Talk:Organizational Behavior

Redirection and structure

I have redirected this to organizational studies. I moved the references and all the text except for the section on external and internal factors, which, while relevant, do not form the basis of organizational behavior. OB is at least partially based on studying behavior of firms and organizations as a whole, rather than just the individuals inside of the organizations. I am open to discussion if someone wants to revert, however. --Goodoldpolonius 03:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The structure's a bit messy. Personally, I'd call the whole thing organisational studies then focus on Organizational Behavior as the study of individuals within organisations and Organisational Theory as the study of the organizations as a whole. Unfortunately, there's not clear definition that's universally accepted. However, at the moment, Organisation Theory redirects to Organization Behavior which I think most people in the field would argue that are different. Geoff332 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed link to commercial website showing paid advertisements that was in opening sentence. Added tag. Will continue working on critical opening paragraph, based on what all reliable sources provide. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No discussion? as to why editor psyc12 deleted sound reliably sourced edits?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I explained in the edit note. This is about history. It doesn't belong in the lede that is defining what the field is. It belongs in history because it is about development of the field.Psyc12 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You just deleted this: [1] again, and while we were in the middle of a good faith discussion over a resolution here? I don't agree with your reasoning but this hostile deletion while under discussion on talk, undermines Wikipedia consensus building and civility between editors. Can you please restore this sound edit and all the reliable sources attached that you also deleted, as a good faith gesture, while we are discussing it?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Can other editors please sign their posts too? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You cannot have an opening paragraph that does not mention organizational psychology. It is very relevant and needs to be established early.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Organizational psychology and OB are not the same, and to mention it in the lede will just confuse uninformed readers into thinking they are. This is an article about OB and not about psychology. OP should be mentioned somewhere, and the history section is a reasonable place.Psyc12 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate keeping things as they are in the article, while we discuss this in a civil manner psyc12. Not saying they are exactly the same. However similar enough to mention it in lede for Wikipedia readers. How are they different in your opinion? Differences are very subtle, according to Jex. How do you see it psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Added reference to statement in lede. Jex and Britt devote a section to the issue, in their definitive text? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jex and Britt do not say there is confusion between the two fields. They say there are "outward similarities" but then they go on to talk about how they are different. These fields are different, and to talk about I/O in the lede is to confuse readers into thinking they are the same.
"the field of organizational behavior is concerned not only with individual behavior in organizations, but macro-level processes and variables such as organizational structure and strategy are viewed as interesting and worthy in their own right. Organizational psychology is also concerned with the impact of macro-level variables and processes, but only to the extent that such variables and processes have an impact on individual behavior. Much of the reason for this difference is that organizational behavior draws from a greater variety of disciplines than does organizational psychology. While organizational psychology draws primarily from various subfields within psychology, organizational behavior draws from a variety of disciplines including psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and labor relations to name a few." p. 4.Psyc12 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I get that OB is multidisciplinary. That is not the point I am making psyc12. Jex and Britt struggle with being able to deliniate. Have you read their text. Organizational psychology. A scientist practitioner approach? Jex devotes a whole section to this confusing issue. He says in the end, the most tangible he can see is the differencs in the salary level. I added the reference and re-worked the single sentence as you asked. The lede normally does noit need a reference even psyc12. I am very familiar with what we are talking about here too. Even on the I/O article talk page there is a header from a while back Talk:Industrial and organizational psychology/Archive 1 where another editor is asking the same question. There are accredited Masters Degrees in the UK listing OB as a core subject. I have even seen some I/O authors listing OB on the front cover of their I/O texts! It has got that confusing. This is an encycopledia. I am noting that there is confusion, in one well written sentence in the lede. Readers can refer to the I/O article to see for themselves if they like. But we can't censor these things. I think the other sentences of the lede should be put further down in the article actually. Have you any other reliable sources explicitly saying how OB is different to org psych?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

oops - wrong place to comment. Removed my comment to move it to a more appropriate place. Geoff332 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Organization Theory

Although organizational behavior is certainly related to organization theory, I don't think the latter is part of the former. Shouldn't we have a separate article on Organization theory? The French Wikipedia has. --Chealer (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I would support that idea, of a separate article on org theory.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Support editor Chealer's comments above. I agree there should be a separate article on organizational theory. As Chealer correctly pointed out, org theory is not the same as org behavior, nor is it a a specialization of OB.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Support from me as well. However, it's more that just creating a new entry. It's also a case of making a clear distinction between OB (theory of behaviour in and around organisations) and OT (theory of organisations - form, structure, etc). This is most obvious in the introductory paragraph which uses a quote that conflates OB and OT as basically the same thing. I'll try and find time to update that a little to remove the confusion while retaining the basic gist of the introduction.

Geoff332 (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

History Section

First sentence of the history section

The first sentence of the history section read as follows, "The focus of organizational behavior shifted to how psychological factors affected organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne Effect." It is not clear what the original focus from which the shift took place was. A prior version mentioned the period around World War I but was deleted. It would be helpful to include a time frame such as the period following the publication of the first Hawthorne studies because this is a history section. Iss246 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph in view of the fact that the nature of OB before Hawthorne was not mentioned although the paragraph I saw yesterday began by mentioning a shift in OB from before to after Hawthorne, but without indicating what the "before" looked like. It would be helpful if a contributor could write a couple of sentences to begin the first paragraph, and have those sentences describe what OB was like before Hawthorne. Iss246 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating History

I've made a few updates to the history. The focus is to highlight some of the key ideas that led to the emergence of OB and where some of the major streams of thought originated from.

  • Introduced the context of the industrial revolution and Weber's bureaucracy. The brings in sociology.
  • Put a quick summary of some of the early practitioner theories; this is where management theory really comes from.
  • Adding some basic scientific management ideas, with the most direct precursors. This is important, because Hawthorne started as a simple work study; it was the surprising results that really led to OB.
  • Expanded the section on Hawthorne and how it led to focus on individual motivation as a topic and draws in psychology.
  • Removed the reference to operations research. This is not a derivative of OB in any sense (it came from military logistics and applying mathematical models).
  • Put a bit more about Herbert Simon: this both brings in economic theory and introduces decision making as a major topic.

I've run out of time to go much beyond this, but a lot of the next section is really organisation theory. Geoff332 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph mentions confusion between OB and i/o ? but does not do anything to reduce confusion. The business of this confusion should be taken up later in the article when some of the history of OB is covered. Iss246 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The point of that long standing reliably sourced section of the opening paragraph is that the confusion still remains. Please discuss on this talk page iss246, before deleting other editor's reliably sourced work. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I did discuss it above. I devoted a paragraph to OB and i/o. I/o does not belong in the first paragraph. This is an OB article. Not an i/o article. We would not like the beginning of the i/o entry to be about the confusion of i/o with OB.
I add this. The unsourced material was not my writing. I stepped in to try to improve upon the weak writing that characterized a good deal of this entry. Iss246 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
And longstanding does not cut it. If something is bad and longstanding, it is still bad. Iss246 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with an independent editor looking at it. But while we are discussing the issue you went ahead and reverted again these long standing reliably sourced edits. Please stop edit warring. I am obviously trying to discuss this with you. Will restore long standing edit.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I will restore both long standing, reliably sourced edits iss246. As i say, we can discuss any concerns you have here, but deleted other editors long work is not helpful. Protocol on Wikipedia as you know requires discussion on talk if you wish to delete whole sections of reliably sourced and long standing sections in articles. Please stop edit warring. I'm open to discussion here.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, no broken record about longstanding "reliably sourced edits," when the material is weak. Two things you did are misleading. First, you opened the par. with a discussion of i/o in the intro to OB. Second, you began history section with a talk about a shift. I am not against writing about a shift as long as you report that OB shifted from "this" to "that." We have the "that." The "that" concerns the aftermath of the Hawthorne studies. But was the "this"?
I recommend that you write a sentence about what OB focused on BEFORE the Hawthorne studies. Then write about the shift post-Hawthorne.
I recommend that the following editors weigh in on the mixing together OB and i/o in the opening paragraph, user:Richard Keatinge, user:WhatamIdoing, user:Bilby, and user:Psyc12. Iss246 (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I will try and make this clearer. The sections you deleted were reliably sourced and long standing. I restored these deletions and am open to discussion here. Wikipedia requires this process of editors. Please also be civil in your language iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to make it clear to you. You can't make the OB opening paragraph about i/o psychology. We can deal with the overlap later in the article. By the same token, I would not want to see a discussion of the overlap the two disciplines in the first par. of the i/o article. Let's keep the article clear for the reader. As the article progresses, the reader can find out more details about the discipline. Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who is edit-warring. I have diligently worked on improving upon the awful writing I found in this entry. I took care to write a paragraph on the relation of OB and i/o. I don't want to confuse readers by opening the article with a discussion of confusion. That is as poor an opening as one could create.
I also want to get through to you that if you have a shift, you have to tell where you shifted from. Not just where you shifted to. I think it is a good idea to write about shift as long as you report the "from" part of the shift. Iss246 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not write the section you are talking about iss246, another good faith editor did. However it is not civil for you to be referring to another editor's efforts on Wikipedia as: this statement you just made above ".... awful writing I found in this entry." Please remain civil toward other editors iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The following is one example of the careless writing I found (also note that the writer indicated six dimensions and then proceeded to list five and got some of the 5 wrong). I am not claiming you Mrm7171 did the writing. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

