Citizenship Behavior in the context of Organizational Justice and Role Theory as the Most Popular Recent topic in Organizational Behavior: Rapid Review Results

Introduction

Organizational behavior and its management are the part of the most important disciplines of management and as well as other management branches is addressing a huge variety of problems and challenges. There arises a question remarkable for students of management, management practitioners and expert public, asking what the most popular and interesting topics and theories in organizational behavior discipline in the recent time are and what they are talking about. There are many ways of how to analyze and answer this question and we have chosen the rapid review technique as the appropriate tool to provide the answer.

Aim of the paper

The primary aim of the paper is to find out what are the most attractive and popular recent theories of world organizational behavior (evaluated by the citations) and discover whether there exists any dominant theory, regarding the number of papers in the top dozen, focused on it.

Theory, literature review and research questions

Organizational behavior is defined as the study of the impact that individuals, groups, and organizational structure and processes have on behavior within organizations (Ivancevich et al, 2014). One of the main goals of organizational behavior is to revitalize organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life. The purpose of organizational behavior is to gain a greater understanding of those factors that influence individual and group dynamics in an organizational setting so that individuals and the groups and organizations to which they belong may become more efficient and effective (Luthans, F. et al, 2021). Contemporary companies are employing more management methods, but they appear to be finding them less effective (Pawliczek, A., Navratilova, D., 2016). Organizational behavior examines human behavior in the work environment and determines its impact on work structure, performance, communication, motivation, leadership, etc. (Griffin, R. W., Moorhead, G., 2012). It can be defined as the understanding, prediction, and management of human behavior in organizations (Luthans, F. et al, 2021). Organization behavior covers the basic themes of motivation, leadership and power behavior, interpersonal communication, group structures and processes, learning, attitudes, and perceptions, change processes, conflicts, job design and work stress. Organization behavior is the most followed interest group at Academy of Management which is the preeminent professional association for management and organization scholars.

Organizational behavior theories and trends

Organizational behavior is a relatively new, interdisciplinary field of study. Organizational behavior researchers study the behavior of individuals primarily in their organizational roles. Although it draws the most from the psychological and sociological sciences, organizational behavior as a field of study also seeks knowledge in other scientific fields. One of the main reasons for this interdisciplinary approach is the fact that the field of organizational behavior includes several levels of analysis. The view is offered to the fact that people do not act in isolation, but usually in interaction with others (colleagues, superiors, subordinates). To understand organizational behavior, it is appropriate to perform different analyzes within organizations (Fuller, J. B. et al, 2012). The value of organizational behavior lies in isolating the important aspects of a manager’s work and offering specific perspectives on the human side of management: people as organizations, people as resources, and people as people (Griffin, R. W., Moorhead, G., 2012). Researchers are focused on several important trends in the study of organizational behavior. First, a number of research studies have examined topics at the group level of analysis rather than exclusively at the individual level of analysis. Another research trend is the growing focus on personality as a factor of performance at the individual and group level. All these factors emphasize the role of personality as a determinant of outcomes, such as stress, cooperative or deviant behavior, and performance. The subject of research is also personality traits related to flexibility, resistance to stress and personal initiative. Behavioral forms that are constructive and change-oriented in nature are also studied (Fuller, J. B. et al, 2012). The origins of organizational behavior can go back to Max Weber and earlier organizational studies (Miner, J.B., 2006). The failure of scientific management has given rise to a movement of interpersonal relationships, which is characterized by a strong emphasis on cooperation and employee morale. The rise of the scientific discipline of organizational behavior is largely due to the work of scientists such as Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard, Henri Fayol, Mary Parker Follett, Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Mas Low, David Mc Cellan and Victor Vroom (Pinder C.C., Moore L.F., 1980). Recently, there has been an emphasis among experts on the role that cognition can play in organizational behavior in terms of progress in both social knowledge theory and research. This social cognitive process can be a unifying theoretical framework for cognition and behaviorism (Griffin, R. W., Moorhead, G., 2012).

Literature Review Types

Methodological approaches to the synthesis of information from available sources vary, and new methods that meet various research objectives are constantly emerging, including evidence mapping, concept analysis, quick reviews, and more. Such a modern method can be for example multiagent approach and modeling (Zimmermannová and Čermák, 2014). Choosing the right approach may not be straightforward. In selecting an appropriate approach to the review, researchers may appreciate expert advice from bibliographic methodologists, statisticians, and information specialists to ensure that the chosen methods are appropriate for the objectives of the review (Curtin University Library, 2020).

