The study of affect in the workplace began and peaked in the 1930s, with the decades that followed up to the 1990s not being particularly fertile. Whereas job satisfaction generally continues to be loosely but not carefully thought of and measured as an affective state, critical work in the 1990s has raised serious questions about the affective status of job satisfaction in terms of its causes as well as its definition and measurement. Recent research has focused on the production of moods and emotions at work, with an emphasis, at least conceptually, on stressful events, leaders, work groups, physical settings, and rewards/punishment. Other recent research has addressed the consequences of workers' feelings, in particular, a variety of performance outcomes (e.g., helping behaviors and creativity). Even though recent interest in affect in the workplace has been intense, many theoretical and methodological opportunities and challenges remain.

Five forms of organizational spontaneity are described (helping co-workers, protecting the organization, making constructive suggestions, developing oneself, and spreading goodwill). Organizational spontaneity is compared with the seemingly analogous constructs of organizational citizenship behavior and prosocial organizational behavior. Based on a selective review of the literature, a multilevel model of spontaneity is presented. Positive mood at work is a pivotal construct in the model and posited as the direct precursor of organizational spontaneity. Primary work-group characteristics, the affective tone of the primary work group, affective disposition, life event history, and contextual characteristics are proposed to have direct or indirect effects, or both, on positive mood at work. Motivational bases of organizational spontaneity also are described. The model and its implications are discussed.

No abstract

We predicted that the dispositional construct negative affectivity (NA) would be related to self-report measures of job stress and job strain and that observed relationships between these stress and strain measures would be inflated considerably by NA. Results of a study of 497 managers and professionals were largely consistent with those expectations. Thus, we discuss implications for NA as both a methodological nuisance and a substantive cause of stressful work events, and conclude that NA should no longer remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress.