50 Yrs

Cornell University ILR School
DigitalCommons@ILR
Articles and Chapters ILR Collection
1998
Fifty Years of Organizational Behavior from Multiple Perspectives

Paul S. Goodman
Carnegie Mellon University
David A. Whetten
Brigham Young University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles
Part of the Labor Relations Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR.
Support this valuable resource today!
This Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more
information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu.
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance.
Fifty Years of Organizational Behavior from Multiple Perspectives
Abstract
Many of the underlying themes in the field of organizational behavior reveal the strains between basic and
applied research, qualitative and quantitative preferences, gradations of analysis, and the relative
importance of research and practice.
Keywords
organizational behavior, micro research, macro research, applied research
Disciplines
Labor Relations | Organizational Behavior and Theory
Comments
Suggested Citation
Goodman, P. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1998). Fifty years of organizational behavior from multiple perspectives
[Electronic version]. In J. McKelvey and M. Neufeld, (Eds.), Industrial relations at the dawn of the new
millennium (pp. 32-53). Ithaca, NY: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
Required Publisher Statement

© Cornell University Press. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
This chapter is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/960

Many o f the underlying themes in the field of organizational
behavior reveal the strains between basic and applied research,
qualitative and quantitative preferences, gradations of
analysis, and the relative importance o f research
and practice.
Paul S. Goodman is Professor o f Industrial Administration

and Psychology at Carnegie M ellon University, where he di
rects the Center for the Management o f Technology as well as
the Institute for Strategic Development.
David A. Whetten is the Jack W heatley Professor o f Organi

zational Behavior at Brigham Young University, where he is
also the D irector o f the Center for the Study o f Values in
Organizations.
Paul S. Goodman and David A. Whetten
FIFTY YEARS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR FROM
MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
Mary Parker Follet, to scholars in public administration, and to the work
F
o r t h is v o lu m e w e w e r e a s k e d t o r e v ie w t h e
development of the field o f Organizational Behavior (OB). of Mayo and Roethlisberger, its unique identity as a scientific discipline
We defined OB broadly, to include both “micro” and emerged following World War II. As the American military-industrial
“macro” areas o f focus. Micro research tends to adopt a complex experienced the wrenching transition from a war economy to a
psychological or social psychological perspective and ex consumer economy, organizations began experiencing tensions between
amines individual or group behaviors. Topics like m otiva their technical requirements and the needs and preferences of their
tion, commitment, leadership, and group dynamics typify this members. During the war social concerns in businesses were subordi
orientation. Macro research takes the organization as the unit of nated, but during the 1950s and ’60s managers were increasingly chal
analysis and examines interactions with other organizations as well lenged to balance the socio-technical dualism in their organizations.
as responses to broad social, economic, and political environmental This budding interest in applying the behavioral sciences to busi
conditions. Exploring various predictors of organizational effective ness organizations was given a strong institutional endorsement by
ness has been a major staple in macro studies. the Carnegie report on business school education in 1959 (Gordon
Our treatment of OB does not include two related fields: human re and Howell, 1959). Its authors strongly criticized business schools for
source management (historically referred to as personnel) and business ignoring the behavioral sciences in their curricula. The resulting rush
strategy. We excluded these areas because another chapter in this book to develop management/organizational behavior classes swept large
is focusing on the development of HRM and the strategy area is still in numbers of new faculty trained in psychology (first) and sociology
the process of evolving into a separate branch of organizational science. (later) into business schools. Bringing with them strong training in
Organizational behavior is an applied behavioral science discipline empirical research, these faculty set about testing existing social sci
that examines the organization-environment and individual-organiza ence theories in business settings.
tion interfaces in formal (typically work) organizations. Although its in OB is an applied social science discipline, and its evolution has been
tellectual roots can be traced back to the writings of classical social shaped by a variety of external forces. On the applied side, as managers
science scholars like Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, to sev responded to shifting social, political, and economic conditions their
eral turn-of-the-century management theorists like Henry Fayol and transient needs shaped the field’s research agenda and curriculum
34 Paul S. G o o d m a n an d D av id A. W h e t t e n
content. On the social science side, theoretical and methodological de To complement this empirical analysis we decided to revisit each of
velopments in sociology and psychology provided new and improved the preceding four decades from the perspective of a representative of
lenses for examining what we observed in organizations. Situated at the cohorts entering the field during each of those eras. Based on the
the intersection of these two surging channels of activity and thought, supposition that graduate students and young scholars form espe
the history of OB has been punctuated by high levels of creativity and cially vivid impressions of the goings-on in their field, we felt that in
conflict. The ever-present tensions between applied and theoretical re terviews capturing their recollections and portrayals would provide a
search, teaching and research, and quantitative and qualitative more textured account of the major trends and events showing up in
. methodologies have been both frustrating and stimulating. our journal tallies, as well as shed light on the intellectual and situa
Our objective in this chapter is to present some of the facts, percep tional forces underlying those trends.
tions, and emotions associated with the birth and maturation of orga Examining the evolution of our field through the experiences and
nizational behavior. We will focus primarily on the past and the impressions of these very observant and thoughtful colleagues has
present—mixing in some views about the future for leavening. The been an insight-provoking experience for us—one that we are excited
bulk of the chapter will examine some of the major events and trends to share with our readers. We feel that this information expands the
in our field from 1950 to 1990. We will also explore some of the inter historical documentation currently available in the literature. While
nal and external forces that shaped our collective assessment of what several scholars have written very comprehensive and evocative
we should study and how we should study it. overviews of our field (e.g., Scott, 1989; Perrow, 1986), the collage of
personal recollections reported herein has the benefit of bringing
Organization of the Chapter multiple perspectives to the history-telling enterprise. A second dis
tinguishing characteristic of these accounts is their heavy emphasis on
Several reviews of OB have been published (Mitchell, 1979; O’Reilly, reconstructing the behind-the-scenes pressures and opportunities ex
1991). While they have used various approaches for identifying and pre perienced by those creating our history. It is one thing to understand
senting significant trends, content analysis of journal articles has been that the scientific management era was followed by the human rela
the most common one. Consistent with this established tradition, we tions era and so forth; it is quite another to understand the social, po
will report the results of our content analysis of one issue per year of litical, economic, and scientific tectonic forces that helped shape the
the Journal of Applied Psychology and Administrative Science Quarterly theoretical and methodological landscape we now take for granted.
from 1950 to 1990. Our analysis design nicely complements other re We begin the analysis with a dialogue with our interviewees. Then
views—trading off sampling frequency with length of time. This ap we focus on the content analysis, concluding with some observations
proach permitted us to examine the broad outlines of long-term trends about future directions.
in our field, as reflected in shifts in the characteristics of authors and ar
ticles, the targets of research, the types of methodologies used, and the Telling O ur History through Retrospective Accounts
variables studied. We feel that this forty-year assessment will prove in
formative for a variety of readers: established scholars can compare The OB program in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at
their impressions with the data; younger scholars can better understand Cornell University has been recognized as a leading center of scholar
the history of the profession they are joining; practitioners can see what ship during much of its fifty-year history. Its faculty and students have
academic observers of organizations have deemed important. made major contributions to the development of the field as well as to
F i f t y Ye a r s of O rg a n iza tio n a l B e h a v io r 35
professional associations and other universities. The “ Cornell connec would be selective in nature. We also sent them a list of questions that
tion” is the common denominator for several journal editors, chaired targeted various trends during their decade. These included: “What
professors, distinguished teaching and research award recipients, pro were the major events or trends in organizational science during this
fessional association officers, influential consultants, and academic era?” “What were the major developments in the social sciences during
administrators. Because this school has a long and distinguished his this era that influenced the evolution of our field?” “What were the po
tory in our field, we selected our four cohort representatives from the litical, social, and economic trends during this era that influenced the
ranks of former or current members of the Cornell OB community. development of our field?” “What was the relationship between re
Before we introduce our interviewees, we also must acknowledge search and practice during this era?” Our synthesis of their responses
the unique position of the ILR School as a producer of research and to these questions during our interviews (an hour or more each) is
teaching about organizational behavior. Over the past forty years or presented below, followed by an analysis of two recurring themes.
ganizational research has clearly moved from academic departments
1. What were the major events or trends in organizational science
to business schools. Institutional context makes a difference. The ILR
during this era?
School has a different mission and focus from most business schools.
Therefore, as we work through the interviews generated by Cornell Bill Whyte identified two major themes or issues during the 1950s.
people, we will be exposed to a particular view of the OB world. First, there was heated debate over the relative merits of case studies
In making our selection we tried to achieve a balance between versus large-scale, survey-type studies.
micro and macro research interests, roles while at Cornell (student
I believe that there were several very strong contributions from what
versus faculty), preferred methodologies, and so forth. In the end we
would now be called qualitative sociology, that is, case studies o f situa
asked William R Whyte, an up-and-coming faculty member at Cornell
tions in industry. But that approach was in decline—superseded by a more
during the 1950s, to represent that decade. For a perspective on the
“scientific” focus on testing hypotheses using survey data. I think we
1960s we interviewed Walter Nord, who was a student at Cornell dur
learned a great deal about what life was like in industry during that period
ing this tumultuous period of change. Jan Beyer was connected with
from ethnographic studies like Melville Dalton’s M en W ho M anage:
the ILR School during much of the ’70s, including receiving her doc
Fusions o f Feeling a n d T heory in A dm inistration ( 1959 ). These rich charac
torate in 1973, so we felt she would have a particularly rich perspective
terizations o f organizational life served as a “theoretical seedbed” sprout
on the developments in OB during that decade. To complete our panel
ing many o f the propositions that were formally tested by an emerging
we asked Steve Barley, a member of the ILR faculty, to share his views
group o f quantitative analysts.
on developments during the most recent decade. The selection of in
terview accounts by decade is, of course, very arbitrary. The develop Whyte reports that this debate took on broader significance than a
ment and diffusion of ideas is not organized in terms of these specific contrast in research style because the case study scholars tended to
time frames. As the reader moves through the interview accounts, the focus on applied issues while the large-scale research scholars tended to
spillover of ideas across these time periods will be evident. focus on basic research. Whyte'perceived the emergence of a two-tier
P rio r to o u r interview s we sen t th e fo u r p an el m e m b ers th e tab le o f status system around this cleavage (not only in the U.S. but also in other
contents fro m JA P and A S Q fo r th e ir p a rtic u la r d ecad e, as a way o f re countries, like Norway) in which applied research was downgraded.
freshing th e ir m e m o rie s reg ard in g th e to p ics an d au th ors ty p ica l o f The second major issue during this decade focused on union-man
that era. W e k n ew th eir task o f re p o rtin g re tro sp ectiv ely a b o u t the field agement relations. Some scholars were interested in improving these
36 Pau l S. G o o d m a n an d D av id A. W h e t t e n
relations (cooperation is good), while others felt that conflict was in ing this period tended to blend humanism and science together in
evitable and probably healthy. Whyte’s recollection is that the scholars ways that seemed more melted together than fitted together, mainly
who advocated conflict were identified as pro-union, while those who because it ignored the social embeddedness of individual behavior in
advocated cooperation were considered to be pro-management. organizations.”
Whyte identified several books as hallmarks of this era—distin Jan Beyer chose the emergence of computers as tools in social sci
guished by their common focus on new forms of organization and ence as the dominant development in the field, as she experienced it as
new approaches to management. He believes that the most influential a graduate student during the 1970s.
work was Eric Trist’s book Organizational Choice (1963) on socio-
The widespread availability o f computers and statistical software pack
technical systems. Much of today’s work in our field can be traced
ages enabled scholars to collect data on questions that were previously un-
back to the Tavistock research, according to Whyte. He also singled
addressable. (If you can’t possibly find an answer, why ask the question?)
out Len Sayles’s book, Behavior o f Industrial Work Groups (1958),
This development not only led to a m ethodological rom ance with quanti
which introduced a fairly radical concept, that the nature of the work
tative analysis, it also influenced the development o f organizational theo
people perform affects their militancy, cohesiveness, satisfaction, etc.
ries. For example, during this era contingency thinking becam e the
Chris Argyris’s Personality and Organizations (1957) was important in
dominant perspective, partly because com puter-based causal modeling
Whyte’s mind because it focused on another enduring theme, namely,
permitted this type o f analysis.
the merits of involvement.
Walter Nord divided the decade of the 1960s into two “eras” : The A parallel development to contingency theory was the proliferation
early emphasis was on micro research on individual/organizational of typologies. Schemes for categorizing leadership styles, organizational
relationships, as reflected in the work of scholars like Frederick types, environmental conditions, and so forth became very popular
Hertzberg, Chris Argyris, and Abraham Maslow. The second half of during this era because people were trying to bring together several di
the decade ushered in macro research on organization/environment mensions. Scholars like Richard Hall, Mike Aiken, and Jerry Hage were
relations, as exemplified by the work of James Thompson, and Paul looking for patterns in the mountains of data made available by the
Lawrence and Jay Lorsch. new technological tools. The publication of Richard Hall’s book
As a graduate student at Cornell, Nord was struck by the emer Organizational Structure and Process (1972) was a watershed event, ac
gence of OB as a teaching discipline. Courses on management and cording to Beyer, because it brought together many of these typologies
human relations were given OB titles, and business schools began hir and contingency theories in a form suitable for classroom instruction.
ing large numbers of OB scholars. According to Steve Barley, from his vantage point as a young pro
' During this period he also observed a heavy influence of “organiza fessor at Cornell, the 1980s were characterized as an era of waxing and
tional development” (OD) on the early history of this fledgling field. waning interest in various theoretical substrata in our field. He recalls
He believes that the goal of OD was to m arry humanistic values and that several topics came into prominence during this period, includ
science. He also feels that OD’s influence was moderated by its lack of ing organizational culture, interorganizational relations, network the
attention to macro (organizational) issues. “A lot of the OD work dur ory and analysis, population ecology, and technology. On the micro
side, he saw a rekindled interest in group dynamics and teamwork.
Toward the end of the decade he reports that organizational culture
seemed to lose much of its allure for organizational scholars.
F i f t y Ye a r s of O r g a n iza tio n a l B eh a v io r 37
I believe that this was due to several factors. First, culture was in some re their group process skills. Furthermore, group activities and discus
spects cast as the Am erican corporations response to the Japanese threat sions were the training medium used in ‘T-groups’ to teach these skills.”
