Emotions and Organizational Governance

Keywords: Negative emotions; affective events; leadership; attachment theory; caregiving; qualitative

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

While short-term negative emotions can be functional for individuals and organizations, for example, stimulating learning and creativity (Clancy, Vince, & Gabriel, 2011), their accumulation over time is associated with burnout, job dissatisfaction, and counter-productive work behavior (Fisher, 2000; Kahn, 1993; Spector & Fox, 2002). In the leadership context, negative emotions can cause immediate and enduring damage to the quality of leader-follower exchange relationships (Gooty et al., 2010) since followers more easily recall negative than positive emotions in interactions with leaders (Dasborough, 2006), and negative interactions have a much stronger, adverse effect on mood (Miner, Glomb, & Hulin, 2005). Moreover, negative emotions in the leader-follower dyad can transfer to team members, and ultimately shape organizational affective climate and collective attitudes toward the leader (Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009). Yet, negative emotions in the leadership context have been largely overlooked and development of explanatory theory is extremely limited (Gooty et al., 2010). While established leadership theories highlight the value of emotions in the influence process, they do not adequately elaborate underlying mechanisms that connect perceived leader behaviors to followers’ emotional responses (Bono et al., 2007; Hernandez et al., 2011).

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) can potentially illuminate the underlying, interpersonally embedded dynamics untapped by leadership theories (Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000). Repeated interactions with significant others become internalized as working models (attachment orientations) of the dependability of others, and the worthiness of the self in relationships (Bowlby, 1973). Positive beliefs and expectations about others and oneself constitute secure attachment orientation; insecure attachment orientation is indicated by negative views of others’ trustworthiness (avoidant attachment), or one’s own relational self-worth (attachment anxiety) (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Attachment orientations guide emotions, cognition, and behavior in social interactions (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

There has been relatively limited attention to attachment in organizations (Richards & Schat, 2011) and despite growing interest attachment in leadership remains an emergent perspective (Game, 2011). As with leadership research in general, quantitative, leader-centric approaches dominate attachment research (Game, 2011; Parry et al., 2014). Typically, attachment security is associated with greater leadership potential (Popper & Amit, 2009) and leader effectiveness (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Johnson, 2000). More recently, multi-level studies have examined joint and interactive effects of leader and follower attachment orientations (Kafetsios et al., 2013; Richards & Hackett, 2012). These studies reveal emotion regulation moderates follower affective and relational outcomes but other socio-cognitive processes such as attributions, and the nature of interpersonal events evoking emotions, are under-explored (Game, 2008; Kafetsios et al., 2013). In the present study we extend this existing research by using an attachment theory framework to explore followers’ perceptions and attributions in negative affective events in the leadership dyad.

Leader and follower attachment orientations are commonly assumed to be global, trait-like, relatively stable characteristics that predict social and emotional functioning across time and relationships (Game, 2011; Kafetsios et al., 2013). While this approach is valuable in its own right (Fraley et al., 2011), a growing body of social psychological research shows that attachment orientations are also relationship-specific – varying across relationship contexts with only modest inter-correlations (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2007). Relationship-specific attachment orientations are connected to global orientations (Fraley, 2007) but primarily reflect an accumulation of relationship episodes with a particular partner (Cozzarelli, Hoekstra, & Bylsma, 2000; Fraley et al., 2011). Compared with global measures, self-report measures of attachment that specify a focal relationship (instead of generic “others”) are much stronger predictors of relationship outcomes (Fraley et al., 2011). In light of this we build on earlier research (Game, 2008) to explore, for the first time to our knowledge, associations between followers’ leader-specific attachment orientations and experiences of “real life” negative affective events in current leadership relationships.

Central to an attachment theory perspective of follower emotions in the leadership relationship is perceived leader caregiving. Caregiving interactions in childhood determine attachment (in)security (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) which in turn shapes adult relational functioning (Bowlby, 1973). In adult romantic relationships, partner caregiving similarly shapes partner-specific attachment orientations (Collins & Ford, 2010). Mayseless and Popper (2007) built on these foundations to propose that leadership is essentially a caregiving relationship. However, the connection between followers’ perceptions of leader caregiving, and followers’ leader-specific attachment orientations, remains relatively unexplored both theoretically and empirically. This is remarkable given that caregiving is fundamental to the development of attachment orientations. Hence, in the present study we undertake a preliminary exploration of these associations.

In sum, emerging theory and research on attachment and emotions in leadership is dominated by quantitative, leader-centric approaches based on assumed trait-based attachment orientations that, so far, neglect processes that may influence negative emotions such as perceived leader caregiving, interpersonal events, and follower attributions. To begin to address these gaps, we adopt a qualitative approach to explore how followers’ leader-specific models of attachment reflect subjective histories of perceived leader caregiving in their line-manager relationships. Second, we examine how followers (with secure vs. insecure leader-specific attachment orientations) interpret and respond emotionally to perceived negative interpersonal events in their leadership relationships.

METHOD

Context and Participants

The context of the study was an NHS Hospital Trust in the United Kingdom. Patient care was organized within a ward-based organizational structure. In each ward, the nursing team was led by a ward manager (also known as “nursing team leader”). Ward managers have a significant leadership role and function as the interface between organizational management structures and front-line delivery of care (Royal College of Nursing [RCN], 2009). Nurses described working under constant pressure to achieve targets for patient care and bed usage, constrained by budget cuts and limited resources. We expected that the ward leadership structure, and demanding conditions, would render salient the role of the ward manager (hereafter referred to as leader) as a key organizational “caregiver.” Furthermore, in caring occupations, working with others who are vulnerable or dependent evokes and strengthens carers’ own need for support (Kahn, 1993). Overall, the research setting was judged to constitute a relevant leader-follower context in which development and activation of nurses’ leader-specific attachment schema, and care-seeking instincts (i.e., for support and advice from the ward manager), could be expected.

