4
The Incubator Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions? DIRK LINDEBAUM 1 * AND PETER J. JORDAN 2 1 Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K. 2 Grifth Business School, Grifth University, Nathan, Australia Summary We note a tendency in organizational behavior research to link positive emotions with positive outcomes and negative emotions with negative outcomes. In this Incubator, we argue against this simple association and provide suggestions for researchers to develop interesting lines of enquiry that look beyond simple symmetrical associations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords: discrete emotion; context; outcomes In a recent Incubator, Gooty, Gavin, and Ashkanasy (2009) argued for the need to focus upon discrete emotions (i.e., individual-specic, short-term emotional reactions to stimuli) within organizational behavior (OB) research and to include the role of context within that research. We seek to build on these arguments. In particular, we note that a symmetrical assumption has emerged in recent years that positive discrete emotions yield positive outcomes, whereas negative discrete emotions lead to negative outcomes (cf. Learmonth & Humphreys, 2011). Examples of the tendency for researchers to focus on symmetrical relationships between variables can be found in the literature on positive organizational psychology or destructive leadership. For example, Fredrickson (2003) suggests that nurturing positive emotions may aid organizations in preventing stagnation, while enhancing employeeswell-being and health. In contrast, studies on destructive leadership highlight the negative consequences that stem from aggressive leader behaviors, such as low loyalty, low job satisfaction, and increased bullying (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007). We posit that this approach distracts researchers from problematizing existing knowledge to see more really interesting and innovative researchbeing published (Ashkanasy, 2011, p. 819). Problematization is dened as thinking differently about what we already know in OB research (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). Thus, we encourage researchers to develop research streams that re-conceptualize the abovementioned symmetrical links into asymmetrical ones. Our proposed alternative is predicated upon the fact that the realities of organizational life do not reect such a neat juxtaposition. Positively valenced emotions can have negative outcomes (e.g., colleagues may perceive pride as a sign of arrogance), whereas negatively valenced emotions can have positive outcomes (e.g., an angry leader being perceived as authentic). In this Incubator, we call upon scholars to broaden their attention to consider the utility of discrete emotions as they relate to (i) varying organizational contexts and (ii) potential beneciaries on the basis of status (e.g., line managers versus workers), other personal characteristics (e.g., resilient versus non-resilient), or individual differences (e.g., conscientious versus non-conscientious). *Correspondence to: Dirk Lindebaum, Management School, University of Liverpool, Chatham Building, Chatham Street, L69 7ZH, Liverpool, U.K. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. (2012) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1819

Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions?

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions?

The

Incubator

Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility ofdiscrete emotions?

DIRK LINDEBAUM1* AND PETER J. JORDAN2

1Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K.2Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia

Summary We note a tendency in organizational behavior research to link positive emotions with positive outcomes andnegative emotions with negative outcomes. In this Incubator, we argue against this simple association andprovide suggestions for researchers to develop interesting lines of enquiry that look beyond simplesymmetrical associations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: discrete emotion; context; outcomes

In a recent Incubator, Gooty, Gavin, and Ashkanasy (2009) argued for the need to focus upon discrete emotions(i.e., individual-specific, short-term emotional reactions to stimuli) within organizational behavior (OB) researchand to include the role of context within that research. We seek to build on these arguments. In particular, we notethat a symmetrical assumption has emerged in recent years that positive discrete emotions yield positive outcomes,whereas negative discrete emotions lead to negative outcomes (cf. Learmonth & Humphreys, 2011). Examples ofthe tendency for researchers to focus on symmetrical relationships between variables can be found in the literatureon positive organizational psychology or destructive leadership. For example, Fredrickson (2003) suggests thatnurturing positive emotions may aid organizations in preventing stagnation, while enhancing employees’ well-beingand health. In contrast, studies on destructive leadership highlight the negative consequences that stem fromaggressive leader behaviors, such as low loyalty, low job satisfaction, and increased bullying (Einarsen, Aasland,& Skogstad, 2007). We posit that this approach distracts researchers from problematizing existing knowledge tosee more “really interesting and innovative research” being published (Ashkanasy, 2011, p. 819). Problematizationis defined as thinking differently about what we already know in OB research (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). Thus,we encourage researchers to develop research streams that re-conceptualize the abovementioned symmetrical linksinto asymmetrical ones.Our proposed alternative is predicated upon the fact that the realities of organizational life do not reflect such a

neat juxtaposition. Positively valenced emotions can have negative outcomes (e.g., colleagues may perceive prideas a sign of arrogance), whereas negatively valenced emotions can have positive outcomes (e.g., an angry leaderbeing perceived as authentic). In this Incubator, we call upon scholars to broaden their attention to consider theutility of discrete emotions as they relate to (i) varying organizational contexts and (ii) potential beneficiaries onthe basis of status (e.g., line managers versus workers), other personal characteristics (e.g., resilient versusnon-resilient), or individual differences (e.g., conscientious versus non-conscientious).

