THE INBOARD EMOTIONAL CONTAGION MODEL
As mentioned earlier, only a few studies seem to have investigated the dynamics between the emotions of CEOs and board members. Among them, the qualitative study conducted by Kisfalvi and Pitcher (2003) found that a CEO’s emotional reactions “color” relationships within the top management team. However, due to methodological limitations, the authors are not able to explain how such a “coloring” operates. We know of no other study that has either conceptualized or tested the link between the emotions of CEOs and board members. At the more general level of the impact a leader’s emotions can have on team emotional dynamics, several studies have investigated this link. For example, Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (2005) found that when leaders were in a positive mood – in comparison to a negative mood – followers experienced more positive emotions (for similar results, see Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). Sy and associates have conceptualized the link between the leader’s emotions and the followers’ emotional states using emotional contagion (Barsade, 2002). In our own model, we build on this emotional contagion approach by applying it to the specific case of CEO–board individual–collective emotional dynamics.
The inBECM model has four phases (see Fig. 1): After a major affective event has triggered (1) a major affective discussion with unpredictable emotional board members’ reactions, (2) the emotionally intelligent CEO may be able (3) to communicate verbally in order to homogenize – through an emotional contagion process – (4) board members’ emotional states hence facilitating the emergence of a shared sense-making of the event and consequently, enhancing the executive board’s performance. In order to increase the ecological validity of the inBECM, we interviewed 42 CEOs of the 100 largest publicly traded companies in France as well as 7 board members of one of them. This qualitative material will be used throughout our model presentation to illustrate and enrich it.
Fig. 1. The InBECM Model.
Each one of the four phases of the inBECM is detailed now.
Phase 1: The Influence of Strategic Events on the Board Emotional State
Previous research has shown the existence of strategic events that trigger emotional reactions. For example, Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) “affective events theory” inspired studies focusing on minor events that trigger emotions at an individual or dyadic level (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), as well as on major events that trigger emotions at an organizational level (Cartwright & Panchal, 2001; Probst, 2003). Some researchers have extended affective events theory to include the effect of major events at the group level (Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002), in particular the board. For example, Brundin (2002) and associates (Brundin & Melin, 2006; Brundin & Nordqvist, 2008) have shown that radical changes in strategy have an emotional impact on the executive board and may lead to major affective discussions within it. Here is how one CEO of a large public corporation we met described what happens when the board faces a strategic issue: “Those who say that nothing happens within the boardroom, that there is no chaos or bustle among the board members while discussing a main issue, are either hypocritical or do not want to speak out!”
According to Anderson and West (1998), these affective discussions are almost inevitable because board members constitute a “proximal work group,” spending time together and being bound to share ideas, thinking, and feeling about major events that occur in their corporate environment. However, conducting an affective discussion does not necessarily lead to homogeneous emotions. On the contrary, as the two examples that opened the chapter show, the CEO emotion may be at odds with those of board members. Further to that, the board members may be at odds with each other as the following quote from a board member at one large corporation shows: “The board is a troubled place sometimes, and when it shakes, it shakes! Do not always believe in the supposed quiet wisdom of some of them, as it often masks what people do not want to confess to out loud!” A similar illustration is provided by another corporation board member: “Within the boardroom, it is often rough! It is not rare, sorry for the expression, that during a discussion, we stuff our faces, and I ensure you that the board is then troubled by the resulting turmoil for some time!”
Such board member – including CEO – heterogenic emotions lead to distinct sense-making of the same strategic event, thus impeding the emergence of a shared decision (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004; Weick, 1988). Simultaneously, as sense givers (Daft & Weick, 1984), board members may engage in influencing each other’s meanings of the event with arguments and data leading to interminable interpretative conflicts. Inversely, if board members’ emotions become homogenized, it may lead to a shared meaning and effective decision-making. The importance of shared emotions for shared sense-making and for effective strategic action is widely accepted in research (see Gioia & Chitipeddi, 1991; Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Yet, despite Weick et al.’s (2005) call for “further exploration of [the link between] emotion and sense-making” as crucial (2005, p. 419), little is understood of the emotional dynamics underlying the emergence of these shared emotions in the boardroom. inBECM offers one way to fill this research gap. Specifically, it says that in order to achieve a common interpretation of a major strategic event, the CEO must be “capable to move the others emotionally and to convince” – to quote one of the public CEOs we met. Such an approach is consistent with the literature showing that CEOs can influence team processes such as debate and discussions (Kisfalvi & Pitcher, 2003) and, more particularly, the sense-making of their board by using their own emotions (Naidoo, 2006). Hence, we hypothesize that in order to lead the board to a shared sense-making of a strategic event, CEOs will try to influence board members’ emotional states using their own verbal communication. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the effectiveness of this communication will be moderated by the CEO’s IE ability. These dynamics – beginning with the CEO’s IE – are specified in the second and third model phases.
Phase 2: CEO’s Emotional Intelligence
There is a growing body of research that has dealt with the emotional intelligence construct’s link to the leader’s and – more specifically – the CEO’s performance, in particular in stressful, affectively charged events where cognitive resources are constrained (Salas, Driskell, & Hughs, 1996). As mentioned in the earlier discussion on the IE link to the CEO, research indicates that the more able the leaders are in using their emotions – that is, the more emotionally intelligent they are – the better communicators they will be. A similar trend is found regarding EI’s link to the CEO’s performance (e.g., Kisfalvi & Pitcher, 2003; Zaleznik, 1977). In terms of the first branch of IE – the ability to identify emotions through others’ physical, vocal, and verbal cues – these findings indicate that emotionally intelligent CEOs are able to identify board members’ emotions provoked by a strategic event. As one of the public CEOs we met explained, “I am interested in the psychology of people. I would say that the first indicators to see what happens in others are purely physical. We can see someone who starts trembling almost imperceptibly, struggling to find the right words, sometimes even perspiring.”
In terms of the second IE branch – the ability to assimilate one’s emotions in thought – these findings indicate that emotionally intelligent CEOs are able to direct their attention to the strategic event’s relevance for board dynamics. As one of the public CEOs we met explained, “I am somewhat emotional, not especially rational. I manage and regulate emotions because I don’t like to show them more than necessary. I use emotions rather than fight them.”
In terms of the third IE branch – the ability to understand and analyze emotions in thought – these findings indicate that the emotionally intelligent CEOs are able to label board members’ emotions, to interpret their meanings, and to conduct a what-if-analysis in order to anticipate board members’ emotional state transformations (e.g., anger transforming into shame). As one of the public CEOs we met explained: “What’s really difficult is to distinguish among people who are very different in their emotions. Overwhelmed by our own emotions, it is difficult to focus on the emotions of others. When we fall into the trap of our own emotions, it makes the analysis of others emotions much more complicated!”
To summarize, the three abilities above and the fourth IE branch – the ability to reflectively engage or detach from others’ emotions – allow emotionally intelligent CEOs to regulate their own emotions and those of board members.
Not only does emotional regulation require the CEO to express emotions accurately but it also requires them to know which emotions to display and in which manner. The emotionally intelligent CEO’s capacity for emotional regulation will show up in their verbal communication in the boardroom as specified in our model’s third phase.
Phase 3: The Emotionally Intelligent CEO’s Verbal Communication in the Boardroom
Because emotionally intelligent CEOs possess a rich emotional vocabulary (Caruso & Salovey, 2004) and because board members interact predominantly through words, we hypothesize that the most natural way for the emotionally intelligent CEO to express the appropriate emotions for the situation is through a verbal address. As one of the public CEOs we met explained: “I think that frequently my communication is emotional because it’s in my nature. It’s also my strength so I deliver a lot of speeches which are emotionally charged. I will never deliver a speech that is flat, dull, or only rational.”
Furthermore, we hypothesize that in reaction to a strategic event, the emotionally intelligent CEO will be able to express appropriate emotions. One useful way to approach the appropriateness of emotions expressed in the CEO’s verbal communication is through the valence-arousal circumplex structure of emotion (VACSE; Barrett & Russell, 1998; Remington et al., 2000; Russell, 1980; Russell & Barrett, 1999). VACSE represents emotion in two independent axes: intensity – also called arousal or energy – and valence – positive or negative. Specifically in terms of valence, Mayer and Salovey (1997) showed that the emotionally intelligent individual tends to favor the expression of positive emotions and to reduce that of negative emotions. As one of the public CEOs we met explained:
The only thing important, one that we very often don’t do properly, is to recognize that positive things give energy and negative things consume energy. A board should first endeavor to speak about positive things in order that board members, no matter wherever they come from, no matter whatever their problems before the meeting were, or their moods when leaving home, they should all get over that putting themselves in a new and excited state of positive energy from the outset of the meeting. This can happen only through the statements of positive things and in particular, by reflecting on some of the past successes of the team … This phase of shared positive moments provides us with the necessary energy and allows us to move to the phases of setbacks, problems, and … conflicts among such and such divisions. Phases which consume energy, but which can be calm and serene, because the energy required will simply decrease the energy built up in the initial phase – the positive phase.
Such a positive “emotional energy” (e.g., high achievement and excitement) has been shown to have positive effects on individuals experiencing it (e.g., greater task activity, persistence, enhanced cognitive function, higher confidence; for an exhaustive review on the impact of positive emotions, see Ashkanasy & Ashton-James, 2006).
Thus, we hypothesize that emotionally intelligent CEOs will be able to verbally express emotions which will tone down board members’ negative emotions and enhance their pleasant ones in order to boost their performance.
The last model phase specifies the process through which CEOs’ verbal communication succeeds in the positive homogenization of board members’ emotions.
