Supporting one's family is a major reason why many people work, yet surprisingly little research has examined the implications of family motivation. Drawing on theories of prosocial motivation and action identification, we propose that family motivation increases job performance by enhancing energy and reducing stress, and it is especially important when intrinsic motivation is lacking. Survey and diary data collected across multiple time points in a Mexican maquiladora generally support our model. Specifically, we find that family motivation enhances job performance when intrinsic motivation is low-in part by providing energy, but not by reducing stress. We conclude that supporting a family provides a powerful source of motivation that can boost performance in the workplace, offering meaningful implications for research on motivation and the dynamics of work and family engagement.

This paper focuses on an emergent debate about the microfoundations of organizational social networks. We consider three theoretical positions: an individual agency perspective suggesting that people, through their individual characteristics and cognitions, shape networks; a network patterning perspective suggesting that networks, through their structural configuration, form people; and a coevolution perspective suggesting that people, in their idiosyncrasies, and networks, in their differentiated structures, coevolve. We conclude that individual attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes cannot be fully understood without considering the structuring of organizational contexts in which people are embedded, and that social network structuring and change in organizations cannot be fully understood without considering the psychology of purposive individuals. To guide future research, we identify key questions from each of the three theoretical perspectives and, particularly, encourage more research on how individual actions and network structure coevolve in a dynamic process of reciprocal influence. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the action editor Sucheta Nadkarni for her consistently helpful editorial guidance throughout the review process. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. The basic ideas and structure of the paper benefited from presentation at the Microfoundations of Social Networks Workshop, Copenhagen, June 2014.

Research has established that groups are pervaded by feelings. But group emotion research within organizational science has suffered in recent years from a lack of terminological clarity, from a narrow focus on small groups, and from an overemphasis on micro-processes of emotion transmission. We address those problems by reviewing and systematically integrating relevant work conducted not only in organizational science, but also in psychology and sociology. We offer a definition of group emotions and sort the conceptual space along four dimensions: group emotion responses, recognition, regulation, and reiteration. We provide evidence that group emotions occur at all levels of analysis, including levels beyond small work groups. The accounts of group emotion emergence at higher levels of analysis differ substantially between organizational science, psychology and sociology. We review these accountsemergence through inclination, interaction, institutionalization, or identificationand then synthesize them into one parsimonious model. The consequences of different group emotions are reviewed and further constructs (including emotional aperture, group emotional intelligence, emotional culture and emotional climate) are discussed. We end with a call for future research on several neglected group emotion topics including the study of discrete shared emotions, emotions at multiple levels, the effects of social network patterns, and effects on group functioning. In organizational behavior research, there has been a rising interest in group emotions over the last three decades. The treatment of emotion as a group-level phenomenon and the emergence of the "affective tone" of a group as a new construct were heralded by pioneering work in the 1990s (George, 1990; George, 1996). Early resistance to the idea of group emotions (Yammarino & Markham, 1992) was soon overcome (George & James, 1993), and several landmark studies followed. These showed that emotions converge in small work groups as a 2 We initially searched Google Scholar for "collective emotion." We went through the first 12 pages of results to gather high-impact publications (independent of where they were published) and we compiled the terms from these papers that were commonly used to refer to group emotions. We then applied these terms in a systematic search for relevant papers in high-impact journals in organizational sciences, psychology and sociology. The literature search was conducted over the summer of 2014. As search terms, we used: group emotion, collective emotion, shared emotion, group affect, collective affect, shared affect, group mood, collective mood, shared mood, affective climate, emotional climate, intergroup emotion, intergroup affect, widespread emotion, emotional contagion, emotional atmosphere, affective atmosphere, affective tone, and emotional energy. For the organizational sciences, we systematically searched the following journals:

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to use the job demands-resources model to investigate intra-individual engagement-burnout profiles, and demands-resources profiles. Design/methodology/approach A representative sample of the US workforce was surveyed online. Latent profile analysis (LPA) and configural frequency analysis examined intra-individual profiles and their inter-relations. Findings A negative inter-individual correlation between engagement and burnout suggested that burnout tends to be lower when engagement is high, but intra-individual analyses identified both aligned engagement-burnout profiles (high, moderate, and low on both variables), and discrepant profiles (high engagement – low burnout; high burnout – low engagement). High engagement and burnout co-occurred in 18.8 percent of workers. These workers reported strong mixed (positive and negative) emotions and intended to leave their organization. Another LPA identified three demands-resources profiles: low demands – low resources, but moderate self-efficacy, low workload and bureaucracy demands but moderate information processing demands – high resources, and high demands – high resources. Workers with high engagement – high burnout profiles often reported high demands – high resources profiles. In contrast, workers with high engagement – low burnout profiles often reported profiles of high resources, moderate information processing demands, and low other demands. Originality/value This study examined the intersection of intra-individual engagement-burnout profiles and demands-resources profiles. Previous studies examined only one of these sides or relied on inter-individual analyses. Interestingly, many employees appear to be optimally engaged while they are burned-out and considering to leave their jobs. Demands and resources facets were distinguished in the LPA, revealing that some demands were associated with resources and engagement.

No abstract