When Pulling to the Negative Emotional Attractor is Too Much or Not Enough to

Inspire and Sustain Outstanding Leadership

Richard E. Boyatzis

Distinguished University Professor

Case Western Reserve University

Peter B. Lewis Building #429

10900 Euclid Avenue,

Cleveland, OH 44106, USA

Tel.: 216 368 2053

E-mail address: richard.boyatzis@case.edu

To appear in R. Burke, C. Cooper, and G. Woods (eds.), The Fulfilling Workplace: the Organization’s Role in Achieving Individual and

Organizational Health, Gower Publishing, London.

November 14, 2011

Word Count: 5,443

1

In the Stars Wars movies, the viewer is witness to repeated battles between good and bad.

Obi-wan Kenobi and Yoda entice Anakin and later Luke Skywalker to “use the force within

you” for good. The contrast is the breath filled voice of Darth Vader tempting Luke with the

benefits of the “dark side.” Whether they battle with their minds, light swords, or clones, these

opposing forces, as the sage Yoda explains to Jedi knights in training are both within us and the

universe. It is a Hollywood version of “yin/yang,” eternal forces that exist in context of and in

opposition to each other.

The Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA) and Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA)

represent analogous states which are both necessary and both present at all times, but often

function as if they were diametrically opposing states. The PEA and NEA alternate in a person,

dyad, team, organization, community, or even country. But the period of time spent when one

attractor dominates is different from person to person, situation to situation and time to time.

These variations help to explain when and how we are willing to consider learning, change and

adaptation, and when we are not.

The emerging field and popularity of positive psychology has replaced our focus on

needs and deficiencies with a focus on the positive and the possible. But in this fervor, we may

be masking the important role of the negative. This chapter will explore how these states affect

leaders, their relationships with others around them, and result in effective or ineffective leaders.

Particular attention will be paid to the role of the PEA and NEA in how a leader might inspire

others to develop and perform, or not. In other words, this chapter will seek to answer the

question: When is arousal of the NEA too much, and when is it not enough? At the heart of this

conceptual dilemma and emotional tug-of-war, there are a few trends in research that are relevant

but from different fields.

2

Two Strange Attractors: The PEA and NEA

As a part of Intentional Change Theory, there are two strange attractors within each of us,

or our social organizations (Boyatzis, 2008). These are called the Positive Emotional Attractor

(PEA) and Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA), as mentioned earlier. They are technically

strange attractors as first articulated by Ed Lorenz (1963). That is, they create forces that pull our

behavior, attitudes, feelings, and such around them, but not into them. This is different than a

limit point cycle attractor which, like a black hole, pulls all in its presence into a vortex and a

center (Casti, 1994). In this application, once caught in the pull of an attractor, a person’s mood,

state, feelings, thoughts, and behavior cycle within a self-perpetuating loop. It takes a tipping

point to move the state into the pull of the other attractor.

Positive emotions have been shown to result in more altruistic, helpful, cooperative and

conciliatory behavior (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). These cognitive events then reinforce

themselves and trigger positive emotions (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). This creates a positive

feedback loop. In this way, a person is in the PEA until a tipping point shifts the person into the

NEA.

Biological research shows that physiological arousal of the parasympathetic nervous

system (PNS) and corresponding neuro-endocrine systems arouses the vagus nerve, which then

slows the heart rate and triggers the release of variety of hormones. Oxytocin, primarily in

women, and vasopressin, primarily in men are associated with many physiological,

psychological and social benefits (Insel, 1997; Schulkin, 1999; Kemp et al, 2011). For example,

oxytocin reduces anxiety and heightens feelings of tenderness, attachment and closeness to

others. The opposite of this occurs in the SNS, in which endocrines like epinephrine,

3

norepinephrine, CRF, CRH, ACTH, and cortisol enter the bloodstream and have the effect of

limiting cognitive, perceptual and emotional openness and performance (Sapolsky, 2004).

Once positive emotions are aroused, and the related neural activations and hormonal

arousals occur, the PEA state would result in a person being more cognitively open. A person’s

cognitive performance would improve (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Estrada, Isen, & Young,

1994, 1997). They would be more perceptually open and accurate in perceptions of others

(Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Talarico, Berstein & Rubin, 2008). In the PEA, a person is more

emotionally open (Critchley, 2005). In the PEA state, a person is believed to have access to more

of their neural circuits, is calmer, and their immune system functions at its best (Boyatzis, Smith

& Blaize, 2006). A process of creating hippocampal stem cells into new neural tissue in adult

humans is called neurogenesis and is believed to occur in the PEA (Erikson et al., 1998).

Meanwhile, in the NEA state, a person has less access to their neural circuits and neurogenesis is

inhibited (Boyatzis et.al., 2006).

Strange attractors have been used by other scholars to explain the dynamics of better

relationships and positive emotions. For example, Losada and Heaphy (2004) claimed that a

dynamic, non-linear system described the relationship between team performance and three

characteristics of intra-team interactions. One dimension of their model was the ratio of positive

to negative statements within the team. They explained, in a mathematical model, how high

performing teams would have a positivity to negativity ratio of 2.9 or above. But their model of

strange attractors did not use physiological states as a dimension. The other two dimensions of

their model focused on effectiveness and the nature of attribution of participants.

Similarly, Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson and Swanson (2002) used a strange

attractor to describe how emotions that are aroused within a married couple determine the health

4

and stability of their marriage. Their research revealed a ratio of 5:1 was crucial for healthy,

stable, loving marriages. They had two dimensions similar to the PEA: the ratio of positive to

negative emotions aroused (similar to Fredrickson’s model); and the degree of emotional

intensity in the spouses’ attempted influence of their partner.

The need for the three dimensions described by the PEA and NEA becomes clearer from

a meta-analysis and mathematical argument by Russell and Carroll (1999). They claimed that

positive and negative affect are not merely bi-polar. They believed that a dimension that

addresses the intensity of the arousal of emotion is also needed beyond the positive/negative

dimension.

In the Boyatzis (2008) model, the PEA and NEA are best represented by three

dimensions: (1) a continuum of affect aroused from positive to negative; (2) a continuum of a

neural activation and endocrine arousal best labeled as the parasympathetic nervous system to

the sympathetic nervous system; and (3) a continuum of the relative degree of intensity in the

arousal/activation from low to high. Again, once pulled into the orbit of one of these attractors,

the person, team, organization, or community will cycle around and within it, in what appears to

be a homeostatic state. The intensity, nature of the affect, and physiological state will vary in

degree (i.e., a person can be more or less in the PEA or NEA), but the person will be looping in

that state until a tipping point occurs to move him/her into the other state.

Two Basic Needs and the Three Dimensions

The two attractors reflect two basic needs of the human organism: the need to survive and

the need to thrive. The drive to survive has emerged through adaption of the human organism

over our history. Baumeister et al (2001) reviewed many studies from many fields bringing us to

5

the conclusion that “bad is stronger than good.” This includes emotions. They conjecture that is

serves the human organisms long-term survival needs. To survive, we need to protect ourselves

from risk and danger. Without surviving, there can be no thriving. As described previously in

this paper, the NEA incorporates negative over positive emotional arousal and the arousal of the

sympathetic nervous system and activation of related neural networks.

The NEA state could be said to reflect the survival need of the human. It enables the

human organism to activate itself and prepare to defend against threats. Segerstrom and Miller

(2004) showed that the human stress response (i.e., activation of the SNS) occurs when we feel

something is important (the more important the higher the stress), something is uncertain (the

more uncertain the higher the stress), or we feel that people are watching and evaluating us (the

more people or time involved in their observations and evaluation, the higher the stress). They

also point out, supported by Sapolsky (2004), that humans can activate the stress response by

merely anticipating one of these the conditions. In today’s society, many of the threats have

become symbolic. Between real, symbolic and anticipated conditions, it is likely that people in

professional or managerial roles activate the NEA more often than to only help us survive.

The Baumeister et. al. (2001) review does not conclude that bad is better than good,

merely stronger. The popularity of the emerging field of positive psychology can be said to result

from our fatigue with excessive NEA arousal. Besides optimism, positive emotions have been

proposed as a building block of the alternative human need-- the need to thrive. The benefits of

positive emotions have been documented in many studies summarized by Fredrickson (2009).