o f econom ic global domination. Early in the ’80s many authors argued Nord also observed that the strong orientation of behaviorism in psy
that the difference between U.S. and Japanese firms was their culture. chology significantly influenced research on motivation in our field. B.
Consequently, culture becam e a code word in management and academ ic F. Skinner’s work on behavior modification loomed large in the back
circles for how to compete globally. As we discovered that more than a ground of emerging discussions about incentives, goal setting, etc.
transfusion o f “Theory Z” culture was necessary to get the jo b done in the Jan Beyer identified three major trends in the social sciences during
global marketplace, culture lost a lot o f credibility. Second, the waning in the 1970s that influenced research in our field. First, the strong empha
terest in organizational culture was partly due to its methodological in sis on quantitative methods in sociology was imported into OB via a
tractability. If you measure culture with a survey it loses its distinction as number of influential young scholars, including Howard Aldrich and
an organizational construct—the results look too much like the rest o f Marshall Meyer.
OB. On the other hand, if you measure it anthropologically then you have
The work in sociology on path analysis had a significant impact on our
a hard tim e getting tenure.
field. Path diagrams started popping up all over the place, particularly in
In general, Barley looks back on the late ’70s and ’80s as the era the m acro research. Network analysis was also highly influential. W hile
when macro scholars shifted their attention to what was happening path analysis allowed us to “see” our data differently, network analysis en
outside of organizations. They adopted more of a sociological interest abled us to “see” organizations in entirely different ways. Not only did it
in examining how organizations are molded by broader social, eco becom e clear that organizations are built out o f networks, but we also
nomic, and political forces. During this transition, contingency theory began to appreciate the im portance o f where an organization fits into a
lost its position as the dominant theoretical perspective and was re larger network o f relations. These are conceptual “ahas” that were enabled
placed by network analysis and population ecology. by new analytic tools.
2. What were the major developments in the social sciences during Second, the content of OB research was influenced by the heavy em
this era that influenced the evolution of our field? phasis on power in political science, sociology, and social psychology.
This perspective defined relationships as exchanges and transactions,
Bill Whyte believes the single most important development in the and anticipated the emergence of bargaining and negotiations as a
social sciences was the emerging interest in economics and psychol dominant paradigm in OB.
ogy in the effect of money on behavior. This carried over into our field Third, during this era Beyer noted a great deal of emphasis in psy
and spawned work on incentive systems. In contrast, Whyte recalls chology on cognitive approaches. This work was imported into OB via
very little connection with sociology during this period, which he be Karl Weick’s book The Social Psychology of Organizing (1969), which in
lieves stemmed from “a snobbish division between basic and applied troduced the concept of enacting the environment.
research, where applied work was downgraded.” During the 1980s Steve Barley observed the continued emphasis in
Nord believes that the strong emphasis on group process in psychol sociology on quantitative analysis. Like Beyer, Barley believes that the
ogy energized and legitimated much of the OD movement’s research improvements in network analysis occurring in sociology had a
and focus. “ For example, sensitivity training was ‘sold’ to managers on significant impact on OB research methods and content focus. Barley
the basis that their effectiveness was directly related to the quality of recalls that during the ’70s we didn’t have the technology to study net
works (intra- or interorganizational) very well. Then the math behind According to Bill Whyte, during the 1950s management thought
network analysis improved significantly and network studies became and practice were dominated by hubris, based on the acclaim they re
very popular. ceived from all sectors of society for their contribution to victory in
World War II.
Unfortunately, the impact of these improvements in network m ethodol
ogy was limited by the absence o f com parable theoretical developments. Our country’s success during the war blinded many managers to new ideas,
Early attempts to frame organizational-level analysis relied on resource especially those coming from academe. Our industrial sector’s postwar
dependence theory. That is, organizational transactions were examined as domination of the world market also tended to intimidate academics. I re
a system o f resource exchanges. However, this conceptualization was b et call observing workers in highly oppressive work environments which were
ter suited for examining intraorganizational relations. The failure to de justified, even by the academics studying them, because they were highly
velop a suitable theory o f interorganizational networks resulted in efficient and profitable. Because the technology was so superior to what was
network analysis being basically atheoretical, and, hence, out o f the m ain available in any other country, compromises on the “socio” side were
stream o f OB research during this time. deemed appropriate (even necessary) to prevent the erosion o f our techno
logical advantage. It is ironic that foreign companies, like Volvo, were some
Barley believes that the dominant trends in social science during the
o f the first to pick up on research in the U.S. on humanizing the workplace.
1980s were in basic conflict—suggesting a shift in paradigms.
Walter Nord characterizes the 1960s as being dominated by the be
On the one hand, there was a strong push towards formal modeling and
lief that social institutions were repressive.
quantitative sophistication, especially in sociology. This trend was
reflected in several approaches to organizational analysis that becam e To the extent that intellectuals in the U.S. have ever been radicals, those
popular during this period, including population ecology and internal were the people who were doing OD at that time. The desire to humanize
labor markets. These dynamics contrast sharply with the emergence o f a our organizations attracted many students to O D -type classes. They were
reactionary movement, namely, the rising popularity o f deconstructionist looking for solutions to social problems that they believed were the
theory. This “revolt” against the “religion o f quantitative science” gained its effluent from poorly managed organizations. Many scholars my age were
foothold in OB among scholars who had been interested in studying orga attracted to OB during this era because it provided a legitimate means for
nizational culture during the 197 OS (particularly those who had cham pi protesting inequity in organizations and for doing something about it.
oned the qualitative analysis o f culture). The prevalence o f this orientation is evident in the extensive research on
alienation during this decade.
When asked to comment on the merits of these competing per
spectives, Barley couched his reply in the context of philosophical Jan Beyer points to the emergence of “threat” during the 1970s, as
pragmatism. “We need to find a middle ground where people agree our major social institutions found it increasingly difficult to sustain
that there are phenomena out there but that they are socially con their expectations of growth and profitability. “ For example, universi
structed and interpreted.” ties began experiencing difficulty placing all their Ph.D.s and had to
start downsizing some programs. Flaving been sensitized to this trend
3. What were the political, social, and economic trends during this era
in academe, a number of OB scholars began studying organizational
that influenced the development of our field?
‘decline’ in businesses who were unprepared to shift from the eco
nomics of abundance (’70s) to the economics of scarcity (’80s).”
Beyer also points to the rise of the women’s movement as a field- 4. What was the relationship between research and practice during
altering social trend during the 1970s. “OB scholars started to realize that this era?
our research focused only on males. Further, we began to realize that it
During the 1950s Bill Whyte recalls that it was very difficult for aca
was only on white males. These realizations spawned the whole diversity
demics to make a contribution to business practice because managers
movement in OB which has influenced the content of our courses, our
felt that anyone who had not managed before couldn’t tell them any
research priorities, and the demographics of the profession.”
thing worthwhile. (He was asked more than once by line managers, *
Steve Barley points to two dominant influences during the 1980s:
“Have you ever made a payroll before?” )
the Reagan administration and the Japanese invasion.
At first, Whyte thought that the lack of application of academic ideas
The impact o f the Reagan era can be observed in their conservative ap was due to poor communication, but experience changed his mind. “I
proach to antitrust laws, which opened up a new set of interorganizational felt that if we could just communicate our ideas better, then they would
relationships that were previously illegal. This newfound opportunity to be received with greater enthusiasm. But experimenting with the mode
engage in a broader range o f interorganizational relations was coupled with or method of presentation didn’t seem to alter the outcome. Grudg
the motivation to search for new business practices in the face of height ingly, I came to the conclusion that managers simply didn’t think that
ened global competition, especially from the Japanese. The impact o f these we had the answers they were looking for.” However, Whyte recalled
trends on the evolution of our field can be seen in the emergence of “strate one notable exception to this trend. “One positive impact came in the
gic management.” As new forms of interorganizational relations became area of training. Based on the work by Kurt Lewin and others, many
both econom ically advantageous and legally viable, business strategy b e managers recognized that if they wanted to change their workers’ be
came a dominant theme in organizations as well as in academe. Scholars re haviors they couldn’t simply give them a lecture and expect immediate
tooled and refocused; old theories were adapted to new settings; new compliance. Instead, they needed to get their people involved in some
societies, journals, and graduate programs popped up overnight. type of social process that resulted in changed attitudes.”
According to Walt Nord, the 1960s were a period of pronounced
Barley also noted the impact of the shifting demographics in our so
tension between organizational development “change agents” and or
ciety. However, he believes the effects of this trend have not been fully
ganizational behavior “scholars.” As a result, collaboration between re
reflected in our teaching and research. He made two observations:
search and practice suffered.
First, we are doing a better jo b o f teaching diversity than we are o f study
The notion of making organizations more humane through an arduous
ing it. Second, I believe that we are currently only seeing the tip o f the ice
process of human growth, that also improved the organization’s success, was
berg. That is, the ongoing changes in demographics (e.g., the breakup of
very appealing to the OD people. But, overall, OD was certainly not main
the nuclear family) will continue to intensify pressure for organizational
stream. While on the one hand they benefited from the legitimacy o f being
changes, which will in turn have a dramatic im pact on what we study and
scientists, they were basically anti-science, in the sense that they saw the in
teach into the next century. W hile organizations have already been forced
stitution of science as part of a larger problem of social oppression. I recall a
to make some accom m odations to the shifting characteristics o f their
particularly controversial article by Warren Bennis in which he proposed the
labor pool, I foresee even greater changes in things like employee benefits,
counterargument: the values of science are good for organizations.
the nature o f work, and the definition o f good performance.
40 Pau l S. G o o d m a n an d D a v id A. W h e t t e n
Nord observed that the tension between research and practice dur Steve Barley’s response to this question extended the theme intro
ing this era was reflected in Alvin Gouldner’s argument that behav duced by Beyer: “ The influence of practice on academics has been
ioral science provides managers with a rationale for believing that greater than the reverse. For example, the study of culture was largely
they can be powerful and good at the same time. precipitated by practical concerns in the marketplace. Furthermore,
how we conceptualized and measured culture was driven by practical
Much o f our research legitimates “soft control” through organizational
considerations. In contrast, it is not at all clear that our research has
values, norm s, and mores. It substitutes unobtrusive for obtrusive power,
substantially altered organizational practice in this area.”
which is less likely to be abused because you are less aware o f how much
When asked what obstacles he saw to research impacting practice,
control you can exert. However, I hasten to point out that the motivation
Barley replied,
behind soft control is still to maintain the current distribution o f power.
I’ve always wanted a system where people exercise self-control, where they The m ajor problem is that the world o f theory and the world o f practice
have conscious control over their outcom es, rather than being controlled don’t often coincide. The elites in our discipline are theory-driven. They
by their own creations. denigrate applied work because it is atheoretical. Similarly, those who are
more applied disdain the work o f theorists as impractical and irrelevant.
Beyer believes that changes in the fortunes of business during the
The problem is that we don’t have a systematic means for helping those en
1970s sent managers scurrying for new ideas. She recalls that several
gaged in practice becom e more analytical and those who have their head
scholars developed quite a following (e.g., Warren Bennis and Chris
in the clouds o f theory becom e more practical. This is a m ajor disconnect
Argyris).
in our field that prevents us from having a substantial im pact on practice.
This was an era when organizations were starting to get banged up by the
effects o f oil embargoes, global com petition, and shifting demographics, Analyzing Journal Articles as Artifacts of O u r History
and they were casting about for help. I later edited a special issue o f ASQ
on the application o f scientific knowledge, and what I observed is that To complement these in-depth, highly personal reflections on the his
findings from organizational science don’t get adopted wholesale, in tory of our field, we elected to examine the evolution of intellectual
prepackaged chunks. Instead, our ideas, languages, and frameworks thought in OB over a fifty-year period as reflected in the content of our
tended to seep into the popular literature as practitioners were looking for academic journals. In particular, we wanted to see if there were any in
som ething new, or for legitimacy. teresting trends in what was studied, who was studied, how studies were
conducted, and who reported the studies. We limited our investigation
Beyer made an important point that the link between research and
to two journals—Journal of Applied Psychology and Administrative
practice is bi-directional. In particular, she offered several examples
Science Quarterly. We selected these two journals because they are well
where changes in practice precipitated changes in research (e.g., de
regarded, span the fifty-year time frame, and reflect the micro (JAP)
cline and quality). “ The fact that many scholars during this period
and macro (ASQ) orientations that have dominated the field. It is clear
were saying that change was good also reflected the fact that organiza
there are other possible journals reflecting research or practice perspec
tions were being forced to change or die. And we need to keep in mind
tives, but to make our task manageable, we focused on these two.
that the whole field of information systems grew out of the wide
For each year we randomly selected one issue. The issue was coded
spread use of computers in business during the ’70s.
for twelve variables (the coding system is available from the authors).
F i f t y Ye a r s of O rg a n iza tio n a l B eh av ior 41
Table 1. Characteristics of Authors
Table la . Number o f Authors Table 7c. Num ber o f Non-university Authors

