and commitments about in whom to make investments and from whom to receive returns in dyadic relationships. Moreover, investments and returns, and interdependence and cohesion, as noted earlier, are both social exchange-based formulations, so they have a common theoretical founda-tion. Also, making investments in and receiving returns from another individual create a type of interdependence that, over time and in multiple dyads, may lead to group cohesion. Likewise, cohesion and interdependence are a way to describe (group) norms; these norms come with and are based on a set of expectations. As such, norms and group functioning may be linked to other expectations and various titles.
Again, however, each of our four simple theories would first need to be verified and replicated before venturing into the realm of a GUT of OB.
CONCLUSION
Following from Wolfram (2002), we believe that simple ‘‘rules,’’ or ‘‘little ideas that are well tested,’’ can explain a variety of both simple and complex behavior and actions in organizations. The four simple, yet comprehensive theories proposed here are an attempt to integrate much prior work and form the basis for a new kind of OB. We do not believe that (1) option cutting and commitment at the whole person level (for understanding individual behavior and decision making), (2) investments and returns at the whole dyad level (for understanding interpersonal relations and leadership), (3) interdependence and cohesion at the whole group level (for understanding group dynamics/team processes and norms), and (4) titles and expectations at the whole collective level as well as at the whole group, whole dyad, and whole person levels (for understanding collectivized processes and roles) are theexplanation for all the behavior in organizations. However, we do believe that they provide one way to account for many behaviors and actions, and that they do so as well as more complex theories in OB. Clearly, multi-level empirical testing and replication of these ideas will demonstrate whether our assertions and beliefs are correct. Whatever the outcome of such investiga-tions, our hope is that we have pushed the science of OB a bit further with Theory 1, Theory 2, Theory 3, and Theory 4 for a new kind of OB.
research on which this chapter is based. We also thank Marie Iobst for her extraordinary efforts.
REFERENCES
Alutto, J. A. (1968). Role propositions and the analysis of organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing:
Natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 547–587.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–40.
Behling, O. (1978). Some problems in the philosophy of science of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 3, 193–201.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities and behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blau, P. M. (1974). On the nature of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.
Chaitin, G. (2006). The limits of reason. Scientific American, 294(3), 74–81.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Dansereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 479–490.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dansereau, F., Cho, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Avoiding the ‘‘fallacy of the wrong level’’:
A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group and Organization Manage-ment, 31, 536–577.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds). (1998a). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part A: Classical and new wave). Vol. 24 of Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds). (1998b). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part B: Contemporary and alternative). Vol. 24 of Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Within and between analysis: The varient para-digm as an underlying approach to theory building and testing. In: K. J. Klein &
S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions(pp. 425–466). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds). (2003). Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy. Vol. 2 of Research in Multi-Level Issues. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds). (2005). Multi-level issues in strategy and methods.
Vol. 4 of Research in Multi-Level Issues. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Is more discussion about levels of analysis really necessary? When is such discussion sufficient? Leadership Quarterly, 17, 537–552.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds). (2007). Multi-level issues in organizations and time.
Vol. 6 of Research in Multi-Level Issues. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 24, 346–357.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al.
(1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413–450.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.
Firebaugh, G. (1980). Groups as contexts and frog ponds. In: K. H. Roberts & L. Burstein (Eds), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral research: Issues in aggregation(pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gibson, C. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 145–160.
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138–152.
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, 25(1), 67–96.
Glick, W. H., & Roberts, K. H. (1984). Hypothesized interdependence, assumed independence.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 722–735.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In: B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71–114).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555–573.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibault, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relationships: A theory of interdependence.
New York: Wiley.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.
Kornhauser, W. (1962). Scientists in industry: Conflict and accommodation. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of groups and teams.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
Lerner, D. (Ed.) (1963). Parts and wholes. New York: Free Parkham.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ‘‘side-bet theory’’ of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106.
Mumford, M. D., Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Followers, motivations, and levels of analysis: The case of individualized leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 313–340.
Naughton, T. J. (1982). An empirical examination of a theory of option-cutting and commitment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351–357.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
Shaw, M. R. (1976). Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.
Taggar, S., & Ellis, R. (2007). The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 105–120.
Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.
Wallis, N. C. (1999). Follow the leader: Understanding the initiation of individualized leadership from follower and leader perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute.
Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, translator).
New York: Free Press.
Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.
Yammarino, F. J. (1994). A conceptual–empirical approach for testing meso and multi-level theories. In: H. L. Tosi (Ed.), Extensions of the environment/organization/person model (pp. 20–50). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Yammarino, F. J. (1995). Dyadic leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(4), 50–74.
Yammarino, F. J. (1996). Group leadership: A levels of analysis perspective. In: M. A. West (Ed.), The handbook of work group psychology (pp. 189–224). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Yammarino, F. J. (1998). Multivariate aspects of the varient/WABA approach: A discussion and leadership illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 203–227.
Yammarino, F. J. (2003). Modern data analytic techniques for multisource feedback.
Organizational Research Methods, 6(1), 6–14.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Person and situation views of leadership: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 121–139.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds). (2002a). The many faces of multi-level issues. Vol. 1 of Research in Multi-Level Issues. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2002b). Individualized leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9, 90–99.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds). (2004). Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and processes. Vol. 3 of Research in Multi-Level Issues. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds). (2006). Multi-level issues in social systems. Vol. 5 of Research in Multi-Level Issues. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Yammarino, F. J., Dansereau, F., & Kennedy, C. (2001). A multiple-level multidimensional approach to leadership: Viewing leadership through an elephant’s eye. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 149–163.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879–919.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior–subordinate relationships: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45, 575–600.
Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1992). On the application of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 168–176 (correction, 77, 426).
Yammarino, F. J., & Naughton, T. J. (1988). Time spent communicating: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 41, 655–676.