National culture can have effects on the behavior of employees in organizations. This is exemplified by Geert Hofstede's Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. In an ongoing research program, Hofstede has surveyed a large number of cultures and identified six dimensions of national culture that effect the behavior of individuals in organizations:[1]

  • Power Distance
  • Individualism
  • Uncertainty Avoidance
  • Masculinity
  • Long Term Orientation

It is always best, I think at least, not to criticize so severely other editor's work on Wikipedia iss246. I just read this other editors work that you very rudely referred to as "awful writing". I don't think it was that bad iss246, but nonetheless attacking other editor's good faith edits in that way, using that type of abusive language is not helpful to the project.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov.Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2010

Proposed merge with Organization studies

There is a redirect from Organization Studies to Organizational behavior. This article uses "studies" lower case so it is an outlier. The redirect should also include Organization studies (lower case "s"). These all cover the same topic area, but the content is very different. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Merge tags are stale at this point and I'm going to remove them. Since there was no objection to the merge proposal, you're free to go ahead and merge if you like. Softlavender (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Social psychology

why is a type of psychology included when psych is already mentioned? mentioning psych is enough seems like pov at work here. nonsensical inclusion.Happydaise (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

First, you did not justify the deletion. I restored social psychology. Now you write a justification. But the justification for deleting social psychology lacks merit. Social psychology is not mentioned explicitly. Although the social psychologist Kurt Lewin is mentioned, that does not equivalent to indicating social psychology as a related topic. 03:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

hey there. appreciate your take so let us ponder this shall we.

Contributing disciplines

Psychology Social psychology Sociology Human Resources Management Anthropology Political science Economics Mathematics and Statistics

why just social psychology? seems pov i mean other areas of psychology also have contributed to OB. why just mention social psychology?

secondly it appears to me that this section is talking about disciplines. why are you insisting on a sub discipline being included in psychology but not economics as an example?

lets talk this through to a mutually satisfying resolution thenHappydaise (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

also have you got a good reliable source for social psychology being a contributing discipline to OB? just that unsourced inclusions like yours should be removed which im thinking is probably bestHappydaise (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Every item on the list of contributing disciplines is not footnoted; lists like these usually don't contain footnotes. If another branch of psychology, e.g., i/o psychology, has contributed, it should be listed. Individuals such as Fiedler and Lewin tie social psychology to OB. Iss246 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
obviously this entire list should just be removed then - its a hotch potch of un-sourced disciplines and sub disciplines none of which have footnotes as you say. all material in wikipedia should be based only on what reliable sources say anything to add to this any reason why not to remove this made up un-sourced list I don't see logic in indiscriminately adding even more - as you suggest - that makes little senseHappydaise (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Many, perhaps most, Wikipedia articles have such lists to help readers pass through to related topics. The items on such lists are typically not footnoted. It is better to leave the list intact rather than to footnote the list. Iss246 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
could you please show me where other articles have un-sourced material like this list? or can you provide reliable sources? the list is un-sourced. if un-sourced it needs to go. thats how wikipedia is supposed to work you know. will boldly remove un-sourced list. And if you do put it back in could you please include some reliable sources.Happydaise (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry references the leading social psychologist Kurt Lewin, Fiedler's article in Experimental Social Psychology, Adams's article in Experimental Social Psychology, and Katz's book in the Social Psychology of Organizations. I recommend that you not boldly make bold changes. Moreover, judging from your edit history, you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. Check with various Wikipedia editors before you make bold moves. Iss246 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thats not what the sources you quote say. and more to the point why just include social psychology? Other areas of psychology also have contributed to OB. why just mention social psychology? - And it really appears to me that this section is talking about broad disciplines. so why are you insisting on including a sub discipline of psychology being included but not sub disciplines of economics or sociology for example? can we just keep it at disciplines as the title says or take the whole un-sourced section out? two good options thereHappydaise (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
You keep changing the story. First you said social psychology is not appropriate to the list. However, you could have easily found sources in the OB entry that indicate otherwise. Now you change the subject to ejecting the entire list. But many, many Wikepedia entries have lists of related topics. A variety of editors incrementally created those lists. Moreover, you are brand new to Wikipedia, and make all kinds of assertions about what should be ejected from the list or that the list should be entirely ejected. Then you referenced me on the Noticeboard with the comment "someone has added with their own little favorite group of disciplines and sub-disciplines" as if I created the list when I had nothing to do with the creation of the list.
My concern is that I don't want to see wholesale changes. Especially by a "newcomer," who has been on Wikipedia for exactly three days. Iss246 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