Participants were 24 nurses, each with a different ward manager. Hence data were collected concerning follower perceptions in 24 different leader-follower relationships. Length of leader-follower relationship ranged from 9 months to 12 years (mean = 2.8 years). Seven individuals (six female) were securely attached to their leaders; eight individuals (seven female) were anxiously attached; and nine individuals (eight female) were classed as avoidant. The final sample size was guided by the “saturation principle” (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that is, no further participants were recruited after the point at which mostly familiar themes emerged in interviews. Although quantitative approaches typically focus on avoidance and attachment anxiety only (see Brennan et al., 1998), we included a secure group as a benchmark for comparison.

Procedure

A qualitative approach was adopted in order to obtain rich, contextualized information concerning followers’ perceptions of leader behaviors, as well as details of relationship events and specific attributional and emotional responses to them. The focus of the study was on leader-specific attachment only. Relationship-specific attachment schema are easily primed and activated by imagining or naming the focal relationship (Baldwin et al., 1996). Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that leader-specific attachment schema should be the most salient, accessible and relevant when a current ward manager was the focus of the interview (Fraley et al., 2011). Participants’ relationship-specific attachment (in)security in their ward manager dyads was assessed via a supervisor-specific relational models measure (Game, 2008). Avoidance has six items (e.g., I prefer not to show my supervisor how I feel deep down) and Attachment Anxiety five items (e.g., I sometimes wonder if I’m my supervisor’s favorite employee) and a seven-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphas were .85 and .68, respectively. Secure attachment equates to low scores on both scales (Game, 2008). Based on scale scores (obtained one month before, as part of a larger quantitative survey), we assigned participants to one of three interview groups: anxiously attached, avoidant, and secure. This nonrandom approach enabled targeted selection of cases most likely to illuminate the phenomena of interest, so reducing the required sample size (Kemper, Stringfield, & Teddlie, 2003).

We explored nurses’ perceptions of caregiving in the current leadership relationship (RQ1) using semi-structured interviews. Additionally, because of the event-based nature of emotions, the Critical Incident Technique (CIT, Flanagan, 1954) was appropriate for exploring differences in negative affective events and followers’ responses (RQ2) (Dasborough, 2006; Gooty et al., 2010). CIT focuses on significant events selected by the participant, and how they relate to context and outcomes (Chell, 1998). While qualitative research on emotions in leadership is rare (Dasborough, 2006) previous studies support using CIT as a means of eliciting event-based narratives (Atwater, Camobreco, Dionne, Avolio, & Lau, 1997; Dasborough, 2006). Critical incident narratives were elicited by asking participants about: An occasion in the previous 12 months when “your ward manager said or did something to you that made you experience negative emotions” (i.e., an event); why they thought their supervisor behaved in that way (i.e., attributions); and how they felt at the time (i.e., emotions). Interviews were conducted “blind” regarding attachment orientations, lasted 45–60 minutes, and were audio-recorded with consent.

Coding and Analysis

Interviews were fully transcribed, and analyzed using template analysis (King, 1998). A template (coding scheme) was developed a priori from the literature review and research questions, and iteratively from emerging themes in the data (King, 1998). For example, preliminary coding of perceived leader caregiving drew upon the literature (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Kahn, 1993, 1998) and we expanded or merged categories as necessary. Overall, however, the final caregiving themes corresponded well to the a priori themes. Experiences of negative affective events (RQ2) were coded for incident content and attachment themes. Attribution coding focused on the locus and stability of the cause of the event (i.e., causal attributions), and intentionality of the perpetrator (i.e., responsibility-blame attributions) (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). Emotional reactions were coded according to type and intensity.

Analysis focused on identifying similarities and differences in themes between groups. Hence, for both research questions, a within- and between-group qualitative comparison process was conducted. Additionally, a more holistic, narrative-based approach was adopted to analyze accounts of negative affective events (see Boudens, 2005). Comparisons were made across whole cases or narratives (i.e., an affective event and its accompanying relational context, interpretation, and embedded emotions) in order to derive an overarching theme for each narrative and patterns among them. This ensured that the richness, and connections between perceptions of relational context, events, and their subjective meanings, were not lost – a potential danger in fragmenting data using alternative highly structured coding processes (Kohler Riessman, 2002).

FINDINGS

Caregiving Relationship Characteristics

The first research question explored how followers with differing leader-specific attachment orientations differed in their perceptions of leader caregiving in their line-manager relationships. Distinctive patterns or styles of perceived leader caregiving behaviors were identified for nurses with secure, avoidant and anxious leader-specific attachment orientations, corresponding to differences in the core dimensions of warmth, sensitivity and responsiveness theoretically associated with caregiving across other relationship domains (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Collins & Ford, 2010; Popper & Mayseless, 2003). In the following sections, the patterns for each attachment group are discussed, with illustrative examples from the interviews.

Secure Relationships: Warm-Sensitive-Responsive

In the physically and emotionally demanding work environment of primary care, ward managers were perceived as consistently warm, sensitive and responsive to nurses’ emotional and material needs. Interpersonally, they were perceived as accepting, being consistently inclusive and friendly:

Whether you’re a newcomer or somebody she’s known for a long time, she’ll make you feel welcome, do you know? And that sort of puts you at ease. (Nurse 6)

Mirroring maternal caregivers’ proactive awareness of secure infants’ distress signals (Ainsworth et al., 1978), these leaders were perceived as aware of their employees’ feelings – they not only noticed changes in nurses’ well-being, they maintained awareness by making time find out how nurses were feeling:

She picks up if you’re not feeling too good. She will notice things and ask you “is there a problem,” and she tries if possible to remedy the situation. So sometimes if you’re just feeling tired and worn out, there’s nothing you can do about it, but it does help. (Nurse 4)

They were also perceived as understanding nurses’ needs and concerns, displaying empathy regarding both work and personal problems:

She’s very understanding. I had an operation last year and I needed some time off sick, and she was very supportive and told me not to come back too early and make sure I’m well. (Nurse 7)

When approached they were perceived as accessible, responding in a timely manner. In caregiving terminology, responses were contingent with nurses’ distress signals (vs. delayed or nonexistent) (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Beyond physical availability, securely attached nurses seemed assured of their leaders’ psychological presence – believing they could depend on them, and that they would listen:

She’s very easy to approach, and I think in that respect, because she’s easy to talk to and get on with … if there’s a problem you know you’re not afraid to discuss it with her. You know, whether it’s good or bad, you just approach her. (Nurse 6)

Finally, when assistance was required, leaders were perceived as working collaboratively with nurses to facilitate problem resolution. Leaders were perceived as neither intruding upon nurses’ ownership of a problem, nor abandoning them at a time of need, but remaining emotionally present Kahn (1998):

We’ll discuss whatever, and she will often say to me “well, if you feel that’s necessary then we’ll go for it.” If she says to me “well, I don’t really think we should go in that direction,” you know, I’ll respect her opinion, her view … she doesn’t pooh-pooh ideas … we tend to bounce ideas off each other. (Nurse 2)

In sum, the pattern of perceived leader caregiving for nurses with secure attachments paralleled that found for the caregivers of secure infants (see Ainsworth et al., 1978). In keeping with notion of the safe haven (Bowlby, 1969), these leaders supported nurses’ delivery of care to patients by offering the psychological security of an emotional “safety net” (Kahn, 1993) when needed.

Avoidant Relationships: Rejecting-Insensitive-Controlling

Compared with secure nurses, avoidant nurses’ accounts suggested they perceived their leaders as relatively poor caregivers. Indeed, the pattern of perceived leader behaviors resembled the insensitivity of avoidant infants’ caregivers (see Ainsworth et al., 1978). In contrast to secure nurses’ perceptions of accepting and inclusive leader caregiving, avoidant nurses perceived their leaders as rejecting or ignoring – often having “favourites” and expressing neither positive regard nor warmth in interpersonal interactions (Kahn, 1993):

There’s three people who she confides in on the ward, who are staff nurses, but she seems to have a great affinity with them (…) but not the-the rest of us. (Nurse 14)

These leaders were also viewed as having low awareness, that is, paralleling avoidant infants’ caregivers who often miss, ignore, or are inattentive to children’s needs (Ainsworth et al., 1978), they were perceived as neither proactive nor vigilant regarding nurses’ well-being:

She’s never asked me how I’m coping working day shifts, you know, how my family is affected. Being a manager, she should know how you feel, or how your families are, because families do affect your work. I mean you don’t want her to be all pals, but at the same time she should find out how you’re coping, especially when she knew you had problems before. (Nurse 11)

In addition, just as avoidant parent-caregivers dismiss and/or inaccurately interpret children’s distress signals (Ainsworth et al., 1978), leaders were perceived as having low understanding – being unable, or unwilling, to empathize with nurses when they raised issues of concern:

I rang once and asked to speak to her because I had to take the night off because my boy was ill, and yeah, she didn’t want to know. She didn’t want to know about the asthma attack, or how scary it was. It was just “ok, fine. How long do you think you’ll be off?” (Nurse 8)

They were also perceived as physically and psychologically inaccessible: akin to avoidant infants’ caregivers who maintain low proximity and/or rebuff proximity-seeking attempts (Ainsworth et al., 1978), nurses perceived leaders as unavailable, or slow to respond when needed:

If you’re talking about things that are bothering you, or things that concern other people as well – you know, they’ve come to you and discussed the fact that they’re worried about something, you find that she’s not approachable … and I find that she’s not there a lot. (Nurse 10)

Consistent with the negative other-model that characterizes avoidance (Mikulincer et al., 2003) nurses believed leaders could not be trusted with their concerns, and, just as the caregivers of avoidant infants can be unnecessarily controlling (Kunce & Shaver, 1994), avoidant nurses perceived that their leaders imposed their own views instead of empowering nurses to resolve issues themselves (Kahn, 1993; Popper & Mayseless, 2003):

I’d say something like “oh, this patient could go to the ward, but x, y, z, we don’t think they should.” And she’d say “oh that’s no reason for them not to go – they can go” – and disagree … she’ll openly disagree with us rather than say “well what about x, y, z?” and coming to a compromise between the two. (Nurse 9)

In sum, rather than supporting their performance through the provision of a secure base and safe haven, avoidant nurses believed their leaders could not be depended upon in times of need. Such beliefs are consistent with the development and maintenance of avoidant attachment (Bowlby, 1973). Notably, despite these apparently negative perceptions, avoidant nurses made sense of their relationships by framing them as acceptable on a “professional” level, and not “as bad” as they might have been. This fits with the avoidant affect regulation strategy of denying/suppressing the impact of negative experiences (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995).

Anxious Relationships: Mixed/Inconsistent

Compared with secure and avoidant nurses, the perceptions of anxiously attached nurses were less clear cut and fell somewhere between the two extremes. Sometimes leaders were perceived as warm, sensitive, and responsive, sometimes not. Notably, compared with secure nurses, anxious individuals often qualified positive assessments of leader behavior with “generally,” “quite” and “fairly,” and negative evaluations with “sometimes.” Perceived negative aspects of the leaders’ behavior seemingly prevented wholehearted positive endorsement of the relationship. This also fits with reluctance of anxiously attached individuals to openly criticize relationship partners since this would oppose their interaction goal of achieving closeness (Collins & Read, 1994).

Although there was no clear pattern regarding perceptions of positive leader caregiving behaviors, some trends in perceived negative behaviors emerged. Leaders were perceived as inconsistently accepting – nurses described “fairly” warm relations with their leaders yet also perceived them as sometimes intrusive, critical or disapproving of their personality or performance. This parallels observations that anxiously attached infants’ caregivers are sometimes interfering or intrusive in interactions (Ainsworth et al., 1978):

On the whole good … on the whole very good. It’s just a shame if I am on the end of her bad temper. (Nurse 19)

I do think she’s a good manager and I do get on well with her …. She’s not particularly laid back at work. And I – some people … get a bit nervous around her because they know that she does seem to have high standards. And she will pick up on even little mistakes … and she’ll do it there and then in front of other people if necessary … so she’s erm, got an eye for detail. (Nurse 22)