The table below (Table 1) characterizes the differences between a systematic review, literature review, scoping overview, and rapid review in selected parameters. Rapid reviews have proven to be a suitable simplified approach to the synthesis of materials and evidence – usually to obtain information for urgent decisions faced by managers (e.g., in management and healthcare).

Table 1: Comparison of the literature review types. (Source: Authors’ own processing upon the Curtin University Library, 2020)

The following research questions regarding the most attractive and popular recent theories of world organizational behavior have been formulated:

• RQ1: Does any dominant exist theory in the dozen of the most cited papers?
• RQ2: Has any author published more than one paper in the most cited dozen?

Research Methodology

The chapter characterizes the research methodology applied in the paper.

Research Goal

The primary goal of the paper is to establish the most attractive and popular recent theories of world organizational behavior and find out whether there exists any dominant theory in the branch of organizational behavior. The secondary goal of the paper is to answer the formulated research questions.

Sample, Data Collection and Analyses

Theoretical data collection is based upon advanced rapid review with application of systematic review principles in the following characteristics: protocol, objectives, article selection and evaluation, discussion, and assessment.

1. Question: Narrow question (PICOS framework can be used)
   • Problem: What are the most attractive and popular recent theories of world organizational behavior
   • Investigated condition: Most cited papers in the Web of Science
   • Comparison condition: Focus of the topics of the papers
   • Outcome: Synthetic table
   • Study type: Theoretical study based upon the advanced rapid review
2. Protocol: Includes protocol or peer review plan
   • Double blind peer review is assured by the IBIMA conference editorial system
3. The essence (What is it?): Quick (limited) collection of literature on the field to provide an overview of the type, scope, and amount of available research (resources)
4. Objectives: Clear objectives are set
5. Eligibility: Based on consistently applied criteria
6. Search strategy: Explicit strategy, but resources may be limited
   • Keywords: organizational behavior theory
   • Field: Title
7. Article selection process: The process is usually clear and explicit, focused on quality resources.
   • 12 most cited papers
8. Article evaluation process: Study quality evaluation may or may not be included (optional)
   • Database Search: The Web of Science
9. Results and data synthesis: Descriptive summary / data categorization
10. Discussion: Written by experts with well-founded knowledge of the issue
11. Why choosing this method? To address a clearly focused issue by searching for the best available, relevant studies and synthesizing the results
12. Assessment: Thorough critical evaluation incl. study quality evaluation
    • Critical evaluation of the study is guaranteed by double blind peer review system
13. Conclusions: Limited / careful interpretation of findings

Analyses, Results And Discussion

The chapter characterizes the most important research results.

Citation Report

The following figure (fig. 1) characterizes the citation report of the “organizational behavior theory” according to the search strategy described above. We can clearly see that the branch has been developing since 1971; the interest is fluctuating with accelerations in years 1977, 1994 and 2012. The total number of papers with the “organizational behavior theory” in their title is 122 which are cited 2 563 times. The H index of researched sentence is 28. The highest number of annual publications was 8 in the year 1977 and the number of citations exceeded 280 in the year 2021. The branch “organizational behavior theory” is older in comparison to “strategic management theory”, not so accelerated in recent years and 0,43 times so much cited. The most recent numbers for 2022 are not complete yet.

Fig.1: Citation report for organizational behavior theory in Title

(Source: Web of Science, retrieved 4.9.2022)

Twelve Most Cited Papers

The most cited paper by Skarlicki et al describes a quasi-experiment that was used to determine whether training officers in the skills necessary for implementing principles of organizational justice would increase citizenship behavior on the part of members of a labor union in Canada. The results showed that 3 months after training, the perceptions of union fairness among members (n = 83) whose leaders were in the training group were significantly higher than among members (n = 69) whose leaders were in the control group. Factor analysis found that citizenship behavior had 2 dimensions: behavior supporting the union as an organization (OCRO) and behavior supporting union brothers and sisters (OCBI). Peer assessments revealed that citizenship behavior on both dimensions was significantly higher among union members whose leaders were trained than among members whose leaders were not trained. Perceptions of fairness were found to mediate the relationship between training and OCBO but not OCBI (Skarlicki et al, 1996, p. 161).

