Emotions and Organizational Governance

Keywords: Transformational leadership; emotion management; social identity; organizational identity; ethical identity; self-evaluative emotions

INTRODUCTION

Guiding transformational processes within organizations represents a significant component of leadership. Leaders are tasked with influencing organizational members in ways that support organizational values which may shift over time, reflecting changes in the organizational identity (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In particular, when emerging from a period marked by irresponsible and unethical behavior within an organization, leaders are confronted with implementing a transformational process aimed at changing the ethical norms of the firm, impacting the ethical organizational identity (Verbos, Gerard, Forshey, Harding, & Miller, 2007). During these times, leaders engage in behaviors to influence organizational members’ understanding of the new norms regarding ethical and responsible expectations (Corley, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Transformational leadership is characterized by efforts to align the goals of organizational members with those of the organization, so as an ethical identity shifts, the leaders will focus on aligning follower attitudes and behaviors with the changing values by engaging in behaviors consistent with transformational leadership (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985).

Transformational leadership is a process involving a complex connection extending beyond instrumental social exchange and centering on the positive, growth-oriented, inspirational, and stimulating nature of the relationship (Burns, 1978, 2003). Researchers studying transformational leadership have been successful at identifying the specific transformational behaviors which impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The four distinct behaviors most often included in the construct of transformational leadership include idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Specific linkages between leader behavior and follower outcomes have been articulated, including the impact of transformational leadership on follower self-concordant behavior (Bono & Judge, 2003), the impact of follower affect regarding leaders on follower outcomes (Brown & Keeping, 2005), and the impact of transformational leadership on follower identification with the leader as well as the work group (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003).

While transformational leadership practices have been studied for 35 years with a focus on specific behaviors identified as transformational in nature and supporting positive outcomes experienced by followers, little attention has been paid to the emotional mechanisms taking place within the transformational processes (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Indeed, transformational leadership emphasizes the role of emotions and values, in contrast to transactional leadership which focuses on rational social exchange processes, yet emotion has been largely absent from relevant discussions (Yukl, 1999). Uncovering the underlying emotional mechanisms at work during specific affective events, such as during a change in organizational ethical identity following ethical lapses, may reveal critical emotive components of the transformational leadership process (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005). Exactly how leaders manage both the expected and expressed emotions of followers in a transformational process are important elements to further understand the affective intricacies of the leader-follower relationship (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Walter & Bruch, 2009).

Emotions and emotional processes in organizations have been gaining in interest over the past few years. The continued development and validation of constructs, such as Emotional Intelligence (EI), interpersonal emotion management, and intrapersonal emotion regulation, pave the way for new avenues of understanding behavior in organizational contexts (Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002; Gross, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008; Williams, 2007). Leadership is inextricably linked to emotional processes, especially the role of leaders in managing group emotions (Humphrey, 2002; Pescosolido, 2002; Rubin et al., 2005) as well as the role of followers in relation to leader emotion management and affective displays (Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009; Newcombe & Ashkanasy, 2002; Walter & Bruch, 2009). Exploring the interpersonal emotion management tactics employed by leaders during a transformational process linked to changing organizational identity provides an opportunity to develop insights into the role of emotion management from a social identity perspective at both the intra- and interpersonal levels (Ashkanasy, 2003). For clarity, we use the term organizational identity to refer to the set of beliefs shared between top managers and organizational members about the central, enduring, and distinctive characteristics of an organization (Albert & Whetten, 1985), and the term social identity to reflect the individual level identity processes happening in the organizational context (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1985).

In order to understand emotional processes experienced by a follower, we focus on the social identity perspective of followership which allows us to explicate specific intrapersonal emotional mechanisms occurring during times of organizational identity change. A follower-centric view of transformational leadership has been illuminated using social identity theory and the importance of the role of the follower’s social identity in the organizational context. From this perspective, transformational effects of charismatic leaders emerge due to leaders engaging the social identity of followers in order to align organizational members’ values and goals with those of the organization (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Charismatic leaders increase motivation by engaging follower social identity in ways that increase self-efficacy, facilitate identification with their group, and link work values with follower values (Bono & Judge, 2003; Shamir et al., 1993). Although this theory is related to the concept of charismatic leadership, transformational leadership contains specific charismatic aspects which have been recognized as subsuming charismatic leadership (Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark et al., 2003). The social identity of the follower provides important insights into the affective aspects of transformational leadership during changes in organizational identity and provides theoretical support for unpacking specific interpersonal emotion management mechanisms employed by the leader and lends support for explaining the success of specific transformational behaviors.

