Keith Murnighan-Kellogg Graduate School of Management 

Site NavigationHomeBiographyTeachingRecent WritingsVita
Graduate CoursesExecutive Courses

Syllabus for:


Individuals in Organizations
Fall 2004
Mondays 1 pm - Room 387 Leverone

J. Keith Murnighan
Harold H. Hines Jr. Distinguished
Professor of Risk Management
phone - (847) 467-3566
fax - (847) 491-8896

Office Hours: mutual arrangement


Course Description

This Ph.D. seminar is an introduction to theories and research pertaining to individuals in organizations. The primary focus of the course is to understand the theories that we use to explain individual behavior in organizations and to learn to develop theoretically based research propositions. Topics will include

A general introduction
Being a scholar and writing papers
Emotions and Values
Cognitions, Motivation, and Altruism
Individual Decision Making
Justice and Fairness
Trust and Reciprocity
Bargaining and Negotiation
Conflict and Power
Other Special Topics

This is only a limited list. Due to time constraints, we will not cover a variety of other important topics (e.g., diversity, gender, self esteem, incentives, tasks, etc.). We will, however, incorporate many discussions about the academic profession throughout the course.

For each class, you should read the readings that are printed in 12-point font. (Other related readings, not required, are listed in 10-point font.) Prior to class, after the first, each of you will help to generate the discussion questions for that class. Each of you will also lead or co lead discussion for one or two topics (depending on the size of the class). You will have the opportunity to choose your favorite topics for the days you lead discussion (although some flexibility may be necessary for the more popular topics). Everyone will contribute actively to the discussion. The discussion leader(s) will generate at least three discussion questions for their topics, emailed to me by Monday at 9, the morning of our class meetings. Everyone else in the class will email at least one open ended discussion question per topic, again by Monday at 9. I will reproduce all the questions and distribute them to the discussion leader as soon as possible and to everyone else at the beginning of each class.

Student Evaluations:

1. Our discussions will assume that everyone is familiar with the readings for that day so that you can be prepared to discuss them. Readings in 12-point font will be covered in class discussion. The discussion leaders will summarize the readings briefly at the beginning of each class to refresh everyone's memories. They may also report on and introduce material from other recent readings throughout our discussion. Each class will explore what we know and what we don't know about the day's topic. We'll pursue what we'd like to know and how we would go about discovering it. We will generate a variety of questions and, more importantly, we will all have a chance to outline our answers to these questions (even if they aren't yet documented). More particularly, we will try to outline actual research projects that might eliminate alternative explanations, assess and potentially validate the underlying assumptions of a model, and identify its boundary conditions, causally if possible.

2. Written assignments will include two post hoc outlines, two short idea papers, and one long, research-type paper that you will submit for a first review and then revise-and-resubmit on the basis of my comments and those of your reviewers. All of these must be written on your own.

The post hoc outlines are exercises that will allow you to see the underlying structure of some of the articles we will be reading. A post hoc outline outlines a paper after it has been completed, rather than prior to its original writing. You will use this technique for your longer paper in the class, as well. I highly recommend that you use it for all of your papers. We will use it at the start of the course to help give you a feel for writing research papers. Here's how it works:

How to do it:
1. Describe the main point of each paragraph, in a phrase or short sentence, on one line.
2. Record these main points in sequence
3. Single space them and, using the largest font you can, print them on a single page

When it's your own paper, you will use your post hoc outline to streamline your revisions, by following these steps:
1. Make sure each paragraph has only a single point
2. Take out repetitive paragraphs
3. Organize the flow so that each paragraph moves smoothly into the next. (I usually do this with a series of arrows.)
4. Try to identify missing pieces in the puzzle and outline what those should look like
5. Then reconstruct the post hoc outline to be as close to optimal as possible
6. Check the conclusion sections and see whether they cover all the points you raised in the introduction
7. It's important to retain the first version, with all it's editing marks, so that you can easily go back to the paper and make the changes you've indicated
8. Moving paragraphs around typically means that you will need to add some transitional statements that weren't in the original version

What it accomplishes
" Resolves organizational problems and reduces redundancy
" Insures that your discussion and conclusion sections relate directly to the issues you raised in the introduction

For our purposes, you should choose two empirical research papers that we have read that you really like. Do a post hoc outline on each of them. In doing so, you need only follow the steps for How to Do it. Hopefully this will indicate that this is a well-organized paper that does not need any of the steps that you will need when you revise your own papers. If it could benefit from some changes, as is true of most papers, you should summarize briefly what improvements would help. In other words, you should comment on how well it's been organized and what the authors might have done to improve the flow of their paper. You should turn in one of these assignments on October 13th and the other on October 27th.

