1

When Pulling to the Negative Emotional Attractor is Too Much or Not Enough to Inspire and Sustain Outstanding Leadership Richard E. Boyatzis Distinguished University Professor Case Western Reserve University Peter B. Lewis Building #429 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA Tel.: 216 368 2053 E-mail address: richard.boyatzis@case.edu

To appear in R. Burke, C. Cooper, and G. Woods (eds.), The Fulfilling Workplace: the Organizations Role in Achieving Individual and Organizational Health, Gower Publishing, London. November 14, 2011

Word Count: 5,443

2 In the Stars Wars movies, the viewer is witness to repeated battles between good and bad. Obi-wan Kenobi and Yoda entice Anakin and later Luke Skywalker to use the force within you for good. The contrast is the breath filled voice of Darth Vader tempting Luke with the benefits of the dark side. Whether they battle with their minds, light swords, or clones, these opposing forces, as the sage Yoda explains to Jedi knights in training are both within us and the universe. It is a Hollywood version of yin/yang, eternal forces that exist in context of and in opposition to each other. The Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA) and Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA) represent analogous states which are both necessary and both present at all times, but often function as if they were diametrically opposing states. The PEA and NEA alternate in a person, dyad, team, organization, community, or even country. But the period of time spent when one attractor dominates is different from person to person, situation to situation and time to time. These variations help to explain when and how we are willing to consider learning, change and adaptation, and when we are not. The emerging field and popularity of positive psychology has replaced our focus on needs and deficiencies with a focus on the positive and the possible. But in this fervor, we may be masking the important role of the negative. This chapter will explore how these states affect leaders, their relationships with others around them, and result in effective or ineffective leaders. Particular attention will be paid to the role of the PEA and NEA in how a leader might inspire others to develop and perform, or not. In other words, this chapter will seek to answer the question: When is arousal of the NEA too much, and when is it not enough? At the heart of this conceptual dilemma and emotional tug-of-war, there are a few trends in research that are relevant but from different fields.

Two Strange Attractors: The PEA and NEA As a part of Intentional Change Theory, there are two strange attractors within each of us, or our social organizations (Boyatzis, 2008). These are called the Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA) and Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA), as mentioned earlier. They are technically strange attractors as first articulated by Ed Lorenz (1963). That is, they create forces that pull our behavior, attitudes, feelings, and such around them, but not into them. This is different than a limit point cycle attractor which, like a black hole, pulls all in its presence into a vortex and a center (Casti, 1994). In this application, once caught in the pull of an attractor, a persons mood, state, feelings, thoughts, and behavior cycle within a self-perpetuating loop. It takes a tipping point to move the state into the pull of the other attractor. Positive emotions have been shown to result in more altruistic, helpful, cooperative and conciliatory behavior (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). These cognitive events then reinforce themselves and trigger positive emotions (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). This creates a positive feedback loop. In this way, a person is in the PEA until a tipping point shifts the person into the NEA. Biological research shows that physiological arousal of the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) and corresponding neuro-endocrine systems arouses the vagus nerve, which then slows the heart rate and triggers the release of variety of hormones. Oxytocin, primarily in women, and vasopressin, primarily in men are associated with many physiological, psychological and social benefits (Insel, 1997; Schulkin, 1999; Kemp et al, 2011). For example, oxytocin reduces anxiety and heightens feelings of tenderness, attachment and closeness to others. The opposite of this occurs in the SNS, in which endocrines like epinephrine,

4 norepinephrine, CRF, CRH, ACTH, and cortisol enter the bloodstream and have the effect of limiting cognitive, perceptual and emotional openness and performance (Sapolsky, 2004). Once positive emotions are aroused, and the related neural activations and hormonal arousals occur, the PEA state would result in a person being more cognitively open. A persons cognitive performance would improve (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1994, 1997). They would be more perceptually open and accurate in perceptions of others (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Talarico, Berstein & Rubin, 2008). In the PEA, a person is more emotionally open (Critchley, 2005). In the PEA state, a person is believed to have access to more of their neural circuits, is calmer, and their immune system functions at its best (Boyatzis, Smith & Blaize, 2006). A process of creating hippocampal stem cells into new neural tissue in adult humans is called neurogenesis and is believed to occur in the PEA (Erikson et al., 1998). Meanwhile, in the NEA state, a person has less access to their neural circuits and neurogenesis is inhibited (Boyatzis et.al., 2006). Strange attractors have been used by other scholars to explain the dynamics of better relationships and positive emotions. For example, Losada and Heaphy (2004) claimed that a dynamic, non-linear system described the relationship between team performance and three characteristics of intra-team interactions. One dimension of their model was the ratio of positive to negative statements within the team. They explained, in a mathematical model, how high performing teams would have a positivity to negativity ratio of 2.9 or above. But their model of strange attractors did not use physiological states as a dimension. The other two dimensions of their model focused on effectiveness and the nature of attribution of participants. Similarly, Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson and Swanson (2002) used a strange attractor to describe how emotions that are aroused within a married couple determine the health

