Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the science review

The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a

Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the science review☆ Janaki Gooty a,⁎, Shane Connelly b,1, Jennifer Griffith b,2, Alka Gupta c a b c

Department of Management, Belk College of Business University of North Carolina, Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, USA Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey St., Norman, OK 73019, USA Center for Leadership Studies and School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Leadership Affect Moods Emotions Emotional competencies

a b s t r a c t This paper presents a selective, qualitative review of affect, emotions, and emotional competencies in leadership theory and research published in ten management and organizational psychology journals, book chapters and special issues of journals from 1990 to 2010. Three distinct themes emerged from this review: (1) leader affect, follower affect and outcomes, (2) discrete emotions and leadership, and (3) emotional competencies and leadership. Within each of these themes, we examine theory (construct definition and theoretical foundation) and methods (design, measurement and context) and summarize key findings. Our findings indicate that the study of affect and emotions in leadership fares well with regard to construct definitions across the first two themes, but not in the last theme above. Design and measurement issues across all three themes are a little less advanced. One serious gap is in a lack of focus on levels-of-analysis theoretically and methodologically. Our review concludes with recommendations for future theoretical and empirical work in this area. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Leadership has a long history in the social sciences, and regardless of the leadership lens one looks through (e.g., transformational leadership, leader–member exchange, individualized leadership, charismatic leadership) affect and emotions are deeply intertwined with the process of leading, leader outcomes and follower outcomes. For example, transformational leaders ignite followers' aspirations, instilling pride, eliciting enthusiasm, and conveying optimism regarding a desirable future (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Bass, 1998). In the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) literature, affect is one indicator of the quality of relationships between leaders and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Dansereau and colleagues (Dansereau et al., 1995) cast individualized leadership as a process in which the leader's primary role is to enhance follower selfworth while charismatic leaders often inspire positive emotions in followers via articulating a compelling vision, imagery and rhetoric (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007; Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994). Deservedly then, affect and emotions have received much attention in the leadership literature. This attention is not entirely surprising in that it parallels the role of affect and emotions in organizational behavior in the last two decades. Indeed some scholars have even labeled this attention the “affective revolution” (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003, p. 3) claiming a Kuhnian paradigm shift in organizational behavior from purely cognition focused models to cognition and affective models of behavior. We acknowledge and agree with these scholars that affect and emotions play an undeniable role in organizational behavior and

☆ We gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions by the yearly review editor, Francis Yammarino, and an anonymous reviewer on earlier drafts of this paper. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 704 687 7694. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Gooty), [email protected] (S. Connelly), jenngriffi[email protected] (J. Griffith), [email protected] (A. Gupta). 1 Tel.: +1 405 325 4580; fax: +1 405 325 9066. 2 Tel.: +1 405 325 0770; fax: +1 405 325 9066. 1048-9843/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.005

980

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

leadership. Our focus, however, is on questions pertaining to the nature and quality of affect-based scholarship in leadership. For example, while affect and emotions are now studied in leadership research, do they advance our knowledge and application of leadership? Are the methods in use aligned with theories of emotion and/or with theories of leadership? Are inferences aligned with both theory and methods? In attempting to answer these questions, our first goal in this paper is to provide a state-of-the science review of leadership, affect and emotions. The study of affect and emotions in leadership is an emerging domain and our qualitative review examines theory, methods and quality of the science itself rather than a focus on size/magnitude of relationships. More specifically, our review has two primary goals. Our first goal pertains to the state of the science with regard to theory and methods as noted below. With regard to theory, we examine the validity of construct definitions of affect and emotions and if the relationships that are examined are grounded in established theoretical frameworks in affect and/or leadership. With regard to methods, we examine if research designs are aligned with theories they purport to test, the quality of measurement of affective constructs as well as the leadership context within which relationships are studied. This last criterion is especially important, as affective constructs are interaction and context specific (see Gooty, Gavin, & Ashkanasy, 2009; Lazarus, 2000). The second goal of this review is to examine if levels-of-analysis issues are considered, given that leadership, affect and emotions are inherently multi-level phenomenon (see Ashkanasy, 2003; Beal, Weiss, Barros, & McDermid, 2005; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). This review contributes to the leadership literature in the following five ways: First, our findings indicate that leadership literature in affect and emotions defines these constructs consistently with basic psychological theories. This is in sharp contrast with the state of the science within the domain of organizational behavior (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Brief & Weiss, 2002; Briner & Kiefer, 2005). The caveat to this finding could be the selective nature of this review in that we predominantly included papers published in top-level management and psychology journals. Nevertheless, this trend is very encouraging and needs to be continued in the leadership literature. Second, our review indicates that explanatory theory development in this domain is scarce. Along with this concern, the literature is heavily skewed towards the beneficial effects of positive moods and emotions, with negative moods and emotions vastly understudied. Third, our findings indicate a good balance of empirical research in the lab versus naturalistic settings; however, research designs in the latter are seriously misaligned with the theories they purport to test. Fourth, psychometrically sound measures are lacking and need further attention. Fifth, theoretically and methodologically, much remains to be done at the intra-individual, dyadic, group and organizational levels. In summary, there is an urgent need for leadership scholars to focus attention on explanatory theory, role of negative affect and emotions, development of reliable, valid measures targeted at specific constructs of interest, and levels-of-analysis. The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. First, we provide an overview of the theoretical and methodological criteria that guided this review. Next, we identify the procedure used to identify and evaluate the works included in this selective review and the procedure used to identify relevant themes. We then discuss three relevant themes that emerged from a theoretical, empirical and levels-of-analysis perspective. Finally, we discuss the implications of accumulated theory and empirical research for leadership scholars ending with recommendations for both future theoretical and empirical works.

1. Theoretical considerations 1.1. Defining emotion constructs Briner and Kiefer (2005) noted that less than half (40%) of the papers they reviewed in organizational psychology research defined emotions in line with basic psychological theories. The remainder of the papers they reviewed either did not define emotions or confused emotions, affect and other affect-laden constructs such as job satisfaction. This criticism of affective scholarship (emotions in particular) is not new (see for example, Barsade et al., 2003; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Brief & Weiss, 2002; Gooty et al., 2009). At the outset, it is important to note that affect, mood, emotions, and emotional competencies (e.g., emotional intelligence) have elicited considerable debate in the psychology literature with regard to basic definitions and components thereof (Barrett, 2006; Izard, 2009; Locke, 2005; Russell, 2003). This debate while still ongoing has, however, also elicited a broad level of consensus on affect, mood and emotions but not on emotional competencies (e.g., Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). We follow the predominant schools of thought in this regard, while noting that other ways of conceptualizing affect, mood and emotions exist. Regardless of the ways one defines these constructs our main point is that defining the constructs in accordance with basic psychological theories is critical. Multiple definitions of emotion abound, ranging from feeling a particular way to mood states (George & Brief, 1992) to physiological changes (Briner & Kiefer, 2005) to neurophysiological components (e.g., Ashkanasy, 2003) to reactions to an event (Frijda, 1993; Lazarus, 1991). From Cognitive Appraisal Theory, emotion is defined as an organized mental response to an event or entity (Izard, 1991; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). Emotions are shorter, target-centered and more intense than moods (Fisher, 2000, 2002; Gohm & Clore, 2002). Appraisal theorists suggest that emotions are associated with different assessments of the emotion inducing event, person, or situation. While there is no agreed upon list of appraisal dimensions, discrete emotional states have been characterized as having different patterns of valence, arousal, uncertainty, other-responsibility, individual control (vs. situational), threat, goal-obstruction and others (Ortony et al., 1988; Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 2001; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). In sum, emotions are transient, intense reactions to an event, person or entity (e.g., Beal et al., 2005 ; Fisher, 2000, 2002; Fisher &

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

981

Noble, 2004; Frijda, 1993; Izard, 1991; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001; Ortony et al., 1988; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999; Zelenski & Larsen, 2000). Affect refers to longer lasting positive or negative emotional experience and is classified as state affect (mood) and trait or dispositional affect. Moods are longer in duration than emotions yet shorter in duration than trait affect (Fisher, 2000; Frijda, 1993). Moods activate in an individual's cognitive background, have no specific target, less intense than emotions and persist for a longer duration (Briner & Kiefer, 2005; Fisher, 2000). Trait affect is a stable, dispositional tendency in evaluating events as a positive or negative. We acknowledge that these definitions of trait affect, and state affect (which includes both moods and emotions) focus heavily on valence rather than arousal. Definitions of a number of emotional capacities, such as empathy, emotion regulation, and emotional intelligence are also important to consider. By far the predominant model and definition of emotion regulation is that articulated by Gross (1998). Emotion regulation involves attempts to influence what emotions one experiences, when and how they are experienced and expressed (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Gross (1998) articulated a number of specific regulation strategies, some that occur prior to a person fully experiencing or expressing an emotional state and some that occur during or even after an emotion is experienced. Regulation can be both conscious and non-conscious (Bargh & Williams, 2007). Empathy is a second emotion capacity about which there is a fair degree of consensus. It involves understanding and experiencing another person's feelings (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). However, someone who empathizes with others also recognizes that their own affective state is altered by imagining what the other person is feeling and is a result of empathy (Vignemont & Singer, 2006). Thus, empathy involves more than cognitive perspective-taking. Finally, there are number of different models, definitions, and approaches to emotional intelligence. There is still considerable disagreement about the conceptualization and measurement of emotion-based capacities as “emotional intelligence,” although Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso's (2000) ability-based model has more conceptual clarity than other mixed-trait models (e.g., Bar-On, 1997, 2006; Goleman, 1995; Joseph & Newman, 2010). Mayer et al. (2000) define emotional intelligence as the ability to perceive emotion in oneself and others, use emotions to facilitate thinking, understand emotions and emotion processes, and manage the experience and expression of emotions in oneself and others. Our review considers whether conceptual and empirical papers on leadership and emotion provide explicit definitions of affect, discrete emotions, and emotional competencies as noted in this section. 1.2. Theoretical lens It is challenging to delineate one consistent theoretical underpinning in leadership studies on affect, mood and emotions as many empirical studies simply integrate multiple theoretical perspectives of leadership and affect. For example, Bono and Ilies (2006) examined the role of positive emotions in the charismatic leadership process. Many examples of how affect, mood and emotions fit into leader emergence, transformational leadership, and leader–member exchange also exist (Connelly & Ruark, 2010; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002). Such studies focus on current theories of leadership, extending them by explicitly incorporating affective influences. The second category of empirical studies relies on affect-based theories such as Affective Events Theory (AET: Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) within which leadership serves as a context. For example, Tse, Dasborough, and Ashkanasy (2008) integrate LMX theory and AET in studying multi-level affect. Similarly, George and Zhou (2007) examined the mood as information model and how leaders could impact subordinate moods, which in turn influence their creativity. Regardless of the theoretical underpinning, we note how these studies contribute to and extend knowledge within the leadership literature. In addition, we also comment on theories that are explanatory versus predictive only. Affect, mood and emotions can at best be thought of as an emerging domain and explanatory theories set the stage for a greater understanding of phenomenon in question (e.g., Sutton & Staw, 1995). From a theoretical standpoint, one additional and important consideration is that of levels-of-analysis. Recalling the definitions of emotions and moods presented above, conceptualizing these constructs as stable individual differences would be an error. Trait affect though, does work as an inter-individual difference. We examine how intra-, inter-, dyad-, and group levels of affect, mood and emotions are conceptualized and treated in leadership research. 2. Methodological considerations 2.1. Research design and measurement Emotions and moods are dynamic constructs as noted earlier in definitions. This conceptualization necessitates that studies incorporate research designs capable of modeling the transient nature of moods and emotions. Typically, the designs capable of accommodating such dynamism are event-based experimental or field designs, daily diary studies, experience sampling methods, qualitative studies and critical incident techniques. These designs measure moods and emotions very close to their occurrence thus reducing the probability of retrospective biases (see Robinson & Clore, 2002). Several scholars (e.g., Beal et al., 2005; Briner & Kiefer, 2005) have now noted that when moods and emotions are measured as stable constructs, (1) they are misaligned with theoretical definitions, (2) retrospective biases seep in, and individuals tend to report what they think they should have felt rather than what they actually experienced. In examining studies from a design and measurement standpoint, we ask: do designs and measurement approaches align with the affective constructs of interest?

982

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

2.2. Context Emotions (more so than moods) are context specific. Lazarus (2000) argues that emotions stem from social interactions, which are arguably central in leadership. While some have criticized the study of leadership in experimental or laboratory settings, many theories of social behavior have been advanced and tested in such settings. We believe that advancing the study of emotions, moods, and leadership occurs not only through field research, but also through experimental research where key causal mechanisms underlying the influence of emotion-related factors on leadership processes and outcomes (and vice versa) can be identified. We also forward the position, however, that the elicitation and consequences of emotions and moods and leadership could vastly differ in naturalistic settings (Gooty et al., 2009; Lazarus, 2000). As such, we examine the representation of experimental and naturalistic research in the leadership literature.

3. Procedure for identifying relevant studies We adopt a selective, qualitative and narrative methodology as the study of leadership and affect is an emerging domain. We believe that this descriptive methodology was necessary for examining concerns regarding the techniques and measurement of affect and emotions that have recently emerged (e.g., Seo, Barrett, & Jin, 2008). The techniques for identifying potentially relevant works included at least three distinct phases. First, we conducted an online search for peer-reviewed papers published in premier management and organizational psychology during 1990-2007 using eight keywords: emotions, emotion, emotional, affect, affective, affective events, emotional intelligence, and emotional labor in full text of each of these top tier publications. The journals included in this first cut were Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, The Leadership Quarterly, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Personnel Psychology. This search yielded papers that were theoretical, review papers and empirical including any of the above eight key words related to affect and emotions. The second sources of information for this review were edited books focused on affect and emotions. The book compilations included Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory, and Practice (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Zerbe, 2000); Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications for Management (Payne & Cooper, 2001); Managing Emotions in the Workplace (Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Härtel, 2002); Emotions in the Workplace: Understanding the Structure and Role of Emotions in Organizational Behavior (Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002); Research Companion to Emotions in Organizations (Ashkanasy & Cooper, 2008). In addition, nine articles from Journal of Managerial Psychology, Human performance and Journal of Applied Social Psychology were included in this review for their special focus on leadership, affect and emotions. Thus, while the initial timeline for the online electronic search was limited to 1990–2007; subsequently, articles and book chapters from the sources noted above from 1990 to 2010 were added to the database if they were particularly important to the content of this review. In the second phase, each author independently examined the abstracts of each paper to determine if the paper explicitly focused on leadership and/or had some mention of managerial affect and emotions. This step narrowed the literature down to 78 papers and 21 book chapters. Papers identified as relevant by all four authors in the second phase were retained for inclusion in the review. Interestingly, the third and fourth authors included more abstracts than did the first and second authors. Phase three involved reviewing all papers where one or more authors did not select a paper for inclusion. Papers needed to meet the following criteria to be included: 1) dealt explicitly with affect, emotions, mood, or emotional competencies, and 2) linked affective constructs in some way to leadership. The abstracts of a handful of papers identified by three of the four authors were re-read by the lead authors to ensure relevance. All of these were retained as relevant. Approximately 40 papers identified for inclusion by two or fewer authors were subjected to a more in-depth review. Here, the lead authors scanned the entire paper to determine if the theoretical or empirical focus of the paper met the criteria. Most of these were eliminated, with four requiring additional consensus discussion to determine whether they should be retained or not. After this final cut, we were left with 63 papers and book chapters that were included in this review and are presented in Table 1. Two additional empirical studies were identified and added during the revision process bringing the total to 65. We read all papers in listed in Table 1 with a view towards identifying a coherent organizing framework. The first author identified a preliminary organizing framework of four distinct themes that could coherently represent and reflect the state of the science. Our original themes were: (1) leader affect and leader effectiveness, (2) leader affect and follower affect/outcomes, (3) discrete emotions and leadership, and (4) emotional competencies and leadership. The authors then discussed over several research meetings the classification of papers into each of the four themes. After the papers were classified by theme, the first and second authors wrote first drafts of all four themes. At this stage, it became apparent that there was very little research on leader effectiveness for it to merit a separate theme (i.e., we could identify only one empirical study on leader affect and leader effectiveness). At this stage, we collapsed themes 1 and 2 into the first theme and included several sub-sections to it. After the entire paper was written, we took a big picture view and asked ourselves if any other way of organizing themes made sense and/or helped readability. We felt the three themes identified provided a coherent framework. Thus, the final three themes identified were: (1) leader affect, follower affect and outcomes, (2) discrete emotions and leadership, and (3) emotional competencies and leadership. These three themes are summarized in Table 1. We discuss each of these themes below with a focus on the theoretical and methodological criteria noted earlier.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

983

4. Theme one: Leader affect, follower affect, and outcomes In this section, we review theory and research related to leader affect, follower affect and various outcomes for leaders, followers and work groups. Kanfer and Klimoski (2002) note that affect pervades work environments and is a key psychological driver of our cognitions (thoughts), motivation and consequently behavior. Leader affect has been extensively written about, but, the bulk of the theoretical and empirical research in this domain focuses on its effects on follower affect and their outcomes. As we look across the literature on leader moods or state affect, it is somewhat surprising that no theories and very few empirical studies examine the effects of leaders' moods on leader outcomes. Furthermore, very few studies (e.g., Erez, Misangyi, Johnson, LePine, & Halverson, 2008; Newcombe & Ashkanasy, 2002) distinguish between leader felt and displayed affect and its effects on leader outcomes. Many empirical studies in this domain examine moods at the individual and group levels, but we could not find a single study at the dyadic level, and very few studies at the intraindividual level (see Column 3, Table 1). 4.1. Theoretical perspectives on affect and leadership Theoretical research in this domain focuses on affect, quality of exchange relationships, and inspirational leadership styles. For example, Davis and Gardner (2004) suggested that followers who have higher levels of trait negative affect will perceive lower quality exchange relationships with their leaders and display more cynicism towards the organization even when they have very high job-related ability. Similarly, Tse et al. (2008) posit that LMX and Team-Member Exchange (TMX) relationships are related via an affective response to the LMX a member perceives with her/his leader. Perhaps one of the more intriguing theoretical ideas is seen in Hansen, Ropo, and Sauer's (2007) work on Aesthetic leadership. They define Aesthetics as tacit knowledge garnered from affective reactions to organizational phenomenon and making sense of such phenomenon. Hansen et al. argue for a focus on the affective and emotional nature of leader– follower interactions, more so with the inspirational styles of leadership (e.g., transformational, charismatic and authentic) than is currently presumed in the literature. Diefendorff and Richard (2008) suggest a new direction in emotion displays. They posit that power and vertical hierarchical status could affect the display of affect and emotions. Similarly, Van Kleef (Van Kleef, 2008; Van Kleef et al., 2009) proposed the Emotions as Social Information (EASI) model, which is discussed in detail in the next theme as it is focused on discrete emotions. One fundamental aspect of this model, however, is relevant to how follower's moods (termed affective reactions in EASI) could be affected by leaders. Van Kleef's EASI is interesting because it is based in behavioral and explicit regulation strategies rather than automatic contagion mechanisms (e.g., Saavedra, 2008). 4.2. Empirical research on affect and leadership Most empirical studies in this domain draw upon Affective Events Theory (AET: Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) (e.g., Gaddis, Connelly, & Mumford, 2004; Johnson, 2008), Cognitive Appraisal Theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), Transformational leadership theory, Charismatic leadership and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX). Only three empirical studies did not provide an explicit definition of moods and/or affect, while the reminder of the studies included an explicit definition. Except for Barsade (2002) (see Table 1); all studies focused on the individual and group levels. Thirteen studies included tests of relationships in naturalistic settings out of a possible twenty, while eight papers included in Table 1 were theoretical in nature. From a design standpoint (see column 5 in Table 1), most field studies were crosssectional with two notable exceptions (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Ballinger, Schoorman, & Lehman, 2009). As we look across this theme, a few common perspectives emerged: 1) Leader moods affect follower (and work group) moods via contagion processes, which in turn affect follower (and work group) outcomes. 2) Leader behaviors elicit follower affective reactions (moods) and in turn impact follower outcomes. 3) Leader displayed moods affect follower ratings of their effectiveness. 4.2.1. Leader moods and follower outcomes The relationship between leader expressed moods and its effects on followers has been explored via automatic processes such as contagion and more conscious processes under the umbrella of AET. The dominant theoretical theme and empirical finding in this regard is that leader positive moods engender favorable outcomes for all parties, whereas leader negative moods seem to be detrimental. There are a few exceptions to this theme and we discuss these studies first. Consistent with the dominant theme of beneficial effects of leader positive moods, Johnson (2008) found that leader's displayed positive moods was positively related to follower's ratings of their charisma. The interesting aspect of this study is that the effects of leader moods at work (both positive and negative) were not as pronounced on follower positive moods when followers were less susceptible to emotion contagion. Followers with greater susceptibility to contagion, though, demonstrated variability in their positive moods in tandem with leader's positive and negative affect. This study points at the role of individual differences such as susceptibility to emotion contagion as a key variable in explaining follower affective responses to leader affect. Similarly, drawing upon AET and Cognitive Appraisal Theory, Gaddis et al. (2004) examined the effects of leader affect while delivering failure feedback to work group members. These authors manipulated leader affect and measured subordinate perceptions of leader effectiveness. They found that leader negative affect was related to lower leader effectiveness scores and lower group performance. While examining the interactive effects of affect and goal type though, these authors found that leader negative affect was perceived less favorably when groups were focused on promotion goals, whereas leader negative affect was perceived more favorably in groups with prevention goals. These findings point to an interesting and perhaps much neglected function of negative affect in that it is deemed appropriate in the face of challenging situations. This aspect is perhaps tied to the evolutionary function of negative affect and emotions in that they are tied to survival motivations.

984

Table 1 Leadership, affect, discrete emotions and emotional competencies. Study

Definition

Theme one: Leader affect, follower affect and outcomes 1 Amabile et al. NA a (2004)

Design

Componential theory of creativity LMX and CAT

Repeated measures

Daily diaries/ Qualitative/

Field

Individual and Group

Study 1: Experiment Study 2: Longitudinal

Study 1: 3 item scale from prior research Study 2: PANAS Affect measures based in Affective Circumplex model Non-verbal cues coded Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire

Study 1: Lab Study 2: Field

Individual

Lab

Intraindividual, Individual, Group

Field

Individual, Group

Students

Individual

Lab

Individual

Theory

PANAS for moods Target specific Affect (liking) Checklist of nonverbal cues NA

NA

Individual

2

Ballinger et al. (2009)

Yes

3

Barsade (2002)

Yes

Emotion Contagion

Experiment

4

Barsade et al. (2000)

Yes

Affective

Cross-sectional

Yes

Similarity and Attraction model TL & Affect

Cross-sectional

5

6

Brown and Keeping (2005) Cherulnik et al. (2001) Cohen-Charash and Byrne (2008) Davis and Gardner (2004). De Cremer (2007)

No

CL & Emotion Contagion Mood-asinformation, AET, Equity theory. LMX

No

Equity theory

Study 1: Experiment Study 2: Cross-sectional

Diefendorff and Richard (2008) Erez, Misangyi, Vilmos Johnson, LePine, & Halverson (2008).

No

Emotional labor

Theory

Yes

CL and Contagion

Study 1: Experiment Study 2: Cross-sectional

12

Gaddis et al. (2004)

Yes

Experiment

13

George and Bettenhausen (1990)

Yes

AET, CAT and Regulatory Focus Theory ASA, Social Influence theory and Moods

14

George and Zhou (2007) Hansen et al. (2007)

Yes

7

8 9

10 11

15

No Yes

Yes

Mood-asinformation theory Inspirational leadership and Emotions

Measurement

Context

Levels

Experiment

Theory

NA

NA

Individual

Measured regret, anger and disappointment NA

Study 1: Lab Study 2: Field

Individual

NA

Individual

Study 1: PANAS (Follower moods). Study 2: Affective Balance Scale (Follower moods). PANAS (Leader trait affect) Manipulation of leader affect

Lab & Field

Theory at individual level only. Methods at Individual and Group Individual, Group

Lab

Cross-sectional

JAS

Field

Cross-sectional

PANAS

Field

Individual (Leader mood) Group (Outcomes) Individual

Theory

NA

NA

Individual

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Theory

16

Yes

22

Nelson et al. (2008)

Yes

23

Yes

25

Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) Rank and Frese (2008) Sy et al. (2005)

26 27

17 18 19 20 21

24

Cross-sectional

PANAS (Trait)

Field

Individual

Yes

Abusive supervision, Stress and Coping. LMX theory

Cross-sectional

PANAS (Trait)

Field

Individual

Yes

AET & CL

Cross-sectional

Field

Yes

Leader support and moods CL and AET

Cross-sectional

PANAS (Trait) JAS (State affect) JAS

Field

Individual, Group Individual

Lab

Individual

Coping, Depressive realism, Cognitive dissonance and decision making. Inspirational leadership, nonverbal cues and emotion expressivity LMX theory

Theory

PANAS (state and trait) NA

NA

Individual

Theory

NA

NA

Individual and Group

Experiment

Lab

Individual

Review and extensions Experiment

NA

NA

Yes

Moods and emotions in creativity and innovation Mood contagion model

Manipulation of leader affect NA JAS

Lab

Tse et al. (2008)

