The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior

Barsade, Sigal G.

doi:10.2307/3094912

Cited by 2,623 publications

(2,261 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Above and beyond avoiding conflict over status and employing more effective task processes, groups whose members express positive sentiments toward each other tend to perform better (Barsade 2002;Carnevale & Isen, 1986;Bramesfeld & Gasper, 2008;George & Zhou, 2007;Gibson, 2003). Positive interactions are seen to build trust and communication and motivate members to contribute more to the group (Cunningham, 1988;Isen, Rosenzweig & Young, 1991;Mason & Griffin, 2005).…”

Section: The Effects Of Power On Group Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance.

Hildreth

Anderson

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All too commonly, we see groups of leaders fail to accomplish their stated goals when working together -legislators who cannot agree on a bill, heads of state who cannot draft meaningful environmental policy, or boards of trustees who make disastrous decisions for their school. The current research examines whether groups of leaders fail as often as they do in part because of the power each leader is accustomed to possessing. Multiple studies found high power individuals, when working in groups, performed worse than did other groups: individuals randomly assigned power in an initial task were less creative when they then worked together in groups on a subsequent task (Study 1A). Individuals with higher power who worked together in groups were also less likely to reach agreement on a difficult negotiation task, whether these groups comprised actual executives from an extant organization (Study 2) or students randomly assigned power in the laboratory (Study 3). Mediation analyses suggest that groups of high power individuals performed worse because they fought over their relative status in the group, were less focused on the task, and shared information with each other less effectively.Keywords: power, groups, status, conflict, performance, creativity, negotiation FAILURE AT THE TOP 3 Individuals in positions of leadership are given inordinate power. They have disproportionate control when they interact with those they lead and their ideas, decisions, and opinions hold more sway than those of others. But, what happens when leaders have to interact and work with other leaders? How does the power they are accustomed to possessing shape their effectiveness when working with others who also hold power? This question is critical because it is often the case that important decisions and problems are addressed not by individual leaders but by groups of leaders -in government legislatures, boards of directors, or meetings between heads of state, for example. If groups of leaders fail, the damage can be profound. Legislators who cannot agree on a fiscal budget risk severe economic costs, boards of trustees who set bad policies for their university can reduce the quality of their education, and leaders of disputing countries who cannot resolve their differences risk escalating their conflict into war.The research literature has been surprisingly quiet on this question. Although a substantial body of research has examined how the possession of power can shape myriad cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (for reviews, see Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003;Guinote & Vescio, 2010), this work has focused heavily on how the possession of power affects people in individual tasks or making individual decisions. Relatively little research has examined the effects of power in interactive or group contexts, let alone examined contexts in which powerholders interact and work with each other.The current research aimed to fill this lacuna.On the one hand, one might hypothesize that power would help groups of leaders...

show abstract

Section: The Effects Of Power On Group Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance.

Hildreth

Anderson

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seul l'aspect affectif et surtout émotionnel permet de distinguer la qualité des interactions intra-groupe mais aussi inter-groupes. Ainsi, selon Barsade (2002) l'un des intérêts de l'entreprise à prendre en considération les émotions de groupe serait de favoriser la cohésion sociale de ses employés. Pour cela, la capacité de contagion que (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1994. p. 5).…”

Section: This Paper Presents Research Carried Out At Cirano and Aimsunclassified

“…Les travaux de George (1989 ;1990) démontrent l'influence de l'humeur du groupe sur le comportement prosocial vis-à-vis des collègues, des clients et sur la performance et l'absentéisme. Dernièrement, Barsade (2002) démontre par une expérimentation que l'émotion de groupe influence la dynamique et la performance de groupe.…”

Section: This Paper Presents Research Carried Out At Cirano and Aimsunclassified

“…Cette contagiosité favorise également l'établissement de liens sociaux, mais peut-on affirmer qu'elle favorise automatiquement la cohésion sociale ? Le processus de contagion émotionnelle, qui reste peu expliqué par la recherche, est défini comme une tendance à imiter, de façon souvent inconsciente (Hatfield et al, 1994 (Barsade, 2002 ;Shaw, Duffy, & Stark, 2000) tendent à montrer que la contagion émotionnelle au travail fonctionne tant pour les émotions positives que négatives, même si la contagion positive est moins flagrante (Barsade, 2002).…”

Section: I1 Emotionunclassified

“…Dans ce contexte particulier, trop peu de recherches se sont intéressés au sujet de la contagion émotionnelle dans le cadre de l'organisation et du travail. Cependant, plusieurs études démontrent l'impact positif de la contagion sur la cohésion sociale, l'engagement et la performance de groupe (Barsade, 2002 ;Mason & Griffin, 2002 (Seligman et Schulman, 1986 ;George, 1991 ;Staw, Sutton et Pelled, 1994 …”

Section: I4 Contagion Et Cohésion : Créativité Et Performance De Grounclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations