Later published as “ Affective Events theory: A strategic perspective”. In Zerbe, W.J., Hartel, C.E.J. and Ashkanasy, N. M. (Ed.) Research on Emotion on Organizations. Volume 4: Emotions, Ethics, and Decision-Making (pp.1-34) Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing/JAI Press.

AFFECTIVE EVENTS THEORY: A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE

Claire E. Ashton-James and Neal M. Ashkanasy

Abstract

Although there has been increasing interest in the role of affect in work settings, the

impact of moods and emotions in strategic decision making remains largely unexplored. In this

essay, we address this shortcoming by proposing a conceptual model of strategic decision

making that incorporates, at its core, the impact of affective states on cognitive processes that are

integral to the decision outcome. The model is based on the principles of Affective Events

Theory, which holds that environmental exigencies generate ‘affective events’ that cause

emotional reactions in organizational members which, in turn, determine members’ attitudes and

behaviors. We extend this model to include the effect of the extra-organizational environment,

and propose that emotions ‘infuse’ those cognitive processes that are critical to the strategic

decision process. We conclude that strategic decision making in organizations is not always a

controlled, deliberate, purely cognitive process, as it is often described. Rather, we contend that

the moods and emotions that managers experience in response to positive and negative

workplace events have a significant affect on strategic decision making processes and ultimately,

organizational-level outcomes. We discuss the implications of our model for theory, research,

and practice.

KEY WORDS: Affective Events Theory; affect; emotions; strategic decision making.

AFFECTVE EVENTS THEORY: A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE

Since publication of the groundbreaking article by Pekrun and Frese (1992), the topic of emotion

and affect in organizational settings has steadily gained credence, to the point that it is now

attracting considerable attention in the mainstream management and IO psychology literature.

This is evidenced in recent special issues of journals (e.g., Ashkanasy, 2004; Fisher &

Ashkanasy, 2000; Fox, 2002; Humphrey, 2002; Weiss, 2001, 2002) and edited books (e.g.,

Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Zerbe; 2000, Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Härtel; 2002, 2005; Fineman, 1993,

2000, Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002; Payne & Cooper, 2001; Härtel, Zerbe, & Ashkanasy,

2005). Indeed, Barsade, Brief, & Spataro (2003) have gone so far as to declare that an “affective

revolution” is under way in the study of organizational behavior.

To date, however, with the notable exception of Daniels (1999, 2000), there has been

little written of the application of affect theories of organizational behavior in the context of

strategic management. Thus, although Weick (1979) asked 25 years ago, “Where’s the heat?”

(see Ray, 1995), the myth that strategic management is a cold, rational process persists. In

particular, no one to date appears to have attempted to apply some of the plethora of recent

research findings on affect and cognition to the decision-making processes that underpin

strategic management. In this article, we attempt to redress this situation by presenting a critical

review of the role played by affect in organizational settings, with a focus on the impact of affect

on the cognitive processes of strategic decision making.

Our analysis of the role played by moods and emotions in strategic decision outcomes in

organizations is based on Affective Events Theory (AET: Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) as well as

social cognitive research on affective influences on cognition and behavior (Bower, 1981;

Forgas, 2002; Schwarz & Clore, 1990). AET holds that organizational events trigger affective

responses in organizational members, with consequences for workplace attitudes, cognition, and

behavior. Although Weiss and Cropanzano developed their theory with specific reference to

micro-level attitudes and behaviors within the organization, we apply this basic model of

affective influence in organizations to strategic management. Specifically, we argue that

workplace events elicit affective responses (moods and emotions) that in turn influence both the

content and process of strategic decision-making. Thus, we offer an extension and application of

Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) Affective Events Theory to strategic management, and in

particular, strategic decision-making. In the remainder of the article, we highlight the importance

of understanding the impact of affect on strategic decision processes and set out the justification

for each component of our conceptual model starting with the antecedents of affect in

organizational settings before discussing the nature of affect and the implications of affect for

organizational cognition. Following this, we review the cognitive processes involved in strategic

decision-making in organizations. Finally, and drawing upon recent advances in affect and

cognition research, we explore the impact that individual’s affective responses to organizational

events have on organizational cognition and strategic management. We conclude with a brief

discussion of the implications of the model for theory, research, and practice.

The Central Role of Affect in Strategic Decision Making

In this essay, we deal with role of affect in strategic management, which has been defined

by Porter (1987) as “what makes the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its business

unit parts” (p. 251). In effect, strategic management concerns issues pertaining to the

fundamental nature of the organization itself and its relationships with the environment. Strategic

management therefore involves making decisions about the activities that the organization

should engage in, acquiring and divesting resources (including human resources), delineation of

the goals the organization and its members should be aiming for, and the identity and culture of

the organization itself (Asch & Bowman, 1989). A corollary of this is that strategic management

is also characterized by complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity (Rumelt, Schendel, & Teece, 1994).

Strategic decision making is manifest in various organizational contexts such as negotiation,

problem-solving, and performance-evaluation – all involving assessing organizational adaptation

to environmental demands and setting goals.

Researchers working in this tradition have highlighted several individual and

organizational factors that impact upon organizational decision-making processes, including the

power or status of the decision-maker, locus of control, success or failure expectations, and

personality types. It may be observed, however, that the impact of affect on organizational

decision processes has been largely neglected (see Daniels, 1999; Hodgkinson, 2001; Langley,

Mintzberg, Pitcher, Posada, & Saint-Macary, 1995; Neale & Northcraft, 1991). Within the

plethora of literature in this field, the lack of attention to affect in strategic decision-making is of

particular interest, since recent developments in social psychology have demonstrated that the

impact of affect on cognition is particularly salient in situations that are complex, require

substantive information processing, and especially when incomplete information is available

(Forgas, 2002). As such, strategic decision processes in organizations are likely to be

significantly influenced by the affective states of individual decision-makers.

A further characteristic of strategic management is that it is related to the need to exploit

perceived opportunities and avoid apparent threats to the attainment of organizational goals, and

the achievement of “competitive advantage” (Porter, 1987, p. 251). If organizational goals and

personal performance goals are aligned, as may be the case for top management teams,

stakeholders, and CEOs, an opportunity or threat to organizational survival may have

consequences for individual well-being, or the attainment of personal goals (Ashkanasy et al.,

2004). As such, our first objective in this essay is to argue that organizational events that have

the potential to impact upon organizational goals may induce positive or negative affective states

in organizational members for whom personal and organizational goals are aligned. We follow

this analysis with an examination of the impact of organizational members’ affective states on

strategic decision-making processes and organizational outcomes.

A Model of Affect in Strategic Management

Arising from the foregoing discussion, the model of affect in strategic management that

we propose in this article is set out diagrammatically in Figure 1. In the proposed model, intra-

organizational and extra-organizational environments generate ‘affective events’, which result in

emotional responses on the behalf of the organizational actors – in this instance, the top

management team responsible for strategic decision-making. Intra-organizational affective

events include stress-related workplace events, the physical setting, work-group characteristics,

and leader-member exchanges – ultimately all derived from the goals set in place by top

management strategic decisions. Extra-organizational affective events include (1) organizational

change events,; (2) economic, legal, and political events; and (3) inter-organizational

negotiations. The emotions that are invoked are the negative emotions of anger, disgust, and

fear/anxiety, and the positive emotions of joy and happiness. Each of these emotions has a

discrete effect on cognitive functioning which underpins strategic management and decision-

making, which is based on a process of matching organizational goals with events and

contingencies in the environment. These decisions are ultimately reflected in the nature of the

organizational goals that are set by the strategy maker for the organization as a whole which, in

turn, generate intra-organizational affective events.