Yes

Social Exchange Theory

Cross-sectional

Field

Van Kleef (2008)

Yes

EASI

Theory

Group positive climate scale NA

Individual, Group Group

NA

Intra, Individual and Dyad

Contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment

Longitudinal, Cross-sectional

Follower emotion coded according to taxonomy of Mikula (1986) N/A Multi-dimensional Anger Inventory (Siegel, 1986) Leader and follower emotion assessed through qualitative interview NA

Field

Individual

N/A Field

Individual Individual

Field

Individual

NA

Individual

Lab

Individual

Lab

Individual

No Yes

Yes

Theme two: Discrete emotions and leadership 28 Atwater et al. (1997) No

Experiment

29 30

Avolio et al. (2004) Begley (1994)

Yes Yes

Authentic Leadership Expressed anger (anger-in, anger-out)

Theory Cross-sectional

31

Butterfield et al. (1996)

No

Organizational punishment

Qualitative

32

Connelly et al. (2002)

Yes

Theory

33

Connelly and Ruark (2010)

Yes

TL, CL, EI (Mayer et al.), Taxonomy of discrete emotions TL , Transactional leadership, circumplex theory

34

Damen, Van Knippenberg, and Van Knippenberg (2008a)

Yes

Positive affect, Gray's theory of affective traits, Bower's network theory

Experiment

Experiment

Manipulated leader emotion through description of past leader interactions Manipulated leader facial expression as well as description of past task performance

985

(continued on next page)

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Harvey et al. (2007) Hui et al. (1999) Johnson (2008) Madjar, Oldham, and Pratt (2002) Naidoo and Lord (2008) Ng and Wong (2008)

986

Table 1 (continued) Study

Definition

Theory

Design

Context

Manipulated leader emotion through adjective use in a speech. Assessed transfer of arousal from leader to follower with 2 items Follower emotion with Larsen and Diener (1992) Emotions induced through watching video clips and writing about them Manipulated leader display of anger using two professional actors in video-taped between leader and subordinate Manipulated leader emotional displays using non-verbal emotional cues, Followers reported affect with JAS (Brief, Burke, George, Roberson, & Webster, 1988) Leader emotion manipulated through a vignette, follower affect assessed with Linguistic word count program Follower frustration and optimism N/A

Study 1 Lab Study 2 Field

Individual

Field

Individual

Lab

Individual

Lab and Field

Individual

Lab

Individual

Field

Individual

Field

Individual

N/A

Individual

Experiment

Manipulated valence and activating nature of leader emotion through vision implementation speech

Lab

Individual

EI (Mayer et al.)

Theory

N/A

N/A

Individual

TL, EI

Theory

N/A

N/A

ER and self-leadership theory

Theory

N/A

N/A

Individual, Dyad Individual

CL, Attribution theory, Circumplex theory, Physiological approach to emotion

Experiment

36

Dasborough (2006)

Yes

AET

Qualitative

37

Gino and Schweitzer (2008)

Yes

Experiment

38

Glomb and Hulin (1997)

Yes

Incidental emotions (anger, gratitude), Judgment and decision-making Emotional labor, Gender roles

39

Lewis (2000)

Yes

Circumplex theory, gender and emotion stereotypes

Experiment

40

Madera and Smith (2009)

Yes

Crisis leadership, CL, Contagion

Scenario

41

McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) Michie and Gooty (2005)

No

Cross-sectional

Waples and Connelly (2008)

Yes

Self-regulation theory, TL Authentic leadership, Typology of emotions (Ortony et al., 1988) CL, TL, CAT, Circumplex theory

42

43

Yes

Theme three: Emotional competencies and leadership 44 Antonakis et al. Yes (2009) 45 Ashkanasy and Yes Tse (2000) 46 Boss and Sims No (2008)

Study 1: Lab Study 2: Crosssectional

Theory

Levels

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Measurement

Theme two: Discrete emotions and leadership Yes 35 Damen, van Knippenberg, and van Knippenberg (2008b)

Lab

Individual

Lab

Individual

N/A

Individual

N/A Field

Individual Individual

Meta-Analysis

N/A Follower evaluations of leader charisma N/A

N/A

Individual

Theory

N/A

N/A

Individual

Authentic Leadership Leadership categorization theory, empathy, EI (Mayer et al.)

Theory Experiment

N/A Lab

Individual Individual

Yes

Task-oriented and relations-oriented leadership behavior

Experiment

Lab

Individual

Offerman et al. (2004)

Yes

EI (Goleman, Mayer et al.)

Experiment

Field

Individual, Group

58

Ostell (1996)

Yes

Theory

N/A

N/A

59

Pescosolido (2002) Riggio and Reichard (2008) Rubin et al. (2005)

No

Clinical, social, and occupational psychology CL, group emotional management, Emotional and social skills framework TL, EI (Mayer et al.)

N/A Leader empathy using the Emotional Competence Inventory (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) Leader emotional intelligence with the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence5Profile (Jordan, 2001). Emotional competence of leaders working in groups (Goleman's ECI-U) N/A

Theory

N/A

N/A

Group

Theory

N/A

N/A

Cross-sectional

Emotion recognition ability of leaders (DANVA), leader positive affect (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) Emotions and affective influence regulation, affective reactivity, emotion differentiation (Core affect circumflex based measures)

Field

Dyad, Individual Individual

Field

Individual

Byron (2008)

Yes

Emotion recognition

Experiment

48

Côté et al. (2010)

Yes

EI (Mayer et al., Schutte et al) and leader emergence

Studies 1 and 2: Cross-sectional

49

Gardner et al. (2009)

Yes

Theory

50 51

George (2000) Groves (2005)

Yes Yes

52

Harms and Credé (2010)

Yes

53

Humphrey, Pollack, et al. (2008) Hunt et al. (2008) Kellett et al. (2002)

Yes

Authentic Leadership, Emotional Labor, Affective Events Theory CL, TL, EI (Mayer et al.) CL, social intelligence, EI (Mayer et al.) EI (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, Bar-On, Salovey & Mayer), TL (Bass & Avolio), Emotional labor

Yes Yes

56

Kellett et al. (2006)

57

54 55

60 61

62

Seo and Barrett (2007)

Yes Yes

Yes

Affect and decisionmaking (feeling-as-biasinducer and feelings-asdecision-facilitator)

Theory Experiment

Cross-sectional

987

(continued on next page)

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Written descriptions induced leader emotional competence Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, MSCEIT V2.0 (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), EI self-report scale (Schutte et al., 1998) N/A

47

988

Study

Definition

Theme three: Emotional competencies and leadership 63 Wolff et al. (2002) Yes

64

Wong and Law (2002)

Yes

65

Zhou and George (2003)

Yes

Theory

Design

Measurement

Context

Levels

Leadership emergence, Leadership skills and abilities, EI (Boyatzis, Mayer et al., & Goleman) ER, EI (Bar-on, Mayer et al.)

Cross-sectional

Leader empathy using Boyatzis's (1995)

Lab

Individual

Experiment

Lab, Field

Individual

Creativity (identification, info gathering, idea generation, and idea implementation), EI (Mayer et al.)

Theory

Wong and Law scale of EI developed for this study N/A

N/A

Individual

Notes: AET: Affective Events Theory; CAT: Cognitive Appraisal Theory; CL: Charismatic Leadership; ER: Emotional Regulation; EI: Emotional Intelligence; LMX: Leader–member exchange; PANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; JAS: Job Affect Scale; TL: Transformational Leadership. a The authors do not explicitly define moods and emotions, however, their daily diaries include descriptions of followers' moods and feelings.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Table 1 (continued)

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

989

The evidence for the beneficial aspects of leader positive moods is undeniable though. For example, George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that workgroups with leaders who were in a positive mood performed more prosocial behaviors and had lesser turnover. Prosocial behaviors in turn positively related to sales performance of the group. Perhaps, such leader moods actually travel throughout the work group via contagion processes (not addressed in this study) which in turn cause followers to engage in more prosocial behaviors. Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (2005) provided empirical support for mood contagion mechanisms for both positive and negative leader moods. They found that group members individually reported being in a positive mood if the leader was positive whereas individuals reported negative moods when leader mood was negative. In addition, leader mood also affected the collective mood (or affective tone) of the group. Leaders in a negative mood caused a negative group affective tone. Work groups exposed to negative leader moods expended more effort than groups with positive mood leaders. Leaders in a positive mood, on the other hand, seemed to have a positive effect on work group performance. These two studies point to the benefits of leader positive moods for prosocial behaviors and group performance, but not for effort expenditure. In a related vein, Barsade (2002) examined the role of emotion contagion in work groups with a novel twist. She examined intensity and arousal of leader moods in an experimental setting. She found that groups exposed to a positive affective display reported positive moods and demonstrated better task cooperation and less conflict. Intensity and arousal of leader moods, however, had no effects. In summary, this set of studies point to two main patterns. First, leader moods travel through the work group via contagion and this effect seems to operate for both positive and negative moods. The valence of leader moods seems to matter while intensity and arousal seemed to not matter as much. Second, leader positive moods seem to foster better group outcomes, on the whole, than leader negative moods. In a somewhat different take on affect in work groups, Barsade, Ward, Turner, and Sonnenfeld (2000) examined homogeneity in trait positive affect in 62 top management teams. Affectively homogenous groups reported more group satisfaction and more influence within the group. Leaders preferred a participative decision making style in such affectively homogenous groups. The concept of affective similarity in groups is interesting, yet, much remains to be done in this area. For example do such affectively similar groups with high levels of trait PA fall prey to negative group processes such as groupthink? Furthermore, affective diversity in the group might have beneficial effects on creativity outcomes and/or the performance of groups in extreme contexts. Notably missing from the existing literature on leader moods and follower outcomes is the demarcation between what leaders feel and what they display. For example, some studies focus on leader felt affect and suggest that it affects follower affect via contagion processes. Affective regulation, though, in this case might be a missing mediator in that leaders might not always display what they feel. Other studies focus on displays of leader affect, without identifying actual felt emotions. Individual differences such as trait affect and emotional competencies (see Theme three) might further moderate the relationship between felt affect and affect regulation. We need a greater understanding of the antecedents and consequences of this match for leaders and followers.

4.2.2. Leader behaviors and follower outcomes Leader behaviors (e.g., abusive supervision, supportive behaviors) can affect follower moods at work. The types of behaviors enacted by leaders can be broadly classified as favorable and unfavorable. The unfavorable category includes behaviors such as abusive supervision, lack of distributive justice, autocratic leader behaviors and lower quality exchange relationships. These behaviors relate to follower negative affect and negatively impact outcomes. The most prominent of favorable leader behaviors are charismatic leadership and supportive leadership behaviors. In the domain of unfavorable leader behaviors, Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, and Kacmar (2007) examined the effects of abusive supervision on follower outcomes such as job related tension and turnover intentions. Followers with higher levels of trait positive affect were better able to cope with abusive supervisors via ingratiation tactics than were followers with lower levels of trait positive affect. These findings indicate that, in the face of abusive leader behaviors, trait positive affect acts as one psychological resource that helps individuals cope with the strain of having such a leader. De Cremer (2007) examined the role of autocratic leader behavior and distributive justice in an experiment and a field study. Both studies revealed that followers reported more regret, anger and disappointment with the leader when autocratic leadership was high and distributive justice was low. A second study by the same author (De Cremer, 2006) showed that autocratic leadership resulted in more positive reactions from followers when leaders displayed self-sacrifice versus selfbenefit. Hui, Law, and Chen (1999) investigated subordinate trait negative affect in a manufacturing setting in China. Hui et al. found that negative affectivity had an indirect relationship with OCB (OCB needs to be expanded) via LMX quality and perceived job mobility. Charismatic leader behaviors are the most widely studied favorable leader behaviors in evoking follower positive affect. For example, Erez and colleagues (2008) found that leader charisma typically included positive affective expressions and led to follower positive affect. Interestingly, these authors also found that leader charisma and expressed affect had an impact on follower affect while leader felt affect itself did not across an experimental study and field study comprising firefighters. While leader charisma plays a role in evoking follower affect and related outcomes, much less is known regarding how leaders can display charisma. The use of imagery and storytelling might be one such pathway. Leader charisma attributions increased with use of imagery in speeches. Naidoo and Lord (2008) found that leaders who used more imagery elicited more state positive affect in followers, which in turn led to higher ratings of charisma. Relatedly, Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, and Miller (2001) conducted an experiment in which they examined the processes, which engender follower affect. They found, across two separate studies, that observers watching a charismatic leader being expressive (operationalized as visual attention towards the audience, frequency and intensity of smiling) were more positive and expressive themselves. This work provides some support for the role of contagion