*Correspondence to: Dirk Lindebaum, Management School, University of Liverpool, Chatham Building, Chatham Street, L69 7ZH, Liverpool, U.K.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. (2012)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1819

Page 2: Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions?

Symmetry andAsymmetry of Discrete Emotions across Organizational Contexts

In the first part of this Incubator, we focus on discrete emotions as independent variables. We draw attention to thedisjuncture between how researchers examine emotions and how workers use and experience emotions. Forexample, in practice, a leader may use an emotional outburst of anger—whether feigned or honest—to resolve agridlock in a negotiation or to emphasize priorities in the context of manufacturing or engineering. Yet,conventional wisdom in OB research often equates anger with violence. Similarly, the expression of anger is oftenportrayed as an indication of weakness (e.g., Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003), or sure to escalatethe conflict by setting up an adversarial situation (i.e., a “negative” outcome). Similarly, research linked positiveemotional expressions in organizations (e.g., pride and enthusiasm) with positive outcomes, such as creativityand good problem solving. Although all of these outcomes are supported by research evidence, researchers ignorealternative hypotheses.To outline some of these alternate lines of inquiry, we note that, although pride has been link to positive outcomes,

excessive individual pride may hinder a leader’s ability to be sensitive to sentiments of the followership. This alsomay be particularly relevant in a political context, where being humble is seen as a virtue. In the same context,the negative impact of love on followers, which may result in blind followership, has not been widely explored.For example, although narcissistic leaders tend to be able to attract followers, research has not examined the impactof leaders harnessing that followership for their own purposes at the expenses of the followers’ interests. Similarly,researchers argue that enthusiasm enables task completion. In practice, however, enthusiasm can also hinder anindividual’s ability to focus upon the strict adherence to safety standards in industries whose operations carry highrisks (e.g., mining or energy industries). Still further, researchers have not looked at the negative impact of extremehappiness on productivity, where extreme happiness distracts from task performance.Even these embryonic examples show that the conceptual symmetry between emotions and outcomes carrying a

common valence is a simple—perhaps too simple—association. Instead, we argue that these examples underscorethe need to focus upon the utility of discrete emotions as they relate to particular contexts, but not in a way in whichthey have been previously considered.In line with our focus on the importance of discrete emotions, we draw upon Lazarus and Cohen-Charash’s

(2001) list of 15 discrete emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, fright, guilt, shame, sadness, envy, jealousy, joy, pride,relief, hope, love, gratitude, and compassion). We argue that a focus upon these discrete emotions may increaseour understanding of the role of emotions in particular organizational contexts. For the sake of parsimony, wearticulate only two broad research questions to capture our argument. Although we acknowledge that thesequestions partly reflect the symmetrical relationship we challenge here, we urge scholars to center more uponthe asymmetrical constellations in future studies. For example,

1. Under what contextual conditions does a specific discrete emotion [insert emotion of interest here] producenegative outcomes at work?

2. Under what contextual conditions does a specific discrete emotion [insert emotion of interest here] producepositive outcomes at work?

There is one important caveat to be borne in mind here, one which was not raised by Gooty and her colleagues.Even if scholars focus upon one discrete emotion, appraisal theory points to the considerable variance withinspecific emotions in terms of the intensity of that emotion and its impact upon the actor owing to the perceivedrelevance of a situation (Smith & Kirby, 2009). Anger, for instance, can manifest itself as mild or furious, asself-directed motivation or other-directed aggression. Likewise, some workers find fear invigorating (e.g.,reactions of emergency services workers) or outright paralyzing. This phenomenon has been recognized in the stressliterature with the development of a stream of research on Eustress, which concerns stress that motivates individuals(Nelson & Cooper, 2005). These differences in individual reactions again can be traced to appraisal theory (Lazarus,1999). Whereas at the primary appraisal stage, individuals form a global positive or negative emotional state, discrete

D. LINDEBAUM AND P. J. JORDAN

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2012)DOI: 10.1002/job

Page 3: Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions?

emotion crystallizes at the secondary appraisal stage, which is distinct for every emotion. Taken together, we need todevelop a deeper understanding of discrete emotions within particular organizational contexts. Both theoretical andempirical efforts in OB research are likely to gain from this as the impact of each discrete emotion on individuals withinorganizations should be clearer.So the question emerging from this is “how do we develop research programs (beyond the rudimentary

suggestions we have made in this Incubator) to explore these asymmetrical relationships”? What we need todevelop as OB researchers is an understanding of the lived experiences of discrete emotions of managers andemployees and the outcomes they experience from these discrete emotions. Using phenomenology (i.e., the studyof lived experiences) to understand why and how these lived experiences prompt individuals to behave in certainways given the underlying context, researchers could draw out themes and potential variables that may createinteresting research studies (whether qualitative or quantitative in nature). Researchers could also build in atemporal aspect to this research to examine how these outcomes may vary over time. That is, the display of apositive discrete emotion first yields a positive outcome, but subsequent and repeated displays generate negativeoutcomes. For instance, the hope a leader radiates in light of adversity may be perceived initially as encouragingand motivating. Over time, however, if this continuing hope is not linked to positive actions, it can be seen byfollowers in a cynical light and create a negative work environment.