Despite meta-analytic evidence demonstrating that leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement (consensus between leader and subordinate perceptions) is only moderate at best, research on LMX typically examines this relationship from only one perspective: either the leader’s or the subordinates’. Matta et al return to the roots of LMX and utilize role theory to argue that agreement between leader and subordinate perceptions of LMX quality has meaningful effects on employee motivation and behavior. In a polynomial regression analysis of 280 leader-subordinate dyads, employee work engagement and subsequent organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)-was maximized (at each level of LMX quality) when leaders and subordinates were in agreement about the quality of their LMX relationship but suffered when they did not see “eye to eye.” Indeed, situations in which both leaders and subordinates evaluated their relationship as low quality were associated with higher work engagement (and subsequent OCB) than were situations of disagreement in which a single member evaluated the relationship as high quality. Further, this effect was consistent regardless of whether the leader or the subordinate evaluated the relationship highly. Matta et al conclude that, to fully understand the implications of their only dyadic leadership theory, they must consider the perspectives of both members of the LMX dyad simultaneously (Matta, 2015, p. 1686).

Strategy implementation scholars have traditionally focused their attention on behavioral and social phenomena in a firm that enables them to both choose and implement their strategies. Unfortunately, some of this work has assumed that it is possible to study strategy implementation independent of the content of a firm’s strategies, and independent of the particular competitive context within which a firm operates. Recent developments in the resource-based view of the firm reaffirm the importance of studying the strategic consequences of behavioral and social phenomena within a firm but suggest that separating this work from the content of strategy, or from the competitive context of a firm, is inappropriate. The papers in this special issue focus on important behavioral and social phenomena in a firm (e.g., organizational behavior), but do so in an explicit competitive context (e.g., competitive organizational behavior) (Barney et al, 1994).

Miner analyzed rated importance, extent of recognition, validity, and usefulness of 73 established organizational behavior theories, differentiating between the views of judges with expertise in organizational behavior and in strategic management. The results indicate an increasingly mature science with many more positive relationships among the variables considered than existed previously. The findings have major implications for learning and education activities, such as textbook writing and organizational behavior course design in that they indicate which theories should be stressed and which should be given minimal, if any, attention at different levels of the educational process (Miner, 2003, p. 250).

Lord et al state that attributional theories used to explain organizational behavior are overly restrictive. Attributional processes may vary with the type of attributional question addressed and with the level of information processing consistent with situational or motivational factors. Several attributional principles are organized into a typology involving type of attributional question and level of information processing. Boundary conditions affecting the use of particular principles are identified and the importance of differences among attributional processes are discussed (Lord et al, 1983, p. 50).

Protecting information from a variety of security threats is a daunting organizational activity. Organization managers must recognize the roles that organization insiders have in protecting information resources rather than solely relying upon technology to provide this protection. Unfortunately, compared to negative insider behaviors, the extant literature provides sparse coverage of beneficial insider activities. The few beneficial activities in the literature represent only a small portion of the diverse collection of insiders’ protective actions. This research focuses on protection-motivated behaviors (PMBs), which are volitional behaviors enacted by organization insiders to protect (1) organizationally relevant information and (2) the computer-based information systems in which the information is stored, collected, disseminated, and/or manipulated from information security threats. Based on systematics, Posey proposes a six-step methodology of qualitative and quantitative approaches to develop a taxonomy and theory of diversity for PMBs. These approaches integrate the classification techniques of multidimensional scaling (MDS), property fitting (ProFit), and cluster analyses. They leverage these techniques to identify and display how insiders collectively classify 67 unique PMBs and their homogeneous classes. Suggested taxonomy provides researchers and practitioners a comprehensive guide and common nomenclature for PMBs. The methodology can be similarly used to create other theories of diversity (Posey, 2013, p. 1189).

Qualitative social research generates large amounts of non-standard data which make analysis problematic. Turner’s discussion advocates the use of grounded theory as a way of handling these problems. The approach is illustrated, in the context of organizational research, by three cases of grounded theoretical analyses: (a) a study of face-to-face interaction in a hospital between nurses and patients’ relatives; (b) a field-study based on the complex organizational interrelationships associated with small batch production manufacturing; and (c) a documentary-based analysis of the organizational pre-conditions of large-scale accidents. The discussion of the cases stresses the manner in which the qualitative data collected were manipulated in order to give them theoretical shape (Turner, 2007, p. 333).

Utilizing the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a framework for understanding employee intentions to support organizational change, this study examined the extent to which attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) and the interactive effect of group norm and ingroup identification predicted intentions to carry out change supportive activities. It also was hypothesized that communication and participation would increase intentions, with these relationships mediated by the TPB variables. The sample was 149 employees undergoing the first phase of a building relocation. Attitude, subjective norm, and PBC each predicted intentions. A significant interaction emerged, with group norm predicting intentions only for employees who identified strongly with their reference group. Employees who perceived sufficient information about the relocation reported stronger intentions, an effect that was partially mediated via subjective norm and PBC. Similarly, participation predicted intentions via subjective norm. Implications for fostering employee readiness for change are discussed (Jimmieson et al, 2004).

In the Go for Health project, Parcel et al claim that interventions based on organizational change and social learning theory facilitate changes in diet and exercise behavior by elementary school children. Baseline data documented the need for behavior change. Based on chemical analyses, average per meal amounts of total fat and sodium were higher than national recommendations: total fat was 29.3% higher than U.S. Dietary Goals; sodium was 107.4% greater than recommended levels. Observations of students in physical education class revealed children moved through space 50.1% of the time and moved continuously an average of 2.2 minutes per class period. These findings suggest the need for policy and practice changes in the school environment to enable children to engage in more healthful diet and exercise behavior (Parcel et al, 1987; p. 150).

Since the publication of Katz and Kahn’s The Social Psychology of Organizations (1966) and Thompson’s Organizations in Action (1967), the open systems model has dominated the thinking of scholars interested in organization theory. Although a number of authors, such as Scott (1961), had discussed the systems view of organizations before 1966, Katz and Kahn’s book was the first major exemplar of the systems model, and the one probably most often cited since then in connection with the systems paradigm. For Katz and Kahn, the stated purpose of applying the systems model to organizations was to facilitate the integration of the so-called “macro” and “micro” concepts, thereby fostering some commonality of terms and concepts. Further, they hoped that the systems model would escape a commonly alleged fault of earlier approaches to the study of social organization, namely, a tendency to rely on analogies and metaphors that were not entirely appropriate (Katz and Kahn, 1966: 9) (Pinder et al, 1980).

Purpose – Knowledge sharing usually happens in a work group context, but it is rarely know-how group leaders influence their members’ knowledge-sharing performance. Based on social exchange theory (SET) and the perspective of positive organizational behavior (POB), this study aims to argue that a group leader’s positive leadership (e.g., empowering leadership) can help group members develop positive psychological capital which can increase their knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach – Wu et al conduct a multilevel analysis to explore the interrelationship among empowering leadership, psychological capital and knowledge sharing. The sample includes 64 work groups consisting of 537 group members, and empirical testing is carried out by hierarchical linear modeling. Findings – The results show that empowering leadership in a work group has a direct cross-level impact on members’ knowledge sharing and that psychological capital partially mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and knowledge sharing. As a result, this study shows that group leaders with positive leadership can help their members develop better positive psychological resources, which should lead to better knowledge sharing. Originality/value – Based on the multilevel perspective and SET, this is the first study to explore how group leaders’ empowering leadership influences members’ knowledge sharing. Depending on integrating the POB perspective into SET, this study is also the first one that connects two emerging and important research issues – POB and knowledge sharing (Wu et al, 2017).

The dominant paradigm of organizations, on which organization development (OD) is based, is industry-specific in theory and practice. The traditional manner by which OD technology has been transferred to the human services field presumes that the same theories and practices prevail here as well. Kouzes et al challenge this presumption. They suggest that the behavior of human services organizations (HSOs) is based on a fundamentally different paradigm, which necessitates both a new organizational theory and a different OD practice. The authors introduce and discuss a theory of organizational behavior in HSOs, integrating their own experiences with the works of Bell, Jaques, Weick, Weisbord, and others. They suggest that HSOs are comprised of three distinct domains – the Policy Domain, the Management Domain, and the Service Domain. They maintain that each domain operates by different and contrasting principles, success measures, structural arrangements, and work modes, and that the interactions between these create natural conditions of disjunction and discordance. This paradigm of conflicting domains can serve as a new conceptual guide to OD in HSOs, as well as aid to the development and refinement of new OD methods and tools specific to these organizations (Kouzes et al, 1979, p. 449).