990

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

and unconscious affect transfer mechanisms in leader affect regulation of followers. Moreover, these findings point to the processes by which charismatic leader behaviors engender follower positive affect. More recently, Damen, van Knippenberg, and van Knippenberg (2008b) suggested that positive affective displays by leaders lead to higher ratings of charismatic leadership. Interestingly, these authors also found that the transfer of affect depends on intensity and arousal as much as the valence of affective displays (i.e., positive and/or negative). Damen, van Knippenberg, and van Knippenberg's (2008a) findings are somewhat different from earlier works by Barsade (2002) in which arousal and intensity of the mood had no effect on affect transfer. We suspect that these differences could be due to the use of charismatic leadership in the Damen et al. (2008b) study. Perhaps, affect transfer is more prevalent when followers are subject to the affective displays of charismatic leader. Alternatively stated, emotional arousal might be relevant when the outcome of interest is follower perceptions of charisma. Low arousal moods could still travel from leaders to followers via unconscious affect transfer mechanisms and in turn affect their behavioral outcomes. However, followers do not think of such leaders as more charismatic. The accumulated research in charismatic leadership and affect, however, is exciting and points to a simple position: Charismatic leaders make their followers feel good via the use of imagery, storytelling and nonverbal cues. Many questions and avenues for examination remain in this line of research: Are there other leader behaviors that could be charismatic beyond imagery, storytelling and positive affective displays? Are there other cognitive influences that lead to charisma attributions, which, in effect, could also instigate follower positive affect? For example, are leaders who espouse their values more charismatic? Could it be that leaders who take a strong stance on an unjust phenomenon are more charismatic? Are there boundary conditions on the effects of charismatic leadership in eliciting follower positive affect? For example, does charisma work in dangerous situations (e.g., military teams)? Does charisma work when conditions are tough (e.g., layoffs, downsizing, mergers, takeovers)? Nelson, Michie, and DeGroot (2008) suggest that leaders should display compassion, sadness, gratitude and regret in such difficult circumstances. Do charismatic leaders display these negative affective states such as regret and guilt along with positive affective states? In addition, how do these affect and context conditions influence follower ratings of leader charisma and follower performance? Interestingly, most studies noted above in the domain of undesirable and desirable leader behaviors were at the individual level of analysis. Much less theory and research address the dyad level in leadership in general, and, groups and organizations in particular. One study by Tse et al. (2008) examined affective climate at the work group level. Groups with a more positive affective climate reported a more direct relationship between LMX and work place friendship. The above findings might point to the critical role played by positive affect in workplace. Much less is known in the leadership domain regarding the effects of leader negative affect and follower negative affect with the exception of creativity outcomes. George and Zhou (2007) examined the dual-toning perspective in the domain of follower creativity. This perspective suggests the importance of examining both positive and negative affective states. These authors found that supportive leader behaviors (e.g., developmental feedback, interactional justice and trust) created a context within which follower creativity was highest when both positive and negative moods were strong. In a similar vein, Majdar, Oldham and Pratt (2002) examined the relationship between leader support and follower creativity. They found that leader support was related to follower positive mood, which in turn facilitated creativity. Majdar et al., however, did not find the same effects for negative moods. Plausible reasons for the disconnect between the George and Zhou study and the Majdar et al. study with regard to the effects of negative moods could be the measures in question, gender characteristics (the Majdar et al. study was mainly comprised of women), timing of measurement as well as the operationalization of creativity. Nevertheless, George and Zhou's dual toning perspective deserves further empirical examination. Positive moods lead to exploration and being open to new ideas, whereas negative moods create a careful information-processing perspective. As such, conceptually, it is appealing that taken together positive and negative moods lead to better creativity when leaders are supportive. Amabile et al. (2004) posit that the componential theory of workplace creativity has important implications for managing creativity and innovation in the workplace. In a unique daily diary qualitative and quantitative study, they examined specific leader behaviors that could impact follower creativity. These authors found that followers reported affective reactions more frequently than perceptual reactions to leader supportive behaviors. The positive affective reactions engendered by supportive leaders were more diffused and mood-like (e.g., pleasantness). The negative affective reactions reported by followers revealed many interesting findings: (1) Negative affective reactions of followers were due to the absence of leader supportive behaviors and/or not displaying negative emotions congruent with a given context. (2) Negative affective reactions were not only more frequent and prominent but also very sharply defined (e.g., anxiety, frustration, anger, stress) than positive affective reactions. Amabile et al. pointed out that most leadership theories are predominantly focused on positive leader behaviors, but, negative leader behaviors seem more salient to followers as they recall them more and have stronger affective reactions to such negative leader behaviors ( see also Dasborough, 2006 for similar findings). Ballinger et al. (2009) provide support for the role of follower affective reactions in trusting a new leader. These authors posited that if a follower's relationship with a departing leader was positive (via the LMX lens); followers would feel negative affect due to loss of that relationship and evaluate a new leader as less trustworthy. Followers with lower quality relationships with departing leaders, however, experience positive affect, as they perceive better goal favorability and congruence. These authors found support for relationship between affective reactions and trust with certain differences between contexts: In experimental settings, the development of LMX itself was not as realistic, whereas in their field study, they found significant effects for the relationship between LMX quality and affective reactions.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

991

4.2.3. Leader moods and leader effectiveness The theoretical perspective in the domain of leader affect and leader effectiveness is rather straightforward. The overwhelming theme is that leader positive moods engender perceptions of leader effectiveness. A subscript to this theme seems to be that transformational and charismatic leaders are more likely to feel positive moods and display those moods to followers. The empirical studies that draw upon this theoretical perspective are discussed below. Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) examined the effects of leaders' positive and negative feedback in a simulated performance feedback meeting. Leaders either displayed facial affect congruent with the message they were delivering (e.g., positive-positive) or they displayed facial affect incongruent with the message (e.g., positive feedback but negative facial affect). Participants rated leaders as most effective (conceptualized as leader negotiating latitude in this study) when they delivered positive feedback and congruent positive affect. These authors suggested that leaders who display positive affect create a shared identity with followers, a better vision for the future and thus build better quality relationships with followers. They further note that followers attribute trust and respect based on positive affective displays. These underlying mediators though, are yet to be empirically tested. Alternatively stated, while the positive relationship between leader positive affect and followers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness could be driven by such attributions as a belief in a better future, identification, trust or respect it might also be that followers simply like such leaders more (e.g., Brown & Keeping, 2005). This relationship deserves further empirical scrutiny. Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) demonstrate the powerful effects of affective incongruence though, in which leaders who displayed negative affect while delivering positive feedback were rated as least effective. In this domain of leader moods and leader effectiveness, there are several serious unexplored research directions. For example, theory and research suggests that moods affect individual outcomes such as creativity and decision-making. Yet, we could find no empirical research examining how leader moods could affect their own decision-making and/or creativity. For example, Ng and Wong (2008) provide compelling theory on how negative affect could lead to escalation of commitment as an individual tries to correct a wrong decision. These authors note that Cognitive Appraisal Theory (see Ng & Wong, 2008) suggests an equally compelling and competing hypothesis. Negative affect could also lead to reduced escalation of commitment as a way of avoiding any future negative affect. Both ideas are not only intriguing but are relevant to leadership and strategic decision making. Similarly, Isen, Daubman, and Nowicki (1987) suggest that positive affect encourages creative problem solving. This perspective has yet to find its way into how leaders might find novel solutions while experiencing positive affect (see Rank & Frese, 2008 for similar theoretical perspectives). We note that most studies reviewed above are at the individual and group levels-of-analysis. While this body of research has enhanced our knowledge regarding affect at individual and group levels, there exists a serious dearth of theory (with the exception of Ashkanasy, 2003; Ashkanasy & Jordan, 2008; Ashkanasy & Humphrey, in press) and research at the intra-individual level, dyadic and organizational levels. For example, the affect-as-information model (Schwarz & Clore, 1983), suggests that moods serve as inputs to decision-making. Do leaders’ moods then affect how and what decisions they make across time? CohenCharash and Byrne (2008) suggest that moods could affect fairness perceptions in organizations. Could leader's moods affect the fairness of decisions and their interpersonal interactions with followers and peers? At the organizational level of analysis, how do leader's moods affect their negotiations with stakeholders inside and outside the organization? Does the leader's mood have an implication for short-term decision making at the organizational level? For example, their decision to allow a press release, attend a charity event on behalf of the organization, etc.? We now turn to the second theme identified in our review, and focus on the literature concerning specific emotional states and leadership. 5. Theme two: Discrete emotions and leadership Research on the role of emotions in organizational contexts has typically focused more heavily on positive and negative affect, relative to discrete emotions such as anger, fear, happiness and optimism (for reviews, see Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Härtel, Zerbe, & Ashkanasy, 2005). Increasingly, however, studies of leadership and emotion manipulate or measure specific emotions of both leaders and followers, examining them as causal influences, mediators, moderators, or consequences of events within or aspects of the leadership situation. Theme two of this review provides a summary of these studies. As was done in the preceding theme, several important aspects of this research are highlighted, including theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and methodological approaches. 5.1. Theoretical perspectives on discrete emotions and leadership Several theoretical perspectives occur in papers on discrete emotions and leadership (see Theme two in Table 1). As noted previously, the importance of emotion for charismatic, transformational, and authentic leadership has been recognized in theoretical and empirical papers by many scholars. Some of this research considers the role of leaders' discrete emotional displays with respect to follower attitudes, evaluations of leaders, and follower performance. For example, in articulating their theory of authentic leadership, Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004) focused on positive emotions, including hope, optimism, and positive emotions in general as key influences on follower attitudes and behavior. They suggest that positive emotions (along with hope and trust between the leader and followers) mediate the relationships between follower identification with the leader and follower attitudes (e.g., commitment), follower effort and job performance. Leader optimism has a direct influence on these outcomes. Along similar lines, Michie and Gooty (2005) proposed a number of additional specific positive emotions that serve to distinguish authentic from inauthentic leaders. They suggested that

992

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

frequent experiences of these other-regarding positive emotions (e.g., gratitude, goodwill, appreciation, and concern for others), will motivate leaders to act on espoused self-transcendent values, which in turn, translates into self-transcendent leader behaviors. Alternatively, Davis and Gardner (2004) considered negative emotions, exploring the cognitive and affective reactions of followers to politics in organizations within the context of LMX relationships. They suggest that attribution processes in LMX relationships and follower individual differences (e.g., negative affect and cynicism), influence perceptions of the political environment and can lead to cynicism about the organization. The political skill of leaders and quality of the LMX relationship may serve as buffers to follower cynicism regarding the organization. Other research by Connelly, Gaddis, and Helton-Fauth (2002) discusses the role of discrete positive and negative emotions in transformational leadership, socialized charismatic leadership, and personalized charismatic leadership. They propose that leaders emphasizing a particular leadership style strategically display different patterns of positive and negative emotions when establishing initial influence with followers, communicating a vision, and generating acceptance and commitment to the vision and associated goals. At present, there is little empirical evidence speaking directly to the emotion components of the aforementioned theories. Empirical papers focusing on discrete emotions and leadership include a broader array of theoretical foci, reflecting a blend of leadership and emotion-related perspectives. Several studies had leadership theories as the predominant lens through which emotional phenomena are considered, such as transformational, charismatic and transactional leadership, leader rewards and punishments, and leadership during organizational crises. However, a larger number of studies centered around emotion-related theories and processes, such as AET, the EASI model, emotional contagion, emotions in judgment and decision-making, and anger expression. Finally, several studies emphasized both leadership and emotion theoretical perspectives. 5.2. Empirical research on discrete emotions and leadership Our summary of studies here is organized by whether emotions are treated as predictors or causal influences, or whether they are assessed as outcomes of leader behavior or interaction with subordinates. Perhaps not surprisingly, all of the studies looking at emotions as causal influences are experiments, while those considering emotions as outcomes are field studies. Experiments used a range of techniques for manipulating leader emotion. One of the most common was to show video-tapes of a leader. In some experiments, participants simply evaluated leader behaviors inferred via watching the tapes, while in other instances participants were instructed that they were watching their leader and reported their own reactions and emotions. Leaders in these videos gave speeches, feedback, or task instructions. Other experiments used paper vignettes to describe leaders and leader–follower interactions. All of the field studies employed content analytic approaches to critical incident or interview data collected from subordinates or leaders. Finally, all studies in Theme two are at the individual level of analysis (see Table 1); only three failed to define emotions (see Column 3 in Table 1). Eight of a possible thirteen empirical studies included naturalistic studies (see Column 5 of Table 1) and were cross-sectional. 5.2.1. Leader emotions as a source of influence on followers Consistent with theoretical papers on emotions and transformational leadership (e.g., Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000) McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) studied relationships among transformational leadership, follower optimism and frustration, and follower performance. Higher levels of transformational leadership were associated with greater follower optimism and less frustration. Frustration correlated negatively with follower performance while optimism correlated positively, although not as strongly. Both emotions fully mediated the relationship of transformational leadership to follower performance. Several studies examined the effects of leader emotion on follower or observer evaluations of the leader. Using video-taped leader speeches, Lewis (2000) altered leader emotional displays and gender in a laboratory study. She found that people who viewed a sad leader reported less “positive arousal” (enthusiasm) and greater “low arousal” (fatigue) versus those who viewed an emotionally neutral leader. People who viewed an angry leader reported more “negative activation” (nervous) and less “low activation” (relaxed) versus a neutral leader. However, the neutral leader received higher effectiveness ratings than angry or sad leaders. Male leaders displaying anger, a gender congruent emotion, were seen as more effective than those displaying sadness. However, this gender-congruence effect did not emerge in the female leader conditions, where the neutral female leader was rated as most effective. Glomb and Hulin (1997) found that, regardless of gender, leaders showing anger in interacting with a subordinate were rated lower in effectiveness and satisfaction with supervisor. The discrepancy in these anger findings with Lewis' findings may be due to subordinates being the target of the leader's anger. Interestingly, subordinates interacting with an angry leader were rated more favorably on coworker satisfaction and Least Preferred Co-worker scales. Finally, a study by Madera and Smith (2009) showed that leader displays of anger, sadness, or anger and sadness in response to an organizational crisis resulted in different evaluations of leader effectiveness. Specifically, leaders showing anger alone were evaluated less favorably than those showing only sadness or both emotions. However, these effects disappeared when leaders accepted responsibility for the crisis. Taken together these results not only demonstrate differential effects of different discrete emotions, but they highlight the importance of leader gender as well as the context in which the emotions were displayed. Connelly and Ruark (2010) identify leadership style as another moderator of the effects of leader emotional displays on follower perceptions and performance. Participants in this laboratory study played the role of a follower and were given a set of materials describing the company and their leader. Results showed that transformational and transactional leaders displaying