The social identity based view of leadership and followership also allows for the exploration of the role of distinct emotions experienced by followers during transformational change (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004; Hogg, 2001). There has recently been a call to move beyond focusing on the positive and negative valence of emotions in organizational contexts and shift attention to specific discrete emotions (Gooty, Gavin, & Ashkanasy, 2009). Gooty and her colleagues(2009) highlight the importance of understanding specific emotions in organizational contexts and write, “when we theoretically treat all negative (or positive) discrete emotions as functionally the same, we lose sight of the fact that different processes drive each of them, and that different outcomes can result from them too” (p. 835). By focusing on distinct emotions arising from engagement of follower social identity during times of changing organizational identity, we propose to explicate the emotion management mechanisms employed by transformational leaders. It is important to include salient emotions (which may vary for different followers in response to the same events) in analysis of transformative influence processes in order to understand how transformational leadership behaviors result in positive outcomes for followers (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

Negative emotions can impact cognition and behavior in vastly different ways. Understanding the processes that lead to discrete emotions may shed light on interpersonal emotional management tactics used by transformational leaders in managing follower affective responses. Our proposed model is consistent with Cote’s social interaction model of emotion regulation. It begins with an affective event triggered by a change in organizational values in response to an ethical lapse (Cote, 2005). In this context, a transformational leader, who has been tasked with responding to a crisis, will engage followers’ social identity to cultivate alignment of their values with newly espoused organizational values by using transformational behaviors (Bono & Judge, 2003). The process of engaging follower social identity will foster a response from the follower who will engage in a self-evaluative process. The self-evaluative process will result in follower emotions stemming from self-evaluation, which will in turn elicit a response from the leader. A critical part of the leader response consists of engaging in transformational behaviors targeting the distinct emotions arising from follower self-evaluation, resulting in positive and transformative outcomes for the followers.

This model (Fig. 1) incorporates interpersonal emotion management strategies into the transformational leadership process, thereby extending common views of emotion management occurring in social interaction. In addition, the intrapersonal emotion process initiated by engaging follower social identities explicates the discrete emotions of individual followers to the same affective event of experiencing a change in organizational identity. The proposed model expands on the role of emotions in transformational leadership by theoretically linking the specific transformational behaviors to discrete emotions displayed by followers. While previous empirical research has indicated the positive outcomes of transformational leadership and the role of emotion recognition, work has yet to be presented which explicates the role of discrete emotions in the transformational leadership process (Rubin et al., 2005; Walter & Bruch, 2009; Wang et al., 2011).

Fig. 1. Theoretical Model.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN TIMES OF CHANGING IDENTITIES

Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Leadership Behavior

The preponderance of ethical lapses and corruption in many prominent organizations has fostered the movement of the topics of leadership and social responsibility (CSR) to center stage (Manz, Anand, Joshi, & Manz, 2008; Pearce & Manz, 2011). Basu and Palazzo (2008) developed an understanding of CSR by centering on the processes happening within organizations around which stakeholder relations and roles are discussed, especially as those roles relate to the more generalized idea of the common good. This definition provides a process oriented perspective of CSR centered on leader sensegiving related to ethical issues at the organizational level, influencing the ethical organizational identity (Basu & Palazzo, 2008; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Verbos et al., 2007). In this chapter, we are concerned with leaders within a context calling for a transformational response to organizational ethical lapses and corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR). Such a context involves the challenge of leading in a way that aligns organizational members’ values and interests with newly espoused organizational values and a changing organizational identity reflecting those values.

When a leader is brought into an organization with the intention of creating positive changes in relation to ethical lapses and irresponsible behavior, the focus will be on transforming the ethical organizational identity, including aligning organizational members’ understanding and commitment to notions of responsibility and ethical action. In order to accomplish this, leaders will engage in transformational behaviors. Transformational leaders behave in ways that garner trust, respect, and admiration from their followers to such an extent that the followers often wish to emulate them. This idealized influence consists of two distinct factors which interact: leader behavior and attributions made about the leader by the followers (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Inspirational motivation reflects the ability of the leader to provide a sense of meaning to work performed by the followers (Bass, 1985). Followers are encouraged to be creative and innovative in response to this intellectual stimulation including questioning of assumptions and creative problem solving. Transformational leaders also provide individualized consideration for each follower, recognizing distinct needs for achievement and growth. This individualized consideration leads to developing followers and colleagues along paths of potential.

