Organizational behavior research papers Amazon com Organizational Behavior A Management Challenge Linda K Stroh Gregory B Northcraft Margaret A Neale Co author Mar Kern
The long history of heterogeneity in both terminology and theory about psychopathy continues. The modern era of thinking about psychopathy begins with Cleckley's work, originally done in 1941. Cleckley's emphasis of the psychopath as a constellation of various personality traits was essentially overturned by the American psychiatric establishment in revisions to the DSM, culminating in 1980 in a behaviorally based description and the use of the term antisocial personality disorder. Robert Hare, through his writing and widely popular testing initiatives, returned to a personality/trait approach derived from Cleckley's original factors. Hare's approach and tests have been particularly influential both in practical forensic settings and in academic research. Although a number of other tests of psychopathy have been developed and a number of authors have expressed reservations about Hare, Hare's approach has dominated. Hare has also been important in popularizing psychopathy in the lay public, especially via his 1993 book and by the 2006 a work he co-authored, examining the psychopath in a business context. This business/leadership theme was later followed up by Lawrence (2010). Hare's works have tended to be somewhat sensationalized and have co-mingled academic and lay (newspaper type) accounts. Despite much research on neurophysiological correlates of psychopathy, no clear consensus has developed yet concerning a neuropsychological theory of psychopathy. Many points of controversy are left unanswered and many key issues remain to be addressed.
Howard, R. C. (1986). Psychopathy: A psychobiological perspective. (6), 795-806. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90078-4 After critically examining the concept of psychopathy and reviewing the major existing theories of psychopathy in the light of a psychobiological conception of abnormal behaviour (ohman, 1981), this paper attempts to present an integrated, psychobiological model of psychopathy. Essentially this analyses psychopathy in terms of the predisposing influences, the triggering environmental events which initiate psychopathic behaviour, and the neurophsychological mechanisms which mediate it. It is suggested that individuals who show chronic antisocial behaviour, conforming to the North American term 'sociopath', may demonstrate a maturational deficit but do not necessarily show a psychopathic personality disorder. The latter is said to be characterised, at a personality trait level, by high Impulsiveness and Psychopathy (Blackburn, 1982 a, b), reflecting interactive deficits in goal direction and affect. At a dynamic (state) level, a psychopathic personality disorder is said to be characterised by a lack of coping, reflecting either, in the case of the secondary psychopath, a deficit in primary appraisal, (over-perception of threat), or in the case of the primary psychopath, a deficit in secondary appraisal (low perceived control over aversive environmental events). It is further suggested that a genetic predisposition to social withdrawal and exposure to an uncontrollably aversive early environment may interact to predispose an individual to develop a psychopathic personality disorder in adulthood. . . . There will be yet others within the broad class of so-called 'sociopathic' individuals who are neither primary nor secondary psychopaths. These individuals will not be particularly susceptible to stress either in the form of boredom or threat, and so episodes of 'psychopathic' behaviour will not readily be triggered. In general, therefore, although often recidivistically criminal, they should not be regarded as psychopathic in the sense of being personality disordered and would therefore more properly be detained in prison than in an institution for mentally abnormal offenders. Others again may tread a tightrope between legality and illegality and correspond to the 'non-institutionalised psychopath' (Widom, 1977), who while sharing some of the personality characteristics of the criminal psychopath, does not generally engage in antisocial behaviour.
Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between antisocial behaviour and neuropsychological measures of executive function. (1), 113-136. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00096-8 Previous narrative reviews of the relation between antisocial behavior (ASB) and neuropsychological tests of executive functioning (EF) have raised numerous methodological concerns and produced equivocal conclusions. By using meta-analytic procedures, this study attempts to remedy many of these concerns and quantifies the relation between ASB and performance on six reasonably well validated measures of EF. Thirty-nine studies yielding a total of 4,589 participants were included in the analysis. Overall, antisocial groups performed .62 standard deviations worse on EF tests than comparison groups; this effect size is in the medium to large range. Significant variation within this effect size estimate was found, some of which was accounted for by differences in the operationalizations of ASB (e.g., psychopathy vs. criminality) and measures of EF. Evidence for the specificity of EF deficits relative to deficits on other neuropsychological tasks was inconsistent. Unresolved conceptual problems regarding the association between ASB and EF tests, including the problem of localizing EF tests to specific brain regions, are discussed. . . . executive functioning (EF) is an umbrella term that refers to the cognitive processes that allow for future, goal oriented behavior. It is broadly defined as comprising the abilities needed to achieve and maintain a problem-solving set, and includes such processes as planning, organizational skills, selective attention and inhibitory control, and optimal cognitive-set maintenance. . . . The results of this meta-analysis indicate that there is a robust and statistically significant relation between ASB and EF deficits. . . . This meta-analysis yielded inconsistent findings regarding the specificity of ASB to EF deficits per se as opposed to generalized neuropsychological deficits.
