Scientific Thinking about OBTo make good workplace decis.docx

Scientific Thinking about OB
To make good workplace decisions…..
Scientific thinking > data driven
Evidence Based Management
Assume that human behavior is lawful and predictable, and that
using the scientific method can lead to discoveries of
regularities in behavior.
Skills:
Critical and analytical thinking
Precise writing
Logical arguments
beginnings
Research Questions – empirical questions can be answered
through systematic observations or techniques (scientific
method)
Theory – set of statements that summarize what is known about
some phenomena and propose working explanations for those
phenomena. Organizes existing knowledge.
Theories can be disproven!
Hypothesis – predictions about the outcome
Can be supported, or not, by data

Research goals
Description
Prediction
Explanation
Application
ethics
APA Code of Ethics
Judging the Benefits and Costs
E.g. Milgram experiments
Informed Consent and Deception
Informed consent form
Is deception ever OK?
Treating Participants Well
Debriefing
Confidentiality and privacy
Anonymity
We do not want people to lose their JOBS!
Developing ideas
What to research?
Developing research from….
Observations of behavior, or serendipity

Theory
Other research
Replication and extension
Starting Point: The LITERATURE!
Google Scholar is your friend.
Varieties of research
Considerations
Basic vs Applied Research
Setting: Lab vs Field
Qualitative vs Quantitative
Research Designs in Organizational Behavior
Overview of Methods
Research Designs in OB
Qualitative and Quantitative
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Correlational Field Study
Case Study
Mixed Methods

Qualitative & Quantitative
Qualitative research
Used to investigate a new area where not much is known.
Involves interviewing people in organizations and creating
detailed information through transcriptions of interviews.
Quantitative research
Collects data through organizational surveys and/or
observations.
Qualitative – example 1
Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee
emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(2), 163-178.
Interviews and Focus Groups
Critical Incident Technique
Coding and Content Analysis > numbers
Findings: Leader behaviors were sources of positive or negative
emotional responses in employees; employees recalled more
negative incidents than positive incidents, and they recalled
them more intensely and in more detail than positive incidents.
Qualitative – example 2
Dasborough, M., Lamb, P., & Suseno, Y. (2015). Understanding
emotions in higher education change management. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 28(4), 579-590.
Interpretative study using phenomenography
Interviews
Thematic analysis
Findings: Employees perceived their experiences as being

promising (an opportunity to look forward to), threatening (a
threat to be carefully managed) or inevitable (unavoidable).
Emotional responses are collective, with male/older/more senior
respondents experiencing different emotions as compared to
others.
Experimental & Quasi-Experimental
Experiments
Typically in behavioral lab settings
High degree of researcher control
Random assignment to groups
Quasi-experiments
Similar to experiments but often carried out in organizations
Often the strict criteria of experimental designs cannot be met
Experiment - example
Dasborough, M., & Harvey, P. (2016). Schadenfreude: The (not
so) secret joy of another’s misfortune. Journal of Business
Ethics, 1-15.
Schadenfreude - pleasure felt in response to another’s
misfortune.
As a socially undesirable emotion, it might be assumed that
individuals would be hesitant to share their schadenfreude.
In two experimental studies involving emotional responses to
unethical behaviors, we find evidence to the contrary.
What was manipulated?
Study 1 – deservingness (3 levels)
Study 2 – deservingness (3 levels), status (2 levels)

MANIPULATION:
Level of deservingness
Organization: CEOTermination reasonsLow
Mean = 3.24Cricket Canada: Atul AhujaBusiness approach was
not consistent with the board, personal disputeMedium
Mean = 3.98Mini Games: David LobbPoor performance and
negative comments to media about key stakeholdersHigh
Mean = 5.11Fiji Fisheries: Mitieli BaleivanualalaUnauthorized
appointments, unauthorized use of funds, failure to attend
meetings, defiance of overseeing organization
Quasi-Experiment (Field)
Example: Greenberg (1990)
Question: When implementing a pay cut, do explanations given
by managers reduce the likelihood of employee theft?
Conducted the experiment in three manufacturing plants.
Employees received a pay cut and either no explanation, an
inadequate explanation or an adequate explanation.
Employee theft (‘shrinkage’) was tracked across all three plants
for 10 weeks.
Effects of Pay Cut and Explanations on Theft
Correlational Field Study
Study with two variables (predictor and outcome) related to one
another
Data are gathered by having organizational members complete
surveys

Data analyzed using statistical methods such as
correlation/regression analysis
This is the most common research design employed
Field Study - example
Tse, H. M., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A
multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange
relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 195-
211.
Survey data obtained from a sample of 215 manager-employee
dyads working in 36 teams (bank branches).
The self-report questionnaire measured individual employees'
perceptions of affective climate, workplace friendship, and
TMX; the manager-report questionnaire measured individual
managers' perceptions of LMX for each employee within the
branch
Results: High-quality LMX relationships are associated with
enhanced workplace friendship between employees, especially
when the affective climate is strong
Case Study
A case study is an in-depth analysis of an organization or a
situation in an organization.
The goal is to describe the situation in great detail, paying
particular attention to the context.
Cases can use both qualitative (interview) and quantitative data.
Lack generalizability
Cannot be used to test for causal relationships
Mixed Methods
Combines qualitative (e.g., interviews) and quantitative (e.g.
surveys) in a single study.