Figure 1. A model of affect and cognition in strategic decision-making

We propose in particular that affective states influence the content or valence of the cognitive

processes that are involved in strategic decision making, as well as the information processing

style used to formulate strategic decisions. In the remainder of this article, we discuss each of the

elements of Figure 1 in turn, beginning with the antecedents of affect.

Antecedents of Affect in Organizational Settings

As we have noted earlier, the analysis we present here is founded on the principles of

Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The crux of AET is that elements of the

organizational environment that are perceived to facilitate or to impair an organizational

member’s progress toward workplace goals (i.e., experienced hassles or uplifts, often in response

Emotion

AngerSadnessDisgust

Fear/Anxiety

StrategicManagement

Decision-Making

StrategicManagement

Cognition

PerceptionFormulation

Implementation

Inter-organizational

negotiation

Organizationalchangeevents

Economic,legal, and

political events

Impulsiveaffect-driven

decisions

Affective Events

Emotions and

moods

Action tendencies and processing

style

StrategicOrganizational

Outcomes

StrategicDecision

Processes

PerceptionFormulation

Implementation

Intra-organizational

negotiation

Organizationalchangeevents

Economic,legal, and

political events

Impulsiveaffect-driven

decisions

Emotion

AngerSadnessDisgust

Fear/Anxiety

StrategicManagement

Decision-Making

StrategicManagement

Cognition

PerceptionFormulation

Implementation

Inter-organizational

negotiation

Organizationalchangeevents

Economic,legal, and

political events

Impulsiveaffect-driven

decisions

Affective Events

Emotions and

moods

Action tendencies and processing

style

StrategicOrganizational

Outcomes

StrategicDecision

Processes

PerceptionFormulation

Implementation

Intra-organizational

negotiation

Organizationalchangeevents

Economic,legal, and

political events

Impulsiveaffect-driven

decisions

to events derived from top managers’ strategic decisions) lead to transient positive or negative

affective responses (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). In the traditional sense of AET, however,

events are construed to be intra-organization, and include stress-related workplace events

(Folkman and Lazarus, 1984), elements of the physical setting (e.g., se Wasserman, Rafaeli, and

Kluger, 2000), work-group characteristics (see Barsade, 2000), and leader-member relationships

and exchange (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). In this essay, however, we extend Weiss and

Cropanzano’s (1996) analysis of affective events to include extra-organizational events that

impact on the organization as a whole. These are described in the following paragraphs.

Organizational change

Organizational change has been identified as a major source of stress for managers and

employees (Mack, Nelson, & Quick, 1998; Mak & Mueller, 2001; Weiss, 2002). In recent years,

researchers have studied organizational members’ emotional responses to a variety of

organizational change situations such as downsizing (Brockner, 1988; Torkelson & Muhonen,

2003), mergers (Buono & Bowditch, 1989; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991), job redesign (Mak &

Mueller, 2001), and others associated with organizational restructuring (Begley, 1998; Everly,

1999). Collectively, this research demonstrates that organizational change causes chronic

occupational stress that has carry-over effects on family functioning (Dowd & Bolus, 1998),

psychological health (Everly, 1999), physical health (Torkelson & Muhonen, 2003), job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and loyalty (Schweiger & DiNisi, 1991).There are

several social, cognitive and psychological consequences of organizational change that have a

negative impact upon employees’ affective wellbeing. Organizational restructuring is associated

with decreased job security (Ashford, Lee & Bobko, 1989; Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Härtel, 2002),

role conflict (Yousef, 2000), ambiguity and uncertainty (French, 2001), and decreased social

support as work teams are redistributed (Swanson & Power, 2001).

While the impact of organizational change on employees’ affective wellbeing is negative

in the short-term, organizational restructuring and innovation is necessary for organizations to

adapt to changing environmental demands in order to remain competitive. Furthermore, if the

outcome of organizational restructuring is increased efficiency, promotion, increased wages or

increased social support, then organizational change may have a positive impact on employee’s

affect (Begley, 1998). For example, technological change is associated with increased efficiency,

decreased administrative burden and, as a result, has been found to increase job satisfaction and

wellbeing (Begley, 1998). Affective responses during the process of organizational change are

therefore dependent upon the nature of organizational change, and exposure to or involvement in

organizational change.

While organizational change may, in the longer term, result in positive outcomes for the

organization and the personal wellbeing of its members, the majority of research suggests that

employees associate organizational change with negative emotional responses (French, 2001).

As such, we propose that organizational events, which may be economic, legal, political,

technological or socio-cultural, pose a real or perceived threat to organizational functioning, and

may impact upon the affective states of organizational participants, as these events are associated

with organizational adaptation and, consequently, change. As discussed in the following,

however, organizational events that are external to the workplace environment, and that affect

organizational performance, may have a more direct impact upon the emotions of the top

management team, for whom organizational goals are synonymous with workplace performance,

which we argue is therefore an important personal goal for these managers. Since strategic

management in organizations is primarily the responsibility of top management, it is important to

understand the impact of organizational events on the affect of top-management team members,

as it is likely to impact upon their strategic management related decisions and behaviors.

Economic, legal, and political events

Research by Loewenstein and his colleagues (Lerner, Small, & Loewesntein, 2004;

Loewenstein, 2000) has demonstrated, especially through studies of the ‘endowment effect’, that

emotional reactions to economic decisions play a central role in economic decision making and

behavior. While much of this research has focused on individual behavior, senior managers

involved in economic decisions affecting their organization are not going to be immune from the

affective consequences of their decisions. In the endowment effect, for instance (Lowenstein &

Issacharoff, 1994), “endowed” economic benefits come to be viewed as entitlements, even when

the recipient was not expecting to receive anything. Loewenstein and his colleagues have

demonstrated that this process is driven not by cognitive appraisal, but by deeply embedded

affective reactions that drive subsequent decision-making.

On the broader scale, events that impact organizations are also derived from the wider

political, legal, and economic milieu in which modern organizations exist. Venkataraman & Van

de Ven (1998), for instance, found that managers experiencing ‘environmental jolts’ experience a

range of effects, including emotional reactions, that led to a radical restructuring of business

relationships. Similarly, Kean and Tushmen (1993) reported that executive teams reacted to

environmental jolts by engaging in radical change and reorientation. Although neither of these

studies dealt with affective reactions specifically, both carry the implication that ‘jolts’ result in

spontaneous and often quite radical responses from top management that are clearly driven, at

least in the first instance, by initial affective reactions. Meyer (1982), who introduced the term

‘environmental jolt’ in a study of strategic reactions to changes in the healthcare industry,

documented reactions to the changing administrative and legal environment that were clearly

affective in their manifestation.

Inter-organizational negotiation

Inter-organizational negotiation is a process by which parties with different preferences

and goals allocate resources through interpersonal activity (Bazerman & Carroll, 1987; Pruitt &

Carnevale, 1993; Thompson, 1990). Negotiations give rise to either positive or negative affective

states depending on the extent to which the negotiating parties are achieving individual goals

(Carver & Scheier, 1990; Higgins, 1987; Ortony, Clore & Collins, 1988). As such, if the process

of negotiating a desired outcome is swifter than expected, positive affect may arise in the

negotiator. On the other hand, if the negotiator evaluates the other party’s behavior as impeding

progress towards the negotiation of desired outcomes, negative emotions emerge (Kumar, 1997).