Phase 4: CEO Verbal Communication’s Homogenization Effect on Board Members
Research shows that CEOs’ behavioral expressions influence board members. For example, Maitlis (2004) found that by displaying competence, legitimacy, confidence and asking his board members for guidance, the CEO was seen by board members as competent. In a similar vein, Stewart (2004) pointed out that every CEO’s word is heard and amplified. Further to this, studies confirm the impact a CEO’s verbal address has on board members. For example, Den Hartog and Verburg (1997) found that a CEO’s verbal communication has profound effects on followers under critical circumstances, and Shamir, Arthur, and House (1994) suggest that one of these effects is emotional. In a similar vein, leaders’ verbal addresses have been shown to have profound effects on followers’ emotional states, especially in a crisis situation (Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Shamir et al., 1994). As a board member from one large public company we met explained:
There are two types of board functioning: “the reasoning by the stomach” and “the reasoning by the neurons”… When I was on the board of the company [name], nothing happened, we didn’t make decisions, there was nothing interesting, the speeches of the CEO were dry, so much dry that we felt thirsty. I quit this board for that reason! It’s totally different where I am now. My boss has vision, he wants to expand; he tells us beautiful stories which are exhilarating, but also realistic. The emotional charge is high, decision-making is collegial and the experience is extremely emotional.
One mechanism advanced in the literature, which helps to explain the above findings about the influence of a CEO’s verbal communication on board members’ emotions, is emotional contagion.
Emotional contagion is defined as the transfer of senders’ emotions among receivers (Barsade, 2002; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993; Schoenewolf, 1990). Specifically, neuroscientists and psychologists have revealed that the emotion expressed by the sender – for example, through facial expressions and postures (Dezecache et al., 2013; Duclos et al., 1989; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Wild, Erb, & Bartels, 2001) – causes the receivers to perceive and, then, to feel it. Barsade (2002) identifies two types of transfer: an unconscious transfer – called emotional empathy – which is an automatic imitation of the sender’s emotions and a conscious transfer – called social comparison – in which the receiver, conscious of the superiority of the social and/or hierarchical status of the sender, strategically imitates the emotions displayed by the latter either to resemble the sender or to display a good image of oneself to the sender. Research has repeatedly found contagion in the leader-to-followers direction and that leaders are good senders of emotions for which followers are good receivers (Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003; Cherulnik et al., 2001; Sy et al., 2005). Even if most of the researchers in the field have focused on the idea of negative emotions supposedly being more contagious than positive ones (Barsade, 2002; Dasborough, 2006), they do acknowledge that positive emotions can also spread through contagion processes (Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009). We hypothesize that the CEOs’ superior position allows them to impact – through the emotional contagion process – the board members’ emotional states, turning them more positive.
To conclude the description of our inBECM model, we specify what constitutes the contagious power of the CEO’s verbal address.
Research shows that humans use two strategies to convey their emotions. The first verbal strategy involves literal – for example, “I feel angry!” – and figurative expressions – for example, “blowing a gasket” (Bush, 1973; Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987; Davitz, 1969; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1989). The second strategy involves speech melody or prosody, such as changes in pitch, loudness, timbre, speech rate, and pauses (Scherer, Johnstone, & Klasmeyer, 2003). In particular, research has revealed that emotions can be well expressed through the tone of voice (see Planalp, DeFrancisco, & Rutherford, 1996; Scherer & Ceschi, 2000; Scherer et al., 2003 for an exhaustive review) and thus can be conveyed to others (Hatfield et al., 1994). Based on this research, we hypothesize that CEOs will use their voice tone to impact board members’ emotions.
Finally, recent reviews have shown that the interlocutor’s emotions, such as sadness, anger, fear, or happiness, are associated with distinct acoustic patterns (Juslin & Laukka, 2003) that the receiver tends to imitate/mirror automatically through emotional contagion (Hatfield, Rapson, & Le, 2011). For example, when interacting with a depressed person who is speaking slowly (Mundt, Vogel, Feltner, & Lenderking, 2012) and with decreased pitch variability (Cannizzaro, Harel, Reilly, Chappell, & Snyder, 2004), or when interacting with a sad person whose vocal acoustics resonate “sadness” (Juslin & Laukka, 2003), the receiver tends to accommodate the way the depressed or sad person speaks; the two match each other in speech rate (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991), sub-vocal frequency (Gregory, 1990), vocal intensity (Natale, 1975), intonation and pronunciation patterns (Goldinger, 1998), as well as their accent (Delvaux & Soquet, 2007), to name a few. Based on the above research, we hypothesize that the homogenization of emotion between the CEO and board members will occur mainly through the latter mirroring the prosody of the spotlighted CEO’s verbal address.
This completes the description of our inBECM model, which details the individual–collective CEO–board members’ emotional dynamics. The next section discusses how these emotional dynamics may be integrated into management theory.