5 and stability of their marriage. Their research revealed a ratio of 5:1 was crucial for healthy, stable, loving marriages. They had two dimensions similar to the PEA: the ratio of positive to negative emotions aroused (similar to Fredricksons model); and the degree of emotional intensity in the spouses attempted influence of their partner. The need for the three dimensions described by the PEA and NEA becomes clearer from a meta-analysis and mathematical argument by Russell and Carroll (1999). They claimed that positive and negative affect are not merely bi-polar. They believed that a dimension that addresses the intensity of the arousal of emotion is also needed beyond the positive/negative dimension. In the Boyatzis (2008) model, the PEA and NEA are best represented by three dimensions: (1) a continuum of affect aroused from positive to negative; (2) a continuum of a neural activation and endocrine arousal best labeled as the parasympathetic nervous system to the sympathetic nervous system; and (3) a continuum of the relative degree of intensity in the arousal/activation from low to high. Again, once pulled into the orbit of one of these attractors, the person, team, organization, or community will cycle around and within it, in what appears to be a homeostatic state. The intensity, nature of the affect, and physiological state will vary in degree (i.e., a person can be more or less in the PEA or NEA), but the person will be looping in that state until a tipping point occurs to move him/her into the other state.

Two Basic Needs and the Three Dimensions The two attractors reflect two basic needs of the human organism: the need to survive and the need to thrive. The drive to survive has emerged through adaption of the human organism over our history. Baumeister et al (2001) reviewed many studies from many fields bringing us to

6 the conclusion that bad is stronger than good. This includes emotions. They conjecture that is serves the human organisms long-term survival needs. To survive, we need to protect ourselves from risk and danger. Without surviving, there can be no thriving. As described previously in this paper, the NEA incorporates negative over positive emotional arousal and the arousal of the sympathetic nervous system and activation of related neural networks. The NEA state could be said to reflect the survival need of the human. It enables the human organism to activate itself and prepare to defend against threats. Segerstrom and Miller (2004) showed that the human stress response (i.e., activation of the SNS) occurs when we feel something is important (the more important the higher the stress), something is uncertain (the more uncertain the higher the stress), or we feel that people are watching and evaluating us (the more people or time involved in their observations and evaluation, the higher the stress). They also point out, supported by Sapolsky (2004), that humans can activate the stress response by merely anticipating one of these the conditions. In todays society, many of the threats have become symbolic. Between real, symbolic and anticipated conditions, it is likely that people in professional or managerial roles activate the NEA more often than to only help us survive. The Baumeister et. al. (2001) review does not conclude that bad is better than good, merely stronger. The popularity of the emerging field of positive psychology can be said to result from our fatigue with excessive NEA arousal. Besides optimism, positive emotions have been proposed as a building block of the alternative human need-- the need to thrive. The benefits of positive emotions have been documented in many studies summarized by Fredrickson (2009). Her work has shown that the ratio of positive to negative emotions predicts the cognitive, perceptual and emotional conditions of the parasympathetic nervous system and the PEA.

7 The human need to thrive is described by Fredrickson (2009) as the need to flourish in through her broaden and build theory. As described previously in this paper, the PEA incorporates positive over negative emotional arousal and the arousal of the parasympathetic nervous system and activation of related neural networks. The appeal of being in the PEA both provides relief from the burdens of the experience in the NEA and allows us to explore and enjoy the alternative to the drive to survive. The activation of the PEA would bring us into the drive to thrive, while the NEA would bring us into the drive to survive. Balancing these states is essential for a human to both adapt with life and work but also to innovate and expand the possibilities in life. An appropriate balance among the PEA and NEA could affect a persons sense of well being, as well as their ability to learn, develop, and create. Through the neural mechanism of emotional contagion (Boyatzis, Passarelli, Lowe, Koenig, Mathews, Stoller, and Phillips, 2011; Boyatzis, 2011) and the behavioral mechanism of social contagion (i.e., through social processes of mimicry, role modeling, and enactment of social norms), the experience of the PEA or the NEA is spread to others and becomes a shared experience. A key paper in the positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship field was Dutton, Spreitzer, et. al. (2006) about a persons best self. This is considered a building block of high quality relationships, which in turn foster a sense of well being, better innovation, productivity, organizational commitment and engagement ( ). The benefits and appeal of

being in the PEA state expand beyond the individual into his or her relationships and have a PEA arousing effect in teams, organizations, communities and even countries (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Boyatzis, 2008).