Her work has shown that the ratio of positive to negative emotions predicts the cognitive,

perceptual and emotional conditions of the parasympathetic nervous system and the PEA.

6

The human need to thrive is described by Fredrickson (2009) as the need to flourish in

through her “broaden and build” theory. As described previously in this paper, the PEA

incorporates positive over negative emotional arousal and the arousal of the parasympathetic

nervous system and activation of related neural networks. The appeal of being in the PEA both

provides relief from the burdens of the experience in the NEA and allows us to explore and

enjoy the alternative to the drive to survive.

The activation of the PEA would bring us into the drive to thrive, while the NEA would

bring us into the drive to survive. Balancing these states is essential for a human to both adapt

with life and work but also to innovate and expand the possibilities in life. An appropriate

balance among the PEA and NEA could affect a person’s sense of well being, as well as their

ability to learn, develop, and create.

Through the neural mechanism of emotional contagion (Boyatzis, Passarelli, Lowe,

Koenig, Mathews, Stoller, and Phillips, 2011; Boyatzis, 2011) and the behavioral mechanism of

social contagion (i.e., through social processes of mimicry, role modeling, and enactment of

social norms), the experience of the PEA or the NEA is spread to others and becomes a shared

experience. A key paper in the positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship field

was Dutton, Spreitzer, et. al. (2006) about a person’s “best self.” This is considered a building

block of high quality relationships, which in turn foster a sense of well being, better innovation,

productivity, organizational commitment and engagement ( ). The benefits and appeal of

being in the PEA state expand beyond the individual into his or her relationships and have a PEA

arousing effect in teams, organizations, communities and even countries (Barsade & Gibson,

2007; Boyatzis, 2008).

7

The Benefits of the Positive Emotional Attractor

There appear to be four primary experiences which have been related to arousing the

PEA state (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005): (1) Creating a shared vision, telos or purpose;

(2) Expressing compassion; (3) A combination of shared vision and positive mood; and (4)

playfulness (Ayan, 2009).

The PEA is the relationship between the leader and those around him/her is often evident

in the nature of the relationship. The relationship affects the follower’s job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, turnover intention, health, effort, learning, and development (Bass

& Avolio, 1990; Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Gerstner & Day, 1997). The arousal of the

PEA affects both parties in these relationships. When the followers enter the PEA, in a positive

feedback loop, this arouses a the PEA in the leader (Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006). The

emerging field of “follower studies” is balancing the leader-centric nature of most leadership

research (Tee, Ashkanasy and Paulsen, 2011).

Previous research and models of effective leadership appear to cause or be associated

with similar outcomes as the PEA. For example, transformational leadership research is linked to

improved employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, effort, organizational citizenship

behavior, turnover intention, and task performance (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bommer et al., 2004).

Meanwhile, charismatic leadership theory is similar positive outcomes (Rowold & Laukamp,

2009). It has also been associated with improvements in subjective outcomes such as trust,

satisfaction, and perception of group performance by followers (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon,

2000).

Articulating a shared vision or creating a process in which a shared vision is developed or

discussed spreads the arousal of the PEA among groups of people. This is merging from recent

8

research as a powerful force in organizational success. Neff (2011) found that shared vision

among the management of a family business was a crucial variable in family business success.

Trust, confidence in management, and developing a learning network also helped, but shared

vision was the most powerful predictor. Overbeke (2010) reported that a shared vision in a

family business increased the likelihood that a daughter will become the successor in

generational transitions. It built upon the daughter’s sense of efficacy and allowed her to

overcome the sexism of parents or grandparents.

Shared vision is one of the scales in the PNEA Survey (Boyatzis, 2008). Clayton (2009)

showed that shared vision was the most powerful variable predicting championing behavior,

which in turn has been shown to predict effective mergers and acquisitions. Shared vision

stimulated increased organizational engagement in IT teams, amplifying the effect of the average

level of EI competencies shown by the team members (Mahon, 2010).