based on advice at the reliable sources noticeboard and after reading over the Wikipedia:Content removal article and i do not beleve sources can be found and no sources added still by iss246 either gold standard approach is bold content removal pure and simpleHappydaise (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • As the party giving the advice, I want to state categorically that I did not advise you to remove the entire section. As I explained, what you believe about what the sources say is irrelevant: you must know that no sources support each entry before it can be removed individually. My advice to you was to tag the section if you were unwilling to put in the (rather large) amount of work required to do this. Deleting the entire section constitutes the continuation of an edit war which can result in your being blocked from editing. I know for a fact that at least one entry on that list is sourced; (social psychology) is tied to organizational behavior in The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process by Fred Fielder which is cited by the article. So once again, I strongly suggest you go through the rest of the sources used to check if the other entries are supported. You may request help here and at the RSN. You may tag the section to attract additional editors. I will even help, if you ask for my help. But if you insist upon deleting information from the article based on your own beliefs about what the sources might say, you will face sanctions.
@Iss246: At this point, I want to also remind you that, while it is not always done, unsourced content is subject to removal. The advice I've given to Happydaise is predicated upon the accuracy of your own claim that these items are sourced. If you are wrong, then so am I, and Happydaise is right to remove the list (except for social psychology). That means that you should really be helping Happydaise do this, as your knowledge of the sourcing should allow you to quickly cite at least a few of the items, and it's not fair to make the new editor spend hours doing something you could do in minutes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:sorry for deleting the list prematurely. obviously the list requires sources but this other person @Iss246: believes that no sources are actually needed which certainly doesnt seem right to me. Is that right what iss246 says? my understanding is we need sources for the list plonked in the middle of the article body and iss246 is just plain wrong despite them thinking they are right and putting me down as if im stupid. MjolnirPants could you please comment on your understanding of thisHappydaise (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Happydaise:Well, the issue here is that you have a point, but you are a very new editor who doesn't seem to get a lot about how WP works. That's fine, that's forgivable. We were all in that position once. Iss246 is right that most such lists do not have references. It's generally considered acceptable, even though it's not technically in line with the rules because the rules have been known to make things worse. In this case, it looks, frankly, ridiculous to have a citation next to every entry on that list. But you have a problem with that, so you are allowed to fix it. However, the way you've gone about doing that has been more disruptive than collaborative, and that's a problem.
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that we must, at all times, assume good faith with our fellow editors. Thus far, you've assumed that Iss246 is trying to fight you, because they disagree with you. You've assumed that Iss246 is just plain wrong (despite being absolutely correct about the social psychology thing) because, (apparently) they disagree with you. In short, you came here, told the editor most active on the page, who has likely contributed much more to it than you that they're plain wrong and should get lost and let you take over. That's a surefire recipe for conflict, right there. Instead, you should have explained why you had concerns about the sourcing of this list, in language that allows for the possibility that you are wrong, then you should have asked for help in correcting this. Right now, I see you badly mischaracterizing Iss246's position, which tells me you don't understand what they're saying. The best way to fix that is to ensure that they want to help you understand, instead of simply wanting to stop you from disrupting the article.
In short, it's better to ask why something seems to be wrong than to simply state categorically that it is wrong. It's better to ask others to help you improve the article than to ask them to let you do whatever you like to it, regardless of what they think. So give that a shot. Try engaging Iss246 instead of fighting them. You might be surprised at how forgiving us Wikipedians can be when given the chance. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, thank you for your concern about the list of contributing disciplines to organizational behavior. Happydaise reminded me of some other "newcomers" to Wikipedia. He seems to be a "newcomer" to Wikipedia, but he acts like a past user who went by various names (Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, Docsim). Under each name, he would join Wikipedia, and then proceed to make wholesale, unilateral changes with a swiftness that undercut his newcomer persona. Iss246 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

my concern is that social psychology is just part of the larger psychology discipline - have changed the wording. personality psychology contributes too to be sureHappydaise (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: would it be easier to stick to disciplines like psychology, sociology instead of all the different sub-disciplines like social and personality psychology.Happydaise (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
can a person tell me if this list should be alphabeticalHappydaise (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+I'm not sure why you've taken to adding a large number of entries, but if you are trying to prove a point, you are violating one of our rules. When I have the time, I intend to go through and trim this back up to something more manageable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

certainly am not. hey ive already requested dispute resolution here but noone participated are you able to participate in dispute resolution. iss246 has just taken out very clear disciplines from the list. i intend to add them again they are just as eligible as any other area if you intend to trim perhaps we can discuss it instead would that be cool with you both that would avoid conflict thats all. also may i note that i asked whether it be easier to stick to disciplines like psychology, sociology instead of all the different sub-disciplines like social and personality psychology/ before your trimming maybe you could discuss this here too would that be cool with you bothHappydaise (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
biological psychology, ethnology, sociobiology have been added again they definitely contribute to OB and easily as much as the other things on the list if you dont agree with this could you have the decency to explain yourself thatd be really great thanksHappydaise (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources for any of those additions? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants you wrote "Iss246 is right that most such lists do not have references. It's generally considered acceptable, even though it's not technically in line with the rules because the rules have been known to make things worse. In this case, it looks, frankly, ridiculous to have a citation next to every entry on that list." so do we need sources or not? also why are you both avoiding a constructive talk about my point - this being whether it be easier for all of us to stick to disciplines like psychology, sociology instead of all the different sub-disciplines - and would you be okay with or do you think we need dispute resolution. i noticed that this other person iss 246 just took out my additions today without even so much as discussing why they felt that way and they accuse me of wholesale changes - goodness me what hypocrisy that isHappydaise (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Okay, so by your own implied admission you are editing to make a point. That needs to stop, right now. Furthermore, you are engaging in personal attacks and misconstruing (willfully, it seems) my previous words and quote mining me. I made it quite clear that this was predicated upon the accuracy of ISS246's claim that the existing sources verify this. I even added an inline citation to one of the entries, and explained to you in detail how to do so, yourself. I'm reverting the list back to the state it was in when I added my cite. If you insist upon continuing to edit war over this, or continue to engage in further battleground behavior here on the talk page, I will report you at WP:ANI, which is very likely to result in you facing sanctions, which may include being blocked from editing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iss246: Your own behavior has not been ideal, either. Thus far, you have not contributed meaningfully at talk, while continuing to enable Happydaise's efforts to edit war by edit warring yourself, including reverting my attempt to help. You are not offering compromises, arguments, or explanations at talk. I'm asking you now, as the more experienced editor, to set a good example and make a good faith effort to help improve this article. If one editor questions the sourcing of this list, many readers will, as well. Therefore, it's not too much to ask that we stop making an exception for the sake of aesthetics and start applying the rules to this section. Please, help. If not, then please go away. If you suspect Happydaise is a sockpuppet, please raise your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where they can be dealt with appropriately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
User:MjolnirPants, I think you are a worthy editor. I have no beef with you although I think your criticism of me is misplaced. An editor should write a brief justification when he or she makes a change in an article. I saw no justification for including sociobiology among the disciplines that contributed to OB. I could not find a reference to a sociobiological article in the footnotes. When I made the change I wrote that there was "no clear link" to sociobiology. I wrote the equivalent when I deleted biological psychology. That is what editors are supposed to do, namely, write a brief justification when we edit.
I add this. Happydaise wrote the following about my edits: "hey why you taken these out would it be cool to maybe explain your choices." I did just that. I explained my edits. That is what one is supposed to do when editing. I cannot do more. If Happydaise thinks sociobiology is a contributing discipline, he or she should justify that claim. I expect no more, no less. Iss246 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I should point out that your edit summary when you removed the in-line ref I added contained no justification for it. I should also point out that my most recent edit to the page (reverting to my last edit) undid the additions Happydaise made. Hence my edit summary of "This seems to be the last revision which helped to progress the page." What I'm trying to encourage here is collaborative editing from both of you, whereas what I'm seeing is an argument. Happydaise's concern is that these disciplines may not be supported by the existing sources. You seem to have a good grasp of what the existing sources say, therefore, you should be able to easily add in-line cites to some of these, similarly to what I did with these two edits: [2] [3]. I know it looks ridiculous, and other such lists don't always contain them, but the key here is that their accuracy has been challenged. That means it is incumbent upon all of us to prove their accuracy. Yes, Happydaise is the one who should be spearheading this effort, but as experienced editors, it is incumbent upon you and I to set a good example. This is Happydaise's first experience editing WP (assuming your implications of sockpuppetry are inaccurate). You and I are setting the standard of what they will expect from WP, and teaching them how to behave on WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
User:MjolnirPants, you again raise the issue of my reverting a recent edit by you. I responded to you earlier. I indicated that I did not revert your edit. I was working on an edit when there was a hiccup on my screen and that unfortunate reversion came through. I cannot say enough that the reversion was not my intention. If you check my contributions you will see that I almost always justify my edits. That is my practice. I don't know why you don't believe me about that hiccup, and raise it again and again. Iss246 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen where you had previously mentioned anything about that edit. Furthermore, the above comment was the first time I mentioned it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
a couple of aspects need to be high lighted. mainly - i certainly am not adding more to make a point - i added more sub-disciplines to disciplines already in the list such as within sociology and anthropology. these additions are legit as anthropology and other disciplines are already in list i can only high light again my previous point of you both not addressing these question of - why dont we just stick to disciplines rather than add sub-disciplines as well -overkill is it not and it is making the list monstrous - also I have already attempted dispute resolution at the dispute resolution page once before - would you both be willing to participate or not? as for edit warring well gosh I just dont see it when my questions are not addressed and you wont join me in dispute resolution only wanting it your way - not fair i say.Happydaise (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

