Our papers are 100% unique and written following academic standards and provided requirements. Get perfect grades by consistently using our writing services. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Rely on us and be on schedule! With our help, you'll never have to worry about deadlines again. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Define and discuss:
Discussion instructions attached.
400-500 words, APA Format
Discuss and define
Influencing Others LO 10-4 Influence, refers to any behavior that attempts to alter someone’s attitudes or behavior.61 Influence is power in motion. It applies one or more sources of power to get people to alter their beliefs, feelings, and activities. Consequently, our interest in the remainder of this chapter is on how people use power to influence others. Page 297 global connections 10.1 The Art and Science of Managing Your Boss62 Iain McMath doesn’t like to have an avalanche of information hinder his executive decision process. “I do things based on intuition, so when I meet with my financial director I only need a one-page summary,” says the managing director of services firm Sodexo Motivation Solutions Ltd. in Surrey, England. Unfortunately, the financial director didn’t initially figure out McMath’s preferences. “She … was coming to the meetings with a file of 600 pages,” McMath recalls. “I would then get frustrated because she gave me too much information, and she would get frustrated because she thought I didn’t understand the importance of the data.” McMath’s financial director eventually adjusted her behavior to fit her boss’s preferences. This alignment not only reduced conflict and frustration; it helped the financial director manage her boss by creating a more favorable impression. Managing your boss is the process of improving the relationship with your manager, for the benefit of each other and the organization. It includes developing bases of power that enable you to influence the manager to achieve organizational objectives. Most executives say it is a key factor in everyone’s career success. “It is crucial to understand how to manage your manager,” says Tracey Andrews, manager of learning and development at the British department store chain John Lewis. “Start by getting to know how your manager thinks and works and what his/her priorities are.” Along with aligning your behavior with the manager’s preferred style, managing your boss involves becoming a valuable resource by making your manager’s job easier. This begins by performing your own job well. “Managing your manager is all about going that extra step,” advises Chris Barber, who leads a team of 12 people as director of a photography studio in Warwickshire, UK. “It doesn’t mean manipulating people … it’s about doing your job well and helping your manager to get the best results.” Managing your boss is an important form of influence in organizations. “It is crucial to understand how to manage your manager,” says an executive at British department store chain John Lewis. Managing your boss also requires some impression management. For example, you need to “be a ‘problem solver’ rather than a ‘problem pyromaniac,’” says John Shetcliffe, Managing Director of John Shetcliffe Marketing in Hertfordshire, England. Problem pyromaniacs turn everything into problems for the boss to fix, whereas problem solvers offer the boss solutions when problems arise. Shetcliffe recommends a related impression management strategy for managing your boss: “Don’t supply just bad news; announce good news too. Otherwise, little by little you become the bad news!” Influence tactics are woven throughout the social fabric of all organizations, because influence is an essential process through which people coordinate their effort and act in concert to achieve organizational objectives. Influence is central to the definition of leadership. Influence operates down, across, and up the corporate hierarchy. Executives ensure that subordinates complete required tasks. Employees influence coworkers to help them with their job assignments. And as Global Connections 10.1 describes, upward influence tactics—better known as managing your boss—are important for both personal career success and the achievement of the organization’s objectives. Visit connect.mcgraw-hill.com for activities and test questions to help you learn about influence tactics. Page 298 TYPES OF INFLUENCE TACTICS Organizational behavior researchers have devoted considerable attention to the various types of influence tactics found in organizational settings. They do not agree on a definitive list, but the most commonly discussed influence tactics are identified in Exhibit 10.4 and described over the next few pages.63 The first five are known as “hard” influence tactics because they force behavior change through position power (legitimate, reward, and coercion). The latter three—persuasion, impression management, and exchange—are called “soft” tactics because they rely more on personal sources of power (referent, expert) and appeal to the target person’s attitudes and needs. EXHIBIT 10.4 Types of Influence Tactics in Organizations Silent AuthorityThe silent application of authority occurs when someone complies with a request because of the requester’s legitimate power as well as the target person’s role expectations.64 This deference occurs when you comply with your boss’s request to complete a particular task. If