احساسات و قدرت (به عنوان نفوذ اجتماعی): تاثیر آنها بر تابعیت سازمانی و فردی معکوس و رفتار سازمانی

Emotion and power as manifested in forms of social influence have been studied throughout millennia, and have recently enjoyed intense scientific scrutiny. However, their joint effects on important classes of discretionary behaviors in work organizations have not been well elaborated. This paper provides a theoretical framework derived from past research within which these joint effects are described, and offers hypotheses to guide future research. A primary theme is that emotion and social influence, when considered at individual, dyadic and organizational levels, have a reciprocal causal relationship and jointly affect organizational behavior, especially behavior that is largely discretionary, including organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior (OCB and CWB), as well as counterproductive organizational behavior (COB).

The demise of the previously well-respected accounting firm Arthur Andersen as described in graphic detail by Toffler and Reingold (2003) illustrates the potentially cataclysmic impact of counterproductive behaviors. A pattern of ethically questionable or patently illegal behavior at both individual levels and across the entire firm over a significant period of time presumably led to the demise of the firm and to financial devastation amounting to billions of dollars and lost jobs for thousands of employees and investors. The causes of the firm's downfall are complex, but shared emotions and patterns of influence both within the firm and with key institutions in its environment appear to have played an important role. Institutionalized fear and forced adherence to unethical norms are among the factors underscored by the authors. In its early successful period, a climate of shared positive emotions and principled commitment to its clientele seemed to prevail. This case illustrates several things: First, counterproductive behavior on the part of individuals is a critical element in an organization's success or failure, but perhaps even more significant is a pattern of such behavior that may be permitted or even encouraged by the organization. While research attention has been focused on counterproductive work behavior (CWB) of individuals, much less has been directed toward counterproductive organizational behavior (COB) (for an exception see Campbell, 2007). Second, emotions and patterns of social influence seem to be implicated in the occurrence of both organizational citizenship and counterproductive behavior. However, the manner in which the emotions and social influence independently and jointly operate to culminate in OCB, CWB and COB has not been definitively articulated. Third, solid theory and data on the independent and joint dynamics of emotions and patterns of social influence will add both to our understanding of OCB, CWB and COB, and to the repertoire of interventions that may be brought to bear in heading off such debacles as befell Arthur Andersen. This paper elaborates upon the separate and joint impact of emotion and power, as social influence, through the development from past research of a theoretical framework that leads to empirically testable hypotheses. A basic assumption underlying this enterprise is that these two sets of variables are reciprocally and causally related, and so a thorough understanding of the dynamics of what drives behaviors like OCB, CWB or COB cannot be attained without considering both in tandem. Moreover, there has not been, to the author's knowledge, a rigorous theoretical statement that has incorporated at once all the critical sets of factors considered here. The paper begins with a brief overview of the key dependent variables of interest—organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and a class of behaviors distinct from CWB, counterproductive organizational behavior (COB). These classes of behavior are considered a fertile ground to explore the joint effects of emotion and social influence, since they are considered more discretionary than core role- and job-prescribed behaviors. As such they may be more susceptible to the impact of emotion and social influence. Nor has there been a great deal of careful theory development dealing with the manner in which emotion and power separately and jointly impact these kinds of behaviors. Following this section propositions and empirically testable hypotheses are offered at multiple levels, organizational, dyadic, and individual, that center on linkages among these dependent variables and the dual impact of their presumptive antecedents, emotion and social influence. The overriding purposes for this paper are twofold: 1. to illuminate the reciprocal, causal relationship between emotion and power; and 2. to develop a multi-level theory that traces their independent and combined effects on a variety of discretionary behaviors that may be classified as organizational citizenship and counterproductive work and organizational behavior. In addressing these purposes the value-added of this paper inheres in the following: 1) the enhancement of understanding of the presumed joint operation of two critical sets of variables that have not generally been considered in tandem as predictors and antecedents of important outcomes; 2) the development of testable hypotheses to clarify further the antecedents of variables that contribute to organizational and individual effectiveness or failure (OCB, CWB and COB), which will hopefully stimulate future research; 3) elaboration of concepts that have not been as comprehensively delineated in past treatments, including counterproductive organizational behavior and classification and listing of influence tactics into “hard” and “soft” categories, and 4) a brief description of measures that may be used to test the hypotheses proffered.