Synthetic Table

Following table 2 synthetically summarizes the above introduced most cited papers and characterizes what topics are most frequently focused. There are no repeating theories in the topics of the papers. Most popular theories in the top cited dozen of topical papers are organizational justice theory, a role theory, theory of competitive advantage, organization behavior theories – quantitative review, attribution theory, theory of diversity, grounded theory, social learning theory, middle range theories of organizational behavior, theory of planned behavior, domain theory and social exchange theory. We see that no repeating names are in the research teams of different papers. The oldest two papers in the top dozen are from the year 1979 and the newest one from the year 2017.

Table 2: Synthetic table of most cited studies focused on different theories of organizational behavior (Source: Authors’ own processing on the base of Web of Science, retrieved 4.9.2022)

Based on previous table 3 we can answer and clarify the research question (RQ1): does any dominant theory exist in the dozen of most cited papers? No, there has been found twelve different pointed theories in the dozen of the most cited paper:

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice regarding how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee’s resulting attitude and behavior. Role theory is a concept that considers most of everyday activity to be the acting-out of socially defined categories (e.g., mother, manager, teacher). Each role is a set of rights, duties, expectations, norms, and behaviors that a person must face and fulfill. In business, a competitive advantage is the attribute that allows an organization to outperform its competitors. A competitive advantage may include access to natural resources, such as high-grade ores or a low-cost power source, highly skilled labor, geographic location, high entry barriers, and access to new technology. Fulfillment of competitive advantages can be achieved especially in companies that understand human potential as a basis for achieving higher competitiveness of the entire company. This can be documented, for example, through the learning and growth perspective of the Balanced Scorecard (Kozel, 2017). Organizational behavior theories refer to the study of human behavior in a business environment. They attempt to find answers to how and why humans behave in certain ways within different professional settings and groups. Attribution is a term used in psychology which deals with how individuals perceive the causes of everyday experience, as being either external or internal. Models to explain this process are called attribution theory (Kassin et al, 2010). The psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider first introduced the concept of perceived ‘locus of causality’ to define the perception of one’s environment (Ryan, 1989). For instance, an experience may be perceived as being caused by factors outside the person’s control (external) or it may be perceived as the person’s own doing (internal). The cognitive diversity hypothesis suggests that multiple perspectives stemming from the cultural differences between group or organizational members result in creative problem solving and innovation. Grounded theory is a systematic methodology that has been largely applied to qualitative research conducted by social scientists. The methodology involves the construction of hypotheses and theories through collecting and analysis of data (Yancey et al, 1986; Faggiolani, 2011; Strauss et al, 1994). Grounded theory involves the application of inductive reasoning. The methodology contrasts with the hypothetico-deductive model used in traditional scientific research. Social learning theory is a theory of learning process and social behavior which proposes that new behavior can be acquired by observing and imitating others (Bandura, 1971). It states that learning is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and can occur purely through observation or direct instruction, even in the absence of motor reproduction or direct reinforcement (Bandura, 1963). In addition to the observation of behavior, learning also occurs through the observation of rewards and punishments, a process known as vicarious reinforcement. When a particular behavior is rewarded regularly, it will most likely persist; conversely, if a particular behavior is constantly punished, it will most likely desist (Renzetti et al, 2012). Grand theory is broader and provides an overall framework for structuring ideas. Middle-range theory addresses defined phenomena more narrowly and can be used to suggest an intervention. The theory of planned behavior is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that the three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual’s behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior. Domain theory is a branch of mathematics that studies special kinds of partially ordered sets (posets) commonly called domains. Consequently, domain theory can be considered as a branch of order theory. The field has major applications in computer science, where it is used to specify denotational semantics, especially for functional programming languages. Domain theory formalizes the intuitive ideas of approximation and convergence in a very general way and is closely related to topology. Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits. The theory also involves economic relationships—the cost-benefit analysis occurs when each party has goods that the other parties value (Roeckelein, 2018). Social exchange theory suggests that these calculations occur in romantic relationships, friendships, professional relationships, and ephemeral relationships as simple as exchanging words with a customer at the cash register (Mcray, 2015). Social exchange theory says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards, such as if a lot of effort or money were put into a relationship and not reciprocated, then the relationship may be terminated or abandoned (Emerson et al, 1976).

The research question (RQ2), if any author has published more than one paper in the most cited dozen, can be answered: no, always only one paper in the dozen of most cited papers has been published by author team.