The short idea papers (2-3 pages) should use one or more of the ideas that have surfaced in the papers we've been reading. You can propose a new, competing hypothesis or one that is more interesting than anything previous authors have thought of. The paper should lay out the background of the area briefly and then get into the new idea. Please try to support the idea as logically as you can. These papers are due on October 20th and November 3rd. Each of these papers should propose a testable causal hypothesis. Each paper should be different.

The initial submission of your longer paper is due November 24th, our ninth class. This paper may be an expansion of either of the short papers or something new. This paper should propose a model or set of hypotheses. It should look like the first half of a journal article and include:

" Introduction: What is the research question? Why is it important? What prior research has been done? What questions remain unanswered?
" Theory, model, and hypotheses: What are the independent and dependent variables? What relationships do you expect? Why?
" Methods: How would you collect data to test your hypotheses? What would you use to manipulate your factors and/or what measures would you use to operationalize your constructs? What statistics would you use to test your hypotheses? If the data confirmed your hypotheses what would the results of the statistical tests look like?

Prior to submitting your paper, you should give it to a couple of your colleagues and ask them for comments. Then you should revise your paper on the basis of their comments. If you send the first readable version of one of your papers to a journal, its chances of getting a revise-and-resubmit decision will be extremely low. In fact, editors are often angry and disappointed when they read papers that have obviously not been looked at by others first. Thus, this is one of those activities that will help make you a professional in the field: developing a set of colleagues who can comment critically on your work is one of the many keys to success in our profession. When you have gotten comments from your colleagues and revised your paper in line with their suggestions, you should submit your paper with a cover letter as if you were submitting it to a journal. In fact, you should specify the journal you are submitting your "article" to and you should submit 3 copies. I will act as the editor. I will send the other 2 copies out for review. You and your classmates will review each others' papers, anonymously. (If I can recruit some of the older students to also review your papers, quickly, I will.) I understand that, due to many possibilities for previous exposure, you may well know whose papers you are reviewing. But we will continue to act as if anonymous reviewers are reviewing them and we will not reveal the identity of the reviewers or of the authors. Thus, your paper should have a title page that includes your name; it should also include an abstract page that includes the title but does not include your name. Reviewers will not receive the title page.

If I ask you to review a paper, your review will need to be back to me on December 1st. I will try to have my own letters to you shortly thereafter. You will have until December 15th to complete your revisions and resubmit your paper.

a) two post hoc outlines 5% each
b) two short papers 10% each
c) participation and presentations in class and paper reviews 20%
d) final paper 50%

In both class discussions and written assignments, you are invited and encouraged to bring in other concepts and ideas from other relevant literatures. If anyone should run across an article of particular interest, please bring it to our attention so that we can incorporate it into the readings. We don't have to restrict ourselves to the readings in the syllabus.

I have provided an appendix that includes some of the major books in OB. They form the backdrop for many of our readings. All of these books are recommended reading for the serious OB scholar.

Professional Development
Many of our reading assignments will include one short reading on professional development, i.e., what it feels like to be an academic, what it takes to write a good paper, etc. These papers will always be open for discussion during the week that they are assigned or whenever these topics surface. They will be listed with an *.

ONE FINAL NOTE: please read the readings and be ready for discussion for our first class meeting prior to September 29th. I will lead discussion that day. Thanks.

Fall, 2003
J. Keith Murnighan
Individuals in Organizations
Monday 1-4, Room 3-387 Leverone

Sept 27 A General Introduction to the Field

Pfeffer Hdbk of Social Psych, 1998, Understanding organizations: concepts and controversies.