Like anxious infants’ caregivers who are sometimes sensitive and sometimes impervious to their children’s signals (Kunce & Shaver, 1994), leaders were sometimes perceived as appearing to lack genuine awareness of, or interest in, followers’ needs and concerns. Thus, while leaders were not perceived as failing to take any interest at all (as was the case for avoidant nurses), they were nonetheless perceived as “superficial” in their interactions. Additionally, unlike the leaders of secure nurses who “picked up” on their nurses’ feelings, anxiously attached nurses perceived their leaders as sometimes unable to detect changes in how they were feeling:

I think she’s quite superficial with us. I don’t think she’s got much interest in me as a person. I don’t think she knows much about what I do, what we’re doing on the ward … I just don’t think she’s that interested, it’s generally held. (Nurse 17)

It’s almost like she doesn’t even notice. Sometimes she doesn’t even notice that you’ve been angry with her about something and the next time you see her she’s fine again. (Nurse 19)

Finally, leaders were perceived as only partially accessible physically and psychologically, for example being available for nurses to consult but only “in passing” or for limited periods. Effectively, like the parents of anxiously attached children (Ainsworth et al., 1978) anxiously attached nurses thought their leaders did not consistently prioritize their welfare. However, it was notable that, in line with an anxious pre-occupation about the role of the self in relationships, these nurses made sense of their leaders’ behavior by holding themselves partly responsible for accessing their leaders’ support:

I might see her for five minutes a day …. And I may see her in the corridor now and again for ten minutes a day, you know, in the coffee room or whatever. So if I want to see her about something, really the onus is on me to do that … I know she’s got a lot of work, but a higher profile would be better. (Nurse 20)

In sum, in keeping with Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) observations of maternal caregiving associated anxious-ambivalence in infants, anxiously attached nurses’ accounts revealed a more mixed picture of leader caregiving perceptions, and a sense that leaders often had more important things to do than fulfill a safe haven or secure base function for their followers.

Negative Affective Events

The second research question examined how subjective accounts of followers with secure, avoidant, and anxious leader-specific attachments differed with regard to perceiving, interpreting, and reacting emotionally to affective events in the leadership relationship. Differences were found between groups regarding what was perceived as a negative event during interactions with leaders. Correspondingly different attachment themes, and patterns of attributions and emotional reactions, were also found. Overall, interpersonal events, and their underlying attachment themes, were theoretically congruent with the differential leader caregiving perceptions reported by each attachment group. For each attachment orientation the themes are outlined briefly below, followed by an illustrative narrative analysis of an affective event.

Negative Affective Events in Secure Relationships

In the context of perceived sensitive, responsive caregiving relationships, negative interpersonal events between secure nurses, and their leaders were rare. In the events recalled (N = 3), unresolved anxious and avoidant attachment themes were absent. Attribution analysis indicated benign event interpretation: leaders had not deliberately upset nurses (i.e., unintentional); the behavior was uncharacteristic (i.e., unstable); and external factors (vs. internal personal characteristics) influenced their behavior (i.e., external locus). With so few events, negative emotions in the relationship were infrequent. Reactions included moderate anger, hurt and upset, proportionate to the nature of perceived events. The narrative below illustrates these themes.

John’s Story: “Nobody’s Perfect”

I come from a very large family … An uncle of mine died at a great age – he was in his nineties … and I was told – I think it was the evening before I was due to come on duty. And it did affect me. Yes, you’re supposed to leave your personal life at home and click into the nurse’s role. I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to my family. And I was somewhat upset. And I just happened to mention it in a general form – because you do speak about your families and what have you when you’re at work – well, least ways I do. And the comment I got from my manager was, “oh, well you can’t use that as an excuse to go the West Indies now, can you?” I must admit that was hurtful. That cut me to the quick. I didn’t say anything at the time but it did upset me. Thinking about it now I can feel the feelings that I felt then …. I said later that it was out of order and totally uncalled for, and very inappropriate. Then I forgot about it. That was the best thing to do.

I: Why do you think she said that?

J: I think it was just a case of not thinking, that’s all. And perhaps – I’m only guessing, but perhaps thinking about it after, my manager probably said to herself, “oh, perhaps that wasn’t the best thing to have said to him.”

John describes how his leader made a callous remark when he was feeling emotionally vulnerable. Consistent with a history of perceiving sensitive, responsive leader caregiving, John enjoyed a friendly and trusting leadership relationship in which he felt able to discuss personal matters. On this occasion, however, John was insulted and wounded (“hurt”) by the perceived insinuation about his character implied by his leader’s off-hand remark. John is open about the strength of his feelings and admits that recalling the event still brings back the original emotions. The expression of emotion, however, is measured rather than extreme or denied (as might be found in anxious or avoidant individuals). This fits with research showing that (global) attachment security is associated with emotion regulation that is healthier, more flexible and better attuned to reality (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), enabling anger to be appropriately experienced, expressed, and acknowledged (Mikulincer, 1998a). John’s secure working model guides his interpretation. Congruent with the operation of an underlying working model in which the other is viewed as generally trustworthy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), he believes his leader’s behavior was unintentional, and not a stable characteristic of their relationship.

John’s narrative does not contain themes of unmet attachment needs. For example, there is no suggestion that as a result of the event he viewed the leader as untrustworthy (an avoidant theme), or that he felt “unloved” in the relationship (an anxious theme). Indeed, John revealed earlier in his interview that he held a balanced view of his relationship: “the good points outweigh the bad points.” Thus, by situating the event in the context of the on-going relationship, it is evaluated and responded to in line with the narrator’s belief that, even in good relationships, negative events can occur occasionally. Finally, the relational goal of secure individuals is to maintain harmony in the relationship (Collins & Read, 1994). John used his negative emotions constructively by confronting his leader with a focused complaint (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), then moved on in the sense that maintaining the quality of the relationship was evidently more important than dwelling on the incident. Overall, John’s responses are consistent with research showing that secure individuals are more likely to offer benign explanations for romantic partner’s hurtful actions and be more inclined to forgive (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Slav, 2006).

This case, and the pattern for secure nurses overall, supports previous findings concerning (global) attachment security in close relationships indicating that secure attachment is associated with “functional” manifestations of anger in which expression is neither suppressed nor overwhelmingly intense but serves constructive, relationship-enhancing interaction goals (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). That is, secure individuals experience and express negative emotions but use them to address the problem, without animosity (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). In general, positive (global) relational schema of the self and others are also associated with fewer negative social experiences (Tidwell, Reiss, & Shaver, 1996); attribution processes that serve to maintain positive views of the partner; and less negative emotional reactions (Collins, 1996; Mikulincer, 1998b; Mikulincer et al., 2003).

Negative Affective Events in Avoidant Relationships

Congruent with more negative leader caregiving perceptions, avoidant nurses recalled more negative events than secure nurses (one or two each). However, specific, numerous incidents were difficult to recollect, perhaps because in line with a relational goal of independence (Collins & Read, 1994) avoidant nurses restricted interacting with leaders, or attempted to ignore/suppress incidents: “I think you just block it out so I probably can’t remember half of them.” Events featured perceived rejection, or leaders’ inaccessibility and unresponsiveness when nurses sought support. Attributions were hostile: the leader acted deliberately (i.e., intentional); the event was caused by the leader’s personality or incompetence (i.e., internal locus); and the cause was a permanent feature of the relationship (i.e., stable). Rather than minimizing emotional reactions (Mikulincer et al., 2003), some avoidant nurses were as expressive as secure nurses, acknowledging strong, other-focused, negative emotions including: “mad,” “very angry,” and “furious.” The next case illustrates these themes.

Kim’s Story: “You Abandoned Me”

It happened with a group of nurses who were overseas nurses and they … had been unhappy with certain members of staff and one of them was me …. Instead of approaching me directly and voicing their concerns, they by-passed that, by-passed the manager and went straight to Human Resources and lodged a complaint … so when I approached my manager about it, she proceeded to not support me, but basically said “well, they are feeling that way.” And I said “but I don’t understand exactly what I have done to make them feel this way. I’ve always gone out of my way to completely support them … this has come completely out of the blue …” And she wouldn’t listen to anything I said, and basically gave me the impression that she fully supported them … and was not going to help in any way towards supporting me. The things they were complaining about it turns out were things that I had brought up as being unsafe – …. Again my manager did not support me in any kind of way, did not once come up to me and say “are you ok? How do you feel?,” whatever, anything like that. There was always this air of condemnation, you know. There was always this atmosphere that she did not like what I had said or what I’d done …. But there was nothing, you know nothing to like say, “well, yes they were unsafe. Yeah, I agree with you that we should do something about this” …. I ended up going to my union to support me – an avenue that I’d have thought that I’d never have needed to use …. I felt anger, real anger. And hatred almost, now …. I still to this day don’t know why she turned so nasty really. I mean she was always very – she protected the overseas nurses to the extent of jeopardising her relationships with the existing staff.

Kim’s story suggests she perceived her leader as abandoning her in her hour of need. The attachment system is activated under conditions of threat, and prompts individuals to seek help and protection from their caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). As her organizational caregiver (see Kahn, 1993, 1998), Kim believed that it was her leader’s role to provide a safe haven. However, the leader was perceived as not only refusing Kim protection from the other nurses’ complaints, but also siding with the complainants. In so doing, Kim perceived that her leader rejected her, effectively leaving her to fend for herself and seek alternative sources of support.

The leader’s response, as perceived by Kim, displays a lack of warmth, acceptance, and empathy. Kim believes that her leader’s response was unjustified and inappropriate. Accordingly, she reacts to the perceived abandonment and rejection with other-directed anger, although her expression of its intensity “anger, real anger” is relatively muted (compared with possible alternatives, e.g., livid, furious, outraged, etc.). However, the emotional impact is enduring and develops into hatred, indicating extremely negative views of the leader. Indeed, hostile attitudes, and hatred of partners, are commonly reported by avoidant individuals, even when their expression of anger appears suppressed (Mikulincer, 1998a; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).

Kim’s interpretation of her leader’s behavior is consistent with a negative other-model in which the relationship partner is viewed with distrust (Collins, 1996). She implies that her leader’s behavior was intentional stating that she “turned nasty” toward her for reasons unknown. In the context of the wider interview, Kim’s relationship with her leader was evidently poor before the incident: “she wasn’t very liked to begin with, but they were all stories to me at the time, and the reality really kicked in when she became [my] manager. I learned for myself what she was like.” Hence, we interpret “turned” in a more colloquial sense to denote perceived perpetrator intent (e.g., she was deliberately nasty). In terms of causal attributions, Kim’s statement that “she was always very – she protected the overseas nurses to the extent of jeopardising her relationships with the existing staff,” suggests she believed the leader had always behaved in a way that made the events likely to occur (i.e., stable); and, relatedly, she viewed the event as caused by something about the leader as a person (i.e., internal locus – it was the way she was). Indeed, elsewhere in the interview Kim described her leader as “cold” and “heartless.”

Together, these findings fit with previous research in the close relationships domain indicating that a negative model of other heightens sensitivity to issues of trust and/or dependency violation in relationships, and is associated with more hostile interpretations of interpersonal events, and mainly other-focused (e.g., anger-related) negative emotions (Collins, 1996; Mikulincer, 1998a, 1998c).

Negative Affective Events in Anxious Relationships

Just as anxious nurses’ leader caregiving perceptions sat between the extremes of secure and avoidant nurses’ perceptions, so did the nature of their perceived negative events. Compared with secure nurses events were more frequent and, unlike avoidant nurses, they were confident many minor incidents had occurred. The common theme was a perception that the leader had criticized, chastized, interfered or devalued nurses’ performance or opinions. Attributions were somewhat inconsistent or confused. Some believed themselves partly responsible. Others believed the leader had not intended harm (i.e., unintentional) but was nevertheless motivated by self-interest (i.e., intentional). Intensity of emotions was not extreme. However, compared with secure and avoidant nurses, more diverse emotions were reported including annoyance, frustration, hurt and upset (other-directed) and, unique to the anxious group, some self-focused emotions (e.g., “guilty,” “mortified”). The final case illustrates these themes.

Maria’s Story: “You don’t Value Me”

[It] was to do with my personal development review thing …. But this was at a time when I was bogged down with a load of paperwork especially. So I had filled it in, but quickly. And she-she’d given it back to me and basically said that it was all wrong [sigh] and had written out this is how – you know, it should be done this way. And I just thought “Oh, well that’s the least of my worries, I’m not doing that.” And she was like “oh, well you’ve got a week to get it done. Get it done”…. I didn’t really see the point. She just got a bit snappy about that, but.

I: So how did you feel about that at the time?

M: Erm, pee-ed off, I suppose. Frustrated. Yeah, and a bit hurt really, because she’d never been [long pause] never been a bit sharp like that really, so. [pause] But I was just lazy really.

I: Do you remember what you were thinking about it at the time?

M: …. I didn’t know why she was suddenly having a go about this – that it suddenly needed to be done when, you know, she hasn’t bothered to do any of the other ones …. That she should have been grateful that I’d even taken the time to do it, do you know what I mean? That’s how I thought, “well, you’re lucky I’ve done it really, because no-one else has or-.” I just thought “well I’d better get it done.” Done it the way I thought – it’s supposed to be for me– done it how I felt it should be. I shouldn’t be doing how – then she says you write it like this, you know what I mean?

Congruent with an anxious attachment model of the leadership relationship, the underlying attachment theme of this narrative appears to be “my leader does not value/appreciate me.” Maria emphasizes how, despite being very busy at work, she took time to complete an appraisal form for her leader. Maria believed that her leader “should have been grateful” for the time and effort she had invested, especially relative to her colleagues’ lack of effort. Instead of showing appreciation, the leader returned the form, was perceived to be critical of the content, and asked, in a manner that was perceived as “snappy” and “sharp,” for the form to be amended to her specification. In line with the dominant style of perceived caregiving previously noted for leaders of anxious individuals, it is apparent that Maria also perceived her leader’s behavior as interfering, or inappropriately intrusive, in telling her what to write when, as she stated, “it’s supposed to be for me.”

Maria reports multiple other-focused emotions: annoyance, frustration, and hurt. This is consistent with Maria’s sense that she has been unjustly criticized; and it is evidently somewhat painful to think that her worth or value as a conscientious employee has been questioned by her leader. Although Maria does not report self-focused emotions, she nevertheless appears to attribute the cause of the event to both herself and the leader. Anxiously attached individuals may blame themselves for their partners’ negative behaviors through fear of otherwise endangering closeness in the relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Hence, she admits completing the form quickly, and “I was just lazy really” – implying that she believed she partly deserved the leader’s response. This is followed, however, with more implicitly resentful sense-making in which the leader is also clearly held responsible for the event, although Maria is unsure why the leader behaved in this way.

Overall, this pattern of findings is consistent with previous close relationships research showing that attachment anxiety is associated with: greater sensitivity to interpersonal events perceived to threaten relationship closeness and/or self-worth; a tendency to blame both the self and other when making attributions for events; and greater overall emotionality of responses (Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1994; Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999).

DISCUSSION

The present study enhances hitherto limited understanding of the role of follower perceptions of leader behaviors and interpersonal events in shaping negative emotional experiences at work (Bono et al., 2007; Kafetsios et al., 2013). Consistent with (global) attachment theory and research in other relationship domains, followers with differing leader-specific attachment orientations expressed different perceptions of leader caregiving behaviors, and made sense of negative affective events in a manner theoretically congruent with their underlying attachment concerns. Overall, differences in the perceived nature and severity of negative events, and their corresponding attributions and emotions, appeared to be situated in the degree to which followers believed they had a secure relationship with a leader-caregiver who was perceived as consistently warm, sensitive and responsive – especially in times of need.

Using a qualitative attachment theory approach enabled a rich, relational understanding of followers’ negative emotions in leadership relationships, that neither under-played nor under-valued the role of subjectivity (Fineman, 2004). We contribute to the growing literature on emotions in leadership by offering a contextually rich picture of the temporal and relational embeddedness of followers’ negative emotions. Much existing knowledge is based on surveys or laboratory-based, artificial leadership situations which preclude investigation of context (Van Kleef et al., 2009) and potentially limit ecological validity (Gooty et al., 2010). The present research addressed these limitations with an in-depth investigation of on-going leadership relationships. Additionally, the current findings answered calls for more event-level leadership research (Dinh et al., 2014) by elaborating attachment-related individual differences in perceived negative events, and revealing how followers’ emotional responses to relational events are subjectively framed within the context of internalized mental models of the leadership relationship, and on-going perceptions of leader caregiving.

Our findings also add to the emergent literature on the nature and role of attachment processes in leadership. Previous research largely focused on global, trait-like attachment orientations, ignoring more proximal, relationship-specific attachment orientations (Fraley et al., 2011). A handful of quantitative studies show that followers’ global orientations explain significant variance in affective reactions in leader-follower dyads (Kafetsios et al., 2013; Richards & Hackett, 2012) yet other studies suggest that relationship-specific attachment orientations may account for greater variance in relationship-level outcomes (Cozzarelli et al., 2000; Fraley et al., 2011; Game, 2008). Despite this, studies of leader-specific attachment and perceived leader caregiving behaviors are few and, to our knowledge, no prior studies examined the relationship between them. The present study extends understanding of these relatively new constructs and their association, revealing how followers with secure and insecure leader-specific attachment orientations differ in theoretically consistent ways in their perceptions of leader caregiving, and in their cognitive and affective responses to interaction events. These findings strengthen the validity of the relationship-specific construct, and support the view that future attachment research may benefit from considering the effects of both global and specific-level attachment (Game, 2008).