i added other areas again and they are referenced already - under psychology and sociology. dont you see. dont go changing it please unless you start responding to my question of not including sub-disciplines at all maybe and as i said - lets try dispute resolution peoples if you are going to not participate or respect what im sayingHappydaise (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You added entries based on your own knowledge, then. And you have already strongly implied that you did so to make a point, else there's no purpose to adding specific sub-disciplines when the overall field is already included. Also, you are continuing to edit war over this. At this point, I think administrative intervention is the way to go. I have tried to explain to both of you for several days now that you should be working together, but instead you both seem intent upon fighting over who gets to decide what goes into the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
User:MjolnirPants, I am not fighting. I am insisting that edits to the OB entry (for any entry) be justified. For example, sociobiology should not be considered a contributing discipline without clear justification. Iss246 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
as required I have notified you of the dispute resolution i have started once again. so if you want to talk about it how about participating in that formalized process. it will prevent problems. ive asked both of you twice now.Happydaise (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If social psychology is going to be mentioned, Industrial Organizational Psychology should definitely mentioned along with reference to how other psychology disciplines contribute to the study of Organizational Behavior. Industrial Organizational Psychology is also more relevant than social psychology since it is a very similar discipline to Organizational Behavior since both disciplines have similar end goals and career paths. Klmay1029 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Klmay1029 (talk o contribs) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klmay1029: You raise a non-issue. Social psychology and industrial/organizational psychology are already part of the OB entry. There is an entire section in the OB entry devoted to the relation of i/o psychology to OB [4]. In addition, i/o is listed in the section called "see also." [5]
As far as other branches of psychology, sure you can argue that any other branch of psychology is related to OB including biological psychology because people who work for organizations have a biology. You could say chemistry is relevant to OB because all people who work for organizations are made up of molecules. It is never-ending what you can link to OB or, for that matter, any other subject. The "see also" section is limited to disciplines that are most directly pertinent to OB. Social psychology and i/o psychology are part of the "see also" section. Iss246 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There is something else that I don't like about the issue Klmay1029 raises. As of the writing of my response to the issue Klmay1029 raises, he had four edits attributed to him. It is highly unusual for someone so new to Wikipedia to start turning to a talk page to raise issues about about what an entry should or should not cover, a matter that echoes what some past Wikipedia users have done. The matter reminds me of efforts by happydaise--docsim--Mrm7171--Truthbringer1--Psych999--Mattbrown69--Barniecadd-- Iss246 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to apologize. I am still learning the details of the talk pages and their sections and how they relate to the article itself, and I had become confused as to what sections were where. I apologize for raising a non-issue.Klmay1029 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What you klmay1029 wrote above is too "confused" and self-contradictory to be credible. Iss246 (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin intervention

