NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 demands and one’s coping resources to meet these demands (see also

226 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 demands and one’s coping resources to meet these demands (see also

Lazarus, 1991). Common examples of stressful workplace events include conflicting role demands (Williams, Watts, McLeod, & Matthew, 1990), cognitive strain (Bodrov, 2000), time pressure (Baber, Mellor, Graham, Noyes, & Tunley, 1996), negotiating with administration (Hart, Wearing, & Headey, 1995), and physically threatening conditions (such as nursing patients with contagious disease; see George, Reed, Ballard, Colin, & Fielding, 1993). As such, stressful workplace events may be interpersonal, emotional, cognitive, or physical (Brief & Weiss, 2002).

Stress-related workplace events are associated with the experience of nega- tive affective states arising from the perception of a threat to the attainment of personal goals (Ashkanasy, Ashton-James, & Jordan, 2004; Daniels, Harris, & Briner, 2004). While the direct threat is to the achievement of workplace goals associated with job performance rather than personal goals, job performance is a significant determinant of personal well-being (Daniels, 2000). Consequently, workplace events that are perceived to threaten job performance are, by implication, a threat to personal well- being. Ashkanasy and his associates noted further that the magnitude of the perceived threat to personal or workplace goals posed by workplace situations or events, which corresponds to the size of the perceived discrepancy between workplace demands and available coping resources, determines the intensity of negative affect experienced.

Physical Settings

Our visual, olfactory, and aural senses identify pleasantness or unpleasant- ness in the workplace environment. Wasserman, Rafaeli, and Kluger (2000) have demonstrated that esthetic features of the physical organizational environment affect employees’ mood states. Wasserman et al. (2000) found that participants reacting to photographs of eclectic and visually stimulating interior design reported positive affective states, whereas participants’ reac- tions to monomorphic interior designs were considerably more negative. Research in consumer behavior has found, similarly, that pleasant scents induce positive affect, and trigger positive appraisals of the organizational environment (Bartoshuk, 1991; Chebat & Michon, 2003; Danghel, 1996). The impact of pleasant odors on affect and cognition has been demonstrated in research on the spending behavior of consumers in various sensory conditions. Chebat and Michon (2003) found that consumers spent more money in environments with pleasant smells, and that the impact of pleasant smells on spending behavior was mediated by positive perceptions of the environment (see also Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, 1996).

Oldham, Cummings, Mischel, Schmidke, and Zhou (1995) observed similarly that positively valenced music improved the mood states of workers. Indeed, the impact of aural stimuli on mood states has been

227 researched extensively (see Knobloch & Zillmann, 2002; Matsumoto, 2002;

E MOTION IN O RGANIZATIONS

Stratton & Zalanowski, 2003). Research on the effects of unpleasant noise on affect in the workplace converges on the conclusion that unwanted and inescapable noise heightens anxiety and stress (Bouscein & Ottmann, 1996; Gilbert, Meliska, & Plath, 1997). For example, Becker, Warm, Dember, and Hancock (1995) found that jet engine noise increased the perceived workload of pilots. Similarly, Vickers and Hervig (1991) observed that the mood and well-being of passengers on US naval ships were negatively affected during low-frequency active sonar operations. As we discuss below, positive and negative mood significantly impact upon cognitions and behaviors in the workplace. As such, while there is still little research evidence on the impact of visual, olfactory, and aural stimuli on workplace performance, it is expected that sensory stimuli may indirectly impact upon workplace activity via its effect onemployee’s mood states.

Workgroup Characteristics

Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) and Kelly and Barsade (2001) argue that factors outside of the narrow confines of interpersonal relationships come into play to determine organizational members’ affective states. Ashforth and Humphrey give examples of collective socialization in work groups (see Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). Other factors include trust in group conflict situations (Smith & Berg, 1987) and ‘emotional contagion’ (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1992).

The pervasiveness of affect in group contexts has been demonstrated by Barsade (2002) and Kelly and Barsade (2001). Further, George (1990, 1995) has extensively researched the effect that the affective states of work group members canhave ongroup members’ job satisfactionan d group per- formance (see also George & Brief, 1992). Several explanations have been proposed to explain affective processes within groups, including common socialization patterns and workplace conditions (Hackman, 1992), high task interdependence (Heath & Jourden, 1997), membership stability (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000), mood regulation norms and rules (Sutton, 1991), and emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacciopo, & Rapson, 1994). Irrespective of the underlying process, nevertheless, it is clear that affect has a pervasive and powerful effect on group members and group performance in organizational settings.