8 The Benefits of the Positive Emotional Attractor There appear to be four primary experiences which have been related to arousing the PEA state (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005): (1) Creating a shared vision, telos or purpose; (2) Expressing compassion; (3) A combination of shared vision and positive mood; and (4) playfulness (Ayan, 2009). The PEA is the relationship between the leader and those around him/her is often evident in the nature of the relationship. The relationship affects the followers job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, health, effort, learning, and development (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Gerstner & Day, 1997). The arousal of the PEA affects both parties in these relationships. When the followers enter the PEA, in a positive feedback loop, this arouses a the PEA in the leader (Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006). The emerging field of follower studies is balancing the leader-centric nature of most leadership research (Tee, Ashkanasy and Paulsen, 2011). Previous research and models of effective leadership appear to cause or be associated with similar outcomes as the PEA. For example, transformational leadership research is linked to improved employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, effort, organizational citizenship behavior, turnover intention, and task performance (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bommer et al., 2004). Meanwhile, charismatic leadership theory is similar positive outcomes (Rowold & Laukamp, 2009). It has also been associated with improvements in subjective outcomes such as trust, satisfaction, and perception of group performance by followers (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). Articulating a shared vision or creating a process in which a shared vision is developed or discussed spreads the arousal of the PEA among groups of people. This is merging from recent

9 research as a powerful force in organizational success. Neff (2011) found that shared vision among the management of a family business was a crucial variable in family business success. Trust, confidence in management, and developing a learning network also helped, but shared vision was the most powerful predictor. Overbeke (2010) reported that a shared vision in a family business increased the likelihood that a daughter will become the successor in generational transitions. It built upon the daughters sense of efficacy and allowed her to overcome the sexism of parents or grandparents. Shared vision is one of the scales in the PNEA Survey (Boyatzis, 2008). Clayton (2009) showed that shared vision was the most powerful variable predicting championing behavior, which in turn has been shown to predict effective mergers and acquisitions. Shared vision stimulated increased organizational engagement in IT teams, amplifying the effect of the average level of EI competencies shown by the team members (Mahon, 2010). Another of the scales in the PNEA Survey is shared Positive Mood. Along with shared vision, positive mood experienced by a patient predicted degree treatment adherence for Type II diabetics (Khawaja, 2010). When analyzed along with nine other variables from the current medical literature, it was the most powerful (Khawaja, 2010). Buse (2011) showed that a comprehensive personal vision was the most powerful predictor of whether or not women decide to stay in engineering and science careers.

When the Negative Emotional Attractor is Needed Despite the dysfunctional aspects of remaining in the NEA for long, arousal of the NEA may serve to facilitate better performance in three ways: (1) in activating the organism (i.e., waking up a person and preparing one to defend themselves); (2) providing a balance for the

10 negative effects of excessive or unchecked optimism; and (3) when someone desires to stretch, develop, or harden themselves. The primary benefit to the human of the SNS is activation and preparation or defense (Sapolsky, 2004). Anyone teaching an early morning class to undergraduates can attest to the importance of activation to wake them up at times. The need for balance against unchecked optimism is appearing in economic and neuroscience literature(McNulty & Fincham, 2011). Extreme optimists have been shown to make poorer investment decisions that pessimistic counterparts because they appear to ignore disconfirming information and miss opportunities on the sell side of financial investments (Gibson & Sanbonmatsu, 2004). Studies of rats have shown that heavy activation of the Nucleus Accumbens (i.e., a part of the brain associated with pleasure and rewards) results in greater risk taking behavior (SFN, 2009). Although the most important benefit of the NEA for a human is to defend itself against threats, a major benefit to help in growth is the experience of stretching or challenging oneself beyond a comfort zone (Norem, 2001). This process of adaptation will activate the bodys stress response because the outcome is uncertain and the reason for the growth is either seeking novelty or growth. Optimistic views about ones status may result in complacency and weaken the drive to consider a adaptation (McNulty & Fincham, 2011).