Transformational leaders will engage in these behaviors in order to align the goals and interests of organizational members with those of the organization. These four behavioral dimensions of transformational leadership reveal the relational nature of the construct – each one is contingent upon interactions between a leader and follower. In addition, these dimensions highlight the positive nature of the relationship, focusing on relational skills, processes, and positive outcomes (Fletcher, 2007). The intent of transformational leadership entails aligning follower interests with the shifting values of the organization reflecting a change in the ethical organizational identity, which in turn impacts the social identity of the followers.

Transformational Leadership and Ethical Organizational Identity

Ethical organizational identity consists of the ethical dimensions related to how organizational members answer the question “Who are we?” (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Verbos et al., 2007). Just as individuals have multiple social identities, organizations also possess different identities related to different organizational dimensions, such as their products and services, or their processes and practices (Balmer, Fukukawa, & Gray, 2007; Foreman & Whetten, 2002). Transformational leaders will be intimately linked to the ethical organizational identity in terms of constructing the identity and influencing organizational member’s acceptance of this identity, especially as they implement changes to their processes and practices (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Transformational leaders working toward shifting the nature of an organization’s ethical identity will be concerned with acting in socially responsible ways consistent with their understanding of the role of the organization in society as opposed to engaging in CSIR (Pearce & Manz, 2011).

At the individual level, leadership style has been linked to follower beliefs regarding responsibility (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). Groves and LaRocca (2011) explored the link between ethical orientation, leadership style, and effects on follower attitudes and beliefs and found that followers tend to adopt the specific view of ethics and CSR held by the leaders within their organization … For example, CEO profiles have been found to correlate with both the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility as well as the level of CSR practices in the firm (Godos-Díez, Fernández-Gago, & Martínez-Campillo, 2010). CEOs with a profile more closely matched to a stewardship model versus an agency model placed higher importance on ethics and social responsibility in general and their firms also had higher levels of CSR practices. Another study found that transformational leadership by CEOs who focus on intellectual stimulation is positively associated with the level of strategic CSR engaged in by the firm (Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006). Each of these highlights the important link between leadership and CSR, especially from a follower perspective.

As followers tend to adopt views and attitudes regarding ethics and social responsibility that are espoused by the leaders of the organization, organizational members may experience great turmoil due to a change in leadership following an ethical lapse. Organizations emerging from episodes of socially irresponsible actions are faced with the daunting task of instilling a new sense of what CSR means for the organization and its employees, influencing the ethical organizational identity (Corley & Gioia, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Transformational leaders must act as positive social change agents, creating new visions of CSR which incorporate the values and interests of the organization and reflect the changing ethical norms. Follower reactions to these new meanings can be wide ranging and are impacted by individual level differences. There can be strong emotional reactions to the changes and leaders will be faced with the challenge of managing individual level follower emotions stemming from organizational identity changes.

Transformational Leaders and Interpersonal Emotion Management

EI reflects the ability of an individual to be emotionally self-aware, able to direct their emotions positively, be aware of others’ emotions, and be able to manage the emotions of others (Mayer & Salovey, 1995). It has been argued that transformational leader behaviors are consistent with high levels of EI (Ashkanasy, 2002). Supporting this view, Wang and Huang (2009) found a positive association between high EI and transformational leadership behavior. The ability of transformational leaders to both understand emotions and manage others’ emotions provides a fertile ground to explore the emotional components of a changing ethical organizational identity and the impact on follower attitudes and behavior.

Emotion is a strong driver of attitudes and behavior (Elfenbein, 2007). Emotional processes occurring in dyadic relationships, such as those between leaders and followers, link emotions from three distinct levels: within-person (intrapersonal), between persons, and interpersonal interactions (Ashkanasy, 2003). Leader behaviors have been implicated as emotional stimuli (Basch & Fisher, 2000; Dasborough, 2006; Gaddis, Connelly, & Mumford, 2004; Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004), as have relationships in organizational contexts (Dutton & Dukerich, 2006; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003). From this viewpoint, an individualized relationship with a leader can be a source of intense emotional stimuli for followers in an organizational context. Of course, individuals may experience different emotions from the same stimuli based on individual differences.

In exploring the importance of emotional experiences within organizations, Affective Events Theory (AET) offers a framework prioritizing the impact of emotions, proposing that affective states influenced by specific events at work have pronounced effects on behaviors and attitudes (Fisher, 2000; Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) contend that individuals experience and interpret events and conditions in the workplace differently, which leads to different emotions depending on the person. AET has been adopted to develop an affective events model of charismatic leadership, distinguishing affect driven from judgment driven behavior (Walter & Bruch, 2009). Transformational leadership, while distinct from charismatic leadership, entails a specific charismatic element which relies on the emotional connections between a leader and a follower.

A change in leadership in response to an ethical lapse can create an acute affective event, impacting follower emotions on many different levels. At an intrapersonal level, or within-person, individuals may wonder if they contributed to the unethical behavior by not speaking up about specific concerns. This can result in strong emotional responses from followers and a questioning of their values. At the interpersonal level, or between-person, leaders will engage in emotion management tactics to influence the affective experience of organizational members. Transformational leaders are able to manage others’ emotions in ways that align follower values and attitudes with those of the organization (Avolio et al., 1999). Further, they will integrate the need to change values related to responsibility and ethics into their emotional management tactics. The few studies which address the topic of interpersonal emotion management between individuals indicate that when managing others’ emotions, individuals use the same emotion regulation strategies that occur at the intrapersonal level (Francis, 1997; Lively, 2000).

Williams (2007) proposed interpersonal emotion management as a model used to build trust through reducing threat. In her model, interpersonal emotion regulation strategies are used to reduce the potential for perceiving threat and include situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Situation selection, situation modification, and attention deployment are antecedent-focused strategies which occur early in the process (before an emotional response has been triggered) while response-focused strategies occur later in the process and include cognitive change and response modulation (Gross, 2002). Transformational leaders possess relatively higher levels of competence in managing the emotional processes in an organizational context, enabling them to use different emotion regulation strategies at important temporal stages of the process involving other’s emotions during specific affective events. In times of organizational identity change, transformational leaders will be aware of the potential emotional impact on employees of changes in relation to organizational ethical values. Transformational leaders will use interpersonal emotion management strategies earlier in the process of communicating change (e.g., attention deployment) to manage the potential emotional responses of employees (Corley & Gioia, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). For example, transformational leaders can engage in idealized influence in order to frame the changing norms and values in a manner meant to influence how followers attend to the shift. In responding to employee emotional reactions, transformational leaders will employ later-stage interpersonal emotion management strategies (e.g., cognitive change).

Proposition 1a. Transformational leaders will utilize antecedent-focused interpersonal emotion management strategies prior to follower emotional response.

Proposition 1b. Transformational leaders will utilize response-focused interpersonal emotion management strategies after assessing the follower emotional response.

FOLLOWER SELF-EVALUATIONS DURING IDENTITY CHANGE

During times of organizational identity change, followers are greatly impacted by the shift in behavioral and attitudinal expectations. Followers are presented with information which may run counter to what they have experienced in the past (Antonakis et al., 2003). In order to influence followers in accepting the changing expectations, transformational leaders will engage the follower’s self-concept or social identity (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Shamir et al., 1993). This leads to followers working to reconcile their role in the organization as well as their values in relation to the changing organizational values. This process necessarily entails an evaluation of how they define themselves as organizational members and how this may be impacted by the changes being enacted (Corley & Gioia, 2004). This type of self-evaluation is grounded in the interaction between organizational identity and individual level social identities associated with the organization.

Follower Self-Concept and Social Identity

The self-concept is an amalgam of all the thoughts and feelings a person holds regarding their identities, both at the relational level and individual level (Mead, 1934; Rosenberg, 1979). These various identities provide a source of knowing oneself, information used for self-regulation, and standards used for evaluating behavior and attitudes (Rosenberg, 1979). While the self-concept of followers has been implicated in explaining some effects of transformational leadership on follower behavior based on self-regulation (Shamir et al., 1993), the role of specific emotions driven by self-evaluation has not been explored. Followers experiencing organizational identity change will be confronted with changing organizational values which they must reconcile with in order to remain as productive organizational members. As new values are instilled and ethical changes occur, followers will engage in a process of self-evaluation, comparing the new information presented by the transformational leader with what they know about themselves. The specific emotions most often considered in negative evaluations of the self include guilt and shame, while positive self-evaluation leads to pride (Marschall, Saftner, & Tangney, 1994; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). In order for transformational leaders to successfully influence the values and beliefs of followers, they must be able to effectively manage these emotions, which are intimately tied to notions of the follower’s self-concept.

The self-concept entails both a personal identity and a social identity where the personal identity is a unique understanding a person has of herself as an individual and the social identity consists of a reflection of others’ expectations, how one should “be” in specific social interactions (Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Turner & Onorato, 1999). The social identity acts as a motivational driver in social situations and reflects the values and beliefs held by the individual in relation to their role, including within the organizational context (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). As the social identity reflects outside expectations regarding behavior, during times of organizational change impacting expectations of ethical behavior and attitudes, the social identity linked to the organization will be activated (Markus, 1977; Markus & Wurf, 1987). Identities are hierarchically arranged within the self, indicating some identities have greater value to a person than others. The various identities contributing to the self-concept will be more or less salient within different situations. In an organizational context, a person’s identity tied to work will be most salient (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Instituting ethical changes necessitates a review of values and as such, a transformational leader will engage follower social identities related to the organization. As a transformational leader engages in behaviors meant to influence workers to align their values and beliefs with the new organizational values and beliefs, the leader will engage organizational members’ identities specific to the social self that are important within the work environment and reflect values and beliefs related to their role in the organization. In doing so, the transformational leader will be influencing the member to incorporate the new values into their organizational identity or their understanding of what it means to be a member of the organization (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000; Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

Proposition 2. Transformational leaders will activate follower social identities tied to their organization when changing the ethical organizational identity.

Self-Evaluation and Changing Social Identities

Identities are not static, but rather change and develop over time through self-evaluation in ways that are adaptive and pragmatic, centering on a desire to maintain a positive self-evaluation with high levels of self-esteem and self-worth (Kunda, 1987; Rosenberg, 1979; Sedikides & Strube, 1997; Tesser, 1988). Self-esteem related to social identity allows one to gauge how they are doing in terms of social belongingness or how they fare in terms of being a valued member of a group (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). State self-esteem is domain specific, linked to a certain identity which can be more or less salient depending upon the situation. During times of responsible transformational change, new information is provided related to behavioral and attitudinal expectations within the organization, creating different expectations of organizational membership. These changes can have a strong impact on a person’s social identity in relation to the organization. Maintaining a sense of consistency between the identity and newly relevant information pertaining to the social self is a driver of potential change in the structure of the social identity (Swann, 1990).

Self-esteem is based on contingencies of self-worth which are tied to specific identities (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Tesser, 1988). In order to maintain a positive evaluation of a social identity linked to the organization, a follower may be highly motivated to engage in changing and developing their social identity as organizational expectations change. There are four motivations for evaluating a social identity including self-enhancement, self-verification, self-assessment, and self-improvement (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). During times of ethical organizational identity change, individuals will engage in self-evaluative processes which include both self-verification and self-enhancement in response to needs related to maintaining consistency with their social identity and maintaining self-esteem (Swann, 1990).

When new information arises which is relevant to specific social identities, the self-verification process provides a way to authenticate what is currently known about the self and compare it to the new information (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). This process tends to be cognitively motivated and could be triggered when initially confronted with changes in the organizational context, such as shifting behavioral expectations linked to ethics. Self-enhancement, on the other hand, is affectively motivated by a need to maintain a sense of self-worth. This process occurs after the initial cognitive understanding of the information, and it necessitates a positive or negative reaction (Swann, 1990). For example, as a transformational leader begins to describe past behavior and attitudes as being unethical or irresponsible, individual followers will assess whether or not they agree with the assessment and if it fits with their view of themselves. This will then lead to an affective response in relation to their feelings of self-esteem.

The social identity of the follower provides the basis for the cognitive and emotional responses to the leader. Consistent with Cote’s social interaction model (2005), the transformational leader, as the sender, provides signals to be interpreted by the receiver (follower). The interpretive processes employed by the follower, from a social identity perspective, include both self-verification and self-enhancement. The initial self-verification process in which the follower assesses whether or not the new information confirms their self-concept then leads to an affective reaction stemming from the need for self-enhancement.

Proposition 3. Followers experiencing a changing ethical organizational identity will engage in self-evaluation resulting in affective reactions to the changing attitudinal and behavioral expectations.

INTRAPERSONAL EVALUATION AND INTERPERSONAL EMOTION MANAGEMENT

Follower intrapersonal evaluation processes, which are momentary in nature, related to social identity are important factors in exploring the emotion management strategies utilized by transformational leaders. Emotion can be a strong moderating factor intervening between an initial evaluation and resultant action (Tesser, 1988). Emotional reactions to events are stronger in domains which are highly relevant. The more significant the domain related to the self-evaluation, the greater the affective impact (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Self-evaluations based on social identities at work, then, have the potential for creating greater affective reactions, both positively and negatively. As organizational members respond to shifting norms and values at work, their emotional responses may be heightened, making them easier to identify. In responding to specific emotions, transformational leaders possess a level of skill in terms of being able to recognize emotions, which impacts their performance of transformational leadership behaviors (Rubin et al., 2005). It follows that with heightened emotional responses from organizational members, transformational leaders will be better able to identify and respond appropriately to the followers.

Emotional responses to self-evaluation differ based on the outcome of the evaluation (Block Lewis, 1971; Scheff, 2003; Tesser, 1988). Positive self-evaluation can lead to feelings of pride, whereas negative evaluations lead to guilt and shame (Bandura, 2001; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Both guilt and shame are self-aware emotions based on self-evaluation, but the differences between the two are grounded in attribution theory. Individuals who seek internal attributions for negative events are more likely to experience guilt and shame. But, while both emotions share an internal locus of causal attribution, they differ in globality and stability (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). If the global self, which indicates an enduring aspect of identity, is the focus evaluation, shame will result; however, if the negative evaluation is regarding a specific behavior, which reflects a situational aspect of the self, feelings of guilt will ensue (Block Lewis, 1971). A general way to understand the difference between these two feelings can be described as follows: Guilt is about what I did but shame is about who I am. Pride, guilt, and shame are discrete emotions which are inextricably linked to identity and self-evaluation which followers will be experiencing during shifts in organizational identity (Brown, 2006; Scheff, 2003; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tesser, 1988).

Transformational leaders will engage in a range of behaviors in order to manage the emotional responses of followers in ways that support acceptance of the changing expectations and norms. Response-focused emotion management techniques can include either cognitive change or response modulation (Gross, 2002). For the purposes of this chapter, we are focusing on cognitive change as the focus of transformational leaders as they are responsible for instituting a transformational change in relation to the organization’s ethical identity. Positive emotional responses from followers, or feelings of pride, will trigger transformational behaviors intended to cognitively reinforce these experiences. Responding to negative follower emotions is more complex, as the negative emotions of guilt and shame stem from different types of self-evaluation and necessitate cognitive changes focused on different aspects of the self.

Pride and Empowering Leadership Behavior

In the course of experiencing ethical organizational identity change, organizational members will be confronted with shifting organizational expectations regarding values and beliefs. For some, the change may actually be more in line with their existing social identity. For example, a person who recognized the prior organizational actions as being irresponsible will find the change welcome, experiencing a sense of self-verification and a positive response to the self-evaluative process. In the occurrence of a positive affective event, the follower will respond with feelings of pride, resulting from positive self-evaluations (Block Lewis, 1971; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Pride is one of the self-conscious emotions arising from self-evaluations (Tangney & Fischer, 1995).

Pride can be defined as an emotion “generated by appraisals that one is responsible for a socially valued outcome or for being a socially valued person” (Mascolo & Fischer, 1995, p. 66). In an organizational context, this can be linked to feeling valued as an organizational member and an enhanced experience of belongingness (Oveis, Horberg, & Keltner, 2010; Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). Pride is also an important factor in self-esteem, allowing individuals to maintain a positive self-evaluation by comparing themselves to others in social situations (Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2006; Tracy, Robins, Taylor, & Erlbaum, 2004). When organizational members experience a sense of pride in recognizing their value as an organizational member, a transformational leader will be able to assess the specific emotion and respond with behaviors intended to reinforce the empowering impact of a positive emotion (Tracy & Robins, 2004).

When followers’ social identity is validated by responsible change, there will be a positive impact on self-esteem which can contribute to psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008). Psychological empowerment is based on a person’s perception of four distinct cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1996). Transformational leaders will engage in emotion management techniques meant to reinforce positive feelings and enhance cognitions which support continued self-verification, creating a positive spiral in response to the ethical organizational identity change (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005). For example, they may engage in inspirational motivation which is meant to provide a sense of meaning to the followers, which can reinforce the experience of psychological empowerment (Corley & Gioia, 2004).

Proposition 4. Transformational leaders will manage follower feelings of pride during ethical organizational identity change by engaging in transformational behaviors which reinforce follower social identity, such as inspirational motivation.

