The Integration of Psychological and Social Dimensions in Understanding Organizational Behavior: A Multidisciplinary Theoretical Approach

https://doi-001.org/1025/17632762456357

Dr. Samy Meguellati ¹, Dr. Moundir Kharfane ², Dr Saidi Rachid ³, Dr Badreddine Chekkai ⁴, Dr Faiza Mega ⁵, Dr Yamina Gouarah ⁶, Dr. Amina Bougrouz ⁷ , Pr Ahmed Djelloul ⁸, Amal Bahi ⁹

¹ University of Constantine 2, Algeria. Email: Samy.meguellati@univ-constantine2.dz

² University of 20 August 1955 Skikda, Algeria. Email: houarikerdouci@yahoo.fr

³ Ibn Khaldoun university Tiaret, Algeria. Email: Rachid.saidi@univ-tiaret.dz

⁴ University Constantine 2, Algeria. Email : Badreddine.chekkai@univ-constantine2.dz

⁵ University of El Oued, Algeria. Email: Mega-faiza@univ-eloud.dz

⁶ University of Kasdi Merbah Ouargla, Algeria. Email: Gouarah.yamina@univ-ouargla.dz

⁷ University of Kasdi Merbah Ouargla, Algeria. Email: Amina.bougrouz@univ-ouargla.dz

⁸ University of El Oued, Algeria. Social Developement and Community Service Laboratory.Email: Ahmed-djelloul@univ-eloued.dz

⁹ University of El Oued, Algeria. Email: 1990amelbahi@gmail.com

Received: 23/06/2025   ;   Accepted : 29/10/2025

Abstract

This article examines the integration between psychological and social dimensions in understanding organizational behavior, arguing that behavior within institutions cannot be fully explained through a single disciplinary lens.
While psychological approaches have focused on individual traits, motivation, and emotions, sociological perspectives have emphasized structure, culture, and power relations. The separation between these two fields has led to an incomplete understanding of the complex organizational phenomena that emerge from the continuous interaction between the individual and the institution.
This study proposes a psychosociological integrative model, conceptualizing organizational behavior as a dynamic phenomenon where psychological and social factors intersect to generate meaning, professional identity, satisfaction, and belonging.
The theoretical framework explores motivation, identity, and job satisfaction from organizational psychology, alongside culture, roles, and authority relations from organizational sociology, to develop an interactive vision connecting the self and the structure, individual well-being and institutional justice.
Findings suggest that a healthy organization is one that harmonizes psychological and social dimensions, rebuilding its culture on humanistic foundations of recognition and participation, which enhances organizational health and reduces burnout and alienation.
Thus, the paper offers an epistemological contribution toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational behavior, particularly within Arab contexts, and opens new research directions linking psychological well-being and organizational culture through an integrative approach.

Keywords:
Organizational behavior; Organizational psychology; Organizational sociology; Motivation; Organizational culture; Organizational health; Integrative approach.

Introduction

Organizational behavior constitutes one of the central concepts in understanding how individuals function within educational and professional institutions. However, most studies have addressed it from a unidimensional perspective—either focusing on the psychological and individual dimension (motivation, personality, emotions) or emphasizing the social and structural dimension (relationships, authority, organizational culture).

This article seeks to establish a theoretical approach that integrates the psychological and social dimensions as a unified framework for understanding behavior within institutions. Behavior in the workplace is not merely a reflection of an individual’s psychological state; rather, it is the result of a complex interaction between the individual and the structure of relationships, values, and social norms that govern the institution.

For example, some researchers argue that organizational behavior cannot be separated from the individual’s internal psychological functions, such as perception, learning, and professional identity, “because the individual within the organization is not an isolated entity but interacts with an organizational social environment” (Ben Ahmed, 2024, p. 7).

From a sociological standpoint, the traditional framing of organizational studies indicates that social analysis of institutions concerns itself with examining “organizational structures, relationships among individuals within the organization, and the interaction between the organization and the broader society” (Allam, 1994).

Hence, integrating the psychological and social dimensions contributes to offering a deeper interpretation of what is known as organizational behavior, as a phenomenon that emerges and takes shape within an overlapping space between the individual self and the collective institutional dimension.

1. The Problem Statement

Organizational behavior is one of the fundamental concepts in the behavioral and social sciences, as it seeks to explain how individuals act within institutions and how the organizational environment influences their attitudes, motivations, and performance. However, most approaches addressing this concept have focused on a single aspect of the phenomenon. Some have emphasized the psychological dimension, concerned with personality traits, cognitive and emotional processes (Locke, 1976; Al-Hammu & Khateeb, 2025), while others have concentrated on the social structure, hierarchical authority, and patterns of interaction within organizations (Lotfi, 2007; Blau, 1964).