Weick, Karl E. JKM/SPO Sensemaking in Organizations: Small Structures with Large
Consequences. (NOTE: JKM/SPO is shorthand for a book I edited in 1992, The Social Psychology of Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research.)

Staw, Barry M. and Sutton, Robert I. JKM/SPO Macro Organizational Psychology

Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The delights of history, the thrill of the present, and hopes for the future: looking at a new millennium for the field of organizational behavior: observation, reflections, and anticipation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2002, 13-15.

Chatman ASQ 91 36: 459 484 Matching people and organizations: selection and
socialization in public accounting firms

*Murnighan, J. K. (1981). Training independent social scientists. Exchange, The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 6, (No. 3), 9-11.

Pfeffer AMR, 1993, Barriers to the advance of organizational science

Davis Blake and Pfeffer AMR 89 14: 385 400 Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research

Newton and Keenan JAP 91 76: 781 787 Further analyses of the dispositional argument in organizational behavior.

O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell AMJ 91 34: 487 516 People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person organization fit

Staw & Sutton, ASQ 1995, What theory is not

Oct 4 Emotions and Values

Schachter and Singer, 1962, Psych Review, Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.

Hoffman, M. L. (1986). Affect, cognition, and motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 244-280). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Schwarz, N. (2001). Feelings as information: Implications for affective influences on information processing. In L. L. Martin & G. Clore, L. (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user's handbook (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sutton and Rafaeli AMJ '88 31: 461 487 Untangling the relationship between displayed
emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores

Ku, G., Malhotra, D., and Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Competitive arousal in live and Internet auctions. Under review.

Ku, G., Galinsky, A., and Murnighan, J. K. (20032). Starting low but ending high: congruity, competitive arousal, and a reversal of the anchoring effect in auctions. Under review.

*Bem, D. J. (1987). Writing the empirical journal article. In Zanna & Darley, The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (171-201). NY: Random House.

Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617-638.

Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1994). The temporal pattern to the experience of regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 357-365.

Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995). The experience of regret: What, when, and why. Psychological Review, 102(2), 379-395.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G., L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.

Darwin, C. 1872. The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: Murray.

Lazarus. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. NY: Oxford U Press.

Dutton and Dukerich AMJ 91 34: 517 554 Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation

Rafaeli and Sutton AMJ '91 34: 749 775 Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collectors

Sutton ASQ 91 36: 245 268 Maintaining organizational norms about expressed emotions: the case of bill collectors

Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes' Error. NY: GP Putnam.

Pillutla, M. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68: 208-224.

Sabini and Silver, 1998. Emotion, Character, and Responsibility. NY: Oxford U Press.

Oct 11 Cognitions, Motivation, and Altruism

Staw, OBHP, 1976, 27-44. Knee deep in the big muddy.

Ross and Sicoly, JPSP, 1979, Egocentric biases in availability and attribution

Higgins, E. T. (1996). The "self digest": Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062-1083.

Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853-870.

Mueller, C. M. & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.

Trivers, Robert L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46:35-57

Batson, Hdbk of Social Psych, 1998, Altruism and prosocial behavior

Lee, J. A. and Murnighan, J. K. (2001). The empathy-prospect model and the choice to help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 816-839.

Keller, Bouchard, Arvey, Segal, and Dawis JAP '92 77: 79 88 Work values: Genetic and
environmental influences

Bouchard, Arvey, Keller, and Segal JAP '92 77: 89 93 Genetic influences on job
satisfaction: A reply to Cropanzano and James

Eden and Kinnar JAP 91 76: 770 780 Modeling Galatea: Boosting self efficacy to increase

Ball, Bazerman, and Carroll OBHDP 91 48: 1 22 An evaluation of learning in the bilateral winner's curse

Zenger ASQ 92 37:198 219 Why do employers only reward extreme performance? Examining the relationships among performance, pay, and turnover

Murnighan, J. K., Kim, J. W., and Metzger, A. R. (1993). The volunteer dilemma. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 515-538.

Meyer, Allen, and Smith JAP 93 78: 538-551 Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization

Foreman, P. and Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Learning to avoid the winner's curse. OBHDP, 170-180.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Larrick and Blount JPSP 97 72: 810-825 The claiming effect: why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games.