Utility of Discrete Emotions: Positive or Negative for whom?

Having explored discrete emotions as independent variables, we also consider the conceptual nature of theirpotential outcomes. Specifically, when we ask the aforementioned two questions, we really must go one step furtherand ask “to whom?” such positive or negative outcomes apply. Therefore, the second issue we want to raise here isthe importance of being specific about how outcomes might be interpreted.Goals and objectives can be interpreted differently among line managers and workers and even between

workers based upon status and personal characteristics. Such judgments concerning whether an outcome isnegative or positive are contingent upon our beliefs about goals and acceptable processes for achieving thosegoals (Learmonth & Humphreys, 2011). Shame, for example, is typically portrayed as a negative emotion.Researchers have focused on the use of it in situations where poor performers at work are publicly exposedby managers (Fineman, 2003). Shame, however, is central to social order. In particular, shame (or morespecifically the avoidance thereof) is used in Japanese business settings to encourage extra effort andperformance in managers. However, for workers, shame can lead to adverse health outcomes includingdepression (Martin, Gilbert, & McEwan, 2006). What is crucial is that one discrete emotion can have differenteffects upon line managers and workers and between different co-workers simultaneously. This examplehighlights that the identification of the focal entity (i.e., individual, group of individuals, or organization)should be clearly articulated in the scoping and aims of research projects.In following this line of argument, we encourage researchers to accept that, in general, they are examining overt

and intentional consequences in their research. In developing a balanced approach to research, we also need toacknowledge that there may be some unintentional consequences of the discrete emotions under study or that notall findings are applicable across all contexts. Specifically, we ask scholars to consider the following questions indeveloping their research:

1. Because discrete emotions can be interpreted differently between line managers and workers or between workers,it is pertinent to ask “of utility for whom”?

2. Because discrete emotions can be interpreted differently across contexts, it is pertinent to ask “of utility for whomwithin a specific context”?

UTILITY OF DISCRETE EMOTIONS

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2012)DOI: 10.1002/job

Page 4: Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions?

Conclusion

In this Incubator, we have problematized existing debates in OB research concerning the link between positiveemotions as they relate to positive outcomes at work, and negative emotions as they relate to negative outcomes.Instead, we have put forth a roadmap for future research on emotion in OB that calls for more attention to the roleof discrete emotions in predicting different outcomes across particular organizational contexts. In a very real sense,we have sought to suggest a new line of research that re-conceptualizes these symmetrical relationships, dependingupon context, into asymmetrical ones (e.g., discrete negative emotions can lead to positive outcomes).At the same time, we have emphasized that our theoretical and empirical efforts to advance our understanding of

the role of emotions at work should not stop here. We should not be satisfied with relating specific discrete emotionsto either positive or negative outcomes, but really need to go one step further and ask the question “to whom?” suchpositive or negative qualifications apply given that responses can differ greatly among individual vantage points andpersonal characteristics. In so doing, we maintain that our discipline is likely to broaden its scope for inquiry andexplore different research questions that will be of interest to both scholars and practicing managers.

Author biographies

Dirk Lindebaum is a senior lecturer in management at the University of Liverpool Management School. His researchinterest pertains to organizational phenomena that involve emotional processes, such as emotional intelligence,leadership, and power. Another more recent interest concerns the wider ethical implications of using neurosciencein leadership studies.Peter J. Jordan is a professor of organizational behavior in Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Australia.He gained his PhD in management at the University of Queensland. His current research interests include emotionalintelligence, emotions in organizations, team performance, and leadership.

ReferencesAlvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Theory development: Generating research questions through problematization. Academy ofManagement Review, 36(2), 247–271.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2011). Advancing theory: More than just “gap filling”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 819–821.Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. TheLeadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216.

Fineman, S. (2003). Understanding emotion at work. London: Sage.Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 163–175). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Gooty, J., Gavin, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2009). Emotions research in OB: The challenges that lie ahead. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 30(6), 833–838.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London: Free Association Books.Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in organizational life. In R. Payne, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Emotionsat work: Theory, research and applications for management (pp. 45–84). Chichester: John Wiley.

Learmonth,M., &Humphreys, M. (2011). Blind spots in Dutton, Roberts and Bednar’s ‘Pathways for positive identity construction atwork’: ‘You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative’. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 424– 427.

Martin, Y., Gilbert, P., & McEwan, K. (2006). The relation of entrapment, shame and guilt to depression, in carers of people withdementia. Aging & Mental Health, 10, 101–106.

Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. (2005). Stress and health: A positive direction. Stress and Health, 21(2), 73–75.Prati, M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness,and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21– 40.

Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2009). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition& Emotion, 23(7), 1352–1372.

D. LINDEBAUM AND P. J. JORDAN

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2012)DOI: 10.1002/job