JAP ASQ JAP ASQ
Period No. No. per article No. No. per article Period No. No. per article No. No. per article
1950s 243 1.6 25 1.2 1950s 65 0.4 3 0.1
1960s 269 1.7 83 1.5 1960s 82 0.5 2 0.0
1970s 274 2.0 135 1.6 1970s 60 0.4 8 0.1
1980s 429 2.4 109 1.7 1980s 49 0.3 32 0.5
1990s 149 2.7 38 1.8 1990s 23 0.4 3 0.1
Table lb. Number o f Fem ale Authors Table Id. Num ber o f Non-U.S. Authors
JAP ASQ JAP ASQ
Period No. No. per article No. No. per article Period No. No. per article No. No. per article
1950s 15 0.1 2 0.1 1950s 4 0.0 4 0.2
1960s 19 0.1 2 0.0 1960s 14 0.1 13 0.2
1970s 27 0.2 14 0.2 1970s 18 0.1 28 0.3
1980s 86 0.5 26 0.4 1980s 49 0.3 14 0.2
1990s 28 0.5 14 0.7 1990s 18 0.3 7 0.3
The total number of articles coded for JA P is 546 (1950-1993) and 202 ture developments in our field. Also, this analysis complements our
for ASQ (1956-1993). interviews. An interesting task for the reader is to examine trends
Journals are dynamic entities. So over this fifty-year period, there identified by both forms of media techniques.
are changes in the number of issues per year, size of issue, editors, and The findings are organized by the characteristics of the authors and
so on. We will reflect these changes as we look at the following tables. papers we published, whom we study, how we do our work—the
The reader should note our motivation for this adventure in cod methods, and what we study.
ing. We wanted to look at the field through what people published.
Articles represent a major part of what we do. Our selection of the Characteristics of Authors
journals and the coding procedures was both purposeful and arbi Table 1 (above) provides one way to characterize the authors. In all ta
trary. There are no statistical claims for how we sampled and coded bles we present data by journals and decades. It appears (Table la)
from this population of research, but the procedures seem reasonable that the number of authors per paper is increasing over time, with
and comprehensive. We thought this was one interesting way to cap more authors per article in JAP. This increase in authors probably
42 Paul S. G o o d m a n an d D a v id A. W h e t t e n
are university based. The relatively greater proportion of non-univer