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

993

positive versus negative emotions were perceived differently by followers. Transformational leaders were seen as equally effective and transformational regardless of whether they displayed positive or negative emotions, and they got better performance from followers with negative emotional displays. Alternatively, transactional leaders were seen as more effective and transformational when they used positive emotions, but that the valence of their emotional displays did not influence follower performance. Across leader types, positive emotions high in activating potential (e.g., pride, responsibility) resulted in better follower satisfaction, and perceptions of leader effectiveness than positive emotions low in activating potential (e.g., happiness, contentment). The importance of follower traits in perceiving and responding to leader emotions has recently been demonstrated in several studies. Damen et al. (2008a) showed that an affective match between leaders and followers facilitates follower performance. High PA followers receiving task instructions from an enthusiastic female leader and low PA followers receiving them from an angry female leader performed better than when there was an affective mismatch. A follow up study replicated and extended these findings with a male leader, showing that the positive or negative valence of the message was not responsible for the effects on follower performance. In addition, affective match also positively influences follower extra-role performance. These same authors conducted another study examining the role of transfer of arousal (to followers) as a mediator of the relationship between leader emotional displays and follower outcomes Damen et al. (2008a). They hypothesized that positive, high arousal emotions are consistent with follower conceptions of charismatic leaders. Accordingly, in two studies (laboratory and field) they showed that leader displays of enthusiasm resulted in greater transfer of arousal to followers and stronger follower attributions of charisma than low arousal positive emotion (relaxation) and negative leader emotions (anger, sadness). Findings from Waples and Connelly (2008) again demonstrate the importance of moderators. They showed that leaders displaying high activation emotions (positive or negative) in communicating a vision led to better follower performance on a vision-related task. Additionally, follower trust in the leader and perceptions of leader effectiveness following leader display of negative and positive emotions that are high or low in activation depends on follower emotional competence. Leader emotions influence not only individual follower outcomes, but team outcomes as well. The EASI model (Van Kleef, 2008) served as a theoretical foundation for a study examining the effects of leader anger and happiness on team performance (Van Kleef et al., 2009). These authors proposed that leader emotional displays influence team affective reactions as well as inferences about performance. They demonstrated that positive displays resulted in more positive affective reactions and favorable inferences about performance than negative displays. However, the impact of these two interpretive pathways (affective vs. task information) on team performance depended on the level of team epistemic motivation or the “desire to develop and maintain a rich and accurate understanding of situations” (p. 564). High (vs. low) epistemic motivation resulted in a stronger relationship between task performance inferences and team performance, whereas low epistemic motivation resulted in a stronger relationship between affective reactions and team performance. Thus, epistemic motivation is an important moderator, providing information about when negative and positive leader emotional displays are more effective. Finally, in looking at emotions as causal influences, two studies looked at how the experience and expression of anger influenced leaders and followers. Begley (1994) adopted a physiological approach to emotions to examine the within-person effects of anger in small business managers. Due to their differential physiological consequences, different types of anger expressions were expected to have different direct and moderating influences on the relationship between interpersonal stress and health outcomes. Anger-in (i.e., suppressing anger expression) correlated positively with anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints (e.g., headache) while anger-out (i.e., expressing anger towards other people or objects in the environment) was unrelated. High (vs. low) anger-in was also associated with larger correlations between responsibility for people, anxiety and depression. Anger-out also moderated the responsibility-depression relationship in the same way. Focusing on followers, Gino and Schweitzer (2008) examine the role of anger in advice-taking. As a complex decision process, advice-taking is subject to the influence of emotion (Forgas, 1995). They focus on incidental anger and gratitude, two emotions characterized by other-person control. People experiencing incidental anger (anger unrelated to the situation at hand) were less receptive to advice and were less trusting of the person giving the advice compared to people experiencing no emotion or incidental gratitude. Gratitude resulted in the highest levels of trust and receptivity to advice and resulted in more accurate judgments than anger or no emotion. Thus, leaders must have keen emotional perception and must help subordinates manage emotions in such a way as to build trust and ensure that feedback and guidance is followed. Taken together, these studies highlight at least two key findings. First, it quickly becomes apparent that blanket statements regarding the drawbacks of negative leader emotion are dangerous. Follower performance actually increased after displays of leader anger in several studies. This leads to a second major finding. The impact of specific leader emotional displays is contextually dependent and relies on a number of moderating factors such as affective match with followers, follower epistemic motivation, leadership style, and, to an extent, leader gender. However, there is a critical need for field research in the areas of discrete emotions and leadership to see whether these kinds of effects generalize to organizational settings. 5.2.2. Emotions as outcomes of leadership behavior Framed within a leadership rewards and punishment framework, Atwater, Camobreco, Dionne, Avolio, and Lau's (1997) study can be categorized at the interpersonal level. They examined how Army cadets reacted to contingent and non-contingent punishments administered by leaders. Their data included content coded punishment-related critical incidents for emotional reactions (among many others). Using Mikula's (Mikula, Sherer, & Athenstaedt, 1998) seven category taxonomy of emotional response (anger/rage or indignation, physiological arousal, confusion/surprise, helplessness/despair or self-pity, hurt/disappointment, other, no emotion) they

994

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

found that non-contingent punishment incidents were associated with more emotional responses than contingent punishment incidents. There was no difference in relative frequency of emotions across contingent and non-contingent punishment and anger was the most frequent reaction to both punishment types. Butterfield, Treviño, and Ball (1996) examined leaders' own emotional reactions to punishing followers, recognizing that punishment is an emotional experience for both followers and leaders. Structured interviews with managers from a variety of organizations revealed that leader emotions in response to punishment incidents are mostly negative and occasionally a mixture of positive and negative. Managers felt frustrated, angry, embarrassed, sorry, bad, and guilty. They perceived subordinates receiving the punishment as feeling some of these same emotions as well as disappointed, shocked, bitter, defensive, unhappy, and awkward. Managers also discussed reactions of their other non-punished subordinates as being mostly negative, but occasionally positive (e.g., relief, happiness, sympathy, and satisfaction). Interestingly, emotional responses of leaders and followers did not discriminate more effective from less effective punishment incidents. Dasborough's (2006) qualitative study demonstrates the powerful role of affective asymmetry: subordinates recalled more negative affective events involving their leaders than positive ones across six leader behavior themes (e.g., awareness/respect, empowerment and communication). Subordinates more readily recalled a greater number and variety of negative emotions (compared to positive emotions) and negative emotions were reported as having higher intensity. These studies highlight the challenges inherent to the study of discrete emotions in an organizational contexts as well as the need for more research in this area. Field research within Theme two has relied exclusively on retrospective accounts of affective events by leaders and followers. These are inherently limited not only due to recall bias, but to the asymmetry often seen in responses to negative versus positive emotional experiences, where negative emotions seem to exert stronger influence (Taylor, 1991). The difficulty of gaining access to observe or assess the effects of discrete emotions in organizational settings may be why the empirical research in naturalistic settings has drifted heavily towards emotional competencies, which are more stable. These are addressed in our next theme. 6. Theme three: Emotional competencies and leadership The surge of interest in emotional capabilities and leadership has been tremendous during the last decade. Constructs falling into this category range from emotional intelligence abilities, emotional competencies, emotion regulation, empathy, and others. Here again, we reviewed theoretical perspectives and empirical studies examining the relationships of emotion related capabilities to leadership. Perhaps reflecting the nascence of this domain, most papers in this theme were theoretical. Most empirical studies were conducted in the lab with few in the field. Individual level of analysis dominated these studies followed by the group level of analysis. The dyad level was a focus in two studies. 6.1. Theoretical perspectives on emotional competencies and leadership A number of scholars have conceptually linked the multi-faceted construct of emotional intelligence (EI) to effective leadership (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Bass, 2002; Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002; George, 2000). George (2000) described how various aspects of the ability based model of EI contribute to developing collective goals, communicating the importance of work activities, generating and maintaining enthusiasm, confidence and optimism, encouraging flexible decision-making, and maintaining organizational identity. Similarly, Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) discussed how transformational leaders are emotionally skilled in communicating with and energizing followers, express positive emotion and empathy, and effectively regulate emotions. This engages followers emotionally and generates high-quality LMX relationships. Leadership scholars have also considered how the EI of leaders facilitates follower creativity by influencing affective and cognitive processes associated with key aspects of creativity: problem recognition, information gathering, idea generation, idea evaluation and revision, and idea implementation (Zhou & George, 2003). While theories regarding the importance of leader emotional intelligence abound, debates concerning the relationship of EI to leadership and whether it is necessary for effective leadership are as yet unresolved (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Locke, 2005). These debates and controversies stem from disagreements and skepticism with conceptions and measures of EI (e.g., ability model vs. mixed models; self-report vs. performance-based) distinctness of EI from fluid intelligence, distinctness from personality, and unique predictive validity when controlling for general intelligence and personality. Rehashing this debate is not the purpose of our review. While there has been much discussion about the importance of EI for leadership, very few studies directly address the contribution of EI to effective leadership.3 Most leadership scholars have side-stepped the EI measurement controversy by focusing on specific emotional capabilities such as empathy and emotion regulation. These concepts are given separate treatment in the literature, apart from emotional intelligence, and offer some alternatives avenues for pursuing different measurement approaches to emotion-related capacities. As mentioned earlier, emotion regulation has been defined by Gross (1998) as an attempt to change the nature, timing and expression of one's emotional experience. Boss and Sims (2008) highlight the potential importance of emotion regulation tactics

3 At the time of writing our article, Joseph & Newman, 2010, published a meta-analysis suggesting that EI predicts job performance in high emotional labor jobs. This article is not included in our review as it does not directly relate to leadership, yet, along with Côté et al. (2010), might provide some initial predictive validity for the construct of EI.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