Balances the strengths and weaknesses of the different research
designs.
Activity – measures & sample
Select one of the examples.
Look for a theoretical model diagram (if there is one), and
select one of the “variables” in the study.
How was this variable assessed/measured?
In the same example, identify the “sample” used. Why was that
sample chosen?
Case Study
Should We
Fire Him for
That Post?
A small-business owner reacts to a prized employee’s
inappropriate Facebook commentary.
by Mary Anne Watson and Gabrielle R. Lopiano
By the time Susannah Winslow remembered that her ringer was
off, she had seven text
messages from her father, Dell,
who was also her boss. Dell was
the president of Downcity Motors,
which owned BMW, Range Rover,

and Mercedes-Benz dealerships in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and had
been in the Winslow family for three
generations. Susannah, the general
manager, was poised to take over in
five years, when her dad retired.
It’s Monday morning, Dad, she
thought, sighing. Dell was an early
riser who got to his office at 6:30 am.
Still, he rarely sent e-mails or texts at
that hour. Something was clearly up.
“Dad, it’s me,” she said when he
picked up the phone.
“Susie. Finally. We’ve got a
problem. Kenton’s been bad-
mouthing us on Facebook again.”
Everyone at the company called
James Kenton by his last name,
a sign of affection and respect for
one of Downcity’s most successful
salespeople. He had joined the
Mercedes dealership straight out
of college and quickly became its
biggest producer, far outselling his
peers across the company’s locations.
Dell continued, “Greg Coucher
called over the weekend. I just heard
the voicemail this morning.” Coucher
was Downcity’s contact at BMW
headquarters. “He said that Kenton

wrote something nasty about Friday’s
Mercedes launch, and he was glad
it wasn’t about a BMW promotion. He
implied that we need to keep a tighter
rein on our staff.”
Susannah had heard
Kenton’s griping about the
rollout. Tyson Beck, the
Mercedes dealership sales
manager, had been in charge
of planning it, but Kenton had
been breathing down his
neck for weeks, asking
for details. He wanted
them to serve fancy
canapés, not “low class” barbecue.
When he found out that Tyson was
planning to use plastic tablecloths,
Kenton had even come by Susannah’s
office to say, “This isn’t a
Walmart employee
picnic. We’re selling
luxury here. What
are our customers going to think?”
Susannah had seen his point, but
she also trusted Tyson.
“This is an embarrassment, Susie,”

Dell said now. “The kid clearly hasn’t
learned his lesson. He’s got to go.”
“Let’s not be rash, Dad,” she
replied. “I’ll deal with it as soon as
I’m in.”
What’s Our Policy on This?
Tyson and Susannah were hunched
over her computer, looking at
Kenton’s Facebook page. Dell sat
on the small office couch with his
arms crossed.
Susannah read: “So thrilled that
Downcity went ‘all out’ for the most
important Mercedes launch in years.
Nothing says luxury like plastic
tablecloths and soda pop.” Kenton
had posted a photo of a soda can with
the Downcity Motors sign looming in
the background.
“OK,” Tyson said. “It’s pretty bad.
I’ll have him delete it.”
“But hasn’t the whole world
already seen it?” Dell asked. He
didn’t have a Facebook account and
wasn’t interested in social media.
His daughter handled Downcity’s
online presence.
“Not really,” Susannah replied.
“He can restrict who sees it,
depending on his privacy settings.

And it looks like…” She clicked
through to the post. “Shoot—he
shared it pretty broadly.”
“So that’s how Greg Coucher saw
it?” Dell asked. “And how do we know
that no one at Mercedes headquarters
has seen it?” TA
M
A
R
A
S
H
O
PS
IN
Tell us what you’d
do in this situation.
Go to HBR.org.
March 2016 Harvard Business Review 103
HBR.ORGEXPERIENCE
Tyson looked shocked. “Are you
suggesting we fire him? He posted
this late Friday night, clearly not on

company time or from a company
computer. He thinks he’s being funny.
He’s not trying to hurt the company.”
“But he is hurting it—at least
according to Greg Coucher.” Then
Dell smiled. “Are you worried about
hitting your numbers without him?”
“Of course I am,” Tyson said.
“That’s what you pay me to do, and
he’s our biggest producer. Not only
would we be kissing sales good-bye,
but I’d have to train a new person.”
Toby Diller, Downcity’s head of
HR, walked in. “I’m sorry I’m late,”
he said. “I got your e-mail, Susannah.
Has anyone talked to Kenton yet?”
“I was about to,” Tyson said.
“Let’s hear from Toby first,” Dell
said. “We let Kenton get away with a
slap on the wrist last time, but don’t
we have a policy on this sort of thing?”
Toby explained that technically
they didn’t. They hadn’t yet updated
their employee manual to cover
social media. He and Susannah
exchanged glances. They’d been
talking about this for months, but it
kept dropping down on the to-do list.

“All we have is a line that reads, ‘No
one should be disrespectful or use
profanity or any other language that
injures the image or reputation of the
company,’” Toby said.
“Well, this seems to be a clear
violation of that,” Susannah
replied. “And what about
the section on unauthorized
interviews?”
Tyson jumped in. “He
didn’t give an interview.
There’s no journalist
involved here.”
“That’s just what
Facebook seems
like to me—people
interviewing
themselves all day
Susannah grimaced. She and Greg
were Facebook friends; she assumed
that he had friended staff members
at the other Downcity dealerships
and also car company executives
he’d met.
“Only Kenton’s ‘friends’ would
see his posts, Dad,” Susannah said,
thinking of all the loyal customers
whom Kenton had probably friended.

“Right,” said Tyson. “Unless his
friends repost the photo.”
Susannah shot him a “you’re not
helping matters” look.
“I’ll remind him that this is
inappropriate,” Tyson promised.
“I’m sure he’ll take it down, just
like last time.”
About a month earlier, another
salesperson had pointed out to
Susannah that Kenton had posted
two photos: One was of seven cars
lined up for service in the lot with the
caption “Why am I here before the
mechanics?” The other was of a BMW
that had been driven into a pond by
the 16-year-old son of a customer
who had let the boy take the wheel
during a test drive. When Tyson and
Susannah had talked to Kenton about
the pictures, he’d said that he was
just sharing his work experiences
with friends and family members. He
then pointed out that the company
should think about taking a harder
line with tardy employees and
teenage test drivers.
“We were clear that
this shouldn’t happen
again,” Dell said, and he

was right. Susannah had
asked Kenton not to post
anything else that reflected
negatively on Downcity or
its customers and partners.
“At some point we have
to question Kenton’s
judgment and whether
he can represent
the company.”
long,” Dell said. “I don’t get this
generation. Not one bit.”
“Don’t be such a curmudgeon,”
Susannah countered. “We were all
young once, and if we’d had access to
the technology Millennials have, we
probably would have gotten into the
same trouble.”
“He’s getting us in trouble—that’s
the difference,” Dell said. “Susie,
figure this out. I think I’ve made my
views clear. I’d be happy to see him
gone by the end of the day, even if he
is our top salesman.”
Make an Example of Him?
Susannah and Toby climbed
into a Range Rover Sport. The
dealership had few places for a
private conversation, so they often
used the roomy interior of one
of their cars.

“It’s impossible to think with
Tyson and Dad hovering,” Susannah
said. “I just need to understand
my options.”
Case Study
Teaching Notes
WHAT DREW YOU TO THIS STORY?
Employee use of social media has become
increasingly important over the past decade,
and no one can deny its power to make or
break a company’s reputation.
WHAT ISSUES DO YOU HOPE IT
RAISES IN THE CLASSROOM?
We want students to become more aware of the
consequences of their posts and the limitations
on “freedom of speech” at work. The case might
also frame a discussion about fairness in firing and
other disciplinary actions and the impact of the
employment-at-will doctrine.
WHAT REACTION DO YOU EXPECT
FROM STUDENTS?
We think it’s a topic they can easily relate to and
debate. Some will think the salesperson is disloyal
and deserves to be let go. Others will defend him
because he posted those comments on a private
site on his own time.
Mary Anne Watson and Gabrielle R. Lopiano developed
the case on which this one is based for use in HR classes.
HBR’s fictionalized

case studies
present problems
faced by leaders
in real companies
and offer solutions
from experts. This
one is based on
“Facebook Folly
at Northeast
BMW” (case no.
NA0353-PDF-
ENG), by Gabrielle
R. Lopiano and
Mary A. Watson
(North American
Case Research
Association, 2015),
which is available
at HBR.org.
EXPERIENCE
104 Harvard Business Review March 2016
anything that wasn’t true. He
just added some sarcasm. We all
thought the refreshments were a
little off-brand.”
“On the other hand,” Rachel
continued, “what he did was
unnecessary and stupid. He got in
trouble once but still did it again. He

should have tighter privacy settings
and maybe think twice before
friending his professional contacts.
And he should approach Tyson or
you directly if he wants things done
differently at the dealership—not
gripe with all of us or do it online.”
Susannah winced. Kenton had
come to her and Tyson; they’d just
ignored his feedback.
Rachel was on a roll: “If you
look through his feed, you’ll see that
he says a lot of positive things about
Downcity too. He loves his job and
our cars, which is why he’s so good
at selling them. But I worry that
he just can’t help himself and it’s
only a matter of time before he
does it again.”
Susannah smiled. “Thanks,
Rachel. That was very helpful.
Now let’s talk about you.
How was the conference
last week?” But even as
her protégé answered, she
kept thinking about Kenton.
Should she just let it go? Should
he simply be reprimanded
again? Or should the

consequences be
greater this time?
“I think you’ve
got three,” Toby
said. “First, since the
photos he posted of the
event were his own, and
he was expressing his
opinion—which he’s entitled
to—on his personal Facebook page,
we could ignore it.”
“That seems awfully lenient to me,”
Susannah said. “I don’t want him—or
anyone else—thinking this kind of
behavior is OK.”
“The second option is to make an
example of him. Because he damaged
the company’s reputation in a public
forum, we could take some sort of
disciplinary action.” Toby laid out
a few alternatives: make a note in
Kenton’s personnel file, request that
he rescind his remarks, or suspend
him from work, with or without pay.
“And you think we could legally do
any of those things?”
“I do. I think we could even fire
him. That’s the third option. He
violated the employee handbook
when he was disrespectful of the
company image, and it was a second

offense. That would set a clear
precedent regarding employee social
media use, which, given the age of
many of our new hires, is becoming
increasingly important.”
Susannah asked if Kenton might
sue. “He might,” Toby said, “but I
don’t think he’d have a case. It’s not
like this qualifies as free speech.”
She wasn’t so sure. Were they
essentially censoring Kenton? What
if he had posted something about
poor working conditions? Wouldn’t
that be protected?
Of course, her father and
grandfather had always insisted
on treating employees well. Other
car dealers might behave as if
salespeople were a dime a dozen, but
Downcity was different, as proven by
its incredibly low turnover.
“I guess I’m
more worried
about what he might say.
Kenton’s a good guy; if
we insist that this can’t
happen again, I think he’ll
try his best. But if we fire him,
he’s essentially free to say whatever

he wants about us.”
“I hear you,” said Toby. “But I’m
more in Dell’s camp. We gave Kenton
a second chance to demonstrate
good judgment, and he failed again.
Besides, I don’t think we can decide
not to fire him just because of what
he might post on Facebook. Then it’s
as if we’re hogtied because he’s such
a hothead.”
Kenton did have them in a bind,
Susannah thought.
Get Ready for a
New Generation
The next day Susannah went to
Green’s Lunch with Rachel Evans,
a rising star on the sales team, for
one of their regular get-togethers.
Knowing how challenging it could
sometimes be to work with almost
all men, Susannah had taken Rachel
under her wing.
“I get that you probably can’t talk
about the Kenton thing,” Rachel said
after they’d ordered. “But remember
when you asked me to help you
understand our generation? I wonder
if I can shed any light.”
“You’re right that I can’t discuss it,”
Susannah said. “But I’ll listen.”

“I can see how this might not be
a big deal to Kenton,” Rachel said.
Susannah raised her eyebrows at the
implication that he wasn’t remorseful.
“Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s a
little embarrassed. But we’ve grown
up with social media, sharing our
opinions with friends, family, and
even our employers, so we all have
a story about posting something we
regretted. And to be fair, he didn’t say
QWhat should Susannah do about Kenton’s Facebook remarks?
See commentaries on the next page.
Mary Anne
Watson is a
professor of
management
and the associate
director of the
TECO Energy
Center for
Leadership at
the University of
Tampa. Gabrielle
R. Lopiano is a
PhD candidate in
organization and
management at
Emory University’s
Goizueta Business
School.
HBR.ORG

Megan Erickson
Moritz is an attorney
at BrownWinick Law
Firm, where she practices
employment law.
SUSANNAH SHOULD not fire
Kenton—at least not yet. Given the
information she has, terminating
or even disciplining him would put
Downcity at risk for legal action.
Here’s why: Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act
protects employees’ right to engage
in “concerted activities” for
“mutual aid or protection.” Kenton’s
concerns about the marketing
event may very well stem from its
possible negative impact on vehicle
sales and his commissions. Rachel
suggests that other salespeople
had similar feelings, so the
Facebook post could be construed
as Kenton’s expressing their views
on a subject related to their
employment. If that behavior
were punished, he would have a
legitimate basis for filing an unfair

The Experts Respond
labor practice charge with the
National Labor Relations Board.
Tyson may be right that
Kenton’s gripes were his own, and
Downcity could certainly argue
that point to the NLRB, especially
if no other employees “liked” or
commented on them, or if some
colleagues expressed concern
that his behavior—more than the
mismanaged event—was in fact
likely to damage customer or vendor
relationships. But asking employees
for a statement along those lines
could be viewed as coercive, and
Kenton would need only one
supporter to prove that he was
voicing a shared opinion.
So before she decides what to
do, Susannah should look into what,
if anything, Kenton discussed with
others, whether anyone else shared
his views, and whether any of their
worries might reasonably be tied to
wages, commissions, or other terms
of employment.
One thing she and Toby should
do now, however, is whip the
company’s policies and practices
into shape (with the help of
experienced legal counsel) and

then train employees in them,
clarifying expectations. The NLRB
would most likely find their current
policy overbroad, which would
also be a violation. Downcity could
incorporate a clearer open-door
policy, ensuring that staff members
feel comfortable airing concerns
with managers and that managers
know they must listen and respond.
This might help lessen the likelihood
that employees would air workplace
complaints online.
In the real case on which this
account is based, the dealership
fired the salesperson for two
Facebook-related events, and he
disputed the termination with the
NLRB. The judge concluded that
criticism of the refreshments
at a sales event probably amounted
to protected activity but that the
other post, complaining about a
Land Rover accident at a different
dealership, did not, because the
employee hadn’t discussed it with
colleagues and it was unconnected
to the conditions of his employment.
Because the dealership had based
his termination on the latter, it
stood—but the company spent a lot
of time and money fighting the case,
which I’m sure Dell and Susannah
want to avoid.

The frequent, multiple, and
sometimes conflicting sources of
information about recent NLRB
activity make this area a compliance
nightmare for employers. However,
one thing is clear: The NLRB has
been aggressively expanding its
reach regarding social media issues
in the workplace. Susannah is better
off giving Kenton another warning
and clarifying company policies
so that Downcity is well prepared
to take action if and when this
happens again.
Comments from the
HBR.org community
Employees Should Be Heard
His delivery may be off, but Kenton
may also have a valid point about
maintaining the brand. Employees
should feel that they’re valued and
being heard.
Erica Ogle, student, Regis University
Not a Team Player?
Kenton should be suspended and
told that if such behavior continues,
termination is a possibility. Toby
and Susannah need to reiterate the
importance of being a team player.
Aaron Wynn, HR business partner,
Ford Motor Company
Terminating or

even disciplining
Kenton would put
Downcity at risk
for legal action.
EXPERIENCE
106 Harvard Business Review March 2016
Use His Insights
Management should focus on
correcting and learning from bad
business decisions, not chasing
employees who whine on social
media. Instead of punishing Kenton,
his bosses should ask him to plan
the next launch.
Khaled Barahmeh, group audit and risk
manager, Zamil Group Holding Company
A Valuable Sales Tool
Once Kenton and the rest of
Downcity’s salespeople become
aware that social media can be
a sales tool, they’ll realize that
their online presence affects not
only the company but also their
own sales.
Saige Fraiha, director of product and
marketing, MedicFP
Alexandra Samuel
is a cofounder of Social
Signal, one of the

world’s first social media
agencies, and the author
of Work Smarter with
Social Media.
SUSANNAH NEEDS to let Kenton
go. I know from running my own
company that nothing is harder than
firing someone, particularly in a
tight-knit family business. But once
you’ve warned an employee about
a specific issue and made your
expectations clear, you can’t keep
providing second chances.
If Downcity keeps Kenton, it
leaves itself open to ongoing
risk: He didn’t see why it was
inappropriate to publicly mock a
company event, so what might he
post in the future? Ignoring that
risk signals that employees can
say what they want online and
get away with it. Worse, it tells
both employees and partners that
the company doesn’t care if they
publicly disrespect one another or
the organization.
To be clear, Downcity doesn’t
have carte blanche to fire any
employee who posts something off-
brand on a social network. There’s
a world of difference between a
personal post that diverges from the

company line and comments that
explicitly disparage the business. It
might be uncomfortable if Kenton
had criticized a competitor’s event,
or ranted about how badly BMW
owners park, but neither would be
an offense for which he should
be terminated.
Likewise, any organization must
tolerate social media commentary
that’s posted in the spirit of
whistle-blowing. For example, if a
female salesperson at Downcity
wrote about her perceptions of
gender discrimination at work,
firing her would be a huge mistake.
The company would be setting
itself up for a lawsuit (and a PR
disaster) and missing a valuable
opportunity to address the problem
in a transparent way. But Kenton
wasn’t calling out the company for
mistreatment. He was complaining
about its strategic choices.
Susannah is smart to try to
understand the generational
differences around social media.
In terms of time spent on social
platforms and the kind of personal
information shared, younger
employees may well vastly differ
from their older colleagues. But
age is no excuse for poor judgment,
and particularly after his prior

