Extended in the formulation of organizational behavior are other academic disciplines-psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology and political science.
Awareness of these organizational behavior factors can impact overall performance of a business or firm and are crucial for any manager to understand....
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.
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.
Larsson, H., Andershed, H., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). A genetic factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality. (2), 221-230. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.221 The psychopathic personality can be conceptualized as three interrelated dimensions, (a) an interpersonal style of glibness, grandiosity, and manipulation; (b) an affective disposition of callousness, lack of empathy, and unemotionality; and (c) a behavioral/lifestyle dimension of impulsivity, need for stimulation, and irresponsibility, underpinning a higher order construct, psychopathic personality. The authors used a self-report questionnaire (The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory) to study the importance of genetic and environmental influences on psychopathic personality traits in a sample of 1,090 monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs, aged 16-17 years. Results showed a strong genetic influence behind the higher order "psychopathic personality" factor, underpinned by the three psychopathic personality dimensions. Over and above the effects to the higher order factor, significant unique genetic influences were also found in the callous/unemotional and in the impulsive/irresponsible dimension, but not in the grandiose/manipulative dimension. The authors propose that this latent psychopathic personality factor is a meaningful target for future etiological research. . . . In summary, by using a hierarchical common pathway model, this study offers insights into the etiology of the psychopathic personality constellation in adolescence. We showed that genetic effects accounted for a substantial proportion of variance in the latent psychopathic personality factor, which makes it a promising target for future research.
The movie depicts various management and observation behavior concepts covered in Organizational Behavior such as communication process model, power and counter power, the MARS Model, and values and ethics....
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....
There are several crucial reasons why companies should utilize the concepts of organizational behavior, as well as understand the key terms that are associated with organizational behavior.
These are few of the more fascinating topics aperson can check out while searching for organizationalbehavior paper topics. Rest assured thevarieties of topic covered here will result in an amazing researchpaper which will catch the eye of the reader.
Physical environment affecting organizational behavior: The physical environment of the office, as in where it is located, its cleanliness, apt conditions to work in, etc. plays a major role in affecting the working ability of the employees. It affects the output greatly.
Organizational behavior is an interdisciplinary body of knowledge with strong ties to the behavioral sciences such as psychology, sociology and anthropology as well as to allied sciences.
However, the goal of organizational behavior is to integrate the diverse insights of these other disciplines and apply them to real-world problems and opportunities.
As corporations in America seek methods to control their employees, there is a field of study that has emerged called organizational behavior. This science analyzes the behaviors of people within the group and determines how best to minimize the influence of the individual on group behavior and maximize the influence of the corporation over the workers it employs.
The concept of organizational climate (distinct but related to organizational culture) might help us evaluate theory X and Y. Organizational climate, based on individual’s attitudes measures whether or not the expectations, what is it like to work in an agency, are met. Theory X and theory Y are expressions of different organizational cultures. Theory x presumes employees as inherently lazy leads to attitudes and behaviors favoring tight control. Theory y presumes employees positively disposed to work and personal growth generates attitudes and behaviors favoring autonomy and self direction. Climate relates to the measure of employee acceptance of the prevailing theory x culture. If many employees enter the organization with theory Y values, a ‘climate’ problem is likely to develop “Because the employees do not share the dominant organizational culture values” (Vasu et al, p.270).