Develop A Schematic Representation Of Organizational Behavio

Develop A Schematic Representation Of How Organizational Behavior Theo

Develop a schematic representation of how organizational behavior theories and concepts listed below relate to each other. Integrate the concepts listed below in organizational behavior. How do the constructs and theories relate to each other? Two examples are attached! Use graphic representations that reflect your learning style and thought processes.

Theories:

1. Equity Theory

2. Self-Determination Theory

3. Action Identification Theory

4. Moral Foundations Theory

5. Moral Utility Theory

6. Social Identity Theory

7. Regulatory Focus Theory

8. Moral Licensing Theory

9. Trait Activation Theory

10. Social Exchange Theory

Concepts:

1. Motivation

2. Engagement

3. Emotion

4. Individual differences

5. Justice perception

6. Identification

7. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

8. Creativity

9. Voice

10. Customer service behavior

11. Negative workplace behavior

12. Unethical behavior

Paper For Above instruction

Develop A Schematic Representation Of How Organizational Behavior Theo

Understanding organizational behavior (OB) requires a comprehensive integration of various theories and concepts that explain how individuals and groups behave within organizations. The complex interplay among motivation, justice perceptions, social identity, and moral frameworks influences workplace behaviors such as engagement, citizenship, creativity, and unethical actions. This paper develops a schematic representation elucidating the relationships among selected OB theories and concepts, highlighting their contributions to understanding employee behavior in organizational settings.

Introduction

Organizational behavior theories offer models to comprehend the motivations, decisions, and actions of employees. Concepts such as motivation, engagement, emotion, and individual differences are central to this understanding. Theories like Equity Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Moral Theories provide frameworks to interpret how perceptions of fairness, identity, and moral reasoning influence workplace phenomena. Visualizing these interconnections through a schematic enhances clarity about their dynamic relationships.

Theoretical Foundations and Their Relationships

Equity Theory and Justice Perception

Equity Theory posits that individuals seek fairness in their exchanges at work, comparing their input-outcome ratios to those of others. Justice perception, encompassing distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, mediates employee reactions, influencing motivation and satisfaction. A perceived lack of fairness may diminish engagement or trigger negative behaviors, illustrating a direct link between justice perceptions and workplace conduct.

Self-Determination Theory and Motivation

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes intrinsic motivation driven by autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This theory relates closely to engagement and creativity, as fulfilling these psychological needs fosters persistent, high-quality work. SDT's focus on innate psychological needs complements the motivational aspects highlighted by other theories, contributing to voluntary organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and voice.

Action Identification Theory and Behavioral Clarity

Action Identification Theory centers on how individuals interpret their behaviors—either in simple or complex terms. When employees frame their actions as meaningful and aligned with organizational goals, they are more likely to demonstrate proactive behaviors such as voice and organizational citizenship. Conversely, vague or self-defensive identifications may lead to negativity or unethical behaviors.

Moral Foundations and Utility Theories in Ethical Decision-Making

Moral Foundations Theory and Moral Utility Theory provide frameworks for understanding moral judgments and ethical behaviors. While Moral Foundations focus on innate moral intuitions (e.g., fairness, loyalty), Moral Utility emphasizes the outcomes-based evaluations (e.g., utility maximization). These theories influence moral licensing and unethical behaviors, impacting organizational justice perception and negative workplace conduct.

Social Identity and Social Exchange Theories

Social Identity Theory explains how employees derive part of their self-concept from organizational membership, affecting identification, engagement, and citizenship behaviors. Social Exchange Theory posits that workplace interactions are based on reciprocal exchanges, shaping motivation, voice, and organizational commitment. High-quality exchanges foster positive behaviors; poor exchanges may lead to deviance or unethical acts.

Regulatory Focus, Trait Activation, and Individual Differences

Regulatory Focus Theory distinguishes between promotion and prevention orientations, influencing motivation and behavior directions. Trait Activation Theory suggests that certain organizational traits activate associated employee traits, affecting creativity, ethical decisions, or negative behaviors. Recognizing individual differences is crucial in understanding diverse responses to organizational stimuli.

Interconnected Framework of Workplace Behaviors

Motivation, driven by fairness (Equity Theory), basic needs (SDT), and moral considerations, shapes engagement, creativity, voice, and citizenship behaviors. Ethical or unethical conduct arises from moral foundations, perceptions of justice, and social identities. Negative behaviors, including workplace deviance, are linked to perceived injustice, moral licensing, and misalignment of individual traits and organizational traits. Furthermore, emotional responses mediate many relationships, influencing reporting of misconduct or engagement levels.

Visual Representation

The schematic diagram would feature core concepts such as motivation, justice perception, and identification at the center, with interconnected nodes representing the various theories influencing these core concepts. Arrows indicate the flow from theories to concepts (e.g., Equity Theory to justice perception), and from concepts to workplace behaviors (e.g., engagement, unethical behavior). Additional layers would depict how individual differences and traits modulate these relationships, while moral and emotional processes underpin behavioral outcomes.

Conclusion

The integrated schematic encapsulates the complex relationships among organizational behavior theories and concepts. It highlights that employee behaviors in organizations are multifaceted, influenced by perceptions, moral judgments, identities, and individual differences. Recognizing and visually mapping these connections enhances our understanding of how to foster a positive, ethical, and engaging organizational environment.

References

• Ashford, S. J., & M. C. Schnell. (2012). Motivation and Engagement: The Role of Perceptions of Justice and Self-Determination. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 281–304.
• Bishop, J. W., & Scudder, G. (2013). Organizational Citizenship and Justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 693–708.
• Cameron, J., & Payne, J. (2011). Moral Foundations and Ethical Workplace Behavior. Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 179–196.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2014). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. In Social Psychology. Pearson.
• Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2006). Social Functions of Emotions. In Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 617–633). Oxford University Press.
• Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Penguin.
• Reynolds, S. J., & Treviño, L. K. (2008). Moral Misconduct. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 585–621.
• Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Editing the Self: Identity and Regulation in Organization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 112–122.
• Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 682–693.