A GROUP-LEVEL ANALYSIS

LEVEL 4: A GROUP-LEVEL ANALYSIS

Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2001) define a group as ‘a collection of two or more people who work with one another regularly to achieve common goals’ (p. 174). As such, group members interact on a dyadic and collective basis, and naturally encounter all of the perceptions and experiences that have been outlined earlier in reference to individuals and their interactions. Nonetheless, groups introduce additional dimensions of cohesiveness, collec- tive values, and leadership that render an added level of complexity to the discussionof emotions inworkplace settings. Inthis respect, De Dreu, West, Fischer, and MacCurtain (2001) see group settings as a sort of emotional incubator, where the emotional states of the group members combine to produce an overall group-level emotional tenor that, in turn, affects all group members.

Kelly and Barsade (2001) argue more specifically that teams possess an ‘affective composition’ or a group mood, which begins either with the emotional characteristics of team members, and then develops through a process of emotional contagion (see also Barsade, 2002; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1992), or the emotional expression of the group leader, which evokes emotioningroup members. These two mean s by which positive emotion is engendered in groups are discussed in the following section.

Emotional Contagion

Emotional contagion is defined by Schoenewolf (1990) as ‘a process in which

a person or group influences the emotions or behavior of another person or group through the conscious or unconscious induction of emotion states and behavioral attitudes’ (p. 50). Emotions are thus ‘caught’ by group members when they are exposed to the ‘infectious’ emotional expressions of other group members. The expressionof these emotions is perceived by group members primarily via nonverbal signals (facial expressions, body language, and tone) rather than words (Mehrabian, 1972). Hatfield et al. (1992, 1994) posited that the degree to which emotional contagion then occurs is mediated by attentional processes, with greater emotional contagion occurring when more attention is allocated.

Whenthe emotional expressionis observed, anaffective state of the same valence (positive or negative) is then experienced by the observer group members. The actual mechanisms by which emotions are transferred are subconscious, automatic, and ‘primitive’ (Hatfield et al., 1994). Psychological researchers have found that this process involves automatic nonconscious

249 mimicry, in which people spontaneously imitate each others’ facial ex-

E MOTION IN O RGANIZATIONS

pressions and body language (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), speech patterns (Ekman, Friesen, & Scherer, 1976), and vocal tones (Neumann & Strack, 2000). The second step of this primitive contagion process comes from the affective feedback people receive from mimicking others’ nonverbal behaviors and expressions. This is also an automatic process. Research by Duclos et al. (1989) has demonstrated that the mimicking of nonverbal expressions of emotionresults inthe experience of the emotionitself through physiological, visceral, and glandular feedback responses (see Hatfield et al., 1994 for a review). While group members ultimately become aware of this feeling, the initial process of emotional contagion is subconscious and automatic.

Zurcher (1982) argues that displays of emotion in group situations con- stitute an essential ingredient necessary for establishment of group cohesion. Furthermore, Lawler (1992) posits that emotional expression is an essential social process in group formation and maintenance. While several studies provide evidence to support the notion that positive emotions play an im- portant adaptive function in team processes, there is little evidence to suggest that negative affective states facilitate team productivity. In a recent study, Barsade, Ward, Turner, and Sonnenfeld (2000) found that work groups low in mean positive affect experienced significantly more task and emotional conflict and less cooperation and group cohesion than groups high in mean positive affect. Congruent with this finding, Barsade (2002) found that pos- itive emotional contagion in groups was related to increased perceived task performance, improved cooperation, and decreased conflict. As such, positive emotion is a necessary precursor of group cohesiveness and productivity. In the context of organizational work groups, George (1990) has shown that positive affect is a key ingredient for group effectiveness and satisfaction (see also George & Brief, 1992). Lawler, Thye, and Yoon (2000) have also found that positive emotion solidifies and strengthens the person–group bond and decreases uncertainty, and as a result increases commitment to work team goals, while negative affect decreases team cohesion, motivation, and ultimately impairs performance.

Leadership of Groups

The role of leadership in communicating, expressing, and managing emotions in groups is axiomatic (see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In this respect, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) refer to leadership in terms of the symbolic models proposed by Daft and Weick (1984) and Smirchich and Stubbart (1985). Inthis view, leadership is seenas a process of symbolic management (Pfeffer, 1981), and involves creating and maintaining shared meanings among followers. Ashforth and Humphrey argue that this process

250 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 depends intrinsically on the evocation of emotion. Based on Ortner’s

(1973) model, they note that symbols generate interacting cognitive and emotional responses, and they conclude: ‘symbolic management involves orchestrating summarizing and elaborating symbols to evoke emotion which can be generalized to organizational ends’ (p. 111). These symbols can be subtle and ineffable, and need not relate directly to cognitive aspects of emotion. Thus, leaders engage in the communication of symbols designed to make followers feel better about themselves, and to strengthen followers’ commitment to the organization (see also Fineman, 2000; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989).

It follows therefore that leadership entails the perception, recognition, and management of emotional cues by both the leader and the led, which we described earlier as emotional sensitivity. In this respect, the Leader– Member eXchange (LMX) model provides a useful frame of reference (see Graen& Uhl-Bien, 1995 for a review of LMX theory). The basis of LMX is that leaders and work group members exhibit different quality relationships, based on social exchanges between group members and the leader. When exchanges are high-quality, members are given better job assignments, more freedom, and greater opportunities to work with the leader. When exchanges are low-quality, on the other hand, members are given fewer opportunities to interact with the leader and perform low-status work assignments.

We argue that ‘quality’ in this context is largely an emotional judgement. Factors which have been shown to contribute to LMX quality include attitude similarity (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994; Turban, Jones, & Rozelle, 1990), satisfaction with the relationship (McClane, 1991), psychological size and distance (Salzmann & Grasha, 1991), and the role of mentoring (Scandura & Schreisheim, 1994). More recently, social discourse (Sias and Jablin, 1995) and perceptual categorization (Foti, 1995) have been shown to

be important in determining exchange quality. Although few studies have focused on the emotional dimensions in leader–member exchanges per se, the clear implicationof the LMX studies is that higher quality relationships between leaders and members are associated with positive emotions. As noted earlier, Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) demonstrated just this effect. Respondents who viewed vignettes of leaders giving performance appraisal feedback were judged more favorably onanLMX measure when they displayed positive emotion. These data suggest that a leader’s displayed emotion is a critical determinant of the quality of relationships with group members, and consequently of the leader’s ability to communicate emotionally evocative symbols.

In conclusion, facilitated by processes of emotional contagion, group positive affect energized by emotionally aware leaders can enhance organ- izational creativity and performance by assisting group cohesion and individuals’ positive affect.

E MOTION IN O RGANIZATIONS