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations.(2), 111-119. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8 This paper describes an early phase in the development of new research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. The scale is meant to be a sort of operational definition of the procedures that go into making global ratings of psychopathy. While the interrater reliability of these ratings is very high ( > 0.85) they are difficult to make, require a considerable amount of experience, and the procedures involved are not easily communicated to other investigators. Following a series of analyses, 22 items were chosen as representative of the type of information used in making global ratings. Two investigators then used interview and case-history data to complete the 22-item checklist for 143 male prison inmates. The correlation between the two sets of total checklist scores was 0.93 and coefficient alpha was 0.88, indicating a very high degree of scale reliability. The correlation between the total checklist scores and global ratings of psychopathy was 0.83. A series of multivariate analyses explored the factorial structure of the scale and demonstrated its ability to discriminate very accurately between inmates with high and low ratings of psychopathy. Preliminary indications are that the checklist will hold up well to crossvalidation. . . . The Cleckley criteria can be reduced to five factors: (1) an inability to develop warm, genuine relationships with others, a lack of empathy and a callous disregard for the rights and feelings of others; (2) an unstable, transient lifestyle, with an absence of long-term commitments or plans; (3) a general inability to accept responsibility for persistent antisocial behavior; (4) an absence of clinically significant intellectual and psychiatric problems; (5) and the presence of weak or unstable behavioral controls (Hare 1980). . . . Presents Hare's Original 22 item Psychopathy Checklist (PCL)
Eugen Bleuler, Swiss psychiatrist (1896) best known for refining Kraepelin's diagnosis of dementia praecox and giving itthe name "schizophrenia." Bleuler defended Lombroso. Bleuler maintained that [criminals] were set apart by"characterological attributes" such as "moral defects, a lack of inhibition, excessivedrives, etc." While Bleuler admitted that criminal psychopathology couldnot yet describe the different "classes" of criminals in all their forms, onesuch class could already be defined, namely those characterized by a "defect ofmoral sentiments.". . . . Bleulerexplained: What the born criminal is lacking is not the laws to be instilled, but the possibility of making use of them in the same way as honest people. This defect can be congenital. . . . Since it is primarily emotional resonance, not logical reasoning that determines our behavior, such people have to become criminals as a result of the congenitally defective organization of their brain, which does not allow for the development of ethical sentiments. . . . Those who conclude that there cannot be born criminals because morality is not inborn are guilty of the same fallacy as anyone trying to argue that because language is not inborn, no one can be born deaf. (Wetzell, 2000, p. 58).
Sensation deals mainly with very elementary behavior that is determined largely by physiological function. The senses are bombarded by numerous internal and external stimuli and persons use the sense to experience color, shapes, loudness, odor, and taste. Perception is more complex and broader than sensation, and can be defined as an interaction of selection, organization, and interpretation. While perception depends on the senses for raw data, the cognitive process filters and modifies these data.
This will also help determine which issues would largely affect the operations of the company.Organizational Behavior (OB) Model involves the analysis of an organization at three different levels where the three components; the Individual, the Group and the Organization are used (Kinicki, 2011).
However, as experience (recounted at the top of the page) demonstrates, the process and the focus on does appear to bear fruit in terms of people’s connection with the exercise and their readiness to explore personal and organizational questions.Second, it is assumed that ‘good’ learning ‘takes place in a climate of openness where political behaviour is minimized’ (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 13).
To understand and utilize organizational behavior there are several key terms that must also be understood, for example organizational culture, diversity, communication, organizational effectiveness and efficiency, organizational learning....