warning, Kenton should have
known better.
As soon as Toby and Susannah
have dealt with him, they should
focus on writing and sharing that
social media policy. It should detail
what’s unacceptable, including
posts that cast the company, its
partners, or its customers in a
negative light. But it should also
prepare employees for social media
success by describing activities that
Downcity encourages and noting
resources that can help strengthen
their online presence.
All this should be in accessible
language, not legalese. I’ve written
social media and community
policies for many sites and
organizations; when the tone is
conversational and helpful (rather
than a list of “don’ts”), it inspires
good behavior as much as it
discourages bad.
Although Downcity didn’t have
an official social media policy
when Kenton aired his criticisms
on Facebook, he knew what his
bosses expected because they had
told him. The media context may be
changing, but employers still have a
right to insist that employees speak

respectfully online about them and
the products or services they sell.
HBR Reprint R1603K
Reprint Case only R1603X
Reprint Commentary only R1603Z
Once you’ve warned an
employee about a specific
issue, you can’t keep
providing second chances.
HBR.ORG
Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009
Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing
Newsletter content on
EBSCOhost is licensed for the private individual use of
authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not
intended for use as assigned course material in academic
institutions nor as corporate learning
or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may not
use this content in electronic
reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi
or by any other means of
incorporating the content into course resources. Business
licensees may not host this content
on learning management systems or use persistent linking or
other means to incorporate the
content into learning management systems. Harvard Business
Publishing will be pleased to

grant permission to make this content available through such
means. For rates and permission,
contact [email protected]
Running head: MGT 307 RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1
MGT 307 RESEARCH PROPOSAL 14
MGT 307 Research Proposals
Jiangyi Qiu
12/5/2016
MGT 307 Research Proposals
Introduction
A diverse workplace is a work environment that has employees
from different gender, ethnicity, social and economic
background, race, religion, nationality, ability, age, personality,
educational background, and cognitive styles. According to the
current employment act, the labor law demands that
organizations should hire a diverse workforce so as to grant
equal employment opportunities to all people. It is against the
labor laws for an employer to deny any qualified employee an
opportunity to work as it is considered as discrimination.
Hence, this reality has made organizations to have employees
with different personalities. By definition, personality is a

combination of various qualities and characteristics that make
an individual unique in his/her special way.
Personality makes employees different, and since in an
organization these different people have to work together to
achieve common goals, the organization has to exercise
effective personality management. In an organization
personality management are different strategies that an
organization uses to understand the different employee's
behaviors, feelings, and thoughts so that it can be able to deal
with all employees in a manner that makes them feel
appreciated, valued, and above all motivated to perform.
Unfortunately, a majority of organizations has in many times
failed to apply effective personality management hence facing
adverse effects that impact the organization negatively in
different ways. This research essay shall focus on elaborating
personality management as one of the deep level workplace
diversity issue, and the essay shall further provide with ways on
how personality management can be handled.
How personality affects workplace
Employees can either belong to a personality that is considered
as good and proper or a difficult personality. Employees with
good personalities are those employees with good qualities and
characteristics that positively contribute to the growth and
development of an organization. On the other hand, the bad
personalities are those employees that have negative qualities
and characteristics that compromise organizational performance.
Personality can affect workplace because employees with good
personality always focus on doing their work in an organized,
effective, and promptly. Employees with good personality are
also disciplined, neat, accountable, and focused on improving
their performance at all times (Gatlin, Wysocki, & Kepner,
2008). Moreover, the employees with good personality tend to
have a good attitude towards other employees regardless of the
gender, age, race, religion, level of education, or even cultural

background. Such employees tend to promote unity, peaceful
coexistence, and teamwork and this is something that makes an
organization to achieve growth, efficiency, and smooth running
of operations.
Employees with difficult personality make it hard even for the
management to promote efficiency, transparency,
accountability, teamwork, and peaceful coexistence. The reason
is that they possess personal qualities and characteristics that
cannot allow peace and focus on reigning. They focus a lot of
attention in destructing employees and causing conflicts. The
actions of employees with difficult personality adversely affect
employees' performance, and they also extend a bad attitude to
other stakeholders including clients hence causing the
organization to incur massive losses and bad publicity.
Difficult personality shows a lot of incivilities, and according to
research approximately, 96% of US workers are negatively
affected by difficult personalities (Porath & Pearson, 2010). For
example, employees with "toxic behaviors" like; yelling at other
employees, stating belittling comments, gossip, double
standards, and taking credit for the work of others affects their
victims to the extent that they tend to have an inferiority
complex and reduced levels of working morale.
The different personalities and how to handle them
professionally and ethically
According to Holloway & Kusy, (2009); it is necessary for the
management of any organization to understand the different
personalities of their employees and also understand how to
handle all the personalities. The latter is the only way that an
organization's top officials can be able to manage personality
effectively and efficiently.
The Gossip: this is a common type of difficult personality in a
diverse office environment.Employees with this personality are
easy to identify as they like talking about other employees
behind their backs. Employees with this difficult personality
also like spreading rumors about employees and in most cases
the rumor is normally untrue or exaggerated truth. Employees

with gossip qualities tend to do so due to insecurities and others
for selfish desire of entertaining themselves by causing pain to
other employees. The reason is that there are people who find
join and satisfaction when other people are not at peace, or
there is a commotion. It is important and critical to realize that
when a gossip is in circulation, it draws the other employees'
attention from work hence interfering with overall performance.
Also, when a gossip is in circulation, considering that the
employees belong to different personality's means that the
employees might react to the gossip differently as some might
start a fight, others might ignore, and others might confront
each other.
Employees with gossip personality can be handled and managed
with the application of effective communication and right
attitude towards employees with such personalities. For starters,
employees and the management can avoid engaging or
encouraging gossip by ignoring any gossip information told.
Hence, the employees with gossip personality will start to feel
that no one is granting them the attention or their desires are not
being achieved and constant failure will make them start
changing their difficult personality (Orloff, 2014). Talking to
the employees with the gossip personality can also work but not
in all cases. The reason is that there are employees even after
being warned about their behavior creates another rumor from
the warning hence causing more tension.
The Blamer: in many diverse workplaces, blamers are a common
type of employees, and they are always pointing fingers are
others especially when something goes wrong. Blamers find it
hard to be held accountable or even apologizing when they
perform poorly, commit a mistake, or have made a bad decision.
Blamers have a tendency of extending the truth in their version
so that they can create a situation that favors them and
discredits other people. The best way to handle employees with
such a personality is by trying to redirect their attention from
blame and heading it towards facing facts as they are (Murphy,
2014). The organization can conduct constant training and

counseling sessions where all employees indiscriminately can
be taught on how to own up to their mistakes and helping every
employee to understand that man is to error, so it is normal to
commit a mistake, but one should always avoid repeating it
again. The management should at all times try to handle
mistakes ethically and professionally so that they can encourage
blamers to own up to their mistakes and learn from it (Murphy,
2014). Additionally, in the case the management notices who
committed the error and that person is trying to avoid the blame
and pushing it to somebody else, the management should stand
firm and point out the truth as this would instill fear in
employees with a blaming personality. The reason is that
psychologically, blamers do not like being proved wrong and
they would try to improve themselves so that they can correct
their image and the habit of pointing fingers at innocent
employees would gradually reduce.
The Flyer: according to Miller, (2013); the employees with a
flyer personality are extremely emotional, and they like causing
a scene. In many organizations, they are known as the "drama
queen or drama king." Such individuals cause a scene and
commotion as a way of seeking attention and others for the need
of excitement. In most cases, research has proved that
employees with a flyer personality have other personality
disorders that make them unable to get a hold of themselves.
The main intention of such employees is just to have their needs
and desires met (Miller, 2013). It is important to keep
employees with flyer personality under control because they are
hard to predict. The reason is that they look and live just like an
employee with a good personality as they can get funny,
interactive, social, energetic, committed, and entertaining. But
unexpectedly when something that annoys them tends to
happen, they do not control their emotions, they get infuriated
and dramatic. This means that it is easy for them to start a fight
or insult other employees hence making employees with such
personality highly unreliable.
There are different ways that employees with flyer personality

can be handled. First, it is important that the management
should praise and show they appreciate they value they add to
the office environment before any criticism to their behaviors
can be done. Secondly, during the time that they are calm and
in their proper state of mind and emotions, the management
should talk to them about their mood swing and how it is
affecting their work, personality, and other employees. The
management and the other employees should try and keep calm
when any employee is throwing tantrums so that they would feel
that no one is motivating them and hence start changing. Lastly,
the employees and management despite remaining calm should
not grant themselves at the disposal of employees with such
personalities. Being quietly denied the attention that they need
psychologically helps in shaping such employees behavior and
attitude (Orloff, 2014).
The Control Freak: employees with this kind of personality like
taking full control of situations and results of different
organizational activities and decisions. According to research,
employees with this type of personality have the possibility of
possessing traits of obsessive-compulsive order (OCD) even
though they might not have the disorder itself. This personality
is dangerous in a diverse workplace because it causes irritation
to other employees. However, it is important not to rule out the
fact that they may also be perfectionist and have high
expectations for other employees and themselves (Miller, 2013).
They also strive at making sure that the organizational goals are
achieved and in trying to do so they apply excess control over
other employees.
Handling employees with a control freak personality can be a
hard and complex thing. However, it is possible to manage this
personality by giving attention and praise to contributions that
these types of employees make to the organization. Secondly,
the employees should be trained on how to do their work and
following organizational rules and guidelines so that the
employees will need limited or no supervision or control from

other people. This would help in eliminating an environment
that would make it possible for some people to exercise their
controlling personality over others (Miller, 2013).
The Victim: in many diverse workplaces, there exist employees
with the victim personality. This is a personality that is easy to
spot among employees because employees with this personality
are constant complainers and always likes drawing attention
because of their problem. They like creating a perception and
feeling that they are the victim in all situation. For example,
such employees may complain about that they are being treated
unfairly in the workplace and that they are allocated more work
than any other employee. Also, in the case something goes
wrong in the workplace, employees with victim personality they
like playing the victim and showing that they are being blamed
for things that they do not know about (Coynea, Seignea &
Randall, 2010). The victim personality is a dangerous
personality that the organization must make sure it is adequately
managed. The reason is that employees with a victim
personality are less stable, less, independent, and less
extroverted.
For the purpose o handle this type of personality, the
management should try and exercise patience with them while
engaging such employees in constant conversation. While
talking, the management should direct the talk to the direction
that the employees with this personality will be the one to
answer themselves and prove themselves wrong. This is where
the senior management can ask questions and phrase the
questions in the right way that the employees will not be able to
twist the situation to make them appear that they are victims.
Hence, the management will stop playing along with their game
hence making them feel irrelevant (Patrick, & Kumar, 2012).
The employees should constantly be being provided with
accurate information with facts so that all the employees can
have the right information and hence would not have the need to
create the victim-like situation.

The Quiet Type: according to Patrick, & Kumar, (2012); this
type of personality does not mean that an employee has a right
or difficult personality. It is one of the personalities that cause
massive confusion as it is difficult to understand the employee.
Employees with this personality tend always to remain quite
either alone or in the company of others. They rarely contribute
either socially or even when participating in teamwork. They
also like keeping themselves locked in their offices and even in
most cases wearing their headphones.
The best way to handle employees with a quiet type of
personality is to avoid pushing them or forcing them to engage
with other employees. Instead, it is advisable for the
management to give such employees more time and space to
respond to them and share their feelings and thought. It is also
important to constantly acknowledge any little effort that these
workers add to the organization as it helps in motivating them
to do even more (Miller, 2013). Additionally, the management
and other employees can try and learn the different things that
make these types of employees happy or interested so that they
can know which activities to engage them. In the case they opt
to remain silent especially in group work, the other members
should avoid taking it personal or as a sigh or lack of interest or
commitment.
The Passive-Aggressive Type: employees with a passive-
aggressive type of personality are one of the most complex and
dangerous personality to handle. The reason is that employees
with this type of personality behave in phony ways. For
example, the employees can pretend and hide their real feelings
and opinions about different issues while as they are completely
upset and unhappy with the situation. Hence, they do not feel
motivated to perform since they already have negative feelings
but do not show it (Orloff, 2014). The make the situation and
management complicated because the management believes that
they are okay with the idea since they are cool, collected and
calm while as the reality is exactly the opposite. This type of

personality is also dangerous because they normally have
deceiving attitude and hence they can carry out sabotage or
revenge activities hence causing harm and havoc in the
workplace without being noticed that they are the cause (Orloff,
2014).
This type of personality can be handled by avoiding as much as
possible to reciprocate the passive-aggressive behaviors and
instead, face the problem using an open and good timing
conversation. Secondly, this personality can be handled by
showing such employees interest in their feelings by giving
them an opportunity to speak and also supporting their ideas
where they are valid. This way, they would be able to feel that
their ideas and contribution is valuable and appreciated hence
putting the personality under control.
The Paranoid personality: employees with this type of
personality find it hard trusting other employees. They are
always suspicious of other employees’ motive and always tend
to interpret the behaviors and intentions of other employees in a
negative way (Hautala, 2006). For example, when they are sent
out for a mission or set specific objectives to achieve, instead of
perceiving such as an opportunity to prove themselves, they
perceive it as if they are being targeted to be fired in case they
fail. This personality affects workplace because they do not see
anything in a positive way and this affects their performance
and performance of others in the case of teamwork.
This personality can be handled by taking keen on what they say
as their talks tell what they are thinking or perceive the issue. It
is important that these kinds of employees should be provided
with fact-based as well as rational information so that it can
make the situation more clear to them and help them to stop
imagining and seeing things from a negative things point of
view (Hautala, 2006). It is also important for the other
employees and the management to avoid trying to justify their
actions as a way of influencing employees with paranoid
personality. The reason is that the more people try to justify

themselves, the more suspicious paranoid employees become.
Remaining true to oneself whether the paranoid employees
believes them or not is a way that helps the paranoid employees
to start overcoming their feelings and negative perceptions.
The Narcissist: this is a type of personality that is often found
with employees holding different management positions of the
organization. Employees with this personality show patterns of
the need for admiration, entitlement, grandiosity, the need for
praise and recognition, and lack of empathy for other people's
opinions and feelings. Employees with these type of personality
shares a superiority complex (Miller, 2013). During a
performance, employees with this personality tend to favor their
performance over those of others. In most cases, employees
with this personality tend to be arrogant and annoying, and
other employees dislike working and relating with them (Judge,
LePine, & Rich, 2006).
To handle this type of personality and keep it under control so
that it does not affect the organization adversely, using
strategies like flattery that hurt such employees' ego can help to
reduce their ego. The reason is that employees with such
personality do not like being turned down and being turned
down is the only thing that can keep them contained and
consider other people's opinions and feelings. Another way to
handle them is to praise them where they deserve being praised
openly (Twenge & Campbell, 2008).
The Psychopath: employees with this type of personality are
also available in the different diverse workplace. Importantly,
the employees with psychopath personality normally have a
psychology defect which can be mild, and this makes such
employees be very harmful in the workplace. According to
APA, (2013a, p.645); employees with this personality
disregards another path to the extent of violating other
employees rights. They always plot causing harm to other
people in a deceitful way. For example, they can deceitfully

take credit of other people’s work so that they can be classified
as the winners. They normally have unethical, damaging,
reckless, and illegal actions like stealing from the company or
even revealing bad information about a company to the public
domain (APA, 2013a).
To handle this type of employees although they are rare to
employees to find, they need complex strategies. The reason is
that this kind of employees are never remorseful for their
actions and the best way is firing or even suing such an
employee so that the law or company's disciplinary actions can
take effect. The action should be determined by the magnitude
of crime committed by the employee with a psychopath
personality.
Reference
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013b). Personality
disorders(Fact sheet). Retrieved from:
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality%20Disorders%20F
act%20Sheet.pdf.
Gatlin, J., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2008). Understanding
Conflict in the Workplace (University of Florida Extension
Report). Retrieved from
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HR/HR02400.pdf.
Hautala, T. M. (2006). How different personalities experience
the discussions between leader and follower in the workplace.
Psychological Type and Culture-East & West: A Multicultural
Research Conference. Honolulu, HI.
Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2006). Loving yourself
abundantly: relationship of the narcissistic personality to self-
and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and
task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(4), 762-776.
Miller, L. (2013). Personalities at work: understanding and
managing human nature on the job. Public Personnel
Management, 32(3), 419-434.
Patrick, H. A., & Kumar, V. R. (2012). Managing Workplace
Diversity. Sage Open, 2(2), 2158244012444615.
Porath, C. l., & Pearson, C. M. (2009). The cost of bad
behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 39, (1), 64-69.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and
personality. Current directions in psychological science, 16(4),
207-212.
Sullivan, R. (May/June 2012). Managing extreme
personalities. CIO, 48-51.
Twenge, J.M. & Campbell, S.M. (2008). Generational
differences in psychological traits and their impact on the
workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 862-877.
I need revise the MGT Research Proposal. I will post my first
draft and I will post the introduction and you must follow the
introduction. And I also will post an example of Research
Proposal and you should do exactly the same thing. My
Research Proposal’s topic is Personality on workplaces. But
teacher is asks more specific issue or problem. This issue or
problem must be new and no one done it before. You only need
one specific issue to write about. Please follow reasearch
methos and you need at least read and ues 10 articles. It must be
academic journal articles.
This Research Proposal is REALLY important!!! Please be high
quality and must follow the introduction. If you have any
question please let me know.
8-10pages It’s due 12/11. Thank you!!!