Followers experiencing guilt and shame in response to changing organizational values and norms require different responses to effectively manage their emotions. Depending on the focus of the self-evaluation, behavioral or self, the cognitive change required to help manage these emotions is different. Transformational leaders will engage in individualized consideration in order to manage these different emotions to support positive follower outcomes. Individualized consideration is characterized by both supporting and developing behaviors. Supporting behaviors include being friendly, considerate, and appreciative while developing behaviors include coaching and mentoring. These different approaches have different effects on followers in the relationship (Kim & Yukl, 1996; Yukl, 1999; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). Developing behaviors have a greater impact on follower feelings of self-efficacy and skill development, while supporting behaviors have less of an effect on performance and motivation (Bass, 1990, 1999). Both of these behaviors have the potential to impact the cognitive understanding of the follower.

Guilt and Supportive Leadership Behavior

Guilt typically involves a causal attribution of an internal, specific, and unstable nature. The negative evaluation is not connected directly to the self-concept, rather it is connected to the thing that was done or not done (Block Lewis, 1971). These are feelings regarding a behavior that can be changed, something that the individual might not do on a regular basis, but happened to do in a certain circumstance. Guilt can actually be productive in terms of personal development and enhance relationships because an individual is more likely to accept responsibility for negative interactions (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Guilt provides a level of psychological discomfort, potentially motivating meaningful change.

In developing feelings of guilt, an organizational member may not engage in self-verification, as the focus is on the behavior, not the self. Guilt does not result in or from a threat to the self-concept, therefore does not impair feelings of self-efficacy (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). However, the individual will experience guilt in response to self-enhancing evaluations as they assess the behavior they engaged in to be incongruent with their intentions. Feelings of guilt, which do not impact feelings of self-efficacy, can lead to constructive strategies for change. A person is able to distance their feelings of self-worth and self-esteem from the situation and focus on what actually happened, discover the real infraction, and address the circumstances (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Followers who experience guilt in response to a negative self-evaluation are more likely to respond to supportive behaviors of transformational leaders which provide a level of support based on being appreciative and considerate. These behaviors can enhance the follower’s motivation to change which was triggered by the psychological discomfort of experiencing guilt.

Proposition 5. Transformational leaders will manage followers experiencing guilt during times of ethical organizational identity change by engaging in supportive transformational behaviors.

Shame and Developing Leadership Behavior

As social expectations within the organizational context shift, organizational members may find that the new information does not match their self-concept. If their social identity tied to their work is a central aspect of their self-esteem, this negatively impacts their feelings of self-worth, resulting in shame. Shame is one of the most fundamental social emotions, triggered by specific interpersonal interactions which cause a negative self-evaluation based on internalized social ideals (Scheff, 2000, 2003). Shame can be one of the most intense feelings, reflecting an experience of negative self-evaluation tied to our sense of what is right and wrong, and is one of the most prevalent, yet least researched emotion (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Initial reactions to shame include self-blame, which, being an intensely aversive feeling, typically turns to outward hostility (Retzinger, 1987; Scheff, 1987). The response to feelings of shame results in behavior fueled by anger and blame, which can result in negative outcomes for individuals, groups, and organizations. While guilt can lead to constructive development, shame is more likely to result in destructive behaviors.

As transformational leaders initiate changes in expected behaviors and attitudes, followers experiencing shame may react in ways that create obstacles to transformational change, requiring different emotion management strategies. Shame has three distinct dimensions: psychological, social, and cultural (Brown, 2006). These dimensions encompass emotions regarding the self (psychological), relationships in which shame is experienced (social), and the cultural expectations which represent real or perceived benchmarks for self-evaluation. In Brown’s (2006) Shame Resilience Theory (SRT), specific capabilities can be developed to deal with shame more effectively, including critical awareness regarding cultural expectations, acknowledging personal vulnerabilities within specific identity domains, and forming mutually empathic relationships. Transformational leaders will engage in behaviors which support the development of these capabilities, specifically targeting followers experiencing shame.

In order to respond to followers experiencing shame, transformational leaders will engage in developing behaviors including coaching and mentoring. Transformational leaders provide developmental individualized consideration which can improve feelings of self-efficacy (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). Coaching and mentoring can provide followers with the opportunity to acknowledge specific vulnerabilities in work-related identity domains in relation to the shifting social expectations. As the social expectations in the organization change, individuals experiencing shame will acknowledge the vulnerabilities within the specific domain and work to change the structure of their social identity in relation to the domain in order to remain as a productive member of the organization.

