with a great deal of computer experience may be overly skeptical of computer generated information, and those with little or no computer experience may be in awe of the computer and place too much credibility and reliance on the information that it generates. The possibilities seem sufficiently significant and intriguing to be tested in a field study with actual management information systems (MIS) users

THE IMPACT OF COMPUTER GENERATED INFORMATION ON THE CHOICE ACTIVITY OF DECISION-MAKERS

Computerized information systems have a tremendous impact on management decision-making in all modern organizations. Electronic data processing (EDP) departments generate, coordinate, and disseminate much of the information that is used in modern management decision-making. How much influence is this computer generated information per se having on the choice activity of the human decision-maker? To date, very little is known about the answer to this question. Yet, if management is to improve the effectiveness of the decision-making process, the implications of computer generated information must be better understood. Organizationally, there is evidence that the computer has changed traditionalline- staff relationships. In reality, EDP departments may be becoming more line (decision-making authority) oriented as opposed to their traditional staff (advice) role. Such a development can be explained by the reactions of decision-makers to computer generated information. A hypothesis worthy of testing would be that if the decision-maker places a great deal of confidence in the computer, then the EDP department functions more in a line capacity. By the same token, if the decision-maker has little confidence in the computer, then the EDP department becomes more of a staff function. In other words, it may be that the way in which the EDP department influences the decision-making process depends, in part, on the reaction of the human decision-makers to the computer itself. Today\u27s managers can be placed on a continuum of knowledge and practical familiarity with computerized information systems. At one extreme are those managers who are extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of the computer\u27s capabilities, limitations, and functions, and have a great amount of practical experience. On the other extreme are those managers who have virtually no understanding or experience with the computer and its role in decision-making. For the purpose of this study, the subjects are considered to fall into one of two categories-those that tend to have some knowledge and familiarity with the computer\u27s capabilities and limitations (termed experienced ) and those who tend to have very little, if any, familiarity with the computer\u27s capabilities and limitations (termed nonexperienced ) . It was hypothesized that the computer experienced subjects would be more suspicious or less confident of computer derived information than would the nonexperienced. Computer experienced people have often been frustrated by the computer and know its limitations. On the other hand, nonexperienced people may hold the computer in awe and thus place too much \u27confidence in computer generated information. The study reported in this paper was designed to test this hypothesis