995

for decreasing both the perception of failure and experience of failure. They suggest that emotion regulation can also help to buffer self-efficacy in the face of failure, leading to faster recovery. Ostell (1996) recognized that leaders often help employees find constructive ways to respond to emotion-inducing work events and circumstances. Rather than a general focus on “managing feelings”, he emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of specific emotional states and how to recognize the features of such states in others. Drawing from clinical perspectives and his experience as a therapist, he outlines principles for managing the emotional behavior of others such as empathizing (communicating understanding of others emotional states) avoiding unconstructive mood matching (e.g., responding to anger with anger), avoiding confrontational mood states (e.g., responding to other's emotional reactions with annoyance), and applying emotion-specific strategies to deal with emotions. For the emotions of anger, anxiety and depression, he offers details on strategies intended to lessen personal distress and strategies that focus on adaptive responding. Closely related is the concept of emotional labor (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983) which is defined as “managing emotions and emotional expression to be consistent with organizational or occupational “display rules,” defined as expectations about appropriate emotional expression (Goffman, 1959)” (p. 2, Glomb & Tews, 2004). Given recent explicit linkages of emotional labor and leadership (Humphrey, Pollack, & Hawver, 2008), we briefly review this literature here. Emotional labor has typically been categorized as either surface acting (e.g., faking a positive emotion) or deep acting (reappraising to change the felt emotion). While an impressive body of research has emerged in the organizational sciences literature regarding emotional labor, (e.g., Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005; Glomb & Tews, 2004; Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, & Gremler, 2006; Jordan et al., 2008), this concept has only recently been considered with respect to leadership. We find this a tad surprising given the need for leaders to adapt their emotional displays in different ways to influence different stakeholders (Humphrey, 2008). Theoretical work in this area has started to emerge, however, suggesting the importance of a third dimension of emotion labor to leadership - expressing felt emotions without regulation (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Humphrey, Kellett, Sleeth, and Hartman (2008), Humphrey, Pollack, et al. (2008) developed a theoretical model suggesting that emotional labor among leaders might differ from the same construct among service workers and called for empirical research in this area. Similarly, Hunt, Gardner, and Fischer (2008) developed a typology of emotional labor and its effects on felt and perceived leader authenticity under varying contextual conditions. In work that is more recent, Gardner and colleagues (Gardner, Fischer, & Hunt, 2009) forward a conceptual model delineating the consequences of the three forms of emotion labor noted above (i.e., surface acting, deep acting and genuine emotions) to leader authenticity and well-being, follower perceptions of leader authenticity and trust in the leader. Extending earlier research on emotion regulation in dyads by Pugh (2002), Riggio and Reichard (2008) proposed a model of emotions and leadership emphasizing dyadic influences between leaders and followers. Key to this theory is how emotions are communicated and received by both members of the dyad based on their emotion sensitivity, emotion expression, and emotion regulation. These capabilities are applied within a broader emotional context, influencing attributions that leaders and followers make about each other. Other research suggests that empathy plays a key role in the ability of leaders to accurately perceive emotions in others and respond with appropriate emotional expression (Humphrey, Kellett, et al., 2008). Empathy helps leaders to establish a connection with followers, better recognize their needs, and develop a shared identity. We turn now to the empirical research on emotional competencies. 6.2. Empirical research on emotional competencies and leadership We categorized empirical research in Theme three into four areas—emotional intelligence, emotion recognition, empathy, and other emotion related capabilities. Only a few studies included in our review explicitly examine ability-based performance measures of emotional intelligence (i.e., MSCEIT) to leadership criteria (e.g., Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010). Much of the research has focused on specific constructs that have been manipulated or measured using alternatives to emotional intelligence and emotional competence measures. The measurement of emotional competencies bears mentioning given some of the criticism aimed at emotional intelligence measures and given the surprising diversity of approaches we saw in reviewing these studies. The measures of emotional competencies used in the Theme three studies have their conceptual roots in theories of emotional intelligence, theories of emotion regulation, and affective theories such as the mood-as-information model (Forgas, 1995). A range of constructs is reflected across the measures. The Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP) (Jordan, 2001) was used to assess the ability to identify others' emotions and the ability to express one's emotions (e.g., Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006). The Emotional Competence Inventory has been used to measure empathy as well as broader traits such as self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Offerman, Bailey, Vasilopoulos, Seal, & Sass, 2004). Wong and Law (2002) developed and validated their own measure of emotional intelligence. Rubin, Munz, and Bommer (2005) assessed emotion recognition using a performance-based measure, the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (Nowicki & Duke, 2001). Generally, studies have had followers use these instruments to rate leaders, while a few have relied on leader self-reports. There have also been a few unique approaches to assessing and studying emotional competencies in leadership settings. Seo and Barrett (2007) used a complex and context-specific approach for assessing affective influence regulation (AIR) (regulating the bias-inducing effects of feelings), affective reactivity (intensity), and emotion differentiation (of own emotions) in an experience sampling study of stockbroker investment decisions. Once a day for 20 days, participants rated twenty-two emotion adjectives prior to making investments. These adjectives mapped to the axes of a Circumplex model developed by Barrett and Russell (1998)

996

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

to reflect positive/activated, positive/deactivated, negative/activated, and negative deactivated emotions. These ratings were used to create reactivity, differentiation, and AIR indices. The AIR index was calculated by regressing an investment risk index on pleasantness and activation level to see how much each was associated with risk. Other work by (Pescosolido, 2002; Wolff et al., 2002) used a critical incident approach to examine empathy and emotion perception. Byron (2008) manipulated accuracy of leader emotion perceptions in an experimental study. As was the case with the studies in Themes one and two, the predominance of studies in Theme three are conceptualized and conducted at an individual level of analysis with a few exceptions. Roughly, half of these studies were laboratory experiments and half were field studies. A recent meta-analysis by Harms and Credé (2010) examined the relationship of EI to transformational and transactional leadership. This study showed small estimated validities (r = .12) between EI and transformational leadership in studies using different rater sources across the predictor and criterion, with slightly higher validities for trait-based (mixed model) EI measures compared to ability-based measures. Validity estimates were much higher when the same source rated both EI and leadership behavior, suggesting that common method bias and socially desirable responding influenced these results. EI showed similar levels of correlation with contingent reward behaviors (different rater source r = .13) and showed small negative relationships to laissez-faire and management by exception behaviors. Côté et al. (2010) provide evidence for the positive relationship between emotional intelligence and peer ratings of leadership emergence when controlling for key covariates to rule out alternative explanations. Their first study controlled for Big Five personality traits and gender, and compared the incremental validities of an ability measure of EI with a self report measure. Results of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses showed that overall EI (ability test), the ability to perceive emotions, and the ability to understand emotions accounted for unique variance in leader emergence, while the self report measure did not show incremental validity. Their second study extended the list of covariates to include general intelligence, Big Five, gender, and selfmonitoring, again showing incremental validity for the overall EI ability, the ability to understand emotions, and the ability to use emotions. 6.2.1. Emotion recognition Echoing some of the research discussed in Theme two, Byron's (2008) research on accuracy of non-verbal emotion perception was guided by role congruity theory and gender stereotypes (Eagly & Karau, 2002). She used a vignette study to contrast female and male leaders high and low in emotion perception. Because people generally expect female leaders to display interpersonal sensitivity and communal characteristics, female leaders with accurate emotion perception were rated higher on follower satisfaction and supportiveness than male leaders with accurate emotion perception. Emotionally perceptive male leaders benefited in a different way, with followers seeing them as more persuasive than emotionally perceptive female leaders. Followers' perceptions of a leader's ability to read others' emotions appears to associate with a bias towards gender congruence. Rubin et al. (2005) looked at the relationship of non-verbal emotion recognition, positive affectivity, and personality (Big-five) to transformational leadership in a sample of real-world leaders. Controlling for span of control and negative affectivity, they found that agreeableness, positive affectivity, and emotion recognition accounted for 20% of the variance in transformational leadership. They also hypothesized and found that emotion regulation was more positively related to transformational leadership when leaders were more extraverted. This interaction term accounted for an additional 3% of variance in transformational leadership. 6.2.2. Empathy Related to emotion recognition, empathy is the ability to both understand and communicate one's understanding of another person's emotion (Vignemont & Singer, 2006). Some research has focused on the relationship of empathy to leadership. Kellett, Humphrey, and Sleeth (2002) proposed and found that emotional capabilities such as empathy are positively related to perceived leadership. Thus, in addition to a more cognitively-based route to perceived leadership (i.e., complex task performance) empathy also contributed to seeing a person as a leader. In a later simulated assessment center study, these same authors showed positive relationships of empathy to task oriented and relations oriented leadership behavior (Kellett et al., 2006). Additionally, they found that empathy mediated the relationship between two facets of emotional intelligence, identifying others’ emotions and expressing one's own emotions, and relations oriented leadership. Another study of emergent leaders in MBA teams found that leader empathy was positively related to pattern recognition and perspective taking (perceiving beliefs, emotions and viewpoints) (Wolff et al., 2002). 6.2.3. Other emotion-related capabilities Others have looked at affective information processing influences on decision-making in managers. Seo and Barrett (2007) point to prior research showing that emotions could facilitate decisions by shifting attention to important goals and helping people prioritize optimal choices for a given situation. However, emotions also sometimes induce bias that can lead to less optimal decisions. For example, emotions have been shown to influence a) mood congruent information retrieval, b) social judgments such that they are consistent with one's affective state, and c) favoring of short term gain that could have negative long-term consequences. In a simulated investment decision study using experience sampling to assess affective variables, Seo and Barrett found that affective reactivity (experiencing intense feelings during decision-making) and affective influence regulation (regulating biasing effects of emotions) were positively and uniquely related to stock investment returns generated over twenty days. Further, those who were more successful at differentiating negative emotional states (e.g., anger, disappointment, frustration) had better affective influence regulation.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

997

Offerman et al. (2004) looked at the relationships of Goleman (1995) and Boyatzis and Goleman's (2002) emotional competencies with cognitive ability, individual and team performance, team attitudes, and leadership perceptions in students. They found that the relationships of emotional competence (EC) and cognitive ability varied for some of these outcomes. The individual and team-level emotional competence composite scores correlated more strongly with team performance compared to cognitive ability, while cognitive ability was more strongly associated with academic performance than EC (r = .10). Similar correlations were seen with the EC subscale scores for self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Additionally, they showed that individual and team-level EC correlated positively with attitudes about the team (r = .21, r = .26). Individual EC and cognitive ability showed similar correlations with leadership effectiveness (r = .14) and leadership ranking (r = −.16, r = −.15). Hierarchical regressions controlling for personality showed that relationship management accounted for significant variance in leadership effectiveness (5%) and rankings (10%). Another study of emotional intelligence and leadership focused on the development and validation of an alternative scale of emotional intelligence (Wong & Law, 2002). Drawing on the ability-based model of EI, this measure incorporates self-report items to assess 1) self emotional appraisal, 2) others’ emotional appraisal, 3) regulation of emotion, and 4) use of emotion to facilitate performance. In a series of studies, they found that follower EI correlated positively with job satisfaction and ratings of job performance, while leader EI correlated with satisfaction and extra-role behavior. Pescosolido (2002) observed initial evidence for emergent leaders engaging in management of group emotion in a qualitative study employing observations and critical incident interviews with ten jazz groups and ten rowing teams. In sixty percent of the critical incidents, leaders interpreted ambiguous performance feedback for the group to keep emotions positive. Empathy of the emergent leaders was also mentioned in half of the jazz group interviews and in eight of the rowing team interviews. Finally, Groves (2005) found that emotional expressivity or the non-verbal expression of emotion through facial expressions, body language, and voice tone was positively correlated with follower ratings of charismatic leadership. Studies within Theme three examined a number of emotional competencies, including EI, emotion perception, emotion differentiation, affect influence regulation, empathy, and relationship management on various leadership criteria. While effect sizes varied, this research demonstrated direct and indirect effects of these variables on perception and performance criteria. Additionally, there was some attention to group-level analysis and representation of field and laboratory research. 7. Implications for leadership, affect and emotions Our paper provided a broad, qualitative review of several important trends and findings in the area of leadership, affect and emotions. In this section, we summarize existing findings and comment on where these findings leave us with regard to our criteria noted at the outset (i.e., theory and methods) and an agenda for the future. 7.1. Theory In the behavioral sciences, it is challenging to find one coherent theory that ties everything together. In leadership affect and emotions, however, we are encouraged by the similarity and consistent use of certain theoretical themes. Dominant among the emotion frameworks in use is AET (see Table 1), which has served as the explanatory framework for leader emotion and behaviors being a source of follower moods (see Theme one) and emotions (see Theme two). The findings from empirical research using AET as the framework have theoretical and applied implications in that leader behaviors (both favorable and unfavorable) act as instigators of follower moods and emotions (e.g., Dasborough, 2006). This finding lends credence to one long held proposition in leadership research that leadership affects follower and work group outcomes via its effect on follower affective reactions. The second theoretical perspective that has received much attention is that of Contagion mechanisms (both moods and emotions) (see Table 1). Leader affective displays (i.e., both moods and emotions) affect follower and work group affective states as well as outcomes. These effects are presumed transmitted via automatic and unconscious contagion processes. While intensity and arousal of the specific leader mood in general did not affect outcomes such as performance, intensity seem to affect follower perceptions of leader charisma. More recently, the EASI model of Van Kleef and emotion regulation research in general, offers a compelling perspective on conscious mechanisms enacted by leaders in managing followers and work group emotions. The most dominant leadership perspectives found in the studies reviewed here cast affect and emotions as one aspect of inspirational leadership (i.e. transformational, charismatic and authentic leadership). Relatedly, moods and emotions are posited to affect follower perceptions of quality of exchange relationships (LMX) with their leader and this perception of quality could in turn affect subsequent moods and emotions. Unlike prior reviews of affect, moods and emotions, our review found that majority of the research in leadership does offer a definition of affective constructs. One plausible reason for the disconnect between earlier reviews and ours could be that our procedure eliminated studies that did not explicitly seek to study affect, moods and emotions. With that said, there are still some studies that confuse moods and emotions (see for example, De Cremer, 2007, in which moods and emotions are used interchangeably). With respect to emotional competencies and leadership, there is still some lack of clarity regarding construct definitions. Generally, constructs in these papers have some connection to theories of emotional intelligence, which might contribute to the problem. Papers that focused solely on constructs linked to the ability based model of EI tended to provide clear definitions, as well as those that focused on specific competencies such as empathy or emotion perception.