This separation between the two approaches has led to neglecting the interactive nature of organizational behavior, which cannot be understood as the outcome of isolated psychological or social variables, but rather as a dynamic result of continuous interaction between the individual self and the institutional structure. The individual in the organization is not merely an independent psychological entity but also a product of social relationships and organizational culture, which define communication patterns and shape roles and expectations (Goffman, 1959; Allam, 1994).

The problem of this article, therefore, lies in the theoretical and methodological divergence between organizational psychology and organizational sociology, and in the need for an integrative model that transcends the boundaries of both disciplines. While the psychological approach explains behavior through motivation, perception, and attitudes, the sociological approach interprets it through systems of roles, authority relations, and collective values. Although the two perspectives may seem distinct, each reflects one facet of reality: the individual acts within social contexts and, at the same time, reshapes those contexts through actions and interactions.

From this standpoint, the central problem revolves around how to construct an integrative theoretical framework that combines the psychological and social dimensions to achieve a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of organizational behavior. The individual within the organization is influenced by internal factors such as motivation, professional identity, and mental health, as well as external factors such as organizational culture, social support, and the institutional climate. This interaction between the internal and external spheres makes organizational behavior a genuinely psychosociological phenomenon (Dejours, 1998).

The attempt to merge these two dimensions is not merely a convergence between academic schools but represents an epistemological shift in studying human beings within organizations—from viewing them as agents of production to perceiving them as social actors seeking balance between psychological needs and structural requirements. Behavior in work and educational contexts, therefore, cannot be reduced to responses to pressure or organizational obedience; rather, it manifests in the individual’s ability to ascribe meaning to their actions within the network of relationships defined by the institution (Ben Ahmed, 2024; Weick, 1995).

Accordingly, this article aims to establish this integration between the psychological and social dimensions through a multidisciplinary theoretical approach, re-examining organizational behavior as the product of the interaction between human beings and their institutions, between the self and the other, and between structure and agency.

From this perspective, the main research question emerges:

How can an integrative model between the psychological and social dimensions be constructed to understand organizational behavior as a dynamic product of reciprocal relations between the individual and the organizational structure?

The following sub-questions derive from this central inquiry:

1. What are the theoretical boundaries—both distinct and overlapping—between the psychological and sociological approaches to studying organizational behavior?
2. How do psychological factors (such as motivation, professional identity, and mental health) influence behavior within organizations?
3. What role do social and cultural contexts (relationships, authority, and organizational values) play in shaping such behavior?
4. Can an integrative framework be formulated that interprets organizational behavior as an interwoven structure between the individual and the institution?

2. Theoretical Framework

First: The Psychological Dimension in Understanding Organizational Behavior

Organizational psychology is concerned with studying human behavior within institutions by analyzing the individual’s internal processes, such as motivation, emotions, perception, attitudes, and job satisfaction, based on the fundamental assumption that organizational performance is a direct reflection of the worker’s psychological state (Locke, 1976).
Classical theories show that an individual’s emotional state determines the quality of their responses to professional situations; an employee who perceives fairness and appreciation feels belonging and demonstrates higher performance, whereas frustration or lack of recognition leads to cognitive dissonance and psychological withdrawal (Maslach & Leiter, 2016).

Humanistic theories (Maslow, 1943; Rogers, 1961) affirm that human beings do not seek only to satisfy material needs at work but also strive for self-actualization through the experience of value and meaning. The organization, therefore, is not a mechanical space of performance but a psychological environment for proving competence, building professional identity, and achieving emotional balance.
Recent studies demonstrate that a positive organizational climate that supports participation, allows freedom of expression, and values effort contributes to reducing stress and burnout levels (Al-Hammu & Khateeb, 2025).

From an analytical perspective, organizational behavior in its psychological dimension can be viewed as an adaptive mechanism enabling the individual to balance internal desires with system requirements. Motivation is not merely a driver of behavior but also a form of searching for meaning and social recognition. Hence, Maslow argues that satisfaction is achieved not only through need fulfillment but through the individual’s perception of the value of their work in light of their self-concept and professional community.

The psychological approach highlights the inner depth of organizational behavior and grants the individual centrality in analysis. However, it becomes limited when it overlooks the fact that psychological experience itself is constructed within social and organizational contexts. Feelings of belonging or alienation, satisfaction or burnout, are not merely internal states but responses to a cultural and institutional environment. Therefore, the employee’s psychological state can only be understood through their relationships with others and the organizational structure within which they operate.

Second: The Social Dimension of Organizational Behavior

Organizational sociology focuses on understanding human behavior through the structures and relationships that organize collective work. Individual behavior cannot be understood in isolation from organizational culture, power, values, professional roles, and communication patterns (Blau, 1964; Allam, 1994).
In this context, Geertz (1973) argues that the organization is a symbolic system that produces and redistributes meanings through daily practices. Organizational culture is not a neutral background for behavior but what gives it meaning, determining “what is said, how it is said, and to whom it is said.”

Goffman (1959) offers an interactionist perspective, viewing organizational life as a “social stage” where individuals perform specific roles depending on their position and context, seeking to manage impressions and control their image before others. This social performance of behavior directly links professional identity to social recognition, as an individual cannot feel competent without acknowledgment of their role within the group.

Lotfi (2007) points out that the organization is not a neutral administrative apparatus but a complex social system in which individuals participate in reproducing values and norms—and sometimes resisting them when they conflict with their psychological or ethical needs. Hence, organizational behavior results from a dual interaction between the control exerted by the institution and the initiative exercised by individuals.

The social approach grants organizational behavior its structural and cultural dimension and reveals the symbolic aspects of power and belonging. However, it often marginalizes the subjective and emotional experience of the individual. It explains discipline or conflict through rules and relationships but sometimes overlooks the affective, internal dimension of human action. Nevertheless, its value lies in demonstrating that behavior is not explained only by “what happens within the individual,” but also by “what happens among individuals” within a network of interactions that simultaneously produces meaning and identity.

Third: Theoretical Integration Between the Psychological and Social Dimensions

The integrative approach is based on the principle that organizational behavior results from the dialectic between self and structure—that is, the individual and the institution continuously interact within a circle of mutual influence. Human beings do not live their psychological experiences in isolation from their social surroundings, and institutions cannot understand their members’ performance apart from their personal experiences and perceptions of fairness and support.

Dejours (1998) asserts that work is not merely functional performance but a complex experience oscillating between fulfillment and suffering; it can be a source of meaning and recognition, or it may turn into a space of pressure and alienation. Weick (1995) adds that individuals do not merely respond to organizational structures but create meaning through their interpretations and interactions, transforming the organizational environment from a material reality into a symbolic and dynamic one.

Ben Ahmed (2024) suggests that this interaction between psyche and structure gives rise to the psychosociological structure of behavior, meaning that every organizational behavior is essentially a psychological response conditioned by social factors. Motivation and professional identity (psychological dimension) are directly influenced by organizational culture and relationships (social dimension), and the reverse is also true.

The integrative approach thus redefines organizational behavior as an open system where the personal and the collective, the subjective and the institutional, intersect. It proposes that “psychological health at work” is not an individual state but the product of mutual relationships between employees and the organization. When an institution adopts a humanistic culture based on recognition and participation, it fosters better mental health and collective performance. Conversely, when a culture of coercion or exclusion prevails, negative psychological outcomes such as anxiety or withdrawal become objective reflections of structural social dysfunction.

In this sense, integration between the two approaches constitutes an epistemological necessity for understanding the human being within organizations as a psychosocially unified entity, rather than as a fragmented subject divided between two disciplines. This integration enables the development of a new cognitive model that interprets major organizational phenomena—such as satisfaction, burnout, and belonging—as fundamentally psychosociological, moving beyond the duality of “individual versus institution” toward a holistic vision of the human being at work.

This framework shows that organizational behavior is neither a mechanical reaction nor an isolated psychological state but the living outcome of interaction between the individual and the organizational structure. Every professional act contains an internal (psychological) and an external (social) dimension that merge in the production of meaning.
Consequently, contemporary trends in organizational psychology and sociology favor interactive models linking individual cognition, organizational culture, and social support. Understanding humans in organizations, therefore, requires understanding “the relationships they build,” “the meanings they attribute to their work,” and “the networks they live within.”

The integration of psychological and social dimensions not only enriches theoretical analysis but also lays the groundwork for a more human-centered vision in administrative and educational practice—making the institution a space for both psychological and social development, rather than merely a site of production and discipline.

3. Discussion and Analysis

This discussion aims to analyze the dimensions of organizational behavior in light of the central research question: How can an integrative model between psychological and social dimensions be constructed to understand organizational behavior?
This question emerges from the need to transcend the traditional divide between the individual psychological approach and the structural social approach, moving toward a more comprehensive and human-centered vision.

The literature indicates that organizational behavior is not a mechanical interaction between the individual and the institution but rather a process of symbolic and semantic exchange through which professional identities and patterns of belonging are formed (Blau, 1964; Lotfi, 2007).
The individual does not merely “produce” organizational behavior but is also “reproduced” through the relationships and values that govern their professional environment, becoming a social actor who contributes to shaping that environment as much as they are shaped by it.

First: The Overlapping Boundaries Between the Psychological and Social Approaches

In light of the first sub-question, it becomes evident that the boundaries between the psychological and social approaches are not as clear as classical literature suggests. Factors that appear to be psychological—such as motivation, satisfaction, and belonging—are usually stimulated within specific social and institutional contexts (Locke, 1976). Conversely, social structures—such as organizational culture or administrative hierarchy—exert their influence only through individuals’ perceptions and emotional responses.

Goffman’s (1959) self-presentation theory supports this overlap, positing that individuals within institutions perform social roles that require precise management of emotions and impressions, continuously balancing between their inner selves and their organizational images. On the other hand, humanistic self-actualization theories (Rogers, 1961; Maslow, 1943) reveal that higher psychological needs—such as belonging and recognition—can only be fulfilled through social interaction, which provides meaning and a sense of significance.

This conceptual intersection demonstrates that the attempt to separate “the psychological” from “the social” is not scientific in essence but historical, arising from the fragmentation of the sciences. The individual studied in psychology is the same actor studied in sociology—the difference lies not in the subject but in the angle of observation. Thus, the integrative approach does not merely combine two fields but restores the unity of the human being as a psychosocial entity.

Second: The Role of Psychological Factors in Explaining Organizational Behavior

Psychological approaches contend that understanding organizational behavior begins from within—that is, from the individual’s self-perception and their relationship to work. Motivation, professional identity, and job satisfaction explain the degree of commitment and belonging (Locke, 1976; Al-Hammu & Khateeb, 2025).
Maslach and Leiter (2016) argue that burnout arises when employees experience a psychological disconnect from institutional values or a lack of appreciation. In contrast, House (1981) demonstrates that psychological and social support from peers and superiors serves as a fundamental protective factor against stress.

These perspectives highlight the organization as a psychological space par excellence—one in which the employee expresses themselves and constructs their image before others. Every professional behavior—from discipline to creativity—can be seen as an unconscious attempt to seek recognition and restore internal balance.
Here, the psychological approach intersects with the humanistic view of work proposed by Maslow (1943), which sees work as a means of fulfilling existential needs, not merely a form of material gain or organizational compliance. Consequently, organizational performance becomes a reflection of both psychological and social well-being.

Third: The Influence of Social and Cultural Context on Behavior

This section addresses the third sub-question regarding the role of social and cultural context in shaping organizational behavior. From the perspective of organizational sociology, the institution is regarded as a system of values and norms that define what constitutes “acceptable” or “deviant” behavior within it (Allam, 1994).
Geertz (1973) conceptualizes organizational culture as a symbolic system that gives actions meaning and produces patterns of belonging and loyalty.

Weick (1995) further emphasizes that employees do not receive meaning passively but construct it collectively through interaction and interpretation of shared experiences. Thus, the organization becomes a communicative entity, whose reality is reshaped daily through language and relationships.

Here, the importance of the social dimension in understanding organizational phenomena—such as conflict, burnout, and professional alienation—becomes evident. These are not purely psychological problems but reflections of unequal power distribution or organizational cultures that undermine communication and mutual respect.
Environments that marginalize dialogue or punish dissent inevitably generate both psychological and collective tension. Therefore, understanding organizational behavior in its social dimension requires deconstructing the power and symbolic relations that produce feelings of identity and belonging.

Fourth: Toward an Integrative Model for Explaining Organizational Behavior

Building on the fourth sub-question, an integrative model can be formulated that connects the individual and the structure through three interrelated layers:

1. The Internal Psychological Layer: encompassing perception, identity, and emotions.
2. The External Social Layer: encompassing organizational culture, social support, and power.
3. The Intermediate Interactive Layer: representing the continuous negotiation space between the individual and the institution, where meaning is constructed.

Dejours (1998) argues that work is a dual experience of pleasure and suffering, as individuals constantly oscillate between their need for freedom and the demands of the system. This duality reveals that organizational behavior is not simply a matter of harmony or conflict but a continuous search for psychosocial balance that enables adaptation and resilience.

The integrative model provides not only a descriptive explanation but also a critical humanistic perspective, rethinking the position of humans within organizations—not as tools of production but as actors who actively reconstruct the organization itself. This epistemological shift aligns with the new humanistic paradigm in psychology and sociology, which views the workplace as a space for building meaning and identity, not merely a site for task performance.

