Intro to Organizational Behavior (OB): Introduction to OB - Contributing Disciplines, Psychology Sociology Anthropology Political Science Economics

Contributing Disciplines to Organizational Behavior (OB)

What This Is

Organizational Behavior (OB) is an interdisciplinary field that draws from psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics to explain how individuals, groups, and structures influence behavior in organizations. These disciplines provide the theoretical foundations for understanding motivation, culture, power, decision-making, and performance. For example, Google’s Project Aristotle (studying high-performing teams) relied on psychology (individual traits), sociology (group norms), and anthropology (cultural context) to identify that psychological safety—not just talent—drove team success.

Key Theories & Models

Psychology (Individual-Level Analysis)

• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Five levels (physiological-safety-belonging-esteem-self-actualization). Implication: Managers must address unmet needs (e.g., Netflix’s "Freedom & Responsibility" culture satisfies esteem/self-actualization by giving employees autonomy).
• Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory: Hygiene factors (pay, job security) prevent dissatisfaction but don’t motivate; motivators (achievement, recognition) drive engagement. Implication: Zappos uses motivators (e.g., "Zappos Insights" training for personal growth) to boost retention.
• Expectancy Theory (Vroom): Motivation = Expectancy (effort-performance) × Instrumentality (performance-reward) × Valence (reward value). Implication: If employees at Southwest Airlines don’t believe extra effort leads to promotion (low instrumentality), they won’t be motivated—even if rewards exist.

Sociology (Group-Level Analysis)

• Tuckman’s Team Development: Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing-Adjourning. Implication: Amazon’s "Two-Pizza Teams" (small, autonomous groups) accelerate through stages by clarifying roles early (norming).
• Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner): People categorize themselves into in-groups (us) and out-groups (them), leading to bias. Implication: Microsoft’s shift from "stack ranking" (fostering competition) to collaborative OKRs reduced in-group favoritism.
• Groupthink (Janis): Pressure for unanimity overrides critical thinking. Implication: NASA’s Challenger disaster (engineers ignored dissent) shows why devil’s advocacy (e.g., Bridgewater Associates’ "radical transparency") is critical.

Anthropology (Cultural & Organizational Analysis)

• Schein’s Three Levels of Culture: Artifacts (visible symbols, e.g., Apple’s minimalist offices), Espoused Values (stated beliefs, e.g., Patagonia’s "Don’t Buy This Jacket" anti-consumerism), Basic Assumptions (unconscious beliefs, e.g., Toyota’s "kaizen" mindset). Implication: Mergers (e.g., Daimler-Chrysler) fail when basic assumptions clash.
• Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, indulgence. Implication: McDonald’s adapts menus (e.g., McSpicy in Singapore) to fit local uncertainty avoidance (preference for familiar vs. novel foods).

Political Science (Power & Conflict)

• French & Raven’s Bases of Power: Coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, referent. Implication: Elon Musk’s leadership at Tesla relies on expert power (engineering credibility) and referent power (charisma), but overuse of coercive power (e.g., layoffs) can backfire.
• Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes: Competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating. Implication: Southwest Airlines’ "Warrior Spirit" encourages collaborating (win-win) over competing (win-lose) in labor disputes.

Economics (Decision-Making & Incentives)

• Agency Theory (Jensen & Meckling): Principals (owners) and agents (managers) have misaligned incentives. Implication: Enron’s fraud stemmed from stock-based compensation (agents took excessive risks).
• Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky): People are loss-averse (fear losses more than they value gains) and risk-seeking in losses. Implication: Sales teams at Oracle are more motivated by avoiding commission cuts than by earning bonuses.

Step-by-Step Application

How to Diagnose & Leverage Contributing Disciplines in OB

1. Identify the Level of Analysis
2. Individual?-Psychology (e.g., motivation, personality).
3. Group?-Sociology (e.g., team dynamics, norms).
4. Organization?-Anthropology (e.g., culture, rituals).
5. Power/conflict?-Political science (e.g., influence tactics).

6. Incentives/decision-making?-Economics (e.g., rewards, risk).

7. Map the Problem to a Theory

8. Example: Low team performance-Tuckman’s stages (are they stuck in storming?) or Social Identity Theory (are cliques forming?).

9. Gather Data

10. Psychology: Surveys (e.g., Gallup’s Q12 for engagement).
11. Sociology: Observations (e.g., Google’s gDNA study on team interactions).
12. Anthropology: Interviews (e.g., IDEO’s "deep dives" into user culture).
13. Political Science: Power mapping (e.g., who influences decisions?).