Why We Need the PEA More Than the NEA Relationships with resonant leaders create a PEA state. Relationships with dissonant leaders create an NEA state. These effects occur even when the leader or followers recall these moments. In a recent study, fMRI results showed that recalling key experiences with resonant leaders activated neural areas such as the bilateral insula, right inferior parietal lobe, and left

11 superior temporal gyrus (Boyatzis, Passarelli, Koenig, Lowe, Mathew, Stoller & Phillips, in press). They pointed out that these regions are associated with the mirror neuron system and default mode network. These neural networks are key to the process of interpersonal emotional contagion in terms of spreading of emotions from one person to another within seconds or milliseconds (Boyatzis, et. al., in press). They reported that recalling experiences with dissonant leaders negatively activated regions associated with the mirror neuron system and those involved in narrowing attention. At the same time, recalling moments with resonant leaders activated neural systems associated with positive emotions and approach behavior, while recalling moments with dissonant leaders activated neural systems associated with negative emotions and avoidance behavior. Emotional contagion infects others around the leader (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Like waves expanding from a stone tossed into a pond, the leaders PEA helps to change the mood and openness to new possibilities of those around him/her. Resonant leaders arouse and activate the PEA more often than not, with most of the people around them. Arousal and activation of the Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA) causes people to suffer cognitive, perceptual and emotional impairment. Dissonant leader can spread NEA quickly to others. Eventually, the NEA could permeate the organization. The exchange of emotions is predominantly unconscious through perceptual processes such as how we mimic each others facial expressions, language, and movement (Cattaneo & Rizzolatti, 2009; Iacoboni, 2009). It occurs quickly, often within seconds or parts of a second. . Research shows how emotional contagion from the leader affects others (Lewis, 2000; Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). For example, Dasborough (2006) reported employees remembered negative events (hassles) more frequently and in more detail and

12 intensity than positive events (uplifts). Bono and Ilies (2006) showed that leaders expressions of positive emotions affected others moods. Possibly not surprisingly, they added that the followers positive moods influenced the perceived effectiveness of the leader. Using positive emotional contagion builds human capital in the organization. Peterson, Waldman, Balthazard, and Thatcher (2008) defined leaders who build psychological capital as those who stimulate optimism, hope, confidence and resilience (p. 342). Using quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG), they showed leaders who emphasize social responsibility, altruism, and the empowerment of various stakeholders in communicating a vision (socialized vision) created more psychological capital. And the inverse was true-- leaders whose communication was narcissistic, self-interested and manipulating toward a personal, not shared vision decreased the psychological capital in the organization (Waldman, Balthazard, Peterson, Galvin, & Thatcher, in press). If the emotional contagion activates certain networks in the brain known as the DMN (i.e., Default Mode Network), which is often now called the social network (Raichle & Snyder, 2007; Jack et. al., 2009), it helps us to consider others in our presence and their feelings. In offering a conceptualization of two forms of empathy, Decety and Batson (2007) and Decety and Michalska (2010) commented that the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC, which is considered part of the social network) is more strongly activated during recognition of others pain than during recognition of self-pain. In the Boyatzis et. al. (in press) study, negative activation of this region when individuals recalled moments with dissonant leaders and contrasted this to their reactions to resonant leaders both suggested that dissonant leaders move a persons thoughts more toward self-pain than toward thinking of others, which would be an understandable defensive response to someone in your presence, who has power, creating a threatening

13 environment.

When the NEA is Too Much Repeated arousal of the NEA will result in the many dysfunctional aspects of chronic SNS arousal discussed earlier and likely lead to cognitive, perceptual and emotional impairment. Dissonant or negative leaders affect others around them negatively and become toxic (Frost, 2004). When a leader harangues the organization with threats from the competition or attempts to create a sense of urgency through the likely negative consequences of inaction, the consequences of their behavior may be opposite to their desired effect. People hearing the message and feeling the threat will move into the NEA. Repetition of this arousal or escalation of its severity will likely lead to arousal of the SNS and the resulting cognitive, emotional and perceptual impairment. Destructive leadership has been described as a set of behaviors displayed consistently over time that disturbs the organization through counterproductive behaviors aimed at the organization, subordinates, or both (Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007). Organizational environments that tolerate or enable toxic leaders to remain in power erode the ability of the organization to adapt, be resilient and perform at their best (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). Schaubroeck, Walumbwa, Ganster, and Kepes (2007) showed that toxic leaders negatively affected employees personal well-being and commitment to the organization. This effect was strongest when there were no compensating positive aspects of the climate. Tepper (2000) called this abusive supervision and showed that, in a sample of a wide variety of jobs, abusive supervision was associated with negative consequences, including decreased job, life satisfaction, organizational commitment, increased work-family conflict, and psychological

14 distress.