Both of you should be aware that I've requested that an admin come take a look at this page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

both you and the other person are included in the second time i have tried to get dispute resolution. all you wanbt to both do is threaten and ignore my questions. you also ignored both my first attempt to ask for assistance on 16/11 and recently if you would like to be involved in dispute resolution you both ignored these attempts and now i just see you do this instead and inflame things more why couldnt you just answer a question or two why did you refuse to involve yourself in cal dispute resolution when I asked you both to?Happydaise (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. My involvement here was for the purposes of dispute resolution. You never took my advice nor made any effort to find a compromise. In fact, you have misunderstood or misrepresented what both I and Iss246 have said every time you have mentioned it. Iss246 has hardly comported themselves any better.
  2. I have never been notified of any dispute resolution process. You have said you began it, but you never mentioned which forum (there are a few) or described what type of dispute resolution (there are, again, a few). Constantly saying "I want dispute resolution" is not the same thing as actually seeking actual dispute resolution. If you think this needs to be formally or informally mediated, you are free to use that link to follow through with requesting such once the thread I mentioned above is closed out (neither formal nor informal mediation can proceed with an open ANI thread). However, I have seen a number of behavioral problems from both sides which I believe need to be addressed before any such resolution could be viable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
you have been involved as much as anyone in edit warring if not more so than anyone else. obviously - and you wont stop your accusations and threats either or engage in discussion by answering my questions. plus i asked for dispute resolution at the right place on the 16/11/16. you know i did. i also politely kept asking you if you would partipate you ignored these questions aimed at solving this. also you and iss246 have been at each others throat over and over and edit warring with each other. just read your comments youve both been making to each other above. hey why didnt you participate in dispute resolution you still can you knowHappydaise (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not at anyone's throat. Please don't use hyperbole. I think user:MjolnirPants is trying his best. Iss246 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I share the same sentiment. While we're not in lockstep agreement, it seems clear that you are editing in good faith, attempting to improve the encyclopedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I have asked the same question at dispute resolution but you both seem much more concerned with who is right and wrong instead of us trying to find a positive outcome- why not respond to the question I left it seems you dont really want it resolved by just participating at dispute resolution. It took me a long while to put the issue online - and there were lots of steps involved -maybe you both could at least help find a peaceful solution instead of bickeringHappydaise (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There are at least three problems User:Happydaise with what you wrote. The first is that you employ locutions that are offensive. For example, "you seem" this way or that way, which says nothing because "seeming" one way or another does not make one be one way or another. Or that you use hyperbole (e.g., one person is "at the throat" of another person). Offensive language is off-putting. The second problem is that an editor is not making a mistake by being concerned, as you put it, about being "right and wrong." It is important to try to get the editing right. If I revert an edit that suggests, without justification, that sociobiology is a discipline that contributed to OB that is okay. It is the right edit to make. Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a third problem too. You changed the issue at hand. The issue was originally whether sociobiology is a contributing discipline--no justification was presented. And whether social psychology is a contributing discipline--the evidence indicates that it is. It is not clear if you have given up on that original issue. Or if you think that upon reflection you were wrong. Then you raised on the noticeboard the matter of whether it is okay to have subdisciplines (e.g., social psychology) or disciplines (e.g., psychology) or both. I am okay with having both for now. Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
please stop edit warring - i went to much trouble working out how to take this dispute to dispute resolution. That is where it is at- please do not edit war instead of taking part in the process i let you about it on your talk page.Happydaise (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I cut and paste where the peaceful talk should be happening Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. So instead you undo my editing but refuse to talk about it at this noticeboard. No I sure am not the aggressor here. i keep trying to ask you to participate at the dispute resolution case I wen t to a lot of trouble working out how to list.Happydaise (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Happydaise had attempted to open a case at WP:DRN on 17 November, but it was procedurally closed immediately because of discussion at WP:RSN. Happydaise has placed another request at DRN today (diff). --C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I was never alerted (I haven't even been pinged by the userlink). Regardless, it doesn't matter right now, as there is a discussion at WP:ANI linked above. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
hey MjolnirPants it just dawned on me that you saying - "If you think this needs to be formally or informally mediated, you are free to use that link to follow through with requesting such once the thread I mentioned above is closed out (neither formal nor informal mediation can proceed with an open ANI thread)" - by you obviously realizing this, even though you are pretending not to know i kept inviting us all to get this sorted out by dispute resolution and you knowing how it works and dispute resolution cant happen now and knowing that i was asking you both did you do that so no dispute resolution could occur? did you do that purposely?Preceding unsigned comment by Happydaise