Table 2. Characteristics of Articles
sity authors in JA P reflects the consulting, private corporations, and
Table 2a. Num ber o f Pages
private practice constituencies of this journal and, in general, the in
JAP ASQ dustrial organizational psychology field.
Period No. No. per article No. No. per article
While scientific activities are international in scope, there are rela
1950s 643 4.1 555 26.4 tively few non-U.S. authors publishing their papers in these journals
1960s 844 5.2 1,175 21.0 (Table Id). This is partly explained by the growth of high-quality
1970s 919 6.7 1,305 15.5 journals in other parts of the world. On the other hand, one might ex
pect to see more international collaboration. If organizations, particu
1980s* 1,494 8.3 1,302 20.3
larly in the last three decades, are operating in a more global economy,
1990s 509 9.1 540 25.7
why do we not see some trend toward more collaborative research
across national boundaries? That is, granted the existence of high-
Table 2b. Number o f References
quality journals in many countries, we still might expect to see some
JAP ASQ increase in collaborative research across boundaries, but we do not.
Period No. No. per article No. No. per article
1950s 1,133 7.31 304 14.48 Characteristics of the Papers

1960s 1,323 8.22 1,270 22.68 We looked at two other characteristics of the papers being produced—
1970s 2,043 14.80 3,003 35.75 the number of pages in the article and the number of references. In
JA P, the more micro journal, there is a steady increase in pages per
1980s 5,126 28.48 3,240 50.63
article. In 1986 page size increased by 50 percent, so the unadjusted
1990s 2,283 40.77 1,284 61.14 figures in Table 2 a (above, left) are understated. The increase in pages
in JA P reflects to some extent the growing complexity of the problems
*The page size in JAP increased in 1986 by approximately 50%. Not adjusted above.
and of the empirical work from this perspective. While there is some
variability in the number of pages in ASQ, the average article seems to
reflects the increasing complexities in doing empirical research. It also be twenty-plus pages, there are no noticeable trends, and the articles
may reflect increasing numbers of faculty in a given university group, are always longer than those in JAP. The latter finding probably reflects
greater norms for cooperative work, and greater demands over time the larger theory sections found in ASQ.
for publications for promotion reviews. The number of references increases over time for both journals.
Table lb suggests there is an increase in female authors over this This trend may be one indicator of a growing body of research that
time period. This increase is consistent with the changes in the num researchers can draw from. That is, there is a greater history of publi
ber of females entering the field, particularly since the mid-1970s. It cations in the field. In addition, the organization area has been defined
nicely complements observations from our interviews. as a low-consensus field (Pfeffer and Moore, 1980). That means there
We asked whether the authors came from a university or non-uni is no convergence on accepted theory and methods. Therefore, if the
versity setting (Table lc). There do not appear to be any consistent amount of research increases, we might expect greater citations of dif
trends about non-university authors over time. Most of the authors ferent research. There also may be a greater propensity to cite refer-
F i f t y Ye a r s of O r g a n iza tio n a l B eh av ior 43
Table 3. Type of Subjects Used (%)
JAP ASQ
'50s '60s 70s '80s '90s* '50sf '60s 70s '80s '90s*
1) Production workers 8 6 10 7 8 27 0 11 12 6
2) Clerical workers 6 3 3 5 2 0 10 7 3 6 .
3) Supervisors 6 5 1 1 2 7 1 0 3 0
4) Salespeople 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 4 3 0
5) Military 13 13 5 3 12 7 5 5 0 0
6) Professionals 8 17 12 17 6 20 37 22 21 19
7) Managers/CEOs 1 8 8 11 4 32 20 24 40 19
8) Students 39 27 37 36 35 0 5 4 5 12
9) General sample* 17 18 24 17 31 7 22 23 13 38
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
*Only four issues were analyzed for the 1990s. "MSQ began in 1956, so we have coded only a few issues for the 1950s. ^Subjects drawn from the general population, not from a specific firm or job.
ences. This propensity could be stimulated by journal reviewers and (Katzell and Austin, 1992) in industrial psychology of examining
citation indexes. The greater use of references by ASQ may be related recruitment, selection, and training issues in this sector. The large
to the broader set of disciplines tied to more macro organizational re number in the “students” category reflects the large number of
search, such as sociology, history, economics, political science, and so experiments conducted with students as subjects that are published in
on. JA P draws primarily from psychology. this journal. “General sample” means the researcher selects subjects
We acknowledge there are other explanations for the increases in from the sample at large rather than focusing on a particular company
the number of references. Also, the metric of number of references or organization. JA P articles frequently draw on this general sample
may mask the emergence of seminal articles. However, our orientation category. In ASQ, most of the subjects seem to be drawn from the pro
is to provide an overview of the field via coding articles versus doing duction worker, professional, manager, or general sample categories.
an in-depth study on one dimension. We hope the data will stimulate For both journals there is a substantial increase in the percentage of
you to think about the antecedents and consequences of this finding. subjects in the general sample category over time.
Table 4 provides another way to look at this topic. Here, the object
Whom Do We Study? is the type of organization versus the type of subject. For JA P, we in
Table 3 (above) provides a picture of the types of subjects studied. cluded “students” as a category because it is a large group, and we
What kinds of people are the objects of our research? In JA P the selec wanted to distinguish it from the “education” category, which deals
tion of people in the military seems consistent with a long tradition with studies of people in educational institutions. The student cate-
44 Paul S. G o o d m a n an d D a v id A. W h e t t e n
Table 4. Type of Organization Studied (%)
JAP ASQ
'50s '60s 70s '80s '90s '50s '60s 70s '80s '90s
1) Manufacturing 19 30 14 14 14 25 13 13 19 18
2) Service 8 5 9 9 14 6 13 22 15 40
3) Military 15 15 7 3 14 6 6 3 4 0
4) Education 21 13 8 11 8 6 28 7 19 0
5) Health care 4 2 1 6 3 25 4 13 15 12
6) Students 23 18 40 32 38 0 0 3 0 12
7) Government 2 5 6 4 2 19 13 17 6 0
8) Mixed sample 8 12 15 21 7 13 23 22 22 18
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
gory represents people in universities and colleges who participate in How We Do Our Work
studies not related to the educational institutions, and is the dominant In Table 5, we examine how this research work is being done. Table 5 is
category over time for this journal. In ASQ, there is a lot of variability about design focus. We used a broad set of categories to reflect the di
in many of the categories (e.g., manufacturing, education). versity in approaches. For JAP, the major designs are correlational and
What can we learn from these two tables? First, there seems to be experimental. For ASQ, the frequency of correlational studies in
some selective sampling. Students represent a major source of subjects creases over time as the frequency of qualitative studies decreases.
for authors submitting to JAP, and professionals and managers domi There is no real presence of experimental work in this journal. We in
nate for papers published in ASQ. Second, there does not seem to be a troduced the category of “methods” because we wanted to segment
major sampling from hourly production workers, clerical workers, or studies designed to develop and test methods rather than to test sub
salespeople as suggested in our interviews. There is, in Table 3, some stantive questions. As one might expect, methods-type studies appear
emphasis on manufacturing organizations, but the sample may be with fairly consistent frequency in JAP. Research focused on theory
more of professionals and managers than hourly workers. Third, there development seems more common in ASQ than JAP.
seems to be a movement in ASQ papers to the service sector, but this Many of the differences in this table reflect differences in the micro
is not reflected in JA P papers. and macro perspectives and some differences between the journals.
The underlying questions that we will address later are: Should se For example, the use of experimental designs is part of the basic train
lection of research subjects and organizations reflect changes or ing of industrial and organizational psychologists. The focus on
trends in the external environment or in the economy? How selective method studies in JA P versus ASQ reflects a long history of develop
is our sampling strategy? Some have argued there is a strong manage ment of tests and appraisal issues that are part of the work of indus
rial bias in our research. Should it be more heterogeneous? trial psychologists.
Table 5. Design Focus [% )
JAP ASQ
'50s '60s 70s '80s '90s '50s '60s 70s '80s '90s
1) Correlational 29 43 39 31 35 14 43 69 63 76
2) Experimental 32 36 42 35 36 5 0 2 2 5 .
3) Methods 30 16 10 24 16 5 2 1 0 0
4) Qualitative 1 1 1 0 2 47 30 9 15 5
5) Multiple foci 6 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
6) Review 0 1 1 1 0 0 7 4 3 0
7) Meta-analysis 0 0 4 6 7 0 2 1 3 0
8) Theory 2 2 1 1 2 29 16 14 14 14
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
The decrease of qualitative studies in ASQ and the increase in cor We did some further analyses of how OB researchers did their
relation studies probably reflects the greater perceived legitimation of work. We wanted to focus more on trends rather than picking up dif
quantitative studies. Most industrial or organizational psychologists ferences between the micro and macro perspectives or in the journals.
would tend toward more quantitative studies, and if they did any For example, in the organizational field, there have been many calls
qualitative studies, would not look to JA P for an outlet. The absence of for more longitudinal research. What did we find?
theory-based studies in JA P does not mean that theory development In terms of the longitudinal question, we recoded the data into lon
is unimportant in micro organizational behavior, but rather that one gitudinal, cross-sectional, experimental, and nonempirical. In JA P
would not tend to submit these papers to JAP. The reemergence of there was no real increase in studies using some type of longitudinal
more qualitative studies as suggested by our interviews may be cor design, but in ASQ there was an increase.
rect. We need to explore other journals in the field or wait for more We also explored the level of analysis being used in studies. That is,
observations to ascertain whether this reemergence of qualitative are the independent or dependent variables primarily at individual,
studies can be documented. role, group, unit, organizational, population of organizations, or envi
In conclusion, there are interesting differences in Table 5, but these ronmental levels? (Each article could have up to three codes for differ
are attributable mostly to the differences in the micro and macro per ent levels of analysis. Multiple codes were likely for the independent
spectives and to the differences in the journals. The major trend exhib but not for the dependent variables.)
ited in ASQ was the movement to more quantitative studies. The general For independent variables, the individual and organizational levels
trend in the field to more quantitative studies appears throughout our are the most frequent categories for both journals. In terms of trends,
interviews. The tension between quantitative and qualitative studies also there is an increase in the frequency of organizational-level variables
is captured in the interviews, but not in these descriptive tables. over the fifty-year time frame for JAP, and an increase in environmental
variables for ASQ researchers. For the dependent variables, the individ
Table 6. Five Most Frequently Coded Topic Areas
ual level is the dominant variable in JAP, while individual and organiza
JAP ASQ
tional levels appear in equal frequency for ASQ papers.
There are two other observations from this analysis. First, we ex Performance Performance
pected to see a greater number of group-level studies. While there is a Work attitudes Work attitudes
lot of interest in groups (Goodman et al., 1987; Hackman, 1991), there Organizational processes Structure
did not seem to be an increase in the empirical studies. Second, there
Perceptual/ergonomics Leadership, power, control
have been increasing arguments (Goodman et al., 1994) for multilevel
Methods Interorganizational/environment
studies. Our analysis indicates there is an increasing number of stud
ies incorporating at least two levels of analysis in their independent
variables across both journals. titudes and performance. The interorganizational/environment cate
In a review of the OB field, O’Reilly (1991) argues there is a shift gory appears more in the 1970s through 1990s.
from micro to more macro or organizational-level topics. In our ex What might be more interesting is what is absent from this table,
amination of levels of analysis, there seems to be a consistent interest particularly over the 1980s and early 1990s. Many of the traditional top
in both individual and organizational levels of analysis over the fifty- ics such as withdrawal, stress, and motivation do not appear. Also, cur
year period for both the micro and macro journals. Also, as reported rent issues in organizational life such as quality, impacts of information
above, there is more use of multiple levels of analysis. There is no evi technology, customer-firm relationships, and so on do not appear.
dence of a shift from micro to macro topics.
Our last table examines the topics people studied. One challenge Exploring the Future
was to set up an appropriate coding system. We looked at many review
publications in the field ( e . g Annual Review o f Psychology) to get Any exploration into the future of OB is guided by some underlying
some guidance on categories. Our initial scheme had thirty categories, assumptions of the field. These assumptions identify, to a great extent,
including absenteeism, stress, role conflict, decision making, traffic re the possible ways to navigate the future. These navigation paths are
search, technology structure, and so on. Given the large number of not likely to change in the short or mid term.
low-frequency events, we collapsed categories across some common We view OB as a field of inquiry characterized by tremendous di
dimensions. So instead of having separate categories for individual, versity. Diversity comes in the form of many disciplinary perspectives
group, and organizational performance, we elected to have one cate (e.g., psychology, sociology, economics, political science) aimed at un
gory-perform ance. Table 6 reflects the five most frequently selected derstanding organizations. The diversity comes in the form of differ
topics. (Each article can be coded for up to three topic areas.) ent theories and methods. There are no commonly accepted theories
We have already discussed the methods emphasis that appears in or methods. There is no likely convergence in this field now or in the
JAP. Performance and work attitudes seem to be persistent topics future. As we look ahead, over the next decade, diversity in theory,