14. Economics: Incentive audits (e.g., are bonuses aligned with goals?).

15. Design Interventions

16. Psychology: Job enrichment (Herzberg) or goal-setting (Locke & Latham).
17. Sociology: Team charters (Tuckman) or diversity training (Social Identity Theory).
18. Anthropology: Symbolic actions (e.g., Satya Nadella’s "growth mindset" emails at Microsoft).
19. Political Science: Stakeholder analysis (e.g., negotiating with unions at UPS).

20. Economics: Nudges (e.g., default opt-in for 401(k) plans at Fidelity).

21. Measure & Iterate

22. Track leading indicators (e.g., psychological safety scores at Google) and lagging indicators (e.g., retention rates at Zappos).

Common Misconceptions

• Misconception: "Culture is just about perks like free snacks or ping-pong tables." Correction: Culture is Schein’s three levels—artifacts (perks) are surface-level. Netflix’s culture is about freedom + responsibility (basic assumptions), not just free lunches.

• Misconception: "Money is the best motivator." Correction: Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory shows pay is a hygiene factor—it prevents dissatisfaction but doesn’t drive motivation. Salesforce’s "1-1-1 model" (1% equity, 1% product, 1% time to charity) motivates through purpose, not just bonuses.

• Misconception: "Conflict is always bad." Correction: Thomas-Kilmann shows conflict can be functional (e.g., Amazon’s "disagree and commit" policy encourages healthy debate).

• Misconception: "Diversity automatically improves team performance." Correction: Social Identity Theory shows diversity can increase conflict if not managed. EY’s "inclusive leadership" training helps teams leverage diversity.

• Misconception: "People make rational decisions." Correction: Prospect Theory shows people are irrational (e.g., investors holding losing stocks too long).

Exam / Case Interview Tips

1. Distinguish Between Theories
2. Psychology vs. Sociology: Maslow (individual needs) vs. Tuckman (group stages).
3. Anthropology vs. Sociology: Hofstede (national culture) vs. Schein (organizational culture).

4. Economics vs. Psychology: Agency Theory (incentives) vs. Expectancy Theory (perceptions).

5. Answer "Why?" with Theory

6. Example: "Why did Google’s Project Aristotle find psychological safety was key?" Answer: Maslow’s belonging needs (psychology) + Social Identity Theory (sociology)—people perform better when they feel safe to take risks.

7. Use the "OB Framework" in Cases

8. Structure answers using individual-group-organization levels. Example: "How would you improve morale at a struggling retail chain?"

   • Individual: Herzberg (motivators like recognition).
   • Group: Tuckman (team-building workshops).
   • Organization: Schein (align espoused values with actions).

9. Watch for "Trap" Questions

10. "Is job satisfaction the same as engagement?" No: Satisfaction = hygiene factors (Herzberg); engagement = motivators (e.g., growth at Patagonia).
11. "Does power always corrupt?" No: French & Raven’s referent power (e.g., Oprah’s influence) is positive; coercive power (e.g., WeWork’s Adam Neumann) is risky.

Quick Practice Scenario

Scenario: At Airbnb, a team of engineers from the U.S., Japan, and Germany is struggling to collaborate. The U.S. team members dominate discussions, while the Japanese team members rarely speak up. The German team insists on detailed documentation before any coding begins. Which contributing discipline(s) explain this, and what’s one intervention?

Answer: Anthropology (Hofstede’s dimensions) + Sociology (Social Identity Theory). - Hofstede: Japan has high power distance (reluctance to challenge authority) and high uncertainty avoidance (preference for rules/documentation). - Social Identity: U.S. team may unconsciously favor their in-group. Intervention: Structured brainstorming (e.g., anonymous idea submission) to reduce power distance effects, and cultural training to align expectations.

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

1. Psychology: Maslow (needs), Herzberg (motivators vs. hygiene), Expectancy Theory (E × I × V).
2. Sociology: Tuckman (team stages), Social Identity (in-group bias), Groupthink (pressure for unanimity).
3. Anthropology: Schein (3 levels of culture), Hofstede (6 cultural dimensions).
4. Political Science: French & Raven (5 power bases), Thomas-Kilmann (5 conflict modes).
5. Economics: Agency Theory (principal-agent problem), Prospect Theory (loss aversion).
6. Hygiene factors-motivators (Herzberg).
7. Culture-perks (Schein’s basic assumptions matter most).
8. Diversity-inclusion (Social Identity Theory).
9. Power-corruption (referent power is positive).
10. Rational-actual behavior (Prospect Theory).