The point of POB: Rejoinder
作者回应了关于积极组织行为学（POB）与积极组织学术（POS）区别的讨论，承认自己曾混淆两者，并接受批评。
It was fascinating to read Fred Luthans and Bruce Avolio's account of the birth and early years of the Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) paradigm. As insiders, they are much more informed and discerning about the ecology of the movement, including its interior intellectual and political currents, than anyone who was not there at the creation could ever be. As an outsider, I find myself both less knowledgeable and less interested than they are in such matters as the difference between POB (which clearly is centered in Nebraska) and Positive Organizational Scholarship (which hails from Michigan). To me, the two streams of work look awfully similar -so much so that I blithely used the acronym POS throughout my commentary on the articles in this special issue. When the editors suggested that it might be less confusing to readers if our terminology were consistent, I agreed and proceeded to perform a global search-and-replace: POS became POB. But I did not find it necessary to change anything I actually said in the commentary. Now I know different. There are indeed distinctions between POB and POS, and at least some of those who are promoting a positive agenda for the field of organizational behavior care a great deal about those distinctions. I blush and stand corrected.