You had attached a criteria list for the proposal, I suggest you
follow it when structuring your paper; here’s what I suggest for
your paper:
Criterion
Exemplary Performance
1
Introductory Matters: Title and Abstract
Title and abstract are informative, succinct, and offer
sufficiently specific details about the issue, variables, context,
and proposed methods of the study.
2
Introduction: Problem, Significance, & Purpose of the Study
Presents a significant and new research problem related to
Organizational Behavior. What new knowledge will the research
provide? (has this been studied already?) Is the introduction
intriguing / thought-provoking? What is the potential value?
Articulates clear, reasonable research questions given the
purpose, design, and methods of the proposed study. Clear
motivation.
All constructs and variables have been appropriately defined.
Propositions/Hypotheses are clearly supported from the research
and theoretical literature. All elements are mutually supportive.
3
Literature Review: Organization
Structure is intuitive and sufficiently inclusive of important
constructs and variables of the proposed study. Connection to
proposed research is clear.
4
Literature Review
Demonstrated basic knowledge of literature in the area, and of
prior work on the specific research problem. Mentions at least 1
theoretical foundation.

Narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-
reviewed theoretical and research literature.
At a minimum, 10 academic journal articles will be cited. The
best proposals will cite more than 10 articles. Articles will be
the classics, as well as the most recent in the field (2015-2016).
Each key construct and variable is grounded to the literature.
Attention is given to different perspectives, conditionalities,
and opinion vs. evidence.
5
Methods: Research Design
The purpose, questions, and design are mutually supportive and
coherent.
Design – is the design one that has been used previously in this
area? Is it reasonable?
Attention has been given to eliminating alternative explanations
and controlling extraneous variables. Appropriate and important
limitations and assumptions have been clearly stated.
6
Methods: Context, Population, and Sampling
The description of the context and population was meaningful,
including both quantitative and qualitative description. The
sampling process was reasonable to recruit a representative
sample of the population. Attention was given to controlling for
extraneous factors and sampling error. Possible limitations are
acknowledged.
7
Methods: Instruments
Descriptions of instruments (measures) and observation
protocols include purpose statements (why select them?), type
and number of items, and type of scores. Evidence of the
validity and reliability was presented.
8
Methods: Procedures
Procedures were thorough, manageable, coherent, and powerful
for generating valid and reliable data. Procedures were
chronological and replicable, with clear distinctions between

researcher and participant actions.
Clear and reasonable strategies were presented for seeking
permissions and for the ethical treatment of human subjects.
9
Manuscript: APA English Composition
http://www.apastyle.org/
Consistently applied APA style, especially in regards to
citations, references, headings, page numbers, and running
headers in the Word document.
Logical progression of ideas.
Excellent English composition / grammar. Concise scientific
language.
Use of active voice when appropriate; future tense for
proposals.
Careful editing and proof-reading.
10
Reference List
APA style
Includes all sources used to prepare proposal.
11
Appendix
Include a diagram of your proposed model (as prepared in
class). Prepare in PPT and paste into the Word document.
Include the proposed measures/surveys/interview
protocols/experimental prompts, etc..
1. First write an introduction
a. Identify a problem related to one of the topics you
covered in the class throughout the whole semester (you may
want to use the list of possible topics she provided for you for
motivation) and describe this issue
b. Outline the structure of the proposal by stating that you
will initially investigate the currently available literature
regarding the problem you stated above and will then devise a
research experiment to find a solution to this problem. DO NOT

yet say what exactly your experiment will be about or make
reference to any of the literature.
2. Literature Review
a. Go to Google Scholar and search keywords relating to
your problem/topic. You should be able to find here around 10
articles that are relevant to your issue.
b. Read the articles you find and organize them in a way that
makes sense to you; e.g.- one article should define key
words/terms that are a big part of your issue, several other
articles should explain the Organizational Behavior theories
behind your main topic, and the rest of the articles should detail
experiments or methodological studies performed to assess or
maybe even address your problem.
c. After organizing them into those 3 groups, summarize all
of those articles within their groups (based on what I said in
2b); each group should and could be its own paragraph.
3. Design your own study
a. Answer the question: How does the information in the
literature help you better understand the problem/topic/issue
and what was not addressed by those articles (what do I still not
know or what have people not done to fix this issue yet)?
b. Explain how you would design an experiment to address
your answer to 3a. What is its purpose? Has your idea for an
experimental design been done before according to the
literature? Explain why you would like to do it the way you’re
doing it and why not other ways (assessing downsides of any
other potential experimental design and why yours is better;
acknowledge drawbacks of yours as well). What are the
independent and dependent variables and control group?
c. Explain what kind of questions you might ask, what data
you would like to collect, what observations you’d run, and
scoring scales/metrics you’d use to evaluate the results
d. Explain how you would actually go about collecting the
data (e.g. survey, focus group, controlled experiment,
observation, etc.) Be as detailed as possible here about who the
researcher/experimenter is and who the subjects are and how

they will interact and be treated. Include info about paperwork
and permissions with subjects.
4. Conclusion
a. Summarize what the literature has already covered (2a-c)
b. Summarize the details of your study/experiment (3a-d)
c. Make reference to the Appendix
d. Nice closing sentence
5. Works Cited / References page – should list all the in-
text citations used throughout part 2; use all 10 (or more)
6. Appendix – idk what proposed model she had you prepare
in class but idk what she wants here; ask her or if you already
have one, show me. Make reference to this appendix throughout
part 3.
Hope this helps! I think you’ve done a pretty good job of Part 2
(just be sure to write things like “the literature says…” or “this
is widely accepted in the literature” or “many studies have cited
that this means this…”) but idk what your problem/issue is and
you wrote nothing of part 3.
If possible write something that follows this structure. YOU
MUST BE SPECIFIC; give details on literally how the
experiment will be done, step by step, think of all the potential
aspects of an experiment here.

Scientific Thinking about OBTo make good workplace decis.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Scientific Thinking about OBTo make good workplace decis.docx

Similar to Scientific Thinking about OBTo make good workplace decis.docx (8)

More from bagotjesusa

More from bagotjesusa (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Scientific Thinking about OBTo make good workplace decis.docx