Miller, D. American Psychologist, 1999. The norm of self interest.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Social cognition: Learning about what matters in the social world. EJSP 3-39.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Does personality provide unique explanations for behavior?: Personality as cross-person variability in general principles. European Journal of Personality, 14, 391-406.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230.

Loewenstein, Zhong, & Murnighan (20032). Speaking the same language: The cooperative effects of labeling in the prisoners' dilemma.

Oct 18 Perspective Taking

Adam Galinsky will lead discussion

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708-724.

Kray, L., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. J of Personality and Social Psychology 80, 942-958.

In the Supreme Court of the United States: Price Waterhouse v. Ann B. Hopkins: Amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association, American Psychologist. 1991 Vol 46 1061-1070.

Rudman, Laurie A.; Glick, Peter. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 1004-1010

Fiske, Susan T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping.
American Psychologist. 48, 621-628

Biernat, Monica; Vescio, Theresa K.; Green, Michelle L. (1996). Selective self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 71, 1194-1209.

Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. J of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.

Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Glick, Peter; Xu, Jun (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 82, 878-902

Prentice, Deborah A.; Miller, Dale T (2002). The emergence of homegrown stereotypes. Am Psychlgst. 57, 352-359.

Oct 25 Decision Making

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

Dawes, R. AmPsychologist, 1979, 571-582. The robust beauty of improper linear models.

Gilovich, Vallone, & Tversky (1985). Cog Psych, 295-314. The hot hand in basketball.

Loewenstein, G.F., Bazerman, M.H. & Thompson, L. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. J Personality Soc. Psychol., 57: 426-441.

Loewenstein. OBHDP (1996, 272-292). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior.

Dawes, R. Hdbk of Social Psych, 1998, Behavioral decision making and judgment

*Douglas, R. J. (1992). How to write a highly cited article without even trying. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 405-408.

Hardin, Science, 1968, The tragedy of the commons.

Akerlof, QJE, 1970, The market for lemons.

Fischoff, 1975, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, Hindsight = foresight.

Tversky and Kahneman, 1986 JoB, Rational choice and the framing of decisions.

Camerer, Loewenstein, & Weber (1989). JPE. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an exptl. analysis.

Bazerman, Loewenstein, and White ASQ 92 37: 220 240 Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing between alternatives

Murnighan, J. K., Kim, J. W., and Metzger, A. R. (1993). The volunteer dilemma. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 515-538.

Nov 1 Justice and Fairness

Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. J Abn & Social Psych., 62, 335-43

Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. JESP 480-500.

Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler, 1986. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. JoB S285-S300.

Martin, Joanne JKM/SPO Inequality, Distributive Justice, and Organizational Illegitimacy

Pillutla, M. M., and Murnighan, J. K. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1408-1426.

Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998a). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others' unfair treatment by authorities. OBHDP

Pillutla, M. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Fairness in bargaining. SJR, in press.

*Ashford, S. (1996). The Publishing Process: The Struggle for Meaning. In Frost, P. J., and Taylor, S. (Eds.), Rhythms of Academic Life, pages 119-128. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Hogan, R. & Emler, N., 1980. Retributive Justice. In M. Lerner & S. Lerner (Eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior: Adapting to Times of Scarcity and Change. NY: Plenum Press, 125-143

Mowday, R. (1983). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In RP/MWB: 91-113.

Kahneman, D. Knetsch, J., and Thaler, R., 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76, 728-741

Withey and Cooper ASQ '89 34: 521 539 Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect

Tyler, Tom R. JKM/SPO The Social Psychology of Authority

Tyler and Smith, Hdbk of Social Psych, 1998, Social justice and social movements

Folger, Robert JKM/SPO Reactions to Mistreatment at Work

Bazerman, Max H. JKM/SPO Fairness, Social Comparison, and Irrationality

Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. AER, 83, 1281-1302.

Tyler and Degoey JPSP 95 71: 482- Collective restraint in social dilemmas: procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities

Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 913-930.