Conclusion

The presented theoretical paper deals with the most popular recent topics in the world of organizational behavior. The methodology is based upon the advanced rapid review technique. As the classification criterium, authors have used the citation score of the Web of Science in the PICOS frame. The main objective of the paper is to find out what the most attractive and popular recent theories of world organizational behavior are and whether there exists any dominant theory in the branch of organizational behavior. Two research questions were set and evaluated. The presented paper includes literature review, applied methodology description as well as the most important research findings accompanied with commented charts, tables and discussion. The most important finding pointed out that there doesn’t exist any dominant theory in the dozen of the most cited papers. Most popular theories in the top cited dozen topical papers are organizational justice theory, a role theory, theory of competitive advantage, organization behavior theories – quantitative review, attribution theory, theory of diversity, grounded theory, social learning theory, middle range theories of organizational behavior, theory of planned behavior, domain theory and social exchange theory. All the papers of the most cited dozen have been elaborated by different teams of researchers. The aim of the paper was fulfilled. The major benefit of the paper for managers is to inspire about what topics in the organization could be possibly addressed to obtain better performance.

Acknowledgement

This paper has been prepared with the financial aid of the project ROKA with number CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_054/ 0014592 implemented by Moravian Business College Olomouc and with the support of the project Erasmus+ BESPOKE 2021-1-HU01-KA220-HED-000032002.

Copyright Notice

Authors who publish in any IBIMA Publishing open access journal retain the copyright of their work under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which allows the unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of an article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.  No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.  While authors retain copyright of their work with first publication rights granted to IBIMA Publishing, authors are required to transfer copyrights associated with commercial use to this Publisher. Revenues produced from commercial sales and distribution of published articles are used to maintain reduced publication fees and charges.