through the fifty-year time period. JA P also shows a clear focus on or methods, and pathways for research and teaching should continue to
ganizational processes (e.g., communication), as well as studies in the characterize OB.
perceptual and ergonomics areas. In ASQ we see structure and leader The field of OB is also applied. Much of the research we do either
ship, power, and control as frequently coded areas, as well as work at- explicitly or implicitly deals with how to improve the effectiveness of
individuals, groups, or organizations. Much of our teaching concerns We begin our explorations of the future, then, with some givens:
presenting concepts and tools to improve how people behave or oper
■ a field with tremendous diversity and little consensus on theory,
ate in organizations. The major exodus of organizational studies from
methods, or interest areas;
disciplinary departments to business schools has only accentuated
that focus. ■ strong external and institutional forces that shape much of what
One of the consequences of characterizing OB as an applied field is we do, and that create both opportunities and stabilities;
that external forces have determined and will determine many areas ■ a reactive versus a proactive orientation;
of inquiry. Some of the principal forces come from changes in eco ■ an emphasis on the applied versus theory.
nomic, political, technological, and demographic arenas. These forces
determine what we do and what pathways we follow. In many ways, With these givens providing the initial outlines of our chart of the
the field is reactive to these forces. Changes in economic conditions or future of OB, we focused our attention on young researchers. What are
the emergence of new technology stimulate how we structure our some of the dilemmas or tensions confronting them as their careers in
work to understand organizational functions. On one hand, these OB evolve over the next ten to twenty years? To what extent will the
changing forces provide new opportunities to understand organiza dilemmas and tensions identified earlier in this chapter confront OB
tions. On the other hand, these forces also account for fads and cycli researchers in the future? To what extent will they be different? Our
cal interest in certain areas (Katzell and Austin, 1992). goal is to highlight the dilemmas and provide some new elaborations
Another set of assumptions or constraints in our chart of the future of options. We choose not to define prescriptive paths.
is the existence of strong institutional forces. What organizations we The first set of dilemmas deals with who collaborates on research.
study and how we study them are, in part, determined by funding Then we turn to how we do our research. The third set of dilemmas
sources and accessibility to organizations. For example, as the govern deals with broader research strategy issues.
ment and industry become more interested in learning about quality,
Intra- versus Interdisciplinary Research
more funds and accessibility to companies will be available, and thus,
more research and teaching about this concept will result. Similarly, as From both our interviews and our analysis of the two journals, it ap
federal and state budget crises become more frequent and companies pears that we do our work primarily with people in our own disciplines.
continue to focus on cost reduction, funding and accessibility become Psychologists, sociologists, and organizational behavior researchers
more difficult. work on problems of interest to them. So what is the dilemma? Organ
What organizations we study and how are also determined by the izations are going through major changes. Many of the functional
journals. While there has been an increase in the number of journals boundaries that existed within organizations ten and fifteen years ago
in the field, the editorial positions will shape the direction of the field. are vanishing. New forms of external relationships in the forms of con
The selection of research problems by young researchers will clearly sortiums, joint ventures, and strategic alliances among organizations
reflect perceptions of what will be acceptable to the journals. and their suppliers and customers are in place. Many of the organiza
How we study organizations is also, in part, determined by the or tional processes of designing and coordinating are changing. The
ganizations that provide us a place to work. The forces shaping these dilemma is whether we can understand these changes from the lens of a
organizations (e.g., universities and industrial research groups) shape single discipline or perspective. Another way to state this is: how can we
our work.
effectively think about the boundaryless organization when we operate ment. They are interested in how our knowledge about selection,
out of a specific disciplinary perspective? groups, or organizational decline generalizes to these settings. Our
One option in regard to this dilemma may be to move toward student body is becoming more international. They are interested in
cross-functional research teams. The most obvious candidates are how our models of motivation, withdrawal, or organizational design
people in marketing, production, information systems, and account bear on their lives when they return to their country of origin.
ing. For example, there has been increasing interest in understanding One option, which parallels our discussion of the interdisciplinary
more about interorganizational relationships (e.g., between customer dilemma, is to create or join a research team with international part
and firm). In marketing, a group of psychologists (e.g., Anderson and ners. One type of team might focus on traditional problem areas in a
Narus, 1990) has been trying to examine customer-firm relationships U.S. context, but the existence of international partners may provide
more from a marketing than an organizational perspective. This could some new insights into the research process. Or the research team
be a point of collaboration. may take an existing problem and methodology that have been exam
Another option is to think more broadly, and consider collaborative ined in the U.S., and apply them to different international settings.
work with disciplines versus functional areas. Weick (1992) indicates The basic challenge facing the OB researcher is resolving the rela
we should expand our horizons to history, ethics, philosophy, and tive insularity of our field with the growing forces of globalization.
other such disciplines. Historians, for example, could provide a whole The call is not for doing cross-cultural research. Rather, it is to
new perspective in thinking about what time means in an organiza broaden our concept of organizational contexts by viewing our mod
tional context (Hounshell, 1984). This disciplinary focus would com els and findings with the lens of international research partners or in
plement the way economic theory has begun to influence this field. the actual setting of international work. (See work by Brett and her as
This argument for considering interdisciplinary options is made, sociates [1996] for an example of this approach.)
in part, because of the changing nature of organizational boundaries.
However, it is also based on the belief that it will create different Individual versus Collective Platforms for Research
lenses to look at the field and, hopefully, some new concepts, para Traditionally, research has been an individual activity. The researcher
digms, and methods. selects a problem, creates a methodology, analyzes data, and reports
findings. In our review of journals, we see growing numbers of au
U.S. versus International Focus thors per paper. While this finding indicates that groups of people are
From our interviews and our analysis of the journals, it seems our re working together, we would still label this “individual work.” That is,
search focuses very much on U.S. issues. Our problems and data draw the work is being done by individuals with some division of labor.
primarily from U.S. organizations. This is not surprising given the After the work is done, the group typically dissolves, and there tends
large research infrastructure for OB in the U.S. It is clear there are not to be any institutional structure surrounding these groups.
many networks and conferences providing continual professional in A scan of our field and other sciences shows new forms of collec
teractions on an international basis. There also is a field of interna tive structures to do research. In OB there has been a growth in re
tional management. But from our analyses of the two journals there search centers. These institutions reflect new ways to fund work and
does not seem to be much organizational research that is done with or provide access to organizations. There have been consortiums of indi
deals with international partners. The dilemma comes to life because viduals in different universities conducting research on focused is
the organizations we study now operate in an international environ sues. There is a new partnership between industry and the National
F i f t y Ye a r s of O rgan iza tion al B ehavior 49
Science Foundation on quality that will alter the traditional form of nals, there seemed to be some acknowledgment of the importance of
decentralized, individual-based research. In computer science, we see multilevel research.
electronic communities focused on the development of certain com The dilemma confronting the researcher is the choice among levels.
puter architecture. In other sciences, electronic communities of dis The dilemma is heightened by the fact that there are strong forces and
tributed researchers are organized around centralized databases. counterforces that affect the choice of levels. The increasing complex
The dilemma is that the emergence of these platforms represents a ity of organizational forms and processes calls for a multilevel per- .
choice for the organizational researcher. Participation in these collec spective. The growing inability in our empirical research to explain in
tive ventures provides resources and access, motivating people to join. significant ways many organizational functions suggests the need to
But participation also brings costs of coordination and pressures for move toward a multilevel perspective. On the other hand, there are
group versus individual products. counterforces to this position. Much of our doctoral training legiti
We think these collective structures will be a persistent dimension mates micro or macro perspectives. Our methodological training
of our research environment in the future. The young researcher work focuses on particular levels. Also, the lack of theoretical and
clearly has the option not to join. By joining on a limited basis one methodological developments in integrating multiple levels hinders
could explore the benefits and costs of this type of research relation movement in this area.
ship. Another option is to think about actively creating these collec We think there are two interesting options in the near term. First,
tive platforms for research. Let us illustrate the importance of this we can explore multiple independent variables in a variety of ways.
third option in the light of research on groups. While there have been One way is to conduct a prim ary individual-level study in different
important developments in research on groups in organizations, there organizational contexts. The basic theory and design of the study re
have been few studies that have looked at large samples of groups in main intact. The multilevel question is how context will change the re
different contexts and groups over time. These are important issues sults. A more adventuresome (and riskier) approach is to build the
for advancing group research and practice. One strategy that relies on theory and methods around different levels of analysis as they bear on
a collective platform is to create a community of group researchers understanding organizational processes. Our view is that there is a
who can build some common databases with different longitudinal recognition and legitimation for these types of studies. This recogni
perspectives. This community can be a mechanism for intellectual ex tion was not as clear ten years ago.
change, access, sharing of data, and acquisition of funds. Another option, which has not been well explored, is understand
We now move to dilemmas surrounding how we do our work. ing multiple levels from a dependent variable point of view. Most of
our research, whether on individuals, groups, or organizations, makes
Micro versus Macro assumptions about other levels o f analysis. If we design ways to im
A major theme in our interviews was the initial dominance of micro- prove group performance, we assume it affects organizational perfor
level work in the ’50s and ’6os and the emergence of macro studies in mance. If we introduce training to increase individual performance, it
the ’8os and ’90s. In the past five years, there has been interest both in is assumed to increase organizational performance. If we downsize an
terms of writing and of professional institutions in meso-level re organization to increase organizational performance, we assume it
search. Meso research focuses on integration across levels to better will impact on individual performance. The interesting challenge is
understand organizational processes. In our analysis of the two jour that we know little about the linkages between different levels of
analysis. As we think of the future of OB, one option is to begin ex
ploring adjacent levels of analysis. That means if we study groups in pret the findings. Some of our work focuses on important organiza
organizations, we should begin tracing the linkages between changes tion units such as groups. The studies are well done in terms of the
in groups and organizational performance. We use the word “trace” ory, methods, and results, but there is often very little description of
with the following intention. Let’s begin to collect some qualitative what groups do. It is not enough to know whether heterogeneity af
and quantitative data about linkages right now. This will inform us fects group performance. If we were more careful about describing
about new theories and methods. In time, one could design a study to what the groups do, we would have more insights on how groups per
systematically trace multiple linkages over time. (See Harris, 1994, for form. These two examples call for better qualitative descriptions of
some developments on this issue.) the organizational context and of the unit under investigation. Our as
sumption is that better qualitative descriptions and better linkage be
Quantitative/Qualitative tween descriptions and findings will improve the quality of our work.
A major theme in our interviews was a reaction to the movement to Another level of integration is building one’s research on quantita
ward more quantitative research. With the advent of more sophisti tive and qualitative methodologies. This is not simply another sugges
cated computers and analytic techniques, there have been movements tion for multiple methods to demonstrate convergent and discriminant
toward greater levels of quantification from both the micro and macro validity. Rather, it is a call for finding points where there is some unique
perspectives. There is no reason to believe this tendency will diminish. leverage in combining quantitative and qualitative techniques.
At the same time, there is leadership in qualitative studies about orga The following example might clarify this point of finding leverage
nizations. There are places one can be trained in primarily qualitative in linking qualitative methods to existing quantitative studies. There