Proposition 6. Transformational leaders will manage followers experiencing shame during ethical organizational identity change by engaging in developing transformational behaviors.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.

Albert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 13–17.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28, 307–338. doi:10.1177/014920630202800304

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 2, 9–54.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current emotion research in organizational behavior. Emotion Review, 3, 214–224.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.

Balmer, J. M. T., Fukukawa, K., & Gray, E. R. (2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 7–15.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

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

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33, 122–136.

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1054–1068.

Block Lewis, H. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Psychoanalytic Review, 58, 419–438.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554–571.

Brown, B. (2006). Shame resilience theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 87, 43–52.

Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245–272.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.

Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an ability measure of emotional intelligence to personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 306–320.

Corley, K. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change. Human Relations, 57, 1145–1177.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.

Cote, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 509–530.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623.

Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 163–178.

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.

Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2006). Examining the relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in senior female managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 250–264.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (2006). The relational foundation of research: An underappreciated dimension of interesting research. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 21–26.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315–386.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Reve, 29, 459–478.

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. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123–129.

Fletcher, J. K. (2007). Leadership, power, and positive relationships. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13, 618–635.

Francis, L. E. (1997). Ideology and interpersonal emotion management: Redefining identity in two support groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 153–171.

Gaddis, B., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Failure feedback as an affective event: Influences of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 663–686.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.

Godos-Díez, J.-L., Fernández-Gago, R., & Martínez-Campillo, A. (2010). How important are CEOs to CSR practices? An analysis of the mediating effect of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 531–548.

Gooty, J., Gavin, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2009). Emotions research in OB: The challenges that lie ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 833–838.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291.

Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader ethical values, transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 511–528.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership prices: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112.

Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 493–504.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246–255.

Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1996). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and subordinate-reported leadership behaviors from the multiple-linkage model. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361–377.

Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62.

Lively, K. J. (2000). Reciprocal emotion management: Working together to maintain stratification in private law firms. Work and Occupations, 27, 32–63.

Lowe, B. K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literatures. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–415.

Manz, C. C., Anand, V., Joshi, M., & Manz, K. P. (2008). Emerging paradoxes in executive leadership: A theoretical interpretation of the tensions between corruption and virtuous values. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 385–392.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.

Marschall, D. E., Saftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The state shame and guilt scale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in appraisals for pride, shame, and guilt. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 64–113). New York, NY: Guilford.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 197–208.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197–215.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? The American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.

McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545–559.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mignonac, K., & Herrbach, O. (2004). Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes: An empirical study of managers’ emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 221–240.

Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 601–614.

Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of self-other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 618–630.

Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Leadership centrality and Corporate Social Ir-Responsibility (CSIR): The potential ameliorating effects of self or shared leadership on CSIR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 563–579.

Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 583–599.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354.

Retzinger, S. R. (1987). Resentment and laughter: Video studies of the shame-rage spiral. In H. B. Lewis (Ed.), The role of shame in symptom formation (pp. 151–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845–858.

Scheff, T. J. (1987). The shame-rage spiral: A case study of an interminable quarrel. In H. Block Lewis (Ed.), The role of shame in symptom formation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scheff, T. J. (2000). Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 18, 84–99.

Scheff, T. J. (2003). Shame in self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 239–262.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209–251). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.

Silfver, M. (2007). Coping with guilt and shame: a narrative approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36, 169–183.

Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barley & C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 408–448). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). The self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. New York, NY: Guilford.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–277). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Show your pride: Evidence for a discrete emotion expression. Psychological Science, 15, 194–197.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339–1351.

Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., Taylor, P., & Erlbaum, L. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.

Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. In T. Tyler, R. Kramer, & O. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 11–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Verbos, A. K., Gerard, J. A., Forshey, P. R., Harding, C. S., & Miller, J. S. (2007). The positive ethical organization: Enacting a living code of ethics and ethical organizational identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 17–33.

Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1703–1725.

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35, 1428–1452.

Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223–270.

Wang, Y.-S., & Huang, T.-C. (2009). The relationship of transformational leadership with group cohesiveness and emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37, 379–392.

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, 1–24.

Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business & Society, 41, 393–414.

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1007–1017.

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: Adaptive social emotion or seventh sin? Psychological Science, 20(3), 284–288.

Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 32, 595–621.

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the managerial practices survey. In K. E. Clark & B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223–238). Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

CHAPTER 10

A MULTILEVEL MODEL OF MANAGING EMOTIONS IN TRANSFORMATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY CHANGE

ABSTRACT