References

• Bandura, Albert (1963) Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
• Bandura, Albert (1971) Social Learning Theory. General Learning Corporation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 October 2013. Retrieved 25 December 2013.
• Barney, J.B. and Zajac, E.J. (1994), Competitive Organizational Behavior: Toward an Organizationally-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage. Mgmt. J., 15: 5-9. https://doi-org.zdroje.vse.cz/10.1002/smj.4250150902.
• Bates, D., & McGrath, D. (2013) Little Book of Big Management Theories. Birmingham, UK, Pearson, 253 p. ISBN: ‎978-0273785262.
• Curtin University Library (2020) Available from: libguides.library.curtin.edu.au.
• Emerson & Cook, R & K (1976) The Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology. 2: 335–362.
• Faggiolani, C. (2011) Perceived Identity: Applying Grounded Theory in Libraries. JLIS.it. University of Florence. 2 (1). doi:10.4403/jlis.it-4592. Retrieved 29 June 2013.
• Fuller, J. B., Marler, R. E., Hester, K. (2012) Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 33, is. 8., pp 1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1780.
• Greenberg, Jerald (1987) A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. Academy of Management Review. 12 (1): 9–22. doi:10.5465/amr.1987.4306437. ISSN 0363-7425.
• Griffin, R. W., Moorhead, G. (2012) Organizational Behavior. Managing People and Organizations. 10^th Mason (USA): Cengage Learning, 2012. ISBN: 978-0-538-47813-7.
• Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., Matteson, M. T. (2014). Organizational Behavior and Management. 10^th New York (USA): McGraw-Hill, 2014. ISBN: 978-0-07-802946-2.
• Jimmieson, Nerina & Peach, Megan & White, Katherine (2004) Employee Readiness For Change: Utilizing The Theory Of Planned Behavior To Inform Change Management. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2004. 10.5465/AMBPP.2004.13857578.
• Kassin; Fein; Markus (2010) Social Psychology (Eighth international ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-8400-3172-3.
• Kenton, W., Mansa, J. and P. Williams (2021) Strategic Management, Investopedia [online] [cit. 2021-10-02]. Available from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/strategic-management.asp.
• Kouzes JM, Mico PR. (1979) Domain Theory: An Introduction to Oganizational Behavior in Human Service Organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 15(4):449-469. doi:10.1177/002188637901500402.
• Kozel, R., Š. Vilamová, P. Baránek, V. Friedrich, Z. Hajduová and M. Behún. (2017) Optimizing of the Balanced Scorecard Method for Management of Mining Companies with the Use of Factor Analysis. Acta Montanistica Slovaca, volume 22, issue 4, pp. 439-447. ISSN 1335-1788. WOS:000439005200011 eid=2-s2.0-85041598492.
• Lord, Robert G. a Jonathan E. Smith (1983) Theoretical, Information Processing, and Situational Factors Affecting Attribution Theory Models of Organizational Behavior. Academy of Management Review [online] 8(1), 50-60 [cit. 2020-10-04]. ISSN 03637425. Dostupné z: doi:10.5465/AMR.1983.4287658.
• Luthans, F., Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W. (2021) Organizational Behavior. An Evidence Based Approach. 14th ed. New York (USA): Information Age Publishing, ISBN: 978-1-64802-126-8.
• Matta, Fadel. (2015) Does Seeing “Eye To Eye” Affect Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior? A Role Theory Perspective on LMX Agreement. Academy of Management Journal [online] 58(6), 1686-1708 [cit. 2020-10-04]. ISSN 0001-4273.
• Mcray, Jeni (2015) Leadership Glossary: Essential Terms for the 21st Century. Credo Reference. Mission Bell Media. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
• Miner, J. B. (2006). Historical origins, theoretical foundations and the future. Organizational Behavior. Vol. 3. New York and London: M.E. Sharpe.
• Miner, John B. (2003) The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Organizational Behavior Theories: A Quantitative Review. Academy of Management Learning [online] 2(3), 250-268 [cit. 2020-10-02]. ISSN 1537260X. Dostupné z: doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.10932132.
• Nag, Rajiv & Hambrick, Donald & Chen, Ming-Jer. (2007) What Is Strategic Management, Really? Inductive Derivation of a Consensus Definition of the Field. Strategic Management Journal – STRATEG MANAGE J. 935-955. 10.1002/smj.615.
• Parcel, G.S., Simons-Morton, B.G., O’Hara, N.M., Baranowski, T., Kolbe, L.J. and Bee, D.E. (1987) School Promotion of Healthful Diet and Exercise Behavior: An Integration of Organizational Change and Social Learning Theory Interventions. Journal of School Health, 57: 150-156. https://doi-org.zdroje.vse.cz/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1987.tb04163.x.
• Pawliczek, A., Navratilova, D. (2016) Utilization of modern management methods in Moravian companies – advanced stage research results. In ICLEL 2015 Proceedings Book. Sakarya, pp. 336-343.
• Posey, Clay (2013) Insiders’ Protection of Organizational Information Assets: Development of a Systematics-Based Taxonomy and Theory of Diversity for Protection-Motivated Behaviors. MIS Quarterly [online] 37(4), 1189-1210 [cit. 2020-10-14]. ISSN 0276-7783.
• Pinder C.C., Moore L.F. (1980) The Resurrection of Taxonomy to Aid the Development of Middle Range Theories of Organizational Behavior. In: Pinder C.C., Moore L.F. (eds) Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.cas.cz/10.1007/978-94-009-8733-3_16.
• Renzetti, Claire; Curran, Daniel; Maier, Shana (2012) Women, Men, and Society. Pearson. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-0205863693.
• Roeckelein, Jon E. (2018) Elsevier’s Dictionary of Psychological Theories. Credo Reference. Elsevier B.V. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
• Ryan, Richard M., Connell, James P. (1989) Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (5): 749–761. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749. ISSN 1939-1315.
• Skarlicki, Daniel P. a Gary P. Latham (1996) Increasing Citizenship Behavior Within a Labor Union: A Test of Organizational Justice Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology [online]. 81(2), 161-169 [cit. 2020-10-02]. ISSN 00219010. Dostupné z: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.161.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In Denzin & Y. Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1st ed. (pp. 273–284).
• Turner, Barry (2007) The Use of Grounded Theory for the Qualitative Analysis of Organizational Behavior. Journal of Management Studies. 20. 333 – 348. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00211.x.
• Wu, W.-L. and Lee, Y.-C. (2017), Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing: integrating the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 474-491. https://doi-org.zdroje.vse.cz/10.1108/JKM-08-2016-0318.
• Yancey Patricia Martin & Barry A. Turner (1986) Grounded Theory and Organizational Research, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 22, no. 2, 141.
• Zimmermannová, J. & Cermak, P. (2014) Possibilities of Multiagent Simulation Model Application in the Emission Allowances Trading Area. Procedia Economics and Finance. 12. 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00406-7.