Stroessner and Heuer JPSP 96 72: 717- Cognitive bias in procedural justice: formation and implications of illusory correlations in perceived intergroup fairness

Fehr & Schmidt, 1999, QJE, A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation.

Fal, Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003,Testing theory of fairness - intentions matter.

Nov 8 Trust and Reciprocity

Meyer Davis & Schoorman AMR, 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust.

Robinson ASQ 96 41: 574-599. Trust and breach of the psychological contract

Uzzi ASQ 97 42: 35-67 Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness.

Malhotra, D. and Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, in press47, 534-559.

Bottom, W., Daniels, S., Gibson, K. S., and Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap:
Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Org Science, 13, 497-513.

Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., and Murnighan, J. K. (20032). Normal acts of irrational trust, motivated attributions, and the process of trust development. Under review.

*Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Revising and resubmitting: Author emotions, editor roles, and the value of dialogue. In Frost, P. J., and Taylor, S. (Eds.), Rhythms of Academic Life, 135-142. Sage.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. ASR, 25, 161-179.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. JPSP, 49(1), 95-112.

Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. ROB

Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relationships (pp. 213-237). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Conlon and Ross JAP 93 78: 280-290. The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome perceptions

McAllister, (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. AMJ, 24-59.

Fine, & Holyfield, (1996). Secrecy, trust, and dangerous leisure: Generating group cohesion in voluntary organizations. SPQ, 22-38.

Snijders, C. (1996). Trust and commitments.: Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology.

Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In Trust in Organizations, Kramer & Tyler, eds. Sage: 216-245.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Kramer and Tyler.

Kerr, et al (1997). That still, small voice: Commitment to cooperate as an internalized versus a social norm. PSPB, 1300-1311.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

Fehr & Gachter, 2000, JEP, Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity.

Yamagishi, T. (2001). Trust as a Form of Social Intelligence. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in Society (pp. 121-147).

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Org Science, 12(4), 450-467.

Pillutla, Malhotra, & Murnighan, (2003). Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity. JESP 448-455.

Oesch, J. & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Egocentric perceptions of relationship, competence, and trustworthiness in salary allocation choices. Social Justice Research, 16, 53-78.

Fehr & List, 2003. The hidden costs and returns of incentives - trust and trustworthiness among CEOs.

Nov 15 Bargaining and Negotiations

Roth, A. E. and Murnighan, J. K. (1982). The role of information in bargaining: An experimental study. Econometrica, 50, 1123-1142.

Thompson & Loewenstein OBHDP Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict

Straub, P. G. and Murnighan, J. K. (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatums: Common knowledge, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. JEBO, 345-364.

Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). A matter of trust: Effects of communication on efficiency and distribution of outcomes. JEBO, 35, 211-238.

Brett, Lyttle, & Shapiro. AMJ 1998. Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiation.

Murnighan, Oesch, and Pillutla. (2001). Player types and self impression management in dictatorship games: Two experiments. Games & Economic Behavior, 37: 388-414.

Galinsky, A. D., Mussweiler, T., & Medvec, V. H. (in press). Disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Roth, A. E. and Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Equilibrium behavior and repeated play in prisoners' dilemma games. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 17, 189-198.

Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211: 1390-1396.

Roth, A. E., Malouf, M. W. K., and Murnighan, J. K. (1981). Sociological versus strategic variables in bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 153-178.

Murnighan, J. K. and Roth, A. E. (1983). Expecting continued play in prisoner's dilemma games: A test of several models. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27, 279-300.

Roth, A. E. & Schoumaker, F. 1983. Expectations and reputations in bargaining: an experimental study. American Economic Review, 73, 362-372.

Roth, A. E., Murnighan, J. K., and Schoumaker, F. (1988). The deadline effect in bargaining: Some experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 78, 806-823.

King, T. R. and Murnighan, J. K. (1988). Stability and outcome tradeoffs in asymmetric dilemmas: Conditions promoting the discovery of alternating solutions. In R. Tietz, W. Albers and R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded Rational Behavior in Experimental Games and Markets. NewYork: Springer, 85-94.

Neale, Margaret A., and Bazerman, Max H. OBHDP 92 51:157 175 Negotiator cognition
and rationality: A behavioral decision theory perspective.

Valley, White, Neale, and Bazerman OBHDP 92 51: 220 236 Agents as information
brokers: The effects of information disclosure on negotiated outcomes

Kahn, L. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (1993). A general experiment on bargaining in demand games with outside options. American Economic Review, 83: 1260-1280.

Roth and Kagel (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton.

Murnighan & Saxon (1998). Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults. J of Econ Psych, 19: 415-445.

Adair, Okumura & Brett. JAP 2001. Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the US & Japan
Wade-Benzoni et al JAP 2002. Cognitions and behavior in asymmetric social dilemmas

Nov 22

Vicki Medvec will lead discussion and will assign a set of readings

Nov 29 Power and Influence

Murnighan, J. K. (1981). Defectors, vulnerability and relative power: Some causes and effects of leaving a stable coalition. Human Relations, 34, 589-609.

Lawler, Edward J. JKM/SPO From Revolutionary Coalitions to Bilateral Deterrence: A Non
Zero Sum Approach to Social Power

Cialdini & Trost, Hdbk of Social Psych, 1998, Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance

Keltner Gruenfeld and Anderson, PsychReview, 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.

Pillutla, M. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (20032). Power lost, power gained: Egocentric action and inconsistent perceptions. Under review.

Murnighan, J. K. and Roth, A. E. (1978). Large group bargaining in a characteristic function game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 299-317.

Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Models of coalition behavior: Game theoretic, social psychological and political perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1130-1153.

Murnighan, J. K. and Szwajkowski, E. (1979). Coalition bargaining in four games that include a veto player. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1933-1946.

Murnighan, J. K. and Roth, A. E. (1980). The effects of group size and communication availability on coalition bargaining in a veto game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 92-103.

Murnighan, J. K. (1994). Game theory and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 83-123. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Jehn ASQ '95 40: 256-282 A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.

Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale ASQ 99 Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.


I. Some of the Major Books in micro OB:

Argyris, C. Personality and Organization. Harper, 1957.
Barnard, C. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard, 1938.
Bass, B. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, 1985.
Bass and Stogdill. Handbook of Leadership, Second edition. Free Press, 1988.
Blake and Mouton, The Managerial Grid. Gulf, 1964.
Boulding, K. Conflict and Defense. Harper, 1962.
Cartwright and Zander. Group Dynamics, 3rd Edition. Harper, 1978.
Cummings and Frost. Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, 1985.
Cyert and March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict. Yale 1973.
Dunnette, M. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, First Edition, Rand McNally, 1976. Second Edition.
Frost, et al. Reframing Organizational Culture. Sage 1991.
Frost and Stablein, R. Doing Exemplary Research. Sage, 1992.
Hirschmann, A. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Harvard, 1970.
Hollander, E. P. Leaders, groups, and influence. Oxford, 1964.
Hughes, E. Men and their work. Free Press, 1958.
Janis, I. Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Janis and Mann, F. Decision Making. Wiley, 1976.
Kahn, R. L. et al. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Wiley, 1964
Kanter, R. M. Men and Women of the Corporation. Basic, 1977.
Katz and Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, Second Edition. Wiley, 1978. (Note: Bob Kahn is doing a new version of the book right now, with Bob Sutton).
Lawler, E.E. Pay and Organizational Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Lawler, E.E. Motivation in Work Organizations. Wadsworth, 1973.
Likert, R. The Human Organization. McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Lindsey and Aronson. The Handbook of Social Psychology, first and second editions.
Locke and Bryan. Goals and Intentions as Determinants of Performance Level, Task Choice, and Attitudes. Am Inst for Research, 1967.
March, J. Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, 1965
March and Simon. Organizations. Wiley, 1958.
Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality. Harper, 1954.
Mayo, E. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. MacMillan, 1933.
McClelland, D. The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961.
McGrath, J. Groups. Prentice-Hall, 1984.
McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper, 1973.
Parkinson, C. N. Parkinson's Law. Houghton-Mifflin, 1957.
Pinder, C. C. Work Motivation. Scott Foresman, 1984.
Porter and Lawler. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Irwin Dorsey, 1968
Roethlisberger and Dickson. Management and the Worker. Harvard, 1939.
Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, 1973.
Schein, E. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey Bass, 1985.
Schelling, T. The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard, 1960.
Selznick, P. TVA and the Grass Roots. U of C Press, Berkeley, 1949.
Sherif, M. The Psychology of Social Norms. Harper, 1936.
Simon, H. Administrative Behavior. Free Press, 1976 (3rd edition).
Taylor, F. W. The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper, 1923.
Terkel, S. Work.
Thibaut and Kelly, The Social Psychology of Groups. John Wiley, 1959.
Trice, Harrison, and Beyer, Janice. The Cultures of Work Organizations. Prentice Hall,1993.
Vroom V. Work and Motivation. Wiley, 1964.
Walton, R., and McKersie, R. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Whyte, W. F. Street Corner Society.