When the PEA is Too Much Following the earlier comments on the dysfunctional aspects of excessive optimism, we could contend that arousing the PEA too much would result in a person not paying attention to threats or misinterpreting symbolic threats as neutral. The openness of perceptions associated with the activation of the social network, especially the PCC, may result in a person being easily distracted. This lack of focus could cause a person to continue being open to new input and ideas at a time when action convergent thinking and action is needed to be more effective.

In Search of an Experienced Balance Neither the entreaty to be firm and stern from the past nor the latest to be happy and inspirational will always help lead organizations to increased resilience, adaptation, performance and growth. Perhaps the common sense wisdom, the 7th century BC philosopher Kleovoulos of nothing too much, or nothing in excess continues to be the best guide for leaders. The relationships created invoke others to add value or the opposite (which may be to lose interest and energy or to detract value). Using some of the latest research from neuroscience, psychology and management, this paper attempted to show how arousing the Positive Emotional Attractor is important to growth and innovation AND arousing the Negative Emotional Attractor is important to growth and defending against threat. Because of the increased valence of negative emotions and experiences, the best balance is one in which we overemphasize the PEA over the NEA.

15 References Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. 1999. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3): 529550. Ayan, S. (2009). Laughing matters: Seeing the bright side of life may strengthen the psyche, ease pain, and tighten social bonds. Scientific American Mind. April/May, 24-31. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195-210. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317-334. Boyatzis, R. E. (2008), Leadership development from a complexity perspective, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 298-313. Boyatzis, R.E. (2011). Neuroscience and leadership: The Promise of Insights.

16 Ivey Business Journal, on-line January/February, 2011 Boyatzis, R. E., Jack, A., Cesaro, R., Passarelli, A. and Khawaja, M. (2010), Coaching with Compassion: An fMRI Study of Coaching to the Positive or Negative Emotional Attractor, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal. Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Boyatzis, R.E., Passarelli, A.M., Koenig, K., Lowe, M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J.K. and Phillips, M. ( in press), Examination of the neural substrates activated in memories of experiences with resonant and dissonant leaders, The Leadership Quarterly. Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Journal on Learning and Education, 5, 8-24. Buse, K. (2011), Why They Stay: Individual Factors Predicting career commitment for Women Engineers, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Casti, J.L. (1994) Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise, NY: Harper Collins. Cattaneo, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2009). The mirror neuron system. Archives of Neurology, 66, 557560. Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., & Miller, S. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders charisma on observers affect. Journal of Applied

17 Social Psychology, 31, 2149-2159. Clayton, B. (2009), When Practice and Theory Conflict: Do Financial Incentives Influence Championing Behavfiors in mergers and Acquisitions?, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. Critchley, H. D. 2005. Neural mechanisms of autonomic, affective and cognitive integration. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493: 154-166. Dasborough, M.T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 79, 163-178. Decety, J., & Batson, C. D. (2007). Social neuroscience approaches to interpersonal sensitivity. Social Neuroscience, 2, 151-157. Decety, J. & Michalska, K.J. (2010). Neurodevelopmental changes in the circuits underlying empathy and sympathy from childhood to adulthood. Developmental Science, 13(6), 886899. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216. Erikson, P.S., Perfilieva, E., Bjork-Eriksson, T., Alborn, A-M, Nordburg, C., Peterson, D.A., and Gage, F.H. (1998). Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus. Nature Medicine, 4, 313-317.

18 Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. 1994. Positive affect improves creative problem solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18(4): 285-299. Fredrickson, B. 2009. Positivity: Groundbreaking Research Reveals How to Embrace the Hidden Strength of Positive Emotions, Overcome Negativity, and Thrive. NY: Crown. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion,19: 313-332. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13: 172175. Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for leaders and their organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 111-127. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844. Gibson, B. & Sanbonmatsu, D.M. (2004). Optimism, pessimism and gambling: The downside of optimism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30. 149-160. Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351-374. Gottman, J. M., Murray, J. D., Swanson, C. C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. R. 2002. The

19 mathematics of marriage: Dynamic non-linear models . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion (studies in emotion and social interaction). New York: Cambridge University Press. Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33, 137-162. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-businessunit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902. Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653-670. Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Insel, T. R. 1997. A neurobiological basis of social attachment. American Journal of Psychiatry. 154: 726-735. Jack, A., Dawson, A., Ciccia, A. Cesaro, R., Barry, K., Snyder, A., & Begany, K. (2009). Social and mechanical reasoning define two opposing domains of human higher cognition. Presented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Conference in Chicago, 2009. The manuscript is currently under in-depth review in Science. Kemp, (2011).