Another of the scales in the PNEA Survey is shared Positive Mood. Along with shared

vision, positive mood experienced by a patient predicted degree treatment adherence for Type II

diabetics (Khawaja, 2010). When analyzed along with nine other variables from the current

medical literature, it was the most powerful (Khawaja, 2010). Buse (2011) showed that a

comprehensive personal vision was the most powerful predictor of whether or not women decide

to stay in engineering and science careers.

When the Negative Emotional Attractor is Needed

Despite the dysfunctional aspects of remaining in the NEA for long, arousal of the NEA

may serve to facilitate better performance in three ways: (1) in activating the organism (i.e.,

waking up a person and preparing one to defend themselves); (2) providing a balance for the

9

negative effects of excessive or unchecked optimism; and (3) when someone desires to stretch,

develop, or harden themselves. The primary benefit to the human of the SNS is activation and

preparation or defense (Sapolsky, 2004). Anyone teaching an early morning class to

undergraduates can attest to the importance of “activation” to wake them up at times.

The need for balance against unchecked optimism is appearing in economic and

neuroscience literature(McNulty & Fincham, 2011). Extreme optimists have been shown to

make poorer investment decisions that pessimistic counterparts because they appear to ignore

disconfirming information and miss opportunities on the “sell” side of financial investments

(Gibson & Sanbonmatsu, 2004). Studies of rats have shown that heavy activation of the Nucleus

Accumbens (i.e., a part of the brain associated with pleasure and rewards) results in greater risk

taking behavior (SFN, 2009).

Although the most important benefit of the NEA for a human is to defend itself against

threats, a major benefit to help in growth is the experience of stretching or challenging oneself

beyond a comfort zone (Norem, 2001). This process of adaptation will activate the body’s stress

response because the outcome is uncertain and the reason for the growth is either seeking novelty

or growth. Optimistic views about one’s status may result in complacency and weaken the drive

to consider a adaptation (McNulty & Fincham, 2011).

Why We Need the PEA More Than the NEA

Relationships with resonant leaders create a PEA state. Relationships with dissonant

leaders create an NEA state. These effects occur even when the leader or followers recall these

moments. In a recent study, fMRI results showed that recalling key experiences with resonant

leaders activated neural areas such as the bilateral insula, right inferior parietal lobe, and left

10

superior temporal gyrus (Boyatzis, Passarelli, Koenig, Lowe, Mathew, Stoller & Phillips, in

press). They pointed out that these regions are associated with the mirror neuron system and

default mode network. These neural networks are key to the process of interpersonal emotional

contagion in terms of spreading of emotions from one person to another within seconds or

milliseconds (Boyatzis, et. al., in press). They reported that recalling experiences with dissonant

leaders negatively activated regions associated with the mirror neuron system and those involved

in narrowing attention. At the same time, recalling moments with resonant leaders activated

neural systems associated with positive emotions and approach behavior, while recalling

moments with dissonant leaders activated neural systems associated with negative emotions and

avoidance behavior.

Emotional contagion infects others around the leader (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson,

1994). Like waves expanding from a stone tossed into a pond, the leader’s PEA helps to change

the mood and openness to new possibilities of those around him/her. Resonant leaders arouse

and activate the PEA more often than not, with most of the people around them. Arousal and

activation of the Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA) causes people to suffer cognitive,

perceptual and emotional impairment. Dissonant leader can spread NEA quickly to others.

Eventually, the NEA could permeate the organization.

The exchange of emotions is predominantly unconscious through perceptual processes

such as how we mimic each other’s facial expressions, language, and movement (Cattaneo &

Rizzolatti, 2009; Iacoboni, 2009). It occurs quickly, often within seconds or parts of a second. .

Research shows how emotional contagion from the leader affects others (Lewis, 2000;

Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). For example, Dasborough (2006) reported

employees remembered negative events (hassles) more frequently and in more detail and

11

intensity than positive events (uplifts). Bono and Ilies (2006) showed that leaders’ expressions of

positive emotions affected others’ moods. Possibly not surprisingly, they added that the

followers’ positive moods influenced the perceived effectiveness of the leader.

Using positive emotional contagion builds human capital in the organization. Peterson,

Waldman, Balthazard, and Thatcher (2008) defined leaders who build psychological capital as

those who stimulate “optimism, hope, confidence and resilience (p. 342). Using quantitative

electroencephalogram (qEEG), they showed leaders who emphasize social responsibility,

altruism, and the empowerment of various stakeholders in communicating a vision (socialized

vision) created more psychological capital. And the inverse was true-- leaders whose

communication was narcissistic, self-interested and manipulating toward a personal, not shared

vision decreased the psychological capital in the organization (Waldman, Balthazard, Peterson,

Galvin, & Thatcher, in press).

If the emotional contagion activates certain networks in the brain known as the DMN

(i.e., Default Mode Network), which is often now called the “social network” (Raichle & Snyder,

2007; Jack et. al., 2009), it helps us to consider others in our presence and their feelings. In

offering a conceptualization of two forms of empathy, Decety and Batson (2007) and Decety and

Michalska (2010) commented that the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC, which is considered part

of the social network) is more strongly activated during recognition of “other’s pain” than during

recognition of “self-pain.” In the Boyatzis et. al. (in press) study, negative activation of this

region when individuals recalled moments with dissonant leaders and contrasted this to their

reactions to resonant leaders both suggested that dissonant leaders move a person’s thoughts

more toward “self-pain” than toward thinking of others, which would be an understandable

defensive response to someone in your presence, who has power, creating a threatening

12

environment.

When the NEA is Too Much

Repeated arousal of the NEA will result in the many dysfunctional aspects of chronic

SNS arousal discussed earlier and likely lead to cognitive, perceptual and emotional impairment.

Dissonant or negative leaders affect others around them negatively and become toxic

(Frost, 2004). When a leader harangue’s the organization with threats from the competition or

attempts to create a sense of urgency through the likely negative consequences of inaction, the

consequences of their behavior may be opposite to their desired effect. People hearing the

message and feeling the threat will move into the NEA. Repetition of this arousal or escalation of

its severity will likely lead to arousal of the SNS and the resulting cognitive, emotional and

perceptual impairment.

Destructive leadership has been described as “a set of behaviors displayed consistently

over time that disturbs the organization through counterproductive behaviors aimed at the

organization, subordinates, or both” (Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007). Organizational

environments that tolerate or enable toxic leaders to remain in power erode the ability of the

organization to adapt, be resilient and perform at their best (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007).

Schaubroeck, Walumbwa, Ganster, and Kepes (2007) showed that toxic leaders negatively

affected employees’ personal well-being and commitment to the organization. This effect was

strongest when there were no compensating positive aspects of the climate. Tepper (2000) called

this “abusive supervision” and showed that, in a sample of a wide variety of jobs, abusive

supervision was associated with negative consequences, including decreased job, life

satisfaction, organizational commitment, increased work-family conflict, and psychological

13

distress.

When the PEA is Too Much

Following the earlier comments on the dysfunctional aspects of excessive optimism, we

could contend that arousing the PEA too much would result in a person not paying attention to

threats or misinterpreting symbolic threats as neutral. The openness of perceptions associated

with the activation of the social network, especially the PCC, may result in a person being easily

distracted. This lack of focus could cause a person to continue being open to new input and ideas

at a time when action convergent thinking and action is needed to be more effective.

In Search of an Experienced Balance

Neither the entreaty to be “firm and stern” from the past nor the latest to be “happy and

inspirational” will always help lead organizations to increased resilience, adaptation,

performance and growth. Perhaps the common sense wisdom, the 7th century BC philosopher

Kleovoulos of “nothing too much,” or “nothing in excess” continues to be the best guide for

leaders. The relationships created invoke others to add value or the opposite (which may be to

lose interest and energy or to detract value).

Using some of the latest research from neuroscience, psychology and management, this

paper attempted to show how arousing the Positive Emotional Attractor is important to growth

and innovation AND arousing the Negative Emotional Attractor is important to growth and

defending against threat. Because of the increased valence of negative emotions and experiences,

the best balance is one in which we overemphasize the PEA over the NEA.

14

References

Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. 1999. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect

and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3): 529-550.