998

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

7.2. Recommendations for future theoretical work From a theoretical standpoint, even though most studies couch their work within established theoretical frameworks, much remains to be done in the domain of explanatory theory. For example, theory and research casts positive affective and emotional expressions as an important aspect of charisma. The pathways underlying such attributions though are not very well understood. One explanation that many empirical studies offer is that leaders who display positive emotions engender follower positive emotions, which in turn results in higher ratings of charisma. We do not quite know, however, why followers who experience positive affect and emotions attribute higher charisma to their leaders. Likewise, we know little about if and when followers attribute charisma to leaders displaying negative emotions. Some explanatory theoretical development in this regard is needed. For example, it could be that cognitive appraisals of such followers differ from those followers who are not exposed to such effects. Another missing part of this puzzle could be context. In fact, we could find no explanatory theory tying leadership and emotions together via context-focus. We were somewhat surprised that one of the dominant theoretical frameworks in Psychology- Cognitive Appraisal Theory— has not found much application in leadership research on emotions with some notable exceptions (e.g., Gaddis et al., 2004). For example, leader's display of emotions could affect followers via their own cognitive appraisal regarding the emotion-eliciting vent. We are also somewhat surprised that this body of research casts the follower as a passive actor with no control over what emotions they experience. For example, are all followers equally susceptible to leader emotions via contagion (see Johnson, 2008 for an exception)? Are there certain attributions and appraisals that drive follower's willingness to catch leader emotions versus not? These kinds of questions remain unanswered due to an excessive focus on predictive rather than explanatory theories. Explanatory theories may enable a focus on more cognitive and performance-oriented types of criteria. Another area ripe for future theoretical work lies in the disconnect between what leaders feel and what they display. As noted in Theme two, our findings indicate that it is premature to cast negative emotions as culprits only. Yet, there are no explanatory theories for the role of negative emotions and moods (a couple of empirical studies have looked at this) in the leadership process. For example, Tangney's work (Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996) on righteous anger and guilt posits that self-conscious emotions instigate ethical acts. Michie and Gooty (2005) offered such a perspective with positive emotions, but this area of negative emotions leading to ethical behavior is a novel one. We also suggest that the work on negative emotions is largely underrepresented in the leadership literature and this bias precludes understanding how self-conscious negative emotions could impact ethical leadership. In a related vein, the proponents of authentic leadership have relied heavily on the use of positive emotions as an integral component of authenticity. Yet, in some of their works on authentic leadership development, Avolio and colleagues suggest that a leader's life experiences (termed “moments that matter”) drive authenticity later in life. Given the science in psychology that we tend to recall negative emotion events much more forcefully than positive ones (see also Dasborough, 2006), might it not be that these moments that matter included negative emotional experiences? For example, President Obama has publicly reflected on the negative emotions of fear and insecurity stemming from his absentee father as a source of his drive and ambition. Perhaps, we need more theories that articulate individual differences that cause some individuals to turn intense negative emotional experiences into motivational energy. Research concerning specific cognitive and behavioral strategies leaders use to effectively regulate their own and followers’ emotions is notably missing. Gross (1998) outlined a number of specific self-emotion regulation strategies. Additionally, Ostell (1996) points to the potential value of exploring the clinical psychology literature for other ideas regarding effective emotion management. Testing for the global effects of emotion regulation may result in little progress because strategies that work for one leader may not work for all, or, work with all followers. Additionally, more research is needed on the antecedents (individual and situational) and consequences (cognitive processing, performance, attitudinal) of emotion regulation for both leaders and followers. Perhaps, the most disturbing trend theoretically and empirically is the serious misalignment of levels of analysis and the general lack of acknowledgement of levels of analysis. Some theoretical work on emotions and leadership as multi-level phenomenon has started to emerge (Ashkanasy, 2003; Ashkanasy & Humphrey, in press; Ashkanasy & Jordan, 2008); however, theories on leadership affect and emotions have largely sidestepped the issue of levels in most conceptual works. In fact, AET, mood contagion, etc. are all inherently multi-level theoretical frameworks; yet, theoretical works and empirical studies that draw upon these theories neglect the levels aspect. For example, Hansen et al. in their work on Aesthetic leadership make no mention of levels. We call for theoretical work that explicitly addresses the intra-individual level (e.g., leader emotions and decision-making across time, leader emotions and leadership ability/skills), dyadic level (e.g., leader and follower emotions affecting each other's outcomes, agreement regarding what is felt versus displayed at the dyad level), group level (e.g., the influence of group moods on leader moods, construct development of group emotional tone and the roe of the leader), and organizational level. Regarding this last aspect, theoretically, it is yet unclear what organizational emotions might refer to and/or if such a construct exists. 7.3. Methods The empirical research reviewed here offered a good balance between experimental and cross-sectional correlational research. This is a good sign for leadership research as experiments offer perhaps the most stringent tests of moods and emotion in terms of control and alignment with basic definitions. Alternatively stated, event-based experimental designs align with the definitions of moods and emotions. The use of cross-sectional correlational research, however, presents challenges that cast skepticism on accumulated findings. A small percentage of the studies reviewed here across all three themes treated moods and emotions as

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

999

dynamic constructs requiring longitudinal/repeated measures. The use of daily diaries (Amabile et al., 2004) and experience sampling (Bono et al., 2007) help align field-based research with the definition of moods and emotions as dynamic constructs. The majority of empirical research, however, is drawn from snapshot examinations of moods and emotions. The treatment of affective constructs as stable is an underlying assumption in cross-sectional correlational research and this scheme is not designed to study moods and emotions per their definitions. As in earlier reviews of moods and emotions (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Briner & Kiefer, 2005), we find that this misalignment of research designs with theory in leadership, moods and emotions is a serious challenge. Related to the above concern, which by definition precludes a focus on the intra-individual level, we could not find a single empirical study in a naturalistic setting at the dyadic level in leadership, affect and emotions. This is somewhat troublesome given that emotions are context and interaction-specific. The accumulated empirical research in leadership, moods and emotions is really just telling us one side of the story - that of follower perceptions of leader affective displays. At the group level, several studies examine effects of leader moods and emotions on followers and work group outcomes. At the organizational level, we could find no published empirical work on leadership, affect and emotions. In addition to this glaring neglect of levels of analysis, some studies demonstrate theories at an individual level whereas methods and analysis are at individual and group levels. For example, Erez et al. theorize all relationships at individual level, whereas their analysis strategies include individual and group levels. Similarly, Hui et al. (1999) employ LMX as their theoretical framework, which is a dyadic theory, whereas their methods and analysis are at individual level. To make matters worse, some studies (e.g., Hui et al., 1999) collect interdependent data wherein one leader rates multiple followers and the dependencies in such data is not acknowledged or treated. Sy et al. (2005), on the other hand, provide an example of a study where both theory and methods are aligned from a levels perspective (e.g., theory and methods are both at the individual and group levels). The measurement in leadership, affect and emotions is also less stringent than it needs be. Rarely did we find detailed psychometric evidence for any of the measures used. The most frequently used measures for moods were the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and Job Affect Scale (JAS) (see Table 1) which are used repeatedly in organizational behavior in general, but psychometric properties of these measures is rarely discussed. The measurement of emotions seems to be much more widespread in that authors typically use adjectives and checklists drawn from established emotion models. While this practice is not unadvisable, rigorous psychometric work for these measures is scarce. With regard to context, twenty-seven of a possible forty-three empirical studies included a naturalistic setting. Taken together, about 62% of the accumulated empirical research across all three themes was conducted in settings where the natural effects of moods and emotions might have emerged. Many of these studies also included a lab study. These findings are encouraging for leadership as Briner and Kiefer (2005) and Gooty et al. (2009) reported that the majority of studies they reviewed were conducted in the lab. Leadership and emotions especially are context specific so, we are encouraged by the good balance between lab-based studies versus field studies. 7.4. Recommendations for future methodological work The most pertinent direction methodologically for leadership and emotions scholars is a focus on research design. For example and as noted above, the designs employed in leadership, affect and emotions are not always capable testing what they propose due to misalignment between the definition of moods and emotions and cross-sectional research. Such designs do not capture the dynamic nature of affective constructs. We call for more studies based on repeated measures, experience sampling, daily diaries, and qualitative studies when the study is conducted in naturalistic settings. The second area deserving attention is psychometric work in measurement of moods and emotions. Only one empirical paper directly focused on psychometrics of the measures used in leadership, affect and emotions (e.g., Wong & Law, 2002). In the emotional competencies area, psychometric work in new scale development is required for assessing emotion perception, regulation strategies, empathy, and other emotional competencies. Research examining EI should employ the ability-based model and measure, which offers greater conceptual clarity and psychometric support than mixed-trait models. The advice of Antonakis et al. (2009) regarding research on emotional intelligence and leadership applies more broadly to the literature on emotions and leadership. Specifically, they remind us of several useful validity considerations, use of self-reported measures, common-source variance, use of measures designed specifically to tap the construct of interest, use of leaders in real-world contexts, and control for hierarchical nesting if appropriate. The third area in need of urgent attention is a focus on reporting effect sizes. Admittedly, many studies in this domain are pioneers in the study of leadership, affect and emotions, yet, we found that many studies did not report effect sizes. This makes it challenging to draw valid conclusions regarding the practical relevance of most works in this domain. As noted in theoretical section, a focus on intra-individual, dyadic and organizational levels of analysis will be required in the future. This type of multi-level research will require multi-level analytical techniques such as Random Coefficient Modeling (RCM), Within And Between Analysis (WABA), and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), etc. more often. Indeed, notably missing from the empirical research here is a methods treatise detailing the use of appropriate techniques for the study of leadership, affect and emotions at each of these different levels of analysis. 8. Limitations and overall implications One of the most striking limitations of our review is that it is highly selective. By definition and procedure, we only reviewed those studies that explicitly focused on leadership, affect and emotions. Such a narrow focus helped us clearly delineate what we

1000

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

see in the literature but many peripheral themes are left out. For example, our review chose to exclude emotional labor, in part because it has only recently been explicitly linked to leadership, and for reasons of parsimony. Perhaps, future research could examine the accumulated knowledge in organizational display rules and emotional labor. Another limitation, stemming from the same reasons of parsimony and manageability, is our focus on the elite journals in management and organizational psychology only. We did include special issues of other journals and books (e.g., Journal of Applied Social Psychology and Research Companion to Emotions in Organizations); however, it was simply implausible to include all management and organizational journals, as well as unpublished research, in our review. Perhaps, a future quantitative review of the literature could include broader sources. A third limitation of our review is that we started out defining affect, moods and emotions and based our entire review (e.g., organization of themes, inferences) on these definitions. Our definitions align with the dominant theoretical foundations in psychology; nevertheless, we acknowledge that other ways of defining each of these constructs exist (see for example Izard, 2009). Despite these limitations, our review yielded a number of specific recommendations for future research: the following points are our overarching recommendations for the future: 1. An explicit focus on followership is required. For example, a vast body of literature examines the role of charismatic leadership in eliciting positive emotions or abusive leaders evoking negative emotions in followers. However, little to nothing is known regarding follower behaviors that impact leader emotions and affect leader's style, behaviors and perhaps quality of exchanges. We believe this is an area ripe for investigation, one in which, the follower is an active partner in the leader– follower relationship, and, is influenced by, but also influences the leader. 2. The function of emotions in instigating or suppressing moral and ethical leadership behavior is an urgent need. Gibson and Callister (2010) and Tangney and colleagues (1996) suggest that anger, guilt, shame and pride could motivate an individual to correct wrongdoings, and act on one's values. Yet, not much has been done in the leadership domain with discrete emotions and ethical behaviors. 3. The role of trust and emotions in leading and following is under-researched. Trust is an important relationship quality between leaders and followers (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). While much has been done in the domain of cognitive influences on trust in leadership, much less research attention has focused upon affective influences in trusting one's leader. 4. Our review indicates a disproportionate interest in positive emotions and leadership, while, negative emotions and leadership are either under-researched and/or always considered the culprits in leading. More systematic scientific inquiry in this domain is needed (see also Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). 5. An alignment of levels of analysis in theory, methods and inferences is urgently needed. From a theoretical standpoint, this translates into explanatory theory development with careful consideration of levels at which constructs and relationships occur. From a methodological standpoint, to understand interactions between leaders and followers, one could model emotion episodes (or emotion events), which translate into repeated measures research designs, which in turn could require methodological techniques that can handle the complexity of non-independent data. 6. Measurement development in leadership literature in general is needed and more so for discrete emotions and emotion competencies. For example, many theoretical papers cast emotions such as interest and gratitude as important drivers of the leader–follower relationship yet measures for such emotions are not readily available. 7. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods might advance the study of affect and leadership. 8. Theoretical models and empirical tests of affective influences in leadership could incorporate the role of direct and indirect influences of emotion constructs (moderation and mediation). 9. Reporting effect sizes is largely neglected (for an exception see Côté et al., 2010). We encourage future leadership scholars to report effect sizes for affective influences as well as some information on how these effect sizes represent meaningful advances over prior research in this area. A further recommendation in this area is that existing established works in psychology (e.g., cognitive appraisal theory) need to be more fully explored in leadership research. 10. Empirical tests of the role of ability-based measures of EI in leadership are required. In sum, the study of affect, moods and emotions in leadership has yielded a variety of interesting findings to date. Given the work that remains, we believe the next decade will continue to be thought-provoking and emotion inducing for scholars and practitioners. Our conclusion in this review is rather straightforward: The future in the science of affect, emotions, and leadership calls for enhanced rigor and relevance (e.g., explanatory theories, properly aligned research designs, levels of analysis, reporting effect sizes) combined with the sustained excitement that is so characteristic of this body of research. References⁎ ⁎Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5−32. ⁎Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247−261. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88−115. Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues. Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy, Vol. 2. (pp. 9−54) Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. ⁎ Papers that were included in the review.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