23 November 99

Dear 1st and 2nd year students

Thank you all for reviewing our 1st years' papers! Many of your reviews were simply outstanding and were tremendously constructive. I am very appreciative.

In this note, I have included a copy of my decision letter and a copy of any other reviews that I received for the paper you reviewed. This way you can see what other people said about the same work that you read. In some cases, reviewers only added notes to the manuscript itself. In most of those cases, I do not have copies for you to see.

I hope you have found the process instructive. I have certainly benefited from your assistance.

FOR THE 1ST YEARS, WHEN YOU RESUBMIT, PLEASE INCLUDE MY MARKED-UP COPY OF THE FIRST VERSION OF YOUR PAPER. (I currently don't have a copy and may want to refer back to it as I read your final submission.)

For EVERYONE: I would like to invite you to a pizza lunch at noon on our last day of class. Amazingly enough, this is next Tuesday, November 30. Please let me know your preferences below so that I can make the right kind of pizza order and bring the right beverages. Also, could someone volunteer to get paper plates, napkins, and cups - if the dept does not have them available? I'd appreciate that.

I look forward to this as a celebration of three fine cohorts of Ph.D. students. (Yes, I will invite the third years, too.) I've had the great pleasure of working with all of you in one course or another, and this will be a simple way for me to say THANK YOU to all of you for all your contributions to our joint efforts. You have been one marvelous group after another after another. (Note: this is not to say that previous students haven't been good. I just haven't had the good fortune of having them in class.)

Food/Drink Preferences:

Pizza(circle one): thin crust thick crust
what you don't want on it: ____________________

Drink (circle one):
Red Wine White Wine Dark Beer Non-dark Beer Bubble water or Soda (which?)


16 November 99


As you may know, I'm teaching the groups course again this year. I've asked the students to write a paper in the class and have promised them blind reviews. Would you be willing to write one? Quickly? I'd appreciate it very much.

The guidelines for the paper, from the syllabus, were:

This paper should propose a model or set of hypotheses testing group-related issues. It should look like the first half of a journal article and include:

" Introduction: What is the research question? Why is it important? What prior research has been done? What questions remain unanswered?
" Theory, model, and hypotheses: What are the independent and dependent variables? What relationships do you expect? Why?
" Methods: How would you collect data to test your hypotheses? What would you use to manipulate your factors and/or what measures would you use to operationalize your constructs? What statistics would you use to test your hypotheses? If the data confirmed your hypotheses what would the results of the statistical tests look like?

If you could do a review, and have it back to me by November 22 at noon, I would be forever appreciative. (Sooner would be even better.) If your schedule does not allow for you to do this, I understand. But if so, please get the paper back to me right away.

Some guidelines to consider if you do your review:

1. It should be anonymous. (Even if you know the identity of the author, it is important to preserve your anonymity in this process, so try to do that as much as you can.

2. As you put comments in the margins (perfectly appropriate, especially if they are intelligible) or type up a set of comments, it is critical that you do your best to present constructive criticism, with the emphasis on the word "constructive." The best way to do this, I think, is to imagine that the author of this paper is your very best friend and you want him/her to be able to write a revision that will be published by his/her preferred journal and win a big award after it comes out.

Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to seeing your comments.


J. Keith Murnighan