Emotion and social influence have generally been studied as separate causal agents or in isolation from each other, while the case has been advanced here that they are reciprocally and causally related and operate in tandem to produce important organizational outcomes. Their joint effects must be conjured with for a better understanding of the underpinnings of employee behaviors, including OCB, CWB and COB. Available evidence suggests that emotion and social influence are important antecedents of these relatively discretionary behaviors. Moreover, the position advanced here advocates consideration of linkages between specific emotional states and particular forms of OCB, CWB and COB. Potentially our understanding of these behaviors will be rendered more accurate by a clearer understanding of the interplay among influence tactics, emotions associated with the exercise of these, and the choice of behaviors to cope with or express them. A number of other potential contributions of this paper are highlighted here. First, a set of behaviors that may be characterized as COB has been provided. This opens possibilities for research addressed at internal antecedents of a segment of organizational behavior that has heretofore received little attention. Second, a relatively comprehensive listing of influence tactics has been introduced, that combines notions of compliance, discretion, reinforcement theory and justice. Third, methods for measuring the constructs described have been suggested. Future research might well be directed at multi-level effects of emotional climate and aggregated control patterns over time. Of special interest are the potential interactive effects proposed here. As well, studies of the sequential dynamics of Actor social influence and particular emotions jointly leading to choices of influence tactics, and the impact of these tactics on individual and collective targets may clarify the wellsprings of OCB, CWB and COB. The last mentioned category of behavior is certainly in need of systematic study given its cost and the lack of systematic research. Also it is clear that the complex causal connections likely attending these phenomena necessitate multi-methodological and multi-level studies including laboratory and fieldwork. Availability of measures to index and assess control profiles like the control graph and the STEM should facilitate research efforts. A set of intriguing questions surrounds the impact in organizations of particular emotions. One emotion of particular importance in work settings appears to be envy and its close kin jealousy, which have not enjoyed an overabundance of attention in organizational research. As the novelist Pamuk (2001, p. 99) points out, “…envy is the prime emotion in life.” He goes on to trace its biblical importance and to show how dynasties and wars are motivated to a great degree by these poisonous states. Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007) have begun to unravel the destructive effects of envy in the workplace. What may be said of practical implications for managers? Although there is research supporting the salutary effects of positive emotions, more functional control profiles, and influence tactics that promote a sense of justice and fairness, a more complete understanding of the phenomena at hand is necessary to offer definite recommendations. Nevertheless managers may derive benefits by considering several elements discussed here. First managers may benefit by understanding the manner in which their behaviors that serve to induce emotions affect the degree of influence they may exercise and conversely how their influence tactics engender emotional reactions in targets. Of the two the management of emotions is perhaps afforded the lower amount of attention, which the theory suggests managers ignore at their peril. These reciprocal influences are expected to have substantial force in effecting outcomes like OCB and CWB. The pairing of soft influence tactics and the fostering of positive emotions together may produce a level of outcome much greater than that which would come about by focusing on each separately. Second, the control graph, based on the theory of Tannenbaum (1968) has been shown to be and may be employed as a useful diagnostic tool. It has not been widely used for practical purposes although it is potentially of substantial value (Miner, 2003). Third, managers might facilitate perceptions of empowerment by fostering a positive emotional climate. Fourth, the listing of influence tactics provided here offers managers' alternative means of achieving work group goals. Fifth, detection of destructive emotions such as envy and jealousy and their diminution through empowerment and enacting pro social norms may avoid the harmful outcomes of CWB. As Lazarus (1991) implies, providing future expectancies of self-relevant successful outcomes may alleviate these states. On the other hand characterological envy described by Lazarus (1991) can be extremely disruptive of relationships at work, and might be attended to by directing a target to an employee assistance program. In extreme cases transfer or termination of the target may be the only viable remedy. Emotion and social influence need to be studied in tandem. It is hoped that the theory developed in this paper and the resulting hypotheses will stimulate more research on the joint operation of these critical elements of the human experience in organizations.