Ayan, S. (2009). Laughing matters: Seeing the bright side of life may strengthen the psyche,

ease pain, and tighten social bonds. Scientific American Mind. April/May, 24-31.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the

multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of

Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than

good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.

Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective

leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly,

15, 195-210. 

Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 317-334.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2008), “Leadership development from a complexity perspective,” Consulting

Psychology Journal, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 298-313.

Boyatzis, R.E. (2011). Neuroscience and leadership: The Promise of Insights.

Ivey Business Journal, on-line January/February, 2011

Boyatzis, R. E., Jack, A., Cesaro, R., Passarelli, A. and Khawaja, M. (2010), Coaching

with Compassion: An fMRI Study of Coaching to the Positive or Negative Emotional

Attractor, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal.

15

Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting

with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Boyatzis, R.E., Passarelli, A.M., Koenig, K., Lowe, M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J.K. and Phillips,

M. ( in press), “Examination of the neural substrates activated in memories of

experiences with resonant and dissonant leaders,” The Leadership Quarterly.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through

coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Journal on Learning and Education,

5, 8-24.

Buse, K. (2011), Why They Stay: Individual Factors Predicting career commitment for Women

Engineers, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of

Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Casti, J.L. (1994) Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science

of surprise, NY: Harper Collins.

Cattaneo, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2009). The mirror neuron system. Archives of Neurology, 66, 557-

560.

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.

Clayton, B. (2009), When Practice and Theory Conflict: Do Financial Incentives Influence

Championing Behavfiors in mergers and Acquisitions?, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying

Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University,

Cleveland, OH, USA.

16

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767.

Critchley, H. D. 2005. Neural mechanisms of autonomic, affective and cognitive integration.

Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493: 154-166.

Dasborough, M.T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership

behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 79, 163-178.

Decety, J., & Batson, C. D. (2007). Social neuroscience approaches to interpersonal sensitivity.

Social Neuroscience, 2, 151-157.

Decety, J. & Michalska, K.J. (2010). Neurodevelopmental changes in the circuits underlying

empathy and sympathy from childhood to adulthood. Developmental Science, 13(6), 886-

899.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A

definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216.

Erikson, P.S., Perfilieva, E., Bjork-Eriksson, T., Alborn, A-M, Nordburg, C., Peterson, D.A., and

Gage, F.H. (1998). Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus. Nature Medicine,

4, 313-317.

Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. 1994. Positive affect improves creative problem

solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians.

Motivation and Emotion, 18(4): 285-299.

Fredrickson, B. 2009. Positivity: Groundbreaking Research Reveals How to Embrace the

Hidden Strength of Positive Emotions, Overcome Negativity, and Thrive. NY: Crown.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention

and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion,19: 313-332.

17

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward

emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13: 172–175.

Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for leaders and their organization.

Organizational Dynamics, 33, 111-127.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:

Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

Gibson, B. & Sanbonmatsu, D.M. (2004). Optimism, pessimism and gambling: The downside of

optimism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30. 149-160.

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis

and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351-374.

Gottman, J. M., Murray, J. D., Swanson, C. C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. R. 2002. The

mathematics of marriage: Dynamic non-linear models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion (studies in emotion

and social interaction). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work:

Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33, 137-162.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-

unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,

653-670.

Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

18

Insel, T. R. 1997. A neurobiological basis of social attachment. American Journal of

Psychiatry. 154: 726-735.

Jack, A., Dawson, A., Ciccia, A. Cesaro, R., Barry, K., Snyder, A., & Begany, K. (2009). Social

and mechanical reasoning define two opposing domains of human higher cognition.

Presented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Conference in Chicago, 2009. The

manuscript is currently under in-depth review in Science.

Kemp, (2011).

Khawaja, M. (2010). The mediating role of positive and negative emotional attractors between

psychosocial correlates of doctor-patient relationship and treatment of Type II diabetes.

Doctoral Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University; Cleveland, Ohio.

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, 221-234.

Lorenz, E. (1963).

Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of

business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 740-765.

Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes.

Leadership Quarterly, 20, 737-748. 

Mahon, E. (2011). Factors That Drive Employee Engagement: Organizational and Individual

Elements Interact to Intensify Employee Engagement, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying

Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University,

Cleveland, OH, USA.

McNulty, J.K., & Fincham, F.D. (2011). Beyond positive psychology: Toward a contextual view

19

of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist.

Neff, J. (2011), Non-financial Indicators of Family Firm Performance: A Portfolio Model

Approach, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of

Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Norem, J.K. (2001). The positive power of negative thinking. New York: basic Books.

Overbeke, K. (2010), Into the Family and Business nexus: Succession and Daughters in

Family Owned Businesses, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead

School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,

susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.

Peterson, S.J., Balthazard, P.A., Waldman, D.A & Thatcher (2008). Neuroscientific implications

of psychological capital: Are the brains of optimistic, hopeful, confident and resilient

leaders different?. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 342-353.

Raichle, M. E., & Snyder, A. Z. (2007). A default mode of brain function: A brief history of an

evolving idea. NeuroImage, 37, 1083-1090.

Roberts, L.M., Dutton, J.E., Spreitzer, G., Heaphy, E.D. and Quinn, R.E. (2005). Composing the.

reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work

organizations. Academy of Management Review. 30, 712-736.

Rowold, J., & Laukamp, L. (2009). Charismatic leadership and objective performance indicators.

Applied Psychology, 58, 602-621.

Russell, J.A. & Carroll, J.M. 1999. On the polarity of positive and negative affect.

Psychological Bulletin. 125(1): 3-30.

Sapolsky, R. M. 2004. Why zebra’s don’t get ulcers (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

20

Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F. O., Ganster, D. C., & Kepes, S. (2007). Destructive leader traits

and the neutralizing influence of an “enriched” job. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 236-251.

Schilbach, L., Eickhoff, S., Rotarskajagiela, A., Fink, G. & Vogeley, K. (2008). Minds at rest?

Social cognition as the default mode of cognizing and its putative relationship to the

“default system” of the brain. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 457-467.

Schulkin, J. 1999. Neuroendocrine regulation of behavior. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. 2004. Psychological stress and the human immune system:

A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4): 601-630.

Talarico, J. M., Bernstein, D., & Rubin, D. C. 2008. Positive emotions enhance recall of

peripheral details. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2): 380-398.

Tee, E.Y.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. & Paulsen, N. (2011). Upward emotional contagion and

implications for leadership: From a cognitive, leader-centric approach to an effective,

follower-centric model of leadership. Presentation at the Society of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 15, 2011.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,

43, 178-190.

Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B.M. & Thatcher, R.W. (in press).

Linking neuroscience, socialized vision, and charismatic leadership. Strategic

Management Journal.

21

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the Positive (PEA) and Negative Emotional Attractors (NEA) in Intentional Change Theory [© Richard E. Boyatzis, 2011. ]

22

Intensity of Arousal High

Intensity of Arousal Low

Neural, endocrine, & Cardiovascular markers of SNS arousal

Neural, endocrine, & Cardiovascular markers of PNS arousal

PositiveAffect

Y

X

Z

Intensity of Arousal High

Intensity of Arousal Low

Neural, endocrine, & Cardiovascular markers of SNS arousal

Neural, endocrine, & Cardiovascular markers of PNS arousal

PositiveAffect

Negative Affect

Adaptation of Lorenz equations:dx = a ( y - x)dt

dy = -xz + bx - ydt

dz = xy - czdt

a = (emotional intensity/emotional contagion)

b = (Rayleigh #/ critical Raleigh #)c = 4/(1+a2), where a = emotional

resilience

Figure 2. Two Attractors

Positive Emotional Attractor Negative Emotional Attractor

Neuro-endocrine PNS Arousal SNS arousal

Affect Positive Negative

Ideal Self Possibilities, dreams, optimism, Problems, expectations,

hope pessimism, fear

Real Self Strengths Weaknesses

Lrng Agenda Excited about trying Should do, performance

improvement plan

Experiment/ Novelty, experiments, Actions expected, things you are

Practice Practice to mastery supposed to do

Relationships Resonant Dissonant or annoying

© Richard E. Boyatzis, 2011.

23