approaches to organizational studies, and many places provide train is an emerging interest among OB researchers in studying customer-
ing in qualitative methods. While there are journals that select primar firm relationships (Schneider and Bowen, 1985). Most of the studies
ily quantitative studies, there are others accepting qualitative work. use survey instruments to study attitudes and beliefs of employees
So where is the dilemma? The tension or dilemma is not about and their customers. In most cases, the researchers select or build sur
whether one should do quantitative or qualitative work or what is the vey instruments that exhibit the appropriate psychometric character
appropriate emphasis on qualitative versus quantitative studies. We istics, and they have presented some interesting findings. However,
see the dilemma more as how to integrate quantitative and qualitative one question is, what do these survey instruments measure? What do
work. The dilemma rests in the time, methodological skills, and intel customers mean when they report they are “satisfied” with service?
lectual ability to formulate integrated qualitative and quantitative ap When customers from the same organization or from different orga
proaches to organizational studies. nizations report they are “satisfied,” are the meanings the same? Did
We can illustrate this dilemma by pointing to some problems and they arrive at their judgments the same way? Our point is not to cri
opportunities. We do quantitative studies on a variety of organiza tique survey instruments. Rather, it is to argue that organizational re
tional issues but never explain the organizational context. A theory, search in this area is relatively new, and we might enhance our
methods, and results are presented, but there is little intellectual work understanding of customer-firm relationships by adding qualitative
on the nature of the context and how it might help us to better inter measures and data to the research process. Interviews about how cus
tomers evaluate the firm or observations of firm-customer transac
tions should supplement the quantitative analysis. (See Schneider et
al., 1992, for an example of this approach.)
Traditional versus Nontraditional Subjects ing data from nonmanagers is to validate managerial perceptions (to
Both our review of published journal articles and our interviews high what extent do the perceptions of other groups agree with the “ac
lighted the significance of our choices regarding whom we study. The cepted” perceptions of managers?) and/or to inform managerial action
distinction between traditional versus nontraditional subjects reflects (what do other stakeholders think managers should do?).
different choices in different contexts. For example, in JAP, it involved These observations highlight the interdependence among our im
students participating in lab studies, whereas in ASQ it involved man plicit theories, our sampling criteria, our assumed point of reference,
agerial/professional versus non-managerial/professional subjects. and our research conclusions. Explicitly recognizing the interdepen-'
The significance of these choices was evident in our interviews. Jan dence of these elements of the research process opens up new possi
Beyer, Bill Whyte, and Steve Barley all expressed concerns about the bilities for combining them. In particular, challenging our traditional
effect that whom we study has on what we learn. Beyer and Whyte views about whom we should study suggests a number of promising
both noted a preoccupation with examining organizational issues and new lines of investigation.
problems from the perspective of managers. Because personal inter There is a growing awareness in our field that much of our extant
ests and role responsibilities vary considerably across levels and units knowledge reflects the perspectives and experiences of a relatively
in any organization, approaching the study of organizations from a small proportion of today’s highly diverse population, namely, white,
single perspective severely restricts our “range of understanding,” in middle-aged, successful males. Just as there has been a concerted ef
two ways: attention bias (restriction in the range of activities or issues fort in the international management arena to test the validity of our
that are selected for investigation) and interpretation bias (restriction taken-for-granted knowledge by examining it in the context of non-
in the range of explanations used in the investigation). American populations, there is an analogous need to explore these
Barley expressed a related concern: “We know almost nothing about limitations within an increasingly diverse single-culture population.
the changing nature of work. Our models of organizations are geared to While it has been fairly common practice to examine an organiza
our understanding of factory work and workers. In this era that is about tional outcome (e.g., effectiveness) from the perspective of multiple
as irrelevant as rooting our theories in the experiences of farmers.” For internal and external constituencies, our research, by and large, treats
Barley, then, the salient choice is not between studying students versus each constituency (e.g., employees, managers, stockholders, regula
nonstudents, or between studying managers versus nonmanagers, but tors, customers) as a homogeneous group of individuals. Seldom is
between studying traditional versus contemporary work(ers). this within-group homogeneity assumption explicitly challenged in
Although our journal publication data indicate that researchers have multiple- or even single-constituency studies.
been studying more than managers and factory workers, our intervie In earlier eras it may have been defensible to assume that individual
wees’ point is that we are studying employees (and other nonmanage differences within organizational positions were inconsequential (be
ment groups) from the perspective of managers, and that we are cause there was so little variance in relevant personal demographics).
bringing to our study of nonfactory workers an implicit model of fac Today, it is no longer permissible to assume that the only relevant
tory work. For example, even when we collect data from multiple con sampling parameters are organizationally defined groupings (e.g., lev
stituents, or stakeholders, we typically limit the focus of our questions els x units). With the rapid increase in the diversity of individuals oc
to topics that managers have identified as important. Furthermore, our cupying nearly all organizational positions, we no longer can assume
framing of the topic generally reflects the interests of managers (e.g., that individual differences in our samples are random error. Our orga
the “management” of diversity). In this context, the purpose of collect nizational research designs need to more fully reflect our awareness
52 Pau l S. G o o d m a n an d D av id A. W h e t t e n
that not only do different types of individuals have different perspec In his interview, Walter Nord introduced a related concern about th(
tives on common issues (e.g., equity), they also don’t share issues in dominant insider’s view reflected in our organizational research. He
common. Some of the most contentious discussions in organizations pointed out that we rarely frame our studies from the perspective of
today reflect different age, class, gender, race, and occupational true outsiders, such as taxpayers, neighbors, community leaders, regu
interests (e.g., “family-friendly” benefits, retirement program funding lators, stockholders, or customers. He also echoed the need to examine
deficits). This suggests that, while avoiding the tendency to stereo the inside/outside role interdependence of members—observing that
type, we need to develop a more systematic profile of the priorities we tend to forget that “producers are also consumers.” Commenting on
and concerns of different types of workers, as well as the same type of this dualism, he made the following provocative observation.
workers doing different types of work.
We need to go beyond examining the way people make a living and focus
Challenging the Weberian dictum that organizational members
on the nature o f their living. That is, we should focus on consum ption as
should be viewed as “position holders” rather than as “whole individu
well as on production as fulcrums for aligning the interests o f individuals
als” (who happen to spend some of their time doing a job in an organi
and organizations. In E. P. Thom pson’s b ook T he M akin g o f the English
zation) sensitizes us to the importance of understanding the interplay
W orking Class, he points out that these people would not fight about their
among organizational members’ multiple roles. This orientation is be
wages, but if you raised the price o f a loaf o f bread you’d incite a riot. We
ginning to show up in the “work-family” research which examines how
have abrogated responsibility for the study o f individuals-as-consumers
organizational members’ nonwork role demands (e.g., taking care of
to our econom ics and marketing colleagues. We need to add an OB voice
an infirm parent) influence their work role performance, as well as
to that conversation.
how members’ nonwork role performance (e.g., experiences gained as
a civic club leader, a youth group teacher, or a trade association repre Barley and Beyer believe that our choices about whom we study
sentative) carries over to their work role performance. have also removed us from conversations about entrepreneurs and
Unfortunately, much of this research contains an underlying “em small businesses. In their interviews, they argued persuasively that
ployer-centric” bias: although it recognizes that members occupy both workers are increasingly less likely to be doing production work and to
work and nonwork roles, the “cross-role effects” of interest are those be working in large, highly integrated organizations. Despite these
that are relevant to the employer. Contemporary research in this area trends, micro organizational behavior researchers have largely ignored
is relatively silent regarding the “ inside-out” effects (what economists entrepreneurs, and their macro colleagues have similarly overlooked
might refer to as the “human capital externalities” of managerial ac small businesses. Barley and Beyer’s contention is that by breaking our
tions). For example, one is hard pressed to find current work on the traditional conventions about whom we should study, organizational
effects of the type of work members perform, the criteria used to eval scholars can begin examining previously ignored (and rather large)
uate their work, the quality of their work relationships, or the charac segments of the managerial and organizational populations.
teristics of the predominant organizational culture on the values
members teach their children, members’ inclination to serve as com Conclusion
munity volunteers, or members’ expectations of the educational, reli
gious, and political organizations to which they also belong. As we come to the conclusion of our review of fifty years of organiza
tional behavior work, we hope readers will reflect on and review the
rich and diverse perspectives provided by Whyte, Nord, Beyer, and
Barley. Similarly, we would like the reader to think about the content Gordon, R. A., and J. E. Howell. 1959. Higher Education fo r Business. New York:
analysis of JA P and ASQ. Our goal was to provide a picture of who Columbia University Press.
does the research, whom we study, and how we do our work. Hackman, R. 1991. Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-
The tables can be approached in at least two ways. First, how do the Bass.
trends in the table match what I do or my view of the field over these Hall, R. H. 1972. Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
fifty years? Second, why do these trends occur and what are the impli Hall.
cations for our work and the field in general? We tried to provide a Harris, D., ed. 1994. Report on Research Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Research
Council.
way to think about these questions, but our prim ary motivation was
to stimulate the reader to address the questions. Hounshell, D. 1984. From the American System to Mass Production 1800-1932: The
Development o f Manufacturing Technology in the U.S. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Throughout this chapter, there have been underlying themes in the
University Press.
organizational behavior field. Many of these themes deal with tensions
Katzell, R., and J. Austin. 1992. “From Then to Now: The Development of Industrial-
between basic and applied research, between qualitative and quantita
Organizational Psychology in the United States!’ Journal o f Applied Psychology
tive perspectives, among various levels of analysis, between the impor 77(6): 803-35.
tance of research and that of practice, and so on. These themes appear
Mitchell, T. 1979. “Organizational Behavior.” Annual Review o f Psychology 30:243-81.
in the past and present, and will probably continue in the future.
O’Reilly, C. 1991. “Organizational Behavior: Where We’ve Been, Where We’re Going.”
Our approach to the future was to define issues and choices.
Annual Review o f Psychology 42: 427-58.
We think there are rich and exciting opportunities. There are new
Perrow, C. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3d ed. New York: Random
paths to follow that should revitalize the field and stimulate new
House.
intellectual growth. ■
Pfeffer, J., and W. Moore. 1980. “Average Tenure of Academic Department Heads:
The Effects of Paradigm Development, Size, and Departmental Demography.”
References Administrative Science Quarterly 25:637-53.
Anderson, J.C., and J. A. Narus. 1990. “A Model of Distributor Firm and Sayles, L. 1958. Behavior o f Industrial Work Groups. New York: Wiley.
Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships.” Journal o f Marketing 54: 42-58.
Schneider, B., and D. Bowen. 1985. “Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service in
Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper. Banks: Replication and Extension.” Journal o f Applied Psychology 70(3): 423-33.
Brett, J. M., J. Berry, and D. Sego. 1996. “New Approaches to the Study of Intercultural Schneider, B., J. K. Wheeler, and J. F. Cox. 1992. “A Passion for Service: Using Content
and International I/O Psychology.” In P. C. Earley and M. Erez, eds., New Perspec Analysis to Explicate Service Climate Themes.” Journal o f Applied Psychology 77:
tives on International Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: 705-16.
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Scott, W. R. 1989. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 3d ed.
Dalton, M. 1959.Men Who Manage. New York: Wiley. Englewood Cliffs, N .J: Prentice-Hall.
Goodman, P, T. Mukhopadhyay, and J. Lerch. 1994. “Individual Organizational Thompson, E. P. 1966. The M aking o f the English Working Class. New York: Vintage,
Productivity: Linkages and Processes.” In D. Harris, ed., Organizational Linkages: 63-64.
Understanding the Productivity Paradox. Washington, D.C.: National Research
Trist,E. 1963. Organizational Choice. London: Tavistock Publications.
Council.
Weick, K. 1969. The Social Psychology o f Organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Goodman, P., L. Ravlin, and M. Schminke. 1987. “Understanding Groups in
Organizations.” In L. Cummings and B. Staw, eds., Research in Organizational ------. 1992. “Agenda Setting in Organizational Behavior: A Theory-Focused
Behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Approach.” Journal o f M anagement Inquiry 1(3): 171-82.

