Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Integrating emotions and affect in theories of ...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Integrating emotions and affect in theories of management

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>1/04/2017
<mark>Journal</mark>Academy of Management Review
Issue number2
Volume42
Number of pages15
Pages (from-to)175-189
Publication statusPublished
Early online date22/12/16
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Scholars have studied emotions and affect in organizational settings for over twenty years, providing numerous insights into understanding how organizations and the people who work in them behave. With such a rich accumulation of knowledge, the time seemed right to call for today’s scholars of management to propose new and exciting theory. The eight articles in this Special Topic Forum address topics that cross multiple levels of analysis and include a range of different theories, explicating: how anger and fear can spark productivity, how employees respond to abusive supervision over time, how leader-member exchanges are shaped by affective events, the social functions of emotional complexity for leaders, team entrepreneurial passion, the effects of institutional beliefs on emotional displays, the nexus of affective climate and organizational
effectiveness, and the role of gratitude in organizations. In this introduction, we briefly summarize the main points from each article, and discuss new research directions arising from the articles. To spur even deeper research into this important and still unfolding field of discovery, and stimulated by the articles in this STF, we conclude with additional thoughts and ideas on the role of emotions and affect in organizations.

Bibliographic note

This is an introduction to a special issue of The Academy of Management Review. The proposal for the special issue that lead to this article was rigorously reviewed by a panel of three former AMR editors as well as by the current chief editor. The entire editorial board of AMR was given the chance to review the proposal and make recommendations. The introduction manuscript was reviewed by the current editor, who requested a revision. Thus this was in fact reviewed at the highest levels, and the chance of getting a special issue proposal accepted, and having the final introductory article accepted, is quite slim and is more difficult than most regular peer reviewed articles. Thus I am not sure whether this should be counted as peer reviewed or not, although I think it should. I put down not peer reviewed because the final manuscript was reviewed by the chief editor in order to be conservative. Is this correct?