The pattern of leader caregiving perceptions reported by secure followers reflected “flow”: top-down caregiving in which a hierarchical superior uses their formal position to create an emotionally safe place in which to metaphorically “hold” and support employees (Kahn, 1993). When nurses held secure mental models of the leadership relationship, characterized by trust in the dependability of the leader, they also felt consistently connected and cared for. Indeed, leaders perceived as sensitive and responsive may be better “tuned-in” to their own, and their followers’, emotions (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009) rendering the incidence of events that could be perceived as negative less likely. Equally, secure followers’ generally positive relationship beliefs and expectations may help guard against hyper-vigilance in interactions (Collins & Read, 1994). When events occur, our findings suggest that secure attachment schema, and prior perceptions of sensitive leader caregiving, provide a context that facilitates more benign interpretation and proportionate emotional reactions, servicing the secure relational goal of maintaining relationship harmony.

In contrast, the findings indicate that an avoidant model of the leadership relationship may indicate a history of negative caregiving interactions. Specifically, when leaders were perceived as consistently rejecting, insensitive, and unresponsive, especially in times of need, nurses felt abandoned or excluded, instead of protected and supported. Consistent with previous close relationships research (Collins, 1996) a negative mental model of the leader provided a ready template for the negative perception and evaluation of newly occurring interpersonal events. Our findings also suggest that in order to prevent further negative affective events avoidant followers may resort to defensive strategies to increase independence and distance from the leader, for example by circumventing the need to depend on the leader, and immersion in work. This is problematic since, in the longer term, relational withdrawal creates emotionally disengaged or “barren” relationships (Kahn, 1993). Critically, avoidant followers, lacking a perceived secure base and safe haven, could find themselves locked out from a vital source of empathic organizational support (Scott, Colquitt, Paddock, & Judge, 2010) and trapped in a negative affective spiral (Davidovitz et al., 2007), with adverse consequences for well-being, performance, and citizenship behaviors (Popper & Mayseless, 2003).

The leader caregiving perceptions of anxiously attached nurses fell between the largely positive perceptions of secure nurses, and the largely negative perceptions of the avoidant nurses. Additionally, compared with avoidant nurses, anxiously attached individuals recalled negative events that were subtler and seemingly less pervasive. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that when leader caregiving is perceived as inconsistently sensitive and responsive followers may express at least mild insecurity regarding their self-worth/value in the leadership relationship, and experience more numerous negative interpersonal events and emotions. In particular, anxiously attached followers may be sensitized to – so perhaps more readily store and retrieve from memory – events that could be perceived as threats to their need to be liked or valued in the relationship (Collins & Read, 1994).

Each attachment group reported experiencing negative emotions broadly in line with findings concerning reactions to events in romantic relationships (Collins, 1996). However, inconsistent with previous attachment research in the close relationships domain (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), avoidant followers did not appear to minimize the emotional impact of events. It is possible that avoidant followers recounted events that were pivotal in establishing or reinforcing an avoidant attachment model of the relationship. Indeed, from a positive-negative asymmetry perspective (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001), even a single violation of interpersonal trust can overwrite the effects of prior positive experiences (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000). Consistent with this, while avoidant participants did not suppress expression of emotional reactions to the incidents recalled, they appeared to do so in accounts of their everyday responses to perceived leader caregiving behaviors. Alternatively, the findings may reflect failure of avoidant individuals’ defensive emotion regulation strategies, as sometimes occurs in the face of prolonged or major stress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). The current findings provide a valuable start point for future investigation of the development of avoidant leader-specific attachment orientations.

Caveats and Directions for Future Research

It is not possible (or desirable) to infer causal, or “statistically significant,” relationships from cross-sectional qualitative data. Instead, our small yet in-depth study enabled rich description of patterns of perceptions and experiences between groups, and offered preliminary theoretical and empirical foundations upon which larger scale quantitative studies can build. Nevertheless there are limitations. First, conclusions are based on perceptions of leader caregiving, not actual behavior. It is therefore open to question whether leader behaviors objectively matched follower perceptions. Second, interviews focused on past events which could be subject to recall problems (Golden, 1992). However, given that negative leader behaviors are more salient than positive (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004), and the focus of this study was on critical incidents, participants could be expected to recount incidents that were by default more “memorable.” Third, all leaders in the study were women (typical in nursing). Because women are more often perceived as transformational leaders (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000), which in turn may be associated with more sensitive-responsive caregiving (Popper & Mayseless, 2003), the findings may under-represent rejecting or inconsistent leader caregiving, and the severity of negative interactions and emotions. Additional research using diary methods, with participants from a range of organizations, and a more equal gender balance may help address some of these issues.

In future, boundary conditions of the present findings should be examined. In particular, organizational context (e.g., group dynamics, organizational policies, politics, affective climate) may be important in supporting sensitive-responsive caregiving. Antecedents of leader caregiving also merit attention. Leaders’ global attachment style, implicit leadership theories and degree of trust in followers’ abilities may all play a role in leaders’ willingness and ability to support and empower followers (Hakimi, van Knippenberg, & Giessner, 2011; Keller, 2003; Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012). Further theoretical development, and testing the links between leader caregiving and established leadership constructs, is also warranted.

Practical Implications

This research has important practical implications. Followers may experience fewer negative feelings, and feel better able to cope with the demands of work, when they perceive their leader/line manager as a warm, sensitive, and responsive caregiver on whom they can depend during stressful times. While global attachment orientations indicate broad relational tendencies that are resistant to change (Bowlby, 1973) assessing leader-specific attachment may enable targeted diagnosis and relationship intervention. Research on parent-child caregiving indicates that sensitive-responsive caregiving is trainable (George & Solomon, 1999). Understanding the attachment relational processes underlying follower negative emotions could increase leaders’ awareness of how followers perceive them, and the consequences for relationship quality. Leader caregiving behavioral training should focus on developing a warm, inclusive interpersonal style; proactively maintaining awareness of employees’ problems, needs, and concerns; being accessible, understanding, and responsive when employees turn to them for help or advice on work and/or personal issues; and adopting a collaborative and empowering approach to facilitate employee problem-solving.

