Search

This study examines the influence of mood (‘affect’) on corporate philanthropic giving. Drawing on group emotions theory and affect-infused decision theory, we advance the argument that firms allocate greater resources to philanthropy when headquarters-based employees are in a more positive affective state. We also describe three boundary conditions in this relationship—executives’ embeddedness in the firm, executives’ latitude to engage in philanthropic giving, and the firm’s track record of corporate social irresponsibility. We test our arguments using a longitudinal dataset of philanthropic giving by U.S. firms. Our study contributes to the literature by shedding light on the role of affect in shaping the decision to allocate resources to corporate philanthropy.

As organizations undertake significant transformation to compete and survive in today’s dynamic business environment, employees are required to engage their personal energies, not only in their day-to-day work but also in one or more change initiatives within their organization. Yet, we know little about how individuals devote energy to both the demands of change and to day-to-day work. Drawing on the job demands-resources model (JD-R), we develop and test theory that explains how employees direct and invest energy toward the pursuit of organizational change goals and how this engagement in change may affect subsequent engagement in work role activities. Results of a three-wave study conducted in a sample of 144 employees undergoing a significant organizational transformation revealed a positive relationship between work engagement and change engagement, which is particularly strong when employees experience the key resources of value congruence and perceived organizational support. Similarly, the relationship between change engagement and subsequent work engagement is also positive overall but strongest when employees are highly engaged in the change and highly involved in the transformation.

Past research widely demonstrates the importance of employee emotional experiences and processes for individual and small group outcomes. However, theory is lacking on how organizations systematically differ in their affective processes and how these impact important organizational outcomes. To address this problem, we use organizational climate theory to advance the construct of affect climate and provide a conceptual foundation for understanding its processes and effects in organizations. We propose that through various sources of climate, such as company practices, leaders, and routines, organizations can create environments that promote, among employees, (1) certain types of affective experiences or expressions, (2) specific uses of desirable affect for functional goals, and (3) particular ways to manage undesirable emotions and moods. We suggest that these three interrelated processes work together to form one of six unique organizational affect climate types. Further, we develop theory to explain ho...

The scholarship of both organizational change and leadership is extensive. However, there have been few attempts to systematically integrate these fields of research in terms of theory or empirical...

Via a longitudinal study of organizational change, we found that employees’ later commitment to change, in both affective and normative forms, was generally greater when they initially felt more rather than less commitment to change and that more commitment to change was sustained over time when employees perceived their leaders to have provided more transformational and informational justice behaviors within their work units. We also found that employees’ later commitment to change was a strong predictor of employees’ later behavioral support for change and turnover intention. The implications of our findings for how to maintain employee commitment to organizational change will be discussed.

The action-science approach to individual learning and organizational change has highlighted the possibility and significance of “double-loop” transformational change. Here, I expand the action-science framework (Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978) in two ways. I first identify three sources of barriers that may fundamentally constrain the effectiveness of the action-science approach: (1) emotional barriers, (2) political obstacles, and (3) managerial control imperatives. Second, drawing from theories of emotion, organizational power and politics, and institutional change, I suggest three ways to overcome each barrier: (1) up-building positive affect, (2) leveraging opposing forces, and (3) bringing external legitimacy into the organization.