In summary, while research in respect of affective reactions to external environmental

events is not as extensive or as detailed as the research relating to events in the internal

environment, the three aspects of the environment that we have discussed above provide

sufficient indicative evidence to justify our assertion that events external to the organization do,

indeed, constitute affective events. In particular, there are the events that are arguably likely to

have the most impact on the top management teams, who have responsibility for strategic

decision-making (e.g., as evidenced in Keck & Tushmen, 1993).

Consequences of Affective Events for Cognition and Behavior

A key component of AET is that organizational members’ cognitions and behavior at

work are much more likely to be affected by the way they feel on a moment-to-moment basis

than by stable belief systems or previously formed attitudes about those workplace events

(Fisher, 2000; Weiss, Nicholas & Daus, 1999). Furthermore, an essential property of emotions is

that they constitute ‘action tendencies’ to engage in specific forms of behavior directed towards

the reversal or maintenance of the felt affective state (Frijda, 1986). As Frijda observes,

“Emotions, then, can be defined as modes of relational action readiness, either in the form of

tendencies to establish, maintain, or disrupt a relationship with the environment or in the form of

relational readiness as such” (p.71). Weiss and Cropanzano refer to behavior that is motivated by

emotional state as being “affect-driven”, as opposed to “judgment-driven”. Typical negative

affect-driven behaviors include emotional outbursts, sensation-seeking behaviors such as risk-

taking and rule-breaking (Ashkanasy, Härtel & Daus, 2002). Research has shown, however, that

specific emotional states lead to specific action tendencies and thus different affect-driven

behavior (DeSteno, Petty, Wegener, & Rucker, 2000).

In the following section of this article, therefore, we deal with the effects of different

emotions, with reference to the specific action tendencies that each emotion has been observed to

provoke. We focus on the five basic emotions identified by Ekman (1984).1

Emotion and action tendencies

The impact of incidental emotions on an individual’s reactions to and evaluations of

unrelated events is well documented (for a review, see Loewenstein & Lerner, 2002). Although

emotions function to help the individual respond to the emotion-eliciting event, action tendencies

associated with specific emotions persist beyond the target situation, and affect behaviors in

subsequent situations (Forgas, 1995; Lerner & Keltner, 2000). It is important, therefore, to

understand how specific emotions elicited within or outside the organization may affect

behavior, cognition, and decision-making processes within the organizational context.

Anger

The emotion of anger is triggered by an event or object in the environment that is

perceived to be a demeaning offence against oneself or one’s own (Lazarus, 1991). As such,

anger provokes the action tendency to preserve or to enhance self-esteem against assault.

Although it is often inhibited for personal and social reasons, the innate action tendency in anger

is attack on the agent held to be blameworthy for the offence (Averill, 1980, 1982, 1983).

Accordingly, this action tendency is facilitated by heightened physiological arousal (increased

heart rate, adrenal secretions, sweat gland activity) in aid of action readiness.

In a state of anger, there is an increased likelihood of impulsive behavior (Parrott &

Zeichner, 2003) and social or personal risk taking (Harmon-Jones, 2003). Lerner and Keltner

(2001) found in an experimental study that angry people express more optimistic risk

assessments and display more risk-seeking behavior. This finding is consistent with Lerner and

1 Ekman also identified ‘surprise’ as a basic for of emotional expression, but notes that this is in a special category,

and distinct from the other basic emotions.

Keltner’s (2000) appraisal tendency theory, according to which anger is associated with

perceived certainty and control over the outcomes of behaviors and decisions. Alternatively,

Bushman, Baumeister, and Phillips (2001) propose that risk-taking behavior is a form of mood

repair. It may also be the case that risky decision-making associated with anger is a manifestation

of a need to exert control over the environment that has, in an unrelated incident, caused offence

or harm (Folligstad, Bradley, Helff & Laughlin, 2002).

Sadness

Sadness is triggered by a real or perceived absence or loss, or threat of loss (Ekman,

1984). Sadness, as opposed to anger, is not characterized by heightened action readiness and

physiological arousal. While anger and other emotions such as fear/anxiety and disgust are

associated with psychological engagement and activity, sadness involves resignation and

disengagement. Sadness is accompanied by the appraisal tendency for helplessness in the face of

irrevocable loss. Correspondingly, sadness evokes the implicit goal of changing personal

circumstances (Lerner et al., 2004; Loewenstein & Lerner, 2002). As such, sadness is also

associated with increased willingness to spend money compulsively (Faber & Christenson,

1996). Lerner and her associates (2004) found that experimentally induced sadness was

associated with decreased selling prices and increased buying prices. While these results were

explained in terms of a change in situation, the dispositional variable, openness to change, may

also be associated with mood repair (Erber & Erber, 2001). Furthermore, while negative affect is

generally associated with increased vigilance in behavioral decision making and increased social

motivation (Forgas, 2002), the feeling of helplessness and lack of control that is characteristic of

sadness has been found to decrease risk aversion, as the consequences of decisions are more

likely to be attributed to situational rather than personal factors (DeSteno et al., 2000).

Disgust

Disgust involves a strong, innate impulse to avoid or to be rid of something offensive.

According to Keltner and Haidt (2001), the social function of disgust is to facilitate avoidance or

removal of noxious or aversive stimuli that poses a threat to wellbeing. Accordingly, disgust is

associated with an acute psycho-physiological response and intensified action readiness,

corresponding to the strong desire to remove or to avoid stimuli that pose a threat to

psychological, social, or physical integrity (Lazarus, 1991).

As we noted above, the appraisal patterns and subsequent action tendencies triggered by

an emotion-eliciting event or object may have carry-over effects in other, unrelated situations. As

such, disgust elicited by an object or event unrelated to a workplace event may nevertheless

affect the way in which one appraises and responds to a workplace situation. Lerner et al. (2004)

recently demonstrated the way in which disgust induced by a movie could influence subsequent

financial decisions. Since disgust induces the action tendency to expel, Lerner and her colleagues

hypothesized and found that experimentally induced disgust reduced the selling prices set by

participants who owned the experimental object. This finding is consistent with findings that

disgust is associated with an increased sensitivity for threat and resistance to change (Johnson &

Tversky, 1983; Rozin, Haidt & MacCauley, 1993). As such, in an organizational setting, disgust

may affect strategic management and decision-making processes since the risks associated with

innovation or organizational change become exaggerated.

Fear/Anxiety

While fear and anxiety are not synonymous emotions, they nonetheless share a common

action tendency: avoidance or escape (Bodenhausen, Kramer & Susser, 1994; Lerner & Keltner,

2001; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Hence, the psycho-physiological correlates of these emotions

are arousal and action readiness, intensified in the case of fear. In effect, fear relates to a

knowable object, while anxiety results from ambiguity, where threat is posed by a lack of

certainty regarding future states and possible outcomes for individual wellbeing. As such, while

they share an action tendency for escape, accompanied by physiological arousal, the specific

behavioral manifestation of fear is certain avoidance (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). In a state of

anxiety, on the other hand, there is no concrete harm to avoid or to flee, and thus it is an action

tendency without a certain goal or anything specific from which to escape. As such, the

behavioral correlates of anxiety are more diffuse, and the effects of anxiety on behavior more

pervasive and enduring (Lazarus, 1991).

Fear and anxiety arise from and evoke appraisals of uncertainty and lack of situational

control. In contrast to anger, fear and anxiety are associated with pessimistic assessments of

environmental conditions. People in a state of fear and anxiety therefore tend to exhibit the

reverse action tendency; rather than demonstrating optimistic judgments of risk, they exhibit a

tendency to be risk-averse and to demonstrate pessimistic situation appraisals (Lerner & Keltner,

2000). This action tendency is best explained by the ‘affect-as-information model’ proposed by

Schwarz and Clore (1990). According to this model of behavior, emotions act as a source of

information about the environment. In this case, anxiety or fear signals environmental threat.