Blackburn, R. (1988). On moral judgments and personality disorders: The myth of psychopathic personality revisited. (4), 505-512. doi:10.1192/bjp.153.4.505 Psychopathic personality has always been a contentious concept, but it continues to be used in clinical practice and research. It also has its contemporary synonyms in the categories of antisocial personality disorder in DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) and "personality disorder with predominantly asocial or sociopathic manifestation" in ICD-9 (World Health Organization, 1978), and some overlap between these and the legal category of psychopathic disorder identified in the English Mental Health Act 1983 is commonly assumed. Although the literal meaning of "psychopathic" nothing more specific than psychologically damaged, the term has long since been transmogrified to mean socially damaging, and as currently used, it implies a specific category of people inherently committed to antisocial behaviour as a consequence of personal abnormalities or deficiencies. . . . The prominence of 'secondary psychopaths' and of borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic disorders in these populations clearly indicates that there is no single type of abnormal personality that is prone to chronic rule violation. Nor, of course, are these categories confined to the antisocial. It must be concluded that the current concept of psychopathic or antisocial personality remains 'a mythical entity'. The taxonomic error of confounding different universes of discourse has resulted in a diagnostic category that embraces a variety of deviant personalities. . . . To define a disorder of personality in terms of socially deviant behaviour is to prejudge the issue. Our understanding of how the attributes of the person contribute to socially deviant or other problematic behavior progress when we have an adequate system for describing the universe of personality deviation. Focus on an ill-conceived category of psychopathic personality has merely served to distract attention from the development of such a system.
Patrick, C. J. (2007). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. In W. T. O'Donohue, K. A. Fowler, & S.O. Lilienfeld, (Eds.). (pp. 109-166.) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Provides a comprehensive review of the concept in DSM. DSM-I was modeled loosely after the sixth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD: World Health Organization, 1948), which for the first time included a section devoted to the classification of mental disorders. The initial edition of the DSM contains a category of mental disorders termed "sociopathic personality disturbance;" following earlier conceptualizations of psychopathy, this designation included a broad range of syndromes encompassing sexual deviation of various kinds, addictions, and delinquency. Included among the disorders in this category was a syndrome referred to as "sociopathic personality disturbance: antisocial reaction," intended to capture the aggressive, criminally deviant individual who repeatedly violates the norms and laws of society. (The use of the term "reactions" throughout DSM one is attributable to the lingering influence of Adolph Meyer, who viewed mental disorders as reactions of the personality to biological, social, and psychological factors.) The second edition of the DSM was developed to line even more closely with the version of the ICD in place at the time, ICD — 8. In DSM-II, the term "reaction" was eliminated as a descriptor for disorders. Sexual deviation, addictions, and delinquent personality types were grouped under a category entitled "personality disorders and certain other non-psychotic mental disorders." Within this category, the term antisocial personality was used for a syndrome corresponding to psychopathy. The diagnostic features of the syndrome closely resembled those proposed by Cleckley and included weak socialization, incapacity for loyalty, selfishness, callousness, irresponsibility, and absence of guilt. A serious limitation of DSM-II was that the basis for diagnostic classification consisted of prototypical descriptions of each disorder rather than specific, behavior-oriented diagnostic criteria. As a result, the reliability of clinical and research diagnostic classifications used in DSM-II was generally poor. . . . . the criteria for antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-III was strongly influenced by the works of Robins (1966), who conducted groundbreaking research on the development of "sociopathy" by following up a large sample of individuals (N = 524) seen as children in a treatment clinic for juvenile delinquents. Following Cleckley, Robins's initial criteria for sociopathy included items relating to lack of guilt, remorse, and shame, but (due in part to problems in assessing them reliably) these criteria failed to differentiate significantly between sociopaths and non-sociopaths in her study, and thus were discarded as indicators in the criterion sets developed subsequently by Feighner et al. and Spitzer et al. Consequently, the criteria for APD adopted within DSM-III focused exclusively on behavioral indicants of deviance in childhood and adulthood, including such things as truancy, delinquency, stealing, vandalism, irresponsibility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, recklessness, and lying. As a function of this change, the DSM-III diagnosis of antisocial personality proved to be highly reliable. Nevertheless, influential investigators in the area (e.g., Francis, 1980; Hare, 1983; Millon, 1981) were quick to challenge the diagnostic validity of the DSM-III criteria for APD on the grounds that they excluded many of the features Cleckley determined central to psychopathy, including superficial charm, absence of anxiety, lack of remorse or empathy, and general poverty of affect. Some effort was made to respond to these criticisms in the revised third edition of the DSM by the addition of lack of remorse (i.e. "feels justified in having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another," p. 346) as an adult criterion for APD.