Khawaja, M. (2010). The mediating role of positive and negative emotional attractors between psychosocial correlates of doctor-patient relationship and treatment of Type II diabetes.

20 Doctoral Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University; Cleveland, Ohio. Lewis, K.M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 221-234. Lorenz, E. (1963). Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 740-765. Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 737-748. Mahon, E. (2011). Factors That Drive Employee Engagement: Organizational and Individual Elements Interact to Intensify Employee Engagement, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. McNulty, J.K., & Fincham, F.D. (2011). Beyond positive psychology: Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist. Neff, J. (2011), Non-financial Indicators of Family Firm Performance: A Portfolio Model Approach, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Norem, J.K. (2001). The positive power of negative thinking. New York: basic Books. Overbeke, K. (2010), Into the Family and Business nexus: Succession and Daughters in Family Owned Businesses, Unpublished Doctoral Qualifying Paper, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

21 Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194. Peterson, S.J., Balthazard, P.A., Waldman, D.A & Thatcher (2008). Neuroscientific implications of psychological capital: Are the brains of optimistic, hopeful, confident and resilient leaders different?. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 342-353. Raichle, M. E., & Snyder, A. Z. (2007). A default mode of brain function: A brief history of an evolving idea. NeuroImage, 37, 1083-1090. Roberts, L.M., Dutton, J.E., Spreitzer, G., Heaphy, E.D. and Quinn, R.E. (2005). Composing the. reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review. 30, 712-736. Rowold, J., & Laukamp, L. (2009). Charismatic leadership and objective performance indicators. Applied Psychology, 58, 602-621. Russell, J.A. & Carroll, J.M. 1999. On the polarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin. 125(1): 3-30. Sapolsky, R. M. 2004. Why zebras dont get ulcers (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F. O., Ganster, D. C., & Kepes, S. (2007). Destructive leader traits and the neutralizing influence of an enriched job. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 236-251. Schilbach, L., Eickhoff, S., Rotarskajagiela, A., Fink, G. & Vogeley, K. (2008). Minds at rest? Social cognition as the default mode of cognizing and its putative relationship to the default system of the brain. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 457-467. Schulkin, J. 1999. Neuroendocrine regulation of behavior. NY: Cambridge University Press.

22 Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. 2004. Psychological stress and the human immune system: A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4): 601-630. Talarico, J. M., Bernstein, D., & Rubin, D. C. 2008. Positive emotions enhance recall of peripheral details. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2): 380-398. Tee, E.Y.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. & Paulsen, N. (2011). Upward emotional contagion and implications for leadership: From a cognitive, leader-centric approach to an effective, follower-centric model of leadership. Presentation at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 15, 2011. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190. Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B.M. & Thatcher, R.W. (in press). Linking neuroscience, socialized vision, and charismatic leadership. Strategic Management Journal.

23

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the Positive (PEA) and Negative Emotional Attractors (NEA) in Intentional Change Theory [
Richard E. Boyatzis, 2011. ]

Negative Affect Intensity of Arousal High Y

Neural, endocrine, & Cardiovascular markers of PNS arousal Z

X Intensity of Arousal Low

Neural, endocrine, & Cardiovascular markers of SNS arousal

Adaptation of Lorenz equations: dx = a ( y - x) dt dy = -xz + bx - y dt

Positive Affect

dz = xy - cz dt a = (emotional intensity/emotional contagion) b = (Rayleigh #/ critical Raleigh #) c = 4/(1+a2), where a = emotional resilience

24 Figure 2. Two Attractors Positive Emotional Attractor Neuro-endocrine Affect Ideal Self PNS Arousal Positive Possibilities, dreams, optimism, hope Real Self Lrng Agenda Strengths Excited about trying Negative Emotional Attractor SNS arousal Negative Problems, expectations, pessimism, fear Weaknesses Should do, performance improvement plan Experiment/ Practice Relationships Novelty, experiments, Practice to mastery Resonant Actions expected, things you are supposed to do Dissonant or annoying

Richard E. Boyatzis, 2011.