Thus, strategic managers feeling anxiety or fear are likely to engage in more vigilant behavioral

monitoring and to assess of risk more negatively (Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2003)

Joy/happiness

Happiness and joy are positive emotions that arise out of the attainment of a goal

(Ekman, 1984). Joy is a more intense form of happiness, and is associated with the unexpected

attainment of a personal goal. According to Lazarus (1991), it is the degree to which the goal-

congruent event is incongruent with expectations that determines the intensity of positive

emotion experienced. Happiness associated with contentment of expected outcomes is, therefore

a milder and less arousing variant; whereas joy, which extends to ecstasy, can be a powerful and

even intoxicating emotion. In this respect, intense pleasure or joy is intoxicating insofar as it

impairs cognitive functioning and behavioral inhibition (Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; Silvia,

2003). As is the case with intense negative emotions such as anger, the joyful person is in a

heightened state of physiological arousal which motivates action and facilitates impulsive

behaviors and decision-making (Isen, 2000).

A large body of work in both laboratory and organizational settings indicates that

happiness and joy promote helpful and sociable behavior towards others, reduce interpersonal

conflict and lead to a tendency towards cooperative behavior (Carnevale & Isen, 1986; Isen &

Baron, 1991; Isen, 1987). At the same time, happiness and joy are also associated with optimistic

assessments of environmental risk (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). As is the case with anger, Lerner

and Keltner (2001) found that happiness induces appraisals of certainty and perceived control

over the environment, and also that people in a happy state are more likely to make risky

decisions.

In summery of the five basic emotions discussed above, it is clear that each has an

identifiable and discrete effect on organizational members. Anger, sadness, and joy/happiness

appear to promote increased risk taking, although through different mechanisms. Disgust, fear,

and anxiety, on the other hand, appear to lead to more risk-adverse approaches. In this respect,

affective events – derived either internal to the organization or externally – have different effects

depending on which particular emotion is evoked.

Finally, we note that, while anger and joy are the emotions most likely to be associated

with impulsive emotional behavior and decisions, any of the emotions we have described can

result in impulsiveness (see Ashkanasy, 2003; Goleman, 1995). In this instance, emotional

activation may result in impulsive decision-making that short-circuits the cognitive processes

altogether –shown in Figure 1 as the dashed curved line we mentioned earlier. In addressing

strategic management and decision-making, however, there is presumption that decisions will be

made after at least a modicum of thought (although recent disclosures in the press leave even this

presumption in doubt in many instances).

Our main focus, then, is on the effects of affect on the cognitive-rational processes of

strategic decision-making. In this respect, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) note that an individual’s

affective states give rise to ‘mental readiness’ or cognitive processing tendencies that influence

judgment-driven behaviors. Judgment-driven behaviors involve the conscious evaluation of

environmental information. The key distinction between affect-driven and judgment-driven

behavior is that that judgment-driven behavior takes place in complex and ambiguous situations

that require the use of active, constructive information processing strategies. Judgment-driven

behaviors are commonly, although not necessarily, strategic. That is, they purport to maintain or

to facilitate adaptation to environmental demands. As such, individuals are motivated by the

consequences of their judgment to use controlled cognition in the formulation and

implementation of that decision. In addition, judgment-driven behaviors are those that require

actors to perceive, to integrate, and to assess complex environmental information, and involve

inferential processes that often require actors to go beyond the information given (Kelly, 1958).

In the organizational environment, examples of judgment-driven, or strategic behaviors, include

risk assessment, performance evaluation, economic transactions such as substantial acquisitions

and mergers, and other intra-organizational negotiations with consequences for organizational

performance.

While the carry-over effects of discrete emotions on affect-driven behavior are well

documented, as reviewed above, the impact of discrete emotions on strategic or judgment-driven

behavior (complex cognitive processing) is relatively less known. The majority of research into

the impact of affective states on strategic behavior has focused on the impact of positive and

negative mood states on information processing strategies used in behavioral decision-making

processes that precede strategic behavior. Positive and negative moods are associated with

different cognitive styles, which influence the strategic decision making processes and

subsequent behavior.

Mood and its Effect on Cognitive Processing

Research initially suggested that people experiencing positive affect tend to employ less

effortful and more superficial processing strategies, reach decisions more quickly, use less

information, avoid demanding, systematic thinking, and are more confident about their decisions.

In contrast, negative affect seemed to trigger a more effortful, analytic and vigilant processing

style (Isen, 1987; Schwarz, 1990).

More recent studies, moreover, have demonstrated that positive affect also produces

distinct processing advantages. People in a positive mood are more likely to adopt more creative,

open, constructive and flexible cognitive processing styles (Bless, 2000; Fiedler, 2000; Isen,

1987, 2003). Based on such evidence, Fiedler and Bless (2000) argued that the processing

consequences of affect are best understood in terms of a fundamental dichotomy between

‘accommodation’ and ‘assimilation’. Accommodation involves focusing on the demands of the

external world (Fiedler & Bless, 2000). In information processing terms, this requires exhaustive

processing and careful attention to and conservation of external stimulus material (Forgas, 2002).

Assimilation is a complementary process wherein the individual relies on well-established

internal knowledge-schemas and behavioral scripts to respond to a situation (Fiedler & Bless,

2000). In contrast to accommodation processing strategies, assimilation involves the active

cognitive elaboration and transformation of information using internal knowledge structures

(Bless, 2000; Fiedler, 2000, 2001).

Most cognitive tasks, including strategic decision-making, involve both accommodation

and assimilation in different proportions. Frijda (1986) and Higgins (2001) suggest that the

extent to which environmental information and strategic responses are deliberated corresponds to

the adaptive significance of the decision. That is, if the prospect of an actor’s decision having

aversive consequences does not pose a significant risk to organizational functioning, then

assimilative processing strategies are more likely to be employed than accommodative. Thus,

positive affective information tends to promote a more assimilative, schema-based, top-down

processing style, whereas negative affect induces a more accommodative, bottom-up, and

externally focused processing strategy (Bless, 2000; Fiedler, 2000).

Despite strong cumulative empirical support for the forgoing mood effects, experimental

research shows that these models are context-dependent. Sometimes positive and negative

affective states will not influence peoples’ thoughts, or may have incongruent mood effects

(Parrott & Sabini, 1990; Sedikides, 1994). For example, Forgas (1990, 1991) and others

(Berkowitz, Jaffee, & Troccoli, 2000; Fiedler, 1991) reported that the affective impact on

information processing strategies was easily eliminated when a response could be based on

reproducing prior reactions or when motivational goals came to dominate responding.

Research by Forgas (1995) demonstrates that the impact of positive and negative affect

on cognitive processing is also task-dependent. According to the Affect Infusion Model (AIM:

Forgas (1995), supported by substantial empirical research, the influence of transient affective

states on thoughts and subsequent behaviors depends on the way information is processed, and

the cognitive strategy by which information is processed depends upon the complexity and

familiarity of the task at hand. Clearly, this point is critical in our discussion of the role of affect

in strategic management.

The Affect Infusion Model: Mood effects depend on task complexity

The central argument of the AIM is that affect infusion should only occur in

circumstances that promote an open, constructive processing style, and that affective cognitive

processing strategies are determined by factors relating to the task, situation, person, and

affective state. Forgas (1995) identified four alternative processing strategies (described below)

that differ in terms of two basic dimensions: the degree of effort exerted in seeking an adaptive

response to the situation, and the degree of openness and constructiveness of the information

search strategy (Forgas, 1995).

The combination of these two affect cognition dimensions of quality (effort) and quantity

(constructiveness) produces four distinct processing styles: (1) direct access (low effort, closed –

not constructive), (2) motivated processing (high effort, closed), (3) heuristic processing (low

effort, open – constructive), and (4) substantive processing (high effort, open). According the

AIM, affect infusion is most likely to occur when an open processing strategy is used, such as

substantive or heuristic processing. In contrast, affect should not influence the outcomes of

closed, merely reconstructive or goal-directed decisions involving motivated or direct-access

processing (see also Forgas, 1991, 2001).

Importantly, the AIM makes the ostensibly counterintuitive prediction that affect infusion

should be greater the more substantive and constructive the information search (Forgas, 1995).

This phenomenon is explained by affective priming theory (Forgas & Bower, 1987). According

to the affect-priming model, originally conceptualized by Bower (1981), affect is an integral

component of our cognitive schemas about the social world. That is, memories for social stimuli

are associated with a particular affect value (positive or negative). As such, when in a positive or

negative affective state, and especially when experiencing a particular emotion, access to

memories, ideas, thoughts, and biases that are associated with this affective state are cognitively

primed such that access to these knowledge stores is facilitated. Affect priming in complex or

demanding situations, in which substantive processing would be used, has been confirmed in

numerous laboratory and field studies. (Fiedler & Stroehm, 1986; Forgas, 1992, 1993; Forgas &

Bower, 1987).

Now, organizational decision-making is characterized, in top management roles at least,

by high risk, complexity, and incomplete information. Organizational decision-making therefore

requires constructive, substantive processing (Daly & Wiemann, 1994). According to the AIM,

therefore, strategic decision-making in organizations, which is judgment driven, should

demonstrate ‘mood-congruent’ effects. In other words, the decision making processes of

strategic managers are likely to be affected by their current mood state. Note that this also

implies, contrary to the way that strategic management is often thought about, that strategic

management decision-making involves more, rather than less affect than decisions made at lower

levels in organizations, where the decisions are likely to be less complex and less risky.

To this point in our discussion, based on AET, we have discussed the antecedents of

affect from the perspective of intra- and extra-organizational affective events and the

consequences of affect and emotion on behavior and cognition, with a focus on top-management.

As we have already discussed, however, cognitive processes in strategic management are

complex and often involve more than one stage of thought. In the next section of this essay,

therefore, we examine in more detail the cognitive processes underpinning strategic

management. In the following section, we make more explicit the role of effect in these

processes.

Cognitive Processes in Strategic Management

In developing a framework for understanding cognitive processes involved in strategic

management, it is necessary first to define what is meant by cognition in the organizational

context, and then to distinguish between behavioral and organizational contexts. Drawing from

cognitive science (Johnson-Laird, 1983), we define cognition as a process of information

processing. Individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to their environmental information by

assimilating and accommodating external events or objects into internal symbolic representations

or mental models (Ocasio, 2001). Mental models in this context comprise working, integrated

symbolic representations of goals, data, inferences, and plans that enable the actor to interpret

and to attend to environmental stimuli, construct inferences, and ultimately to make decisions

(see Holyoak & Gordon, 1984; Ocasio, 2001).

In order to understand organizational cognition or, more specifically, cognitive processes

within organizations, we must also identify our conceptualization of organization, for there are

competing perspectives in this respect. Based on Weick (1977), we see organizations to be

defined as social systems in which the behaviors and cognitions of members are regulated and

influenced by its rules, resources, expectations, and relations. Organizational cognition,

therefore, refers to the thoughts and decisions of individuals within the organizational context,

such that the schemas, resources, expectations, and decision rules that they use to frame their

interpretation of the organizational environment are shared by all organizational members. This

is because all members of an organization share common social, cultural, economic, and physical

conditions and experiences, which ultimately shape the experiences and heuristics of the

organizational environment, and regulate or structure the way in which events are interpreted

within the organizational environment (Weick, 1977).

In the following, we describe the processes involved in strategic organizational decision

making, which are derived from models of organizational cognition. We integrate these various

processes into three phases of strategic decision-making: perception, formulation, and

implementation. While it is clear that strategic decision-making is neither rational nor linear,

research converges upon these three phases of information processing (Langley et al., 1995).

Finally, it needs to be understood that strategic decision making is an iterative process

(represented in Figure 1 by the feedback loops), so these phases may be repeated several times as

decision alternatives are implemented and adjusted as the success or failure of each alternative is

gauged (Daniels, 1999; Hodgkinson, 2001).

Perception

Perception involves two stages. First, recognition of environmental and organizational

events signals a need for organizational adaptation. The second phase involves interpretation of

the perceived signal, event, or stimulus. We deal with each stage in the following paragraphs.

Recognition

According to Weick (1979), strategic decision-making is triggered by the recognition of

an environmental event, or an opportunity or threat to the attainment of organizational goals. The

recognition of opportunity or threat requires managers to attend to fluctuations in the external

organizational environment (economic, socio-cultural, political, legal, or technological) and to

locate key issues that may influence organizational performance.

The perception of environmental events of significance to the adaptive success of the

organization is an active and constructive process (Weick, 1979). As humans, we have a limited

attention, storage and information processing capacity, which means that we cannot attend to all

available environmental information at once (March & Simon, 1958). Consequently, managers

rely on mental models, or schematized knowledge of organizational processes and organization-

environment interactions, to facilitate the recognition of potentially beneficial or threatening

organizational events (Maule & Hodgkinson, 2002). The perception of issues for strategic

consideration is thus biased by a manager’s existing strategic decision-making heuristics and

rules of responding that are based on experience of environmental patterns and exposure to

organizational norms of decision-making behavior (Ocasio, 2001).

Organizations also possess a repertoire of issue categories for making sense of the

organizational environment: problems, opportunities, and threats. Organizational participants

possess a cultural repertoire of possible problems, opportunities, and threats that have been

encountered in the past, both by the organization and in its environment (Hutchins, 1995; Schein,

1985). As cultural products, the issues that are recognized by the organization are reflected in the

technology, archives, documents, education, vocabulary, experience, and narratives that are

constitute individuals, and collectively, organizational memory (Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

Interpretation

Bias in judgment and decision-making processes is not exclusive to the recognition of

environmental events or perception of risk. Once attention is focused upon the event, the

significance or meaning of that event must be interpreted, and the risk associated with the event

assessed (Daniels, 1999). That is, it must be considered whether the stimuli is of adaptive

significance, in the sense that failure to respond to the event will result in a failure to meet

organizational goals. Furthermore, the extent of the opportunity or threat to the organization

posed by the perceived event must be assessed. This process of evaluating the strategic

significance of the environmental events determines the extent to which organizational resources

will be allocated and expended in the formulation of a strategic response (Hodgkinson, 2001).

Formulation

After perceiving the issue, the next phase of cognition involves formulation of a decision

approach. Like perception, this phase also involves two sequential stages: (1) information search

and (2) information evaluation. We discuss each of these stages next.

Information search

Information search is the process whereby information – required to respond accurately

to the event – is obtained, and a range of alternative decision responses are generated. In order to

generate accurate and effective responses to the opportunity or threat, the costs and benefits, and

associated risk of each decision alternative must be considered. Information search involves the

retrieval of new and stored information regarding the organizational event. Information is

retrieved from levels of the organizational memory, including individual memory or knowledge

bases, group memory, and institutional memory (Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

A critical aspect of information search is that, like issue recognition and interpretation, it

is limited by attentional capabilities and resources (Ocasio, 2001; Pashler, 1998; Simon, 1976).

Information search in organizations is therefore affected by selectivity or direction, and intensity

or effort involved in the search (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Kahneman, 1973). Information searches

are exhaustive, limited by resource constraints and informational source constraints. Thus the

information that is retrieved is biased by method and extent of the search.

Information evaluation

Information evaluation is next phase of strategic formulation. It is the process by which a

strategic response is formulated in light of the available information. Information is evaluated,

and integrated into the formulation of a strategy. In effect, the decision-maker needs to decide

upon a preferred strategy amongst the feasible and available alternatives identified in the

information search phase. In this respect, Scott and Bruce (1995), define four styles of

evaluation: (1) rational, (2) intuitive, (2) dependent, or (4) avoidant. Using a rational evaluation

style, the decision-maker evaluates alternatives using defined criteria to determine the optimal

solution (Simon, 1987). In the intuitive approach, evaluation of alternatives is based upon

hunches of heuristics, although these can be affected by inherent biases (Tversky & Kahneman,

1983). The dependent style involves consultation with others, while the avoidant style implies

procrastination. Choice of evaluation style is affected situational contingencies, including

affective states. Beach and Mitchell (1978), for example, propose that choice of an analytical

approach depends on the availability of analytical tools. Finally, dispositional traits can also play

an important role in determination of the evaluation approach (Gallen, 1997).

Implementation

The implementation of a strategic organizational response to environmental demands

requires the coordination of several individuals, groups, and leaders (Porter, 1987). In the same

way that the implementation of a behavioral response requires attentional resources to coordinate

action, an organizational response requires the careful attention of management to monitor the

progress of implementation to maintain progress toward the intended goal. Implementation of

strategic decisions is an iterative process that, in itself, involves strategic decision processes,

similar to those we have outlined above (Daniels, 1999). Managers must perceive the impact of

decision implementation on the organizational environment, recognizing and interpreting issues

as they arise, and in response to issues of implementation, managers must formulate alternative

responses, based on information search and evaluation.

Having established to this point the primary phases of cognition involved in strategic

decision-making, the question arises as to the impact of on this process. We address this in the

following section.

The Impact of Affect on Strategic Decision-Making

As we have already pointed out, strategic management and decision making involves

substantive and constructive information processing of novel and ill-structured information in

order to deal with events and contingencies in the organization’s environmental milieu.

Therefore substantive information processing strategies are likely to be used (although we do

allow for the possibility of impulsive affect-driven decisions, as discussed earlier). Hence, in

accordance with the AIM, it affect is likely to impact on the strategic decision making processes

of perception, formulation, and implementation in a fashion congruent with the particular

affective and emotional frame of the decision-making context.

The Influence of Affect on Perceptions

As discussed above, a strategic manager’s perceptions (recognition and interpretation) of

organizational issues depend upon attentional resources and mental models. While temporary

affective states do not alter existing mental models, they can bias allocation of attention to the

interpretation of potential environmental risks. Negative affect, for example, can make the actor

more likely to recognize negative environmental events (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, &

Webster, 1988). Furthermore, negative affect is associated with mood-congruent, negative

interpretations of environmental cues. For example, Forgas (1998) found that positive mood

produces more positive and optimistic attitudes about the success of the negotiation process,

while negative affect leads to a pessimistic interpretation of progress towards the achievement of

personal goals of the negotiation, and a negative attitude towards negotiating partners.

Consequently, managers in a positive affective state may be more optimistic about the

consequences of organizational events and perceive less environmental threat (Bower, 1981,

1991; Isen, Shalker, Clark & Karp, 1978; Schwarz & Clore, 1983). Similarly, such managers are

less likely to interpret environmental events as potential threat and more likely to interpret events

as opportunities (Forgas, 1995, 1998).

The Influence of Affect on Formulation

Positive and negative affect have systematic effects on the interpretation of decision-

relevant cues such that decision-makers selectively attend to, encode, and retrieve emotion-

relevant information (Bower, 1981, 1991; Neidenthal & Setterlund, 1994). Forgas (1989, 1995)

suggests that positive and negative affect also determines the nature of subsequent processing,

and the effort (quality) and attentional resources (quantity, or depth of processing) allocated to

the information processing task (see also Forgas & Moylan, 1991). For example, studies by

Basso, Schefft, Ris, and Dember, (1996) and Conway and Giannopoulos (1993) found that

people in negative mood states had a narrowed attentional focus, and are more goal-directed,

than people in a positive affective state. In their research, people in a negative affective state

were motivated to spend more time and attentional resources on information search and

consideration of alternatives than people in a positive affective state, considered fewer

alternatives, and evaluated decision alternatives more rapidly.

Several theorists have posited that negative emotions trigger more systematic processing

than positive emotions (Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz & Bless, 1991; Shapiro & Spence, 1997;

Simon, 1987). As discussed earlier, the affect-as-information model of affective influences on

information processing explains this phenomenon in terms of the signal value of feelings. That

is, negative emotions signal that threat is near, and that attentional resources need to be allocated

to the situation, whereas positive emotions signal that ‘all is well’. In line with this theoretical

perspective, several studies have found that negative moods are associated with vigilant,

substantive, and thorough information processing (Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995),

where as happiness is associated with heuristic processing (Forgas, 1998). For example,

Bodenhausen et al., (1994) found that happiness increased reliance on the use of stereotypes,

which indicated categorical and less substantive processing, or assimilative, rather than

accommodative processing.

As such, positive and negative affective states can impact upon depth of information

search, and depth of processing and evaluation of that information. Managers in a positive

affective state, therefore, would be expected to engage minimal resources in information search

in order to discover or to understand the nature of organizational issues and possible responses,

whereas managers in a negative affective state are more likely to engage in a more extensive and

thorough search for knowledge regarding the problem, generate more decision alternatives, and

evaluate these alternatives more carefully.

The evaluation of decision alternatives is also influenced by mood. In the evaluation of

choice decisions, Johnson and Tversky (1983) and others (Mittal & Ross, 1998; Nygren, 1998)

have found systematic evidence to suggest that people in a positive affective state are more likely

to choose a risky alternative with high possible gain, whereas people in a negative affective state

are more risk aversive (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Note, however, as we discussed earlier, this can

often depend on the particular emotion represented within the affect circumplex.

The Influence of Affect on Implementation

Several researchers have shown that people in a negative affective state tend to

demonstrate more vigilant behavioral monitoring and self-regulation than people in a positive

affective state (e.g., see Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003). This relationship is, however, moderated

by intensity of affect. Anger and joy, for example, are opposite in valence (negative and

positive). They are, however, similar in intensity and, as found by Lerner and Keltner (2001),

both are associated with illusion of control and certainty. Consequently, both anger and joy are

associated with impaired behavior and self-regulation, and limited behavioral self-monitoring.

Finally, in an organizational setting, affect may influence the attentional resources

managers allocate to monitoring organizational processes. In a state of positive affect, managers

may be less vigilant in their monitoring of decision-implementation, whereas managers in a

negative affective state are more likely to expect, to recognize, and to interpret implementation

procedures if they are seen to be awry.

In summary, through processes of affective priming and affect-as-information, moods

and emotions directly impinge upon all aspects of cognitive functioning underlying strategic

decision-making. This includes the perception, facilitation, and implementation stages of

decision-making cognition. In the next and final substantive section of our review, we discuss the

effect of two variables of personal disposition – trait affect and emotional intelligence.