Go to my talk page and click on the history link near the top right. Then search for your name in that list. Do you see how absent it is? That is because, as I have said already, you never notified me of any such request. In fact, the only link on this page is the one C.Fred provided. I'm not sure if you forget (the way you forget to sign your posts) or were attempting to ensure that your side was the only one heard, but it's clearly stated at the top of the page:
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
no need to continue being rude to me. no i was referring to my question to you on the 24/11 it said- "also I have already attempted dispute resolution at the dispute resolution page once before - would you both be willing to participate or not?" this was one of the questions you kept ignoring. i was wondering if you heard that question and then decided to head it off at the pass and report me and iss 246 while trying to pretend you were only an innocent party. thats just what you were. why didnt answer my question i asked whether you would like to participate in dispute resolution why instead did you report this knowing that then dispute resolution couldnt happen didnt you want to get it resolved peacefully?Happydaise (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+I have closed the ANI thread, as all the commenters there are of the opinion that I should list specific examples of poor behavior on your part and request a ban, whereas I was hoping for a gentler approach. Understand that you have engaged in enough poor behavior to be blocked, so if Iss246 or the DR volunteer elects to report you, you are very likely to be blocked, absent any indication of a willingness to adjust your behavior. Another editor has also expressed what may be support for a Sockpuppet investigation into you. I will not participate in the DR process because, as I have made clear through omission this entire time, I have no interest in the content question. I was attempting to help resolve a dispute by offering advice to both sides, but it seems clear that you especially seem unwilling to listen to anything I've said (and I do mean anything). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly stop the rudeness. I just read what was said and everyone suggested dispute resolution which i have already started twice. if my behavior was enough to be blocked i wouldve been blocked. it was clearly you and iss 246 that have been edit warring and not participating in dispute resolution and thinking you knew it all and you would have been blocked more like it. just done go changing the article if you dont want to constructively participate in dispute resolution. nothing you have said has made sense and you do not listen to any one but yourself and the sound of your own voice.Happydaise (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
What rudeness could you possibly be referring to? I have offered you advice on both editing and the culture here. I have given you specific proposals for compromise, I have offered to help you find sources and when I finally reached a point where I felt someone needed to really make you understand a number of points of WP policy, I went out of my way not to point a finger at you or ask for sanctions against you, despite you being the focus of the disruption that has been occurring here. And yet you sit here and call me rude? You have complained endlessly about me 'ignoring' you question about DR, meanwhile you have completely ignored every single thing I've said except where you can try to twist my words to win the argument. My advice? Ignored. My questions? Ignored. My proposed compromise? Ignored. My offer to help? Ignored. My declaration that I don't intend to participate in mediation? Ignored. Speaking of which, do you know why I don't intend to participate? Because I've lost the ability (thanks to your behavior here) to imagine you being capable of listening to anyone but yourself. I can't imagine that you would display this type of behavior thus far, yet suddenly turn around and behave rationally at another forum. So go drag whomever else is willing to continue to engage with you into it. I want nothing more to do with you, and if you begin to pull this kind of stunt on any other pages I edit, rest assured that my subsequent thread at ANI will contain your username and the dozens of diffs of you engaging in prohibited behavior I've seen so far, in addition to whatever new fodder you provide. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 08:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the list

I think we need to expand the list further - i have just added ethnology which clearly ties into OB. I'm open to other disciplines and sub-disciplines being added too - i just ask that we discuss it first.Happydaise (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender why did you take away ethnology from the list? can you explain and discuss - it is easily as equal a contributing discipline as any other field. An example being mathematics which lies in the article still.Happydaise (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Specific Section on Creativity in Organzational Behavior

Upon reviewing sections that specify research topics of Organizational Behavior, I saw that creativity was not among them. There is a lot of research about increasing creativity in organizations as well as its importance and role in organizations and the innovation process. In my own research, I've found many articles on the subject. Since it is a relevant topic in the field of Organizational Behavior, it might be good to have a section dedicated to theories or practices used by Organizational Behaviorists such as leadership styles, the 15% plan where employees are allowed to use 15% of their time for their own products, tests used to assess creativity in the workplace, etc. A great research article that gives a general overview of the research done on creativity in Organizational Behavior is "Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework" by Anderson, Potocnik, Zhou (2014) published by "Journal of Management." I've cited the article in APA style below.[1]Klmay1029 (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. "Journal of Management," 40(5), 1297-1333. doi: 10.1177/014920631452718

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.