50 Yrs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Yrs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Yrs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cornell University ILR School

Articles and Chapters ILR Collection

Fifty Years of Organizational Behavior from Multiple Perspectives

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles

Required Publisher Statement

This chapter is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/960

Paul S. Goodman is Professor o f Industrial Administration

David A. Whetten is the Jack W heatley Professor o f Organi

placed by network analysis and population ecology. by new analytic tools.

Table 1. Characteristics of Authors

Table la . Number o f Authors Table 7c. Num ber o f Non-university Authors

are university based. The relatively greater proportion of non-univer

1950s 1,133 7.31 304 14.48 Characteristics of the Papers

Table 3. Type of Subjects Used (%)

Table 4. Type of Organization Studied (%)

Table 5. Design Focus [% )

You might also like

50 Yrs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Yrs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Yrs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cornell University ILR School

Articles and Chapters ILR Collection

Fifty Years of Organizational Behavior from Multiple Perspectives

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles

Required Publisher Statement

This chapter is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/960

Paul S. Goodman is Professor o f Industrial Administration

David A. Whetten is the Jack W heatley Professor o f Organi­

placed by network analysis and population ecology. by new analytic tools.

Table 1. Characteristics of Authors

Table la . Number o f Authors Table 7c. Num ber o f Non-university Authors

are university based. The relatively greater proportion of non-univer­

1950s 1,133 7.31 304 14.48 Characteristics of the Papers

Table 3. Type of Subjects Used (%)

Table 4. Type of Organization Studied (%)

Table 5. Design Focus [% )

You might also like

David A. Whetten is the Jack W heatley Professor o f Organi

are university based. The relatively greater proportion of non-univer