Conclusions and Implications

In this essay, we have presented a model of affect in strategic management and, more

specifically, in the strategic decision-making process. The model is based on the principles of

AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), where environmental events trigger affective responses that,

in turn, affect cognitive and behavioral outcomes. We have extended the idea of AET to the

realm of strategic management by incorporating extra-organizational events, along with intra-

organizational events in the theory. In our model, moods and emotions influence the cognitive

decision processes that underlie strategic management through by affecting the valence of

environmental evaluations, as well as information processing style. Strategic management is

fundamentally a process of cognitive and ostensibly rational decision-making. The argument that

we present is that the persistent view that strategic management relies entirely on cold, rational,

cognitive analysis is deficient in view of the pervasive effect that emotions and affect on

cognition. As Ashkanasy (2003) has pointed out, human cognitive functioning is ultimately at

the mercy of unconscious processes of emotion based in the neurobiology of the human limbic

system.

The model that we present, however, is not meant to be a comprehensive explanation of

the role of affect in strategic management. Indeed, many of the components of the theory, while

based in extensive research in psychology, organizational behavior, and behavioral economics,

have not yet been tested in the specific context of strategic management. Indeed, it is not hard to

think of a raft of personal and environmental factors that could be included in the model (e.g.,

see Gallen, 1997, for discussion of the effects of personal ‘cognitive style’ in strategic

management). Instead, our aim has been to incorporate those factors that can be derived from the

literature that bear direct relevance to the affect-cognition process, with a focus on organizational

settings. As such, we believe that the model we present in this essay has implications for theory,

research, and practice.

Theories of strategic management have traditionally focused on behavioral and cognitive

aspects of decision-making (Hodgkinson, 2001). Although some theorists, especially in

organization cognition (e.g., Weick, 1979), have bemoaned the lack of an affective component to

functionalist models of strategic management, only critical management scholars (e.g., Mumby

& Putnam, 1992; van Maanen & Kunda, 1989) have addressed the issue of emotion in strategy

formulation, but then only from a broad perspective that does not help to explain the fundamental

processes of human cognition that actually drive decision-making in the context of strategic

management. In this respect, we believe that the model we present in the present article

represents an initial attempt to identify the “heat” in managerial cognition and strategic

management that Weick (1979) spoke of, albeit within the limitations we outline above.

Although based on a wide body of research in emotion and affect in the social

psychology literature, the ideas that we put forward in this article are largely untested in the

context of strategic management. Perhaps the best known research team (and cited frequently in

this essay) is that led by George Loewenstein at Carnegie-Mellon University, although this

research tends to be more in the domain of experimental behavioral economics, rather than

addressing the larger picture of strategic management. In this respect, researchers are going to

need to venture more into field settings, making use of qualitative data collection, think-aloud

protocols, and diary studies.

Many of the basic tenets of the theories we have presented in this article are still subject

to empirical confirmation, but they are also based principally on evidence obtained in rigorous

research. For example, the AIM has been tested by Forgas and his associates in a variety of

settings (Forgas, 1998; Forgas, 1999; Forgas & Moylan, 1981), and shown to be a robust and

illuminating model of reality. Similarly, research based on AET has consistently supported the

core idea of the theory, that emotion mediates the effect of environmentally derived affective

events on organization members’ attitudes and behaviors (e.g., see Weiss et al., 1999; Weiss &

Beal, 2005). In this case, we believe that the accumulating weight of evidence is already

breaking down the myth that strategic management is somehow immune from the “irrationality”

of affect and emotion. In this instance, although we disagree with the models of emotional

intelligence postulated by Goleman (1995, 1998), at least he and his colleagues are acquainting

managers with the need to understand that their decisions and attitudes are ‘infused’ with

emotion, and that understanding the role of emotion and how to manage it is a critical ingredient

for a deeper and more productive understanding strategic management.

References

Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803-829.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F. Dansereau and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, vol. 2: Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy (pp. 9-54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (ed.) (2004). Special issue on emotion and performance. Human Performance, 17(2).

Ashkanasy, N. M., Ashton-James, C. E., & Jordan, P. J. (2004). Performance impacts of appraisal and coping with stress in workplace settings: The role of affect and emotional intelligence. In P. Perrewe & D. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and wellbeing, vol. 3: Emotional and psychological processes and positive intervention strategies (pp. 1-43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, S. D. (2002). Emotion in the Workplace: The New Challenge for Managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1), 76-86.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 307-338.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. (eds.) (2000). Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W., & Härtel, C. E. J. (eds.). (2002). Managing emotions in the workplace. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W.J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (Eds.) (2005). Research on Emotion in Organizations, Volume 1: Affect and its effects in organizational settings. Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38(11), 1145-1160.

Barsade S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Basso, M. R., Schefft, B., Ris, M. D., & Dember, W. N. (1996). Mood and global-local visual processing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2(3), 249-255.

Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. (1987). Negotiator cognition. Research in Organizational behavior, 9, 247-288.

Bazerman, M. H., & Lewicki, R. J. (1985). Contemporary research directions in the study of negotiations in organizations: A selective overview. Journal of Occupational behavior, 6(1), 1-17.

Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 439-449.

Becker, T. (2003). Is Emotional intelligence a viable concept? Academy of Management Review, 28, 192-195.

Begley, T. (1998). Coping strategies as predictors of employee distress and turnover after an organizational consolidation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 305-330.

Berkowitz, L., Jaffee, S., Jo, E., & Troccoli, B. (2000). On the correction of feeling-induced judgemental biases. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 131-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bodenhausen, G., Kramer, G. P., & Suesser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 621-632.

Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129-148.

Bower, G. H. (1991). Mood congruity of social judgments. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments. International series in experimental social psychology (pp. 31-53). Elmsford: Pergamon Press.

Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 193-198.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures and organizations. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 17-32.

Carnevale, P. J., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 1-13.

Carver, C. S. (2001). Affect and the functional bases of behavior: On the dimensional structure of affective experience. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 345-356.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-52). New York: Guilford Press.

Conway, M., & Giannopoulos, C. (1993). Dysphoria and decision-making: Limited information use for evaluations of multiattribute targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 613-623.

Daly, J. A., & Weimann, J. M. (1994). Strategic interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Daniels, K. (1999). Coping and the job-demands-control-support model: An exploratory model. International Journal of Stress Management, 6(2), 125-144.

Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53(2), 275-294.

Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 615-634.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence please stand up? On deconstructing the emotional intelligence ‘debate’. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 41 (2): 69-72

DeSteno, D., Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Rucker, D. D. (2000). Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: The role of emotion specificity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78, 397-416.

Diamond, L. M. & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Integrating diverse developmental perspectives on emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 27 (1), 1-6.

Dowd, S. B., & Bolus, N. E. (1998). Stress resulting from change and restructuring: A cognitive approach. Family and Community Health, 21(2), 70-78.

Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319 – 343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Erber, M. W., & Erber, R. (2001). The role of motivated social cognition in the regulation of affective states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), handboof of affect and social cognition (pp. 275-290). Manwah, NJ: LEA.

Everly, G. S. (1999). "Syntonic change": A mental health perspective on avoiding the crisis associated with change in organizations. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 1(4), 217-218.

Faber, R. J., & Christenson, G. A. (1996). In the mood to buy: Differences in the mood states experienced by compulsive buyers and other consumers. Psychology and Marketing, 13(8), 803-820.

Fiedler, K. (1991). Heuristics and biases in theory formation: On the cognitive processes of those concerned with cognitive processes. Theory and Psychology, 1(4), 407-430.

Fiedler, K. (2000). Illusory correlations: A simple associative algorithm provides a convergent account of seemingly divergent paradigms. Review of General Psychology, 4(1), 25-54.

Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective influences on social information processing. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 163-185). Manwah, NJ: LEA.

Fiedler, K., & Bless, H. (2000). The formation of beliefs at the interface of affective and cognitive processes. In N. H. Frijda & A. Sorrentino and R. Manstead (Eds.), Emotions and belief: How feelings influence thoughts. Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 144-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fiedler, K., & Stroehm, W. (1986). What kind of mood influences what kind of memory? The role of arousal and information structure. Memory and Cognition, 14(2), 181-188.

Fineman, S. (ed.) (1993). Emotion in Organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Fineman, S. (ed.) (2000). Emotion in Organizations (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications.

Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185-202.

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (eds.) (2000). Special issue on emotions in work life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (3).

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466-475.

Follingstad, D.R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M. & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament and need for control. Violence and Victims, 17 (1), 35-48.

Forgas, J. P. (1989). Mood effects on decision-making strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 197-214.

Forgas, J. P. (1990). Affective influences on individual and group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(5), 441-453.

Forgas, J. P. (1991). Affective influences on partner choice: Role of mood in social decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 708-720.

Forgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocess model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 227-275). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Forgas, J. P. (1993). Affect, appraisal and action: Towards a multiprocess framework. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Perspectives on anger and emotion. Advances in social cognition (Vol. 6, pp. 89-107). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Forgas, J. P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 565-577.

Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13(1), 1-28.

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53-60.

Forgas, J. P., & Moylan, S. J. (1991). Affective influences on stereotype judgements. Cognition and Emotion, 5(5-6), 379-395.

Fox, S. (ed.) (2002). Special issue on emotions in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 12 (2).

Fox, S. & Spector, P. 2000. Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It's not all just ‘G’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 203-220

French, R. (2001). "Negative capability": Managing the confusing uncertainties of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(5), 480-492.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Frijda, N. H. (2000). Emotions. In K. Pawlik & M. R. Rosenweig (Eds.), International handbook of psychology (pp. 207-222). London: Sage.

Gallen, T. (1997). The cognitive style and strategic decisions of managers. Management Decisions, 35, 541-551.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam books.

Härtel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (eds.) (2005). Emotions in organizational behavior. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Higgins, T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.

Hodgkinson, G. P. (2002). Cognitive processes in strategic management: Some emerging trends and future directions. In N. Anderson & D. S. Ones & H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 416-440). London: Sage.

Holyoak, K. J., & Gordon, P. C. (1983). Social reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 881-887.

Humphrey, R. H. (ed.) (2002). Special issue on emotions and leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5).

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 203-253). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Isen, A. M. (2000). Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(3), 184-187.

Isen, A. M. (2002). Positive Affect, Systematic Cognitive Processing, and Behavior: Toward Integration of Affect, Cognition, and Motivation. In F. Dansereau and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, vol. 2: Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy (pp. 55-62). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 1-12.

Johnson, E., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20-31.

Johnson-laird, P. N. (1983). A computational analysis of consciousness. Cognition and Brain Theory, 6(4), 499-508.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, & N. M., Härtel, C. E. J. (2003). The case for emotional intelligence in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 195-197.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27, 361-372.

Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 67-98

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review, 80(4), 237-251.

Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1314-344

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 505-521.

Kumar, R. (1997). The role of affect in negotiations: An integrative review. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(1), 84-100.

Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision-making: A view from the black stool. Organizational Science, 6(3), 260-279.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. London: Oxford University Press.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.

Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A. and Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carry-over effects of emotions on economic transactions. Psychological Science, 15, 337-341.

Loewenstein, G. & Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source-dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 157-168.

Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 90, 426-32.

Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2002). The role of affect in decision-making. In R. Davidson & K. Scherer & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Science (pp. 619-642). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (eds.) (2002). Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1995). Effects of self-focused rumnation on negative thinking and interpersonal problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 176-190.

Mack, D. A., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1998). The stress of organizational change: A dynamic process model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(2), 219-232.

Mak, A. S., & Mueller, J. (2001). Negative affectivity, perceived occupational stress, and health during organizational restructuring: A follow-up study. Psychology and Health, 16(1), 125-137.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford: Wiley.

Maule, A. J., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2002). Heuristics, biases and strategic decision-making. Psychologist, 15(2), 68-71.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

Meyer, A. D. Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 515-537.

Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (1998). The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(3), 298-324.

Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. A. 1992. The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465-486

Niedenthal, P. M., & Setterlund, M. B. (1994). Emotion congruence inperception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(4), 401-411.

Nygren, T. E. (1998). Reacting to perceived high-risk and low-risk win-lose opportunities in a risky decision-making task: Is it framing or affect or both? Motivation and Emotion, 22(1), 73-98.

Ocasio, W. (2001). How do organizations think? In T. Lant & Z. Shapira (Eds.), Organizational cognition: Computation and interpretation (pp. 39-60). Manwah, NJ: LEA.

Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Parrott, G., & Sabini, J. (1990). Mood and memory under natural conditions: Evidence for mood incongruent recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 321-336.

Pashler, H. E. (1988). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Payne, R. L., & Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2002). Emotions at work: Theory, research, and applications for management. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2001.

Pekrun, R. & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, volume 7 (pp. 153-200). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Porter, M. E. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65 (3), 251-265.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Rafaeli, A., & Kluger, A. (2000). Affective reactions to physical appearance. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 141-155). Westport, CT: Quorum books.

Ray, J. M. (1995). “Where’s the heat?” Weick’s and Jung’s perspectives on sensemaking and feeling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.

Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (1993). Disgust. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 575-594). New York: Guilford Press.

Rumelt RP, DE Schendel and DJ Teece (1994). Fundamental Issues in Strategy. In R. P. Rumelt, D. E. Schendel, & D. J. Teece (eds.), Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda (pp. 9-47). Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Schein, V. E. (1985). Organizational realities: The politics of change. Training and Development Journal, 39(2), 37-41.

Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561). New York: Guilford Press.

Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of affective states on analytic reasoning. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments. International series in experimental social psychology (pp. 55-71). Elmsford: Pergamon Press.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3-4), 296-303.

Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 818-831.

Sedikides, C. (1994). Incongruent effects of sad mood on self-conception valence: it's a matter of time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 161-172.

Shapiro, S., & Spence, M. (1997). Managerial intuition: A conceptual and operational framework. Business Horizons, 40 (1), 63-69.

Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd edition). New York: Free Press.

Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57-64.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.

Staw B. M., & Barsade S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: a test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 304-328.

Swanson, V., & power, K. (2001). Employees' perceptions of organizational restructuring: The role of social support. Work and Stress, 15(2), 161-178.

Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 515-532.

Torkelson, E., & Muhonen, T. (2003). Coping strategies and health symptoms among women and men in a downsizing organization. Psychological Reports, 92(3), 899-907.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.

Venkataraman, S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1998). Hostile environmental jolts, transaction set, and new business. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 231-256.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57-91.

Wasserman, V., Rafaeli, A., & Kluger, A.N. (2000). Aesthetic symbols as emotional cues. In, S. Fineman (ed.), Emotions in organizations (Second Edition, pp. 140-166). London: Sage Publications.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Towards a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

Weick, K. E. (1977). Organizational design: Organizations as self-designing systems. Organizational Dynamics, 6(2), 30-46.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, NJ: Addison-Wesley

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Introductory comments: Antecedents of emotional experiences at work. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 1-2.

Weiss, H. M. (ed.) (2001). Special issue – Affect at work: Collaborations of basic and organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86, (1).

Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflection on affective events theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (eds), Research on emotion in organizations, volume 1: The effect of affect in organizational settings. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18,1-74.

Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 1-24.