From the follower perspective, organizations can help employees cope constructively with the consequences of insecure leader-follower relationships. This study highlighted the role of attributions in shaping negative emotions. Cognitive behavioral training targets dysfunctional attributional styles with positive consequences for individual well-being, self-esteem, job satisfaction, and productivity (Proudfoot, Corr, Guest, & Dunn, 2009). Hence, it may be possible to moderate insecure followers’ habitually negative self/other attributions for leader relationship events, and limit the emotional consequences.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247–261. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006

Atwater, L. E., Camobreco, J. F., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., & Lau, A. N. (1997). Effects of rewards and punishments on leader charisma, leader effectiveness, and follower reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 133–152. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90013-8

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualisation of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109.

Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 36–48). London: Quorum Books.

Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Bennett, S., BrintzenhofeSzoc, K., Mohr, J., & Saks, L. V. (2008). General and supervision-specific attachment styles: Relations to student perceptions of field supervisors. Journal of Social Work Education, 44, 75–94. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2008.200700016

Bono, J., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1357–1367. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357

Boudens, C. J. (2005). The story of work: A narrative analysis of workplace emotion. Organization Studies, 26, 1285–1306. doi:10.1177/0170840605055264

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). London: Guilford Press.

Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The transference of attachment patterns: How parental and romantic relationships influence feelings toward novel people. Personal Relationships, 14, 513–530. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00169.x

Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 51–72). London: Sage.

Clancy, A., Vince, R., & Gabriel, Y. (2011). That unwanted feeling: A psychodynamic study of disappointment in organizations. British Journal of Management. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00780.x

Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810–832.

Collins, N. L., & Ford, M. B. (2010). Responding to the needs of others: The caregiving behavioral system in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 235–244.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of adult attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Attachment processes in adulthood (Vol. 5, pp. 53–90). London: Jessica-Kingsley.

Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S. J., & Bylsma, W. H. (2000). General versus specific mental models of attachment: Are they associated with different outcomes? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 605–618.

Crawshaw, J. R., & Game, A. M. (2015). The role of line managers in employee career management: An attachment theory perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1182–1203. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.934886

Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 163–178. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.004

Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, H. H. M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 571–585. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.009

Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 632–650. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.632

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. H. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–42. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, M. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19–46. doi:10.1037/a0021367

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457–468.

Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion – And the cautionary tale of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 57, 719–740. doi:10.1177/0018726704044953

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

Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 147–162.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.

Fraley, C. R., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships—relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625. doi:10.1037/a0022898

Fraley, R. C. (2007). A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity of working models of attachment. Journal of Personality, 75, 1157–1180. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00471.x

Game, A. M. (2008). Negative emotions in supervisory relationships: The role of relational models. Human Relations, 61, 355–393. doi:10.1177/0018726708088998

Game, A. M. (2011). Leadership and attachment theory: Understanding interpersonal dynamics in leader-follower relations. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 326–337). London: Sage.

George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The caregiving behavioral system. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649–670). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past – Or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848–860. doi:10.2307/256318

Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., & Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 979–1004. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.005

Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauberger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 31–55. doi:10.1023/A:1015142124306

Hakimi, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Giessner, S. (2011). Leader empowering behavior: The leader’s perspective. British Journal of Management, 21, 701–716. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00703.x

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165–1185. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.009

Herriot, P. (2001). Future work and its emotional implications. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in management (pp. 307–325). Chichester: Wiley.

Hinojosa, A. S., Davis McCauley, K. D., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.002

Johnson, M. A. (2000). Delegation and organization structure in small businesses: Influences of managers’ attachment patterns. Group and Organization Management, 25, 4–21. doi:10.1177/1059601100251002

Kafetsios, K., Athenasiadou, M., & Dimou, N. (2013). Leaders’ and subordinates’ attachment orientations, emotion regulation capabilities and affect at work: A multilevel analysis. The Leadership Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.010

Kahn, W. A. (1993). Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of organizational caregiving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 539–563.

Kahn, W. A. (1998). Relational systems at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 39–77). London: JAI Press.

Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment theory perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141–160.

Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed method sampling strategies in social science. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 273–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 118–134). London: Sage.

Kohler Riessman, C. (2002). Narrative analysis. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 217–270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood: Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 205–237). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in organizational life. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in management (pp. 45–85). Chichester: Wiley.

Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Payne (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561–585. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.004

Mayseless, O., & Popper, M. (2007). Reliance on leaders and social institutions: An attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 9, 73–93. doi:10.1080/14616730601151466

Mikulincer, M. (1998a). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 513–524.

Mikulincer, M. (1998b). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 420–435.

Mikulincer, M. (1998c). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1209–1224.

Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1022–1034.

Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and architecture of affective memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 917–925.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. doi:10.1023/A:1024515519160

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Slav, K. (2006). Attachment, mental representations of others, and gratitude and forgiveness in romantic relationships. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving and sex (pp. 190–215). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Miner, A., Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 171–193.

Parry, K., Mumford, M. D., Bower, I., & Watts, L. L. (2014). Qualitative and historiometric methods in leadership research: A review of the first 25 years of the leadership quarterly. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 132–152. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.006

Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 613–631.

Pirola-Merlo, A., Harte, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R and D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561–581. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00144-3

Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leaders’ development via experiences. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 749–763. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.005

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 41–65. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00183-2

Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267–289. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00038-2

Proudfoot, J. G., Corr, P., Guest, D. E., & Dunn, G. (2009). Cognitive behavioral training to change attributional style improves employee well-being, job-satisfaction, productivity, and turnover. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 147–153. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.018

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social support and conflict resolution in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 166–188). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Richards, D. A., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Attachment and emotion regulation: Compensatory interactions and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 686–701. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.005

Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work: Applying attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 169–182. doi:10.1037/a0020372

Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Predicting employees’ satisfaction and burnout from managers’ attachment and caregiving orientations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 828–849. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.595561

Royal College of Nursing. (2009). Breaking down barriers, driving up standards: The role of the ward sister and charge nurse. London: Royal College of Nursing.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. (2010). A daily investigation of the role of manager empathy on employee well-being. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 127–140. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.001

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centred model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269–292.

Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295

Tidwell, M. C. O., Reiss, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 729–745.

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x

Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 562–580. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331253

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–75). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

CHAPTER 2

THE ROLE OF ATTACHMENT AND LEADER CAREGIVING IN FOLLOWERS’ NEGATIVE AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES

ABSTRACT