Moreover, integrating the psychological and social dimensions redefines organizational health as the balance between individual well-being and structural justice, making the institution a space that supports growth rather than threatens it.

This discussion underscores that organizational behavior is a complex interactive phenomenon formed through a continuous dialectic between psyche and structure. Psychological factors give behavior its subjective meaning, while social factors determine its boundaries and norms. Through this interaction, professional identity is shaped, and the sense of meaning—or alienation—emerges.

The proposed integrative approach does not merely interpret the phenomenon from the outside; it seeks to reconstruct the concept itself from within, viewing organizational behavior as a creative process co-produced by individuals and institutions.
This conception opens new research avenues for exploring themes such as occupational well-being, meaning at work, organizational mental health, and humanistic leadership.

Conclusion

This article concludes that organizational behavior cannot be understood or explained through a single perspective, as it represents a complex phenomenon that manifests at the intersection of the psychological and social dimensions within the spheres of work and education.
The psychological perspective presents the individual as an active agent driven by motives, emotions, and processes of self-perception (Locke, 1976; Maslow, 1943), whereas the social perspective views the organization as a system of relationships, authority, and culture (Blau, 1964; Allam, 1994). However, relying exclusively on either dimension leads to a fragmented understanding of organizational behavior, since what actually occurs is a continuous dialectical interaction between the self and the structure, between the individual and their institutional environment.

The analysis has shown that the individual within an organization is not merely a passive responder to systems but a creator of meaning, seeking to reconcile internal needs with institutional demands (Weick, 1995). Consequently, performance, satisfaction, and organizational commitment are not purely psychological outcomes but rather expressions of balance or imbalance in the relationship between the person and the social system that encompasses them. Likewise, organizational culture—through its values, attitudes, and norms—reshapes employees’ psychological perceptions and guides their professional behavior (Lotfi, 2007; Geertz, 1973).

This intertwining of the psychological and the social necessitates adopting an integrative psychosociological model for understanding organizational behavior—one that recognizes that institutional phenomena cannot be separated from the human experience lived within them. The organization is not a static structure but a symbolic system in which individuals interact through continuous processes of interpretation, support, and resistance (Dejours, 1998).

The integrative approach is not merely a merger between two academic disciplines; it is a philosophical and methodological response to an evolving organizational reality where psychological and social pressures are increasingly intertwined. It calls for a redefinition of organizational health as a state of harmony between individual well-being and institutional justice, and for an understanding of meaning at work as a shared process of constructing value and identity within the professional community (Ben Ahmed, 2024; Baumeister & Vohs, 2002).

What distinguishes this perspective is that it restores the human being to the center of organizational concern—not as a resource or means, but as a partner in constructing institutional reality. The integration of psychological and social dimensions not only broadens scientific understanding but also provides a theoretical foundation for developing more human-centered and sustainable organizational policies and practices.

Recommendations

1. Establishing the concept of “Integrated Organizational Health,” which combines psychological well-being and social support as fundamental conditions for sustainable productivity.
2. Integrating the integrative approach into curricula of psychology, work, and organizational studies in Arab universities to encourage interdisciplinary thinking and holistic understanding of human behavior in institutions.
3. Expanding Arab research on the relationship between the self and structure in educational and professional institutions, in order to enrich the field with culturally grounded perspectives that reflect local realities.
4. Shifting from individual-level analysis to network-based analysis of organizational behavior, viewing actors as embedded within a web of psychological and social interactions that shape meaning, identity, and performance.
5. Encouraging field researchers to empirically test the proposed integrative model through applied studies linking organizational climate, psychological support, and job satisfaction, thereby validating the model’s theoretical and practical relevance.

References

Arabic References

Ben Ahmed, F. Z. (2024). السلوك التنظيمي [Lecture material]. University of Tlemcen. https://elearn.univ-tlemcen.dz/mod/resource/view.php?id=57743

Al-Hammu, K., & Khateeb, R. M. (2025). السلوك التنظيمي في منظمات الأعمال المعاصرة. The Arab Democratic Center for Political and Strategic Studies. https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/السلوك-التنظيمي-في-منظمات-الأعمال-المعاصرة.pdf

Allam, I. M. (1994). دراسات في علم الاجتماع التنظيمي. Anglo Egyptian Library.

Lotfi, T. I. (2007). علم اجتماع التنظيم والعمل. Dar Gharib for Printing and Publishing.

English References

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). Oxford University Press.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

Dejours, C. (1998). Souffrance en France: La banalisation de l’injustice sociale. Seuil.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. Routledge.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.