1001

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2008). Research companion to emotions in organizations. : Elgar. Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. (Eds.). (2000). Emotions in the Workplace: Research, theory, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R.H. (in press). A multi-level view of leadership and emotions: Leading with emotional labor. In D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, and M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Leadership. Sage Publications. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Jordan, P. J. (2008). A multi-level view of leadership and emotion. In R. H. Humphrey (Ed.), Affect and emotion: New directions in management theory and research (pp. 17−39). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. ⁎Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. E. Härtel (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 221−235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W., & Härtel, C. E. J. (Eds.). (2002). Managing Emotions in the Workplace. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. ⁎Atwater, L. E., Camobreco, J. F., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., & Lau, A. N. (1997). Effects of rewards and punishments on leader charisma, leader effectiveness, and follower reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 133−152. ⁎Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801−823. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Introduction to and overview of transformational and charismatic leadership. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science xvii-xxiii. ⁎Ballinger, G., Schoorman, F., & Lehman, F. (2009). Will you trust your new boss? The role of affective reactions to leadership succession. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 219−232. Bargh, J. A., & Williams, L. E. (2007). The nonconscious regulation of emotion. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotional Regulation (pp. 429−445). New York, US: Guilford Press. Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI).Psicothema, 18, 13−25 supl. Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 20−46. Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 967−984. ⁎Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644−675. Barsade, S., Brief, A., & Spataro, S. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science (pp. 3−52). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36−59. ⁎Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802−836. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bass, B. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In R. R. Reggie, & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 105−118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & McDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 90, 1054−1068. ⁎Begley, T. M. (1994). Expressed and suppressed anger as predictors of health complaints. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(6), 503−516. Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology., 92(5), 1357−1367. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 317−334. ⁎Boss, A. D., & Sims, H. P. (2008). Everyone fails! Using emotion regulation and self-leadership for recovery. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 135−150. Boyatzis, R. E. (1995). Cornerstones of change, building the path for self-directed learning. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, & D. A. Kolb (Eds.), Innovation in professional education (pp. 50−91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boyatzis, R. E., & Goleman, D. (2002). The Emotional Competency Inventory. Boston: The Hay Group. Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. S. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: theory development, assessment, and application at home, school and in the workplace (pp. 343−361). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brief, A., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Roberson, L., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193−198. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279−307. Briner, R. B., & Kiefer, T. (2005). Research into the Experience of Emotion at Work: Definitely Older, But are we any Wiser? In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Hartel, & W. Zerbe (Eds.), The Effect of Affect in Organizational Settings—Research on Emotion in Organizations (pp. 289−315). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press. ⁎Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 245−272. ⁎Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from the manager's perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal., 39, 1479−1512. ⁎Byron, K. (2008). Differential effects of male and female managers' non-verbal emotional skills on employees' ratings. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 118−134. Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and leadership (pp. 55−74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ⁎Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., & Miller, S. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders' charisma on observers' affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149−2159. ⁎Cohen-Charash, Y., & Byrne, Z. S. (2008). Affect and justice: Current knowledge and future directions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 360−391). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. ⁎Connelly, S., Gaddis, B., & Helton-Fauth, W. (2002). A closer look at the role of emotions in charismatic and transformational leadership. In B. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leaders: The road ahead (pp. 255−283). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. ⁎Connelly, S., & Ruark, G. (2010). Leadership style and activating potential as moderators of the relationships among leader emotional displays and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 745−764. ⁎Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 496−508. ⁎Damen, F., van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Affective match in leadership: Leader emotional displays, follower positive affect, and follower performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 868−902. ⁎Damen, F., van Knippenberg, D. L., & van Knippenberg-Wisse, B. (2008). Leader affective displays and attributions of charisma: the role of arousal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2594−2614. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413−450. ⁎Dasborough, M. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 163−178. ⁎Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leader–member exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 439−465. De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79−93. ⁎De Cremer, D. (2007). Emotional effects of distributive justice as a function of autocratic leader behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1385−1404. Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339−357.

1002

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

⁎Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2008). Not all emotional display rules are created equal: Distinguishing between prescriptive and contextual display rules. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 316−334). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611−628. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573−598. ⁎Erez, A., Misangyi, V. F., Johnson, D. E., LePine, M. A., & Halverson, K. C. (2008). Stirring the hearts of followers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal of affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 602−616. Fisher, C. D. (2000). Moods and emotions while working—Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185−202. Fisher, C. D. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of real-time affective reactions at work. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 3−30. Fisher, C. D., & Noble, C. S. (2004). A within-person examination of correlates of performance and emotions while working. Human Performance, 17(2), 145−168. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39−66. Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 381−403). New York: Guilford Press. ⁎Gaddis, B., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Failure feedback as an affective event: Influences of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 663−686. ⁎Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 466−482. ⁎George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027−1055. ⁎George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 698−709. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310−329. ⁎George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605. Gibson, D. E., & Callister, R. R. (2010). Anger in organizations: review and integration. Journal of Management, 36(1), 66−93. ⁎Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: How emotions influence advice taking. Journal of Applied Psychology., 93, 1165−1173. ⁎Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1997). Anger and gender effects in observed supervisor–subordinate dyadic interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 261−307. Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 1−23. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Gohm, C. L., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Four latent traits of emotional experience and their involvement in well-being, coping, and attributional style. Cognition and Emotion, 16(4), 495−518. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Gooty, J., Gavin, M. B., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2009). Emotion research in OB: The challenges that lie ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 833−838. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective: Special Issue: Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part 1). The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219−247. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 59−100. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271−299. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 3−24). New York, US: Guilford Press. ⁎Groves, K. (2005). Linking leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables via an integrated model of charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 31, 255−277. ⁎Hansen, H., Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2007). Aesthetic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 544−560. ⁎Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17, 5−17. Härtel, C. E., Zerbe, W. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Emotions in organizational behavior. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. ⁎Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 264−280. Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are all smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 58−73. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ⁎Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader–member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(1), 3−21. Humphrey, R. H. (2008). The right way to lead with the emotional labor. In R. H. Humphrey (Ed.), Affect and Emotion: New Directions in Management Theory and Research (pp. 1−18). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. Humphrey, R. H., Kellett, J. B., Sleeth, R. G., & Hartman, N. S. (2008). Research trends in emotion and leadership. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 455−464). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. ⁎Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 151−168. ⁎Hunt, J. G., Gardner, W. L., & Fischer, D. (2008). Leader emotional displays from near and far: The implications of close versus distant leadership. In R. H. Humphrey (Ed.), Affect and emotion: New directions in management theory and research (pp. 42−65). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122−1131. Izard, C. E. (1991). The Psychology of Emotions. New York: Plenum. Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 1−25. ⁎Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 1−19. Jordan, P. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence, emotional self-awareness, and team performance. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Queensland. Jordan, C., Soutar, G. & Kiffin-Petersen, S. A. (2008) Are There Different 'Types' Of Emotional Laborers?, in C. M. Brotheridge (Chair), Through the Looking-Glass of Emotional Labor: Alternative Lenses and Perspectives, Symposium conducted at the Sixth International Conference on Emotions and Worklife, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54−78. Kanfer, R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2002). Affect and work: Looking back to the future. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace: Understanding the Structure and Role of Emotions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 473−490). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ⁎Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 523−544. ⁎Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 146−162. Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the Circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Emotion and Social Behavior, vol. 114. (pp. 25−59) Newbury Park, CA7 Sage. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229−252. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. : Springer Pub Co. ⁎Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 221−234.

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

1003

Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425−431. Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (Eds.). (2002). Emotions in the workplace: understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ⁎Madera, J., & Smith, D. B. (2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: the role of anger and sadness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 103−114. ⁎Majdar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees' creative performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757−767. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of intelligence (pp. 396−420). New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Manual for the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Toronto: MultiHealth Systems. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232−242. ⁎McColl-Kennedy, J., & Anderson, R. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545−559. ⁎Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 441−457. Mikula, G. (1986). The experience of injustice. In H. Bierhoff, R. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 103−123). New York: Plenum Press. Mikula, G., Sherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotions reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 769−783. ⁎Naidoo, L. J., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Speech imagery and perceptions of charisma: The mediating role of positive affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 283−296. ⁎Nelson, D. L., Michie, S., & DeGroot, T. (2008). Leadership and emotional expression. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 476−488). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. ⁎Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 601−661. ⁎Ng, C. K., & Wong, K. F. E. (2008). Emotion and organizational decision making: The roles of negative affect and anticipated regret in making decisions under escalation situations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 45−60). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. (2001). In J. Hall, & F. Bernieri (Eds.), Nonverbal receptivity. Current Perspectives on Research on Nonverbal Communication. (pp. 183−200) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ⁎Offerman, L. R., Bailey, J. R., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Seal, C., & Sass, M. (2004). The relative contribution of emotional competence and cognitive ability to individual and team performance. Human Performance, 17, 219−243. Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. ⁎Ostell, A. (1996). Managing dysfunctional emotions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 525−557. Payne, R. L., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2001). Emotions at work: Theory, research, and applications for management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. ⁎Pescosolido, A. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 583. Pugh, D. S. (2002). In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotional regulation in individuals and dyads: Causes, costs, and consequences. Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior. (pp. 147−182) San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. ⁎Rank, J., & Frese, M. (2008). In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The impact of emotions, moods and other affect-related variables on creativity, innovation and initiative. Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations. (pp. 103−119) Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. ⁎Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional and social skills approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 169−185. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: Evidence for two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 198−215. Roseman, I. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 161−200. ⁎Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845−858. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological review, 110(1), 145−172. Saavedra, R. (2008). Kindling fires and extinguishing candles: the wind of mood contagion in work groups. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 423−440). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185−211. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92−120). New York: Oxford University Press. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167−177. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513−523. ⁎Seo, Myeong-Gu, & Barrett, L. F. (2007). Being emotional during decision making-good or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 923−940. Seo, Myeong-Gu, Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423−439. Seo, Myeong-Gu, Barrett, L. F., & Jin, S. (2008). The structure of affect: history, theory and implications for emotion research in organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 17−44). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 25−42. Siegel, J. M. (1986). The multidimensional anger inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 191−200. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813−838. Sutton, R. L., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371−384. ⁎Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295−305. Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barow, D., Marschall, D. E., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 797−809. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative vents: The mobilization–minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67−85. ⁎Tse, H. H., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 195−211. ⁎Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Emotion in conflict and negotiation: Introducing the emotions as social information (EASI) model. In N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations (pp. 392−404). Northhampton, Maine: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 5(2), 562−580. Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 435−441. ⁎Waples, E. P., & Connelly, S. (2008). Leader emotions and vision implementation: Effects of activation potential and valance. In C. E. Härtel, W. J. Zerbe, & N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Emotions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 67−94). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Watson, D., Clark, A. L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063−1070.

1004

J. Gooty et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 979–1004

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1−74). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786−794. ⁎Wolff, S., Pescosolido, A., & Druskat, V. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505−522. ⁎Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243−274. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135−141. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879−919. Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (2000). The distribution of basic emotions in everyday life: A state and trait perspective from experience sampling data. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 178−197. ⁎Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545−568.