the task is within your job scope and your boss has the right to make this request, then this influence strategy operates without negotiation, threats, persuasion, or other tactics. Silent authority is the most common form of influence in high power distance cultures.65 AssertivenessThe supervisor at Otago Sheetmetal in New Zealand wasn’t subtle about trying to improve staff performance. He often called the office administrator “useless” and on one occasion threatened to “plant her one.” He also raised his voice and occasionally swore at other employees. One employee had his lawyer send a letter to Otago Sheetmetal, urging the supervisor to be less aggressive.66 This incident of workplace bullying is an extreme form of assertiveness—influencing others through explicit reminders of one’s obligations and sometimes explicit threats of punishment. Assertiveness might be called “vocal authority,” because it involves actively applying legitimate and coercive power to influence others. This application includes persistently reminding the target of his or her obligations, frequently checking the target’s work, confronting the target, and using threats of sanctions to force compliance. Information ControlEarlier in this chapter, we explained that people with centrality in social networks have the power to control information. This power translates into influence when the power holder selectively distributes information such that it reframes the situation and causes others to change their attitudes and/or behavior. Controlling information might include withholding information that is more critical or favorable, or distributing information to some people but not to others. According to one major survey, almost half of employees believe coworkers keep others in the dark about work issues if it helps their own cause. Another study found that CEOs influence their board of directors by selectively feeding and withholding information.68
Discuss and define
INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISCUSSION Summary: Give a brief summary of the selected article, in your own words. Discussion: Give a brief discussion of how the article relates to the selected chapter key term. This gives you the opportunity to add value to the discussion by sharing your experiences, thoughts, and opinions. Draw your peers into discussion of topics by asking questions. This is the most important part of the thread. Biblical Integration: Use at least 1 appropriate scripture verse or narrative from the Bible to support your discussion. Are there any biblical examples of this term, is the term you are responding to related to a term you researched, if so, how? Include the complete URL of each article read (use a persistent link for articles from the Jerry Falwell Library). Each reference must be in current APA format. These do not count toward the 400-word requirement. .
Discuss and define
393 P rosocial behavior is broadly defined as positive social acts carried out to promote the well-being and integrity of others (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Brief and Motowidlo suggest that strong prosocial tendencies stem from high levels of moral develop- ment that reflect an individual’s standards about moral justice and social responsibility. According to Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek (2007), individual differences in experiencing emotions play a key role in determining adherence to moral standards and behavior. Haidt (2003) described moral emotions as being linked to the interests or welfare of society as a whole, or at least to individuals other than the self. Given the frequent lapses in the socially responsible behavior of organizational leaders throughout history, moral emotions may be an important but overlooked element in understanding leaders’ prosocial behaviors and how leaders balance self-interests with the inter- ests of other organizational stakeholders. Previous research on morally relevant emotions has focused primarily on empathy and a triad of negatively valenced “self-conscious” emotions: shame, guilt, and embarrassment (see Tangney et al., 2007, for a review). However, several scholars have pro- posed that positively valenced emotions, such as grati- tude and pride, can influence an individual’s adherence to moral standards and prosocial behavior (Hart & Matsuba, 2007; McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001; Tangney et al., 2007; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Several studies have linked positive emotions to prosocial behavior in organizations (see Barsade & Gibson, 2007, for a review). Most of these studies examined emotions as a dimension of valence and used an aggregate measure of several emotions to capture positive versus negative affect. Notwithstanding the importance of this stream of research, several scholars have argued that it does not tell the whole story with respect to the influence of emotions on behavior. People can experience a wide range of dif- ferent emotions, each with its own distinctive experi- ential content and associated goals (Frijda, 2006; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994; Zeelenberg, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Pieters, 2008). Pride and gratitude, for example, differ with respect to perceived control in that feelings of pride occur when a positive out- come (for oneself) is attributed to one’s own efforts. Gratitude, on the other hand, is felt when a positive outcome is attributed to the contributions of others. Thus, gratitude is typically classified as an other- directed emotion, whereas pride is considered to be more self-directed as in self-pride (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). This aspect of the two emotions sug- gests that they may be particularly relevant to research on leader behavior and the issue of promoting self- interests over and above the interests of other organi- zational stakeholders. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how pride and gratitude influence the behavior of organizational leaders. By focusing on prosocial behavior, this research addresses the critical need for organizational leaders to balance the pursuit Pride and Gratitude How Positive Emotions Influence the Prosocial Behaviors of Organizational Leaders Susan Michie University of New Mexico, Albuquerque This study investigated whether two positive morally relevant emotions, pride and gratitude, were associated with the prosocial behaviors exhibited by organizational leaders. Pride and gratitude were measured as dispositional ten- dencies in leaders across various types of organizations. The results revealed that a leader’s propensity to experience authentic pride was positively related to two types of prosocial behavior—social justice and altruism. Furthermore, the results indicated that leader gratitude mediated the effects of pridefulness on social justice behaviors. Keywords: positive moral emotions; prosocial behavior; self-regulation Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Volume 15 Number 4May 2009 393-403 © 2009 Baker College 10.1177/1548051809333338 http://jlos.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com 394 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies of self-interests with prosocial tendencies that promote the well-being and integrity of others. Theory and Hypotheses The theoretical framework for this study is based on cognitive appraisal theories of emotion (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1966; Ortony et al., 1988; Scherer, 1984). According to this view, emotions are gener- ated in response to events that are appraised with respect to their implications for an individual’s well- being. Experiences of emotion involve physiological changes and changes in action tendencies, such as impulses to establish or disrupt a relationship with an object or person. Action tendencies motivate overt behaviors that are generated with regard to the expected effectiveness of available behavioral options. In addition, emotions are subject to regulation by individuals in the form of inhibitory control or volun- tary enhancement (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). Frijda (2006) maintains that emotion generation is primarily based on stimuli from the outside world, but it is also heavily intertwined with the disposition of the indi- vidual: “Emotions arise by the interaction of events with dispositions of the individual. . . . The disposi- tions enable motivational, behavioral, physiological, and consciously felt response components” (p. 47). People often anticipate their likely emotional reac- tions (e.g., pride or remorse) as they consider behav- ioral alternatives. Thus, emotions can exert strong influences on behavior by providing critical feedback concerning both anticipated and actual consequences. Several scholars have proposed that emotional reac- tions can feed back through the emotion process to self-monitor and control behaviors (Tangney & Fischer, 1995). This form of self-regulation involves an additional loop through the general appraisal processes—a second pass that appraises the action tendencies produced by the first pass. Ellsworth (1991) demonstrated that in some situations, a new appraisal will bring about a transition between one emotion and another. For example, when people react with shame in the first loop, their appraisal of that reaction sometimes leads to anger at being ashamed or anger at others for causing them shame. In this way, the appraisal view allows for the possibility that an emotion may change as a person’s appraisal of the situation changes. Transitions between emotions can occur gradually or suddenly, depending on the speed of the appraisal change. Thus, the emotion process appears to be extended in time, such that an experi- enced emotion may be followed by another emotion that serves as a “meta-emotion” to regulate the ini- tially felt emotion (Frijda, Manstead, & Bem, 2000). Bagozzi (2003) and colleagues found that fear of ret- ribution and anticipated regret are two negative emo- tions that function in this manner to regulate pride. In this study, I propose that two positive morally rele- vant emotions can also be connected through an emo- tion loop, as when a person feels pride in an accomplishment and then feels gratitude toward those who contributed to the accomplishment. In addition, I argue that due to unique characteristics of the leadership role, leaders may be more likely to regulate their emotion-generated behaviors through positive rather than negative emotional reactions. As previously mentioned, research in moral emo- tions has focused on a triad of negative emotions: shame, guilt, and embarrassment. Along with pride, these emotions are members of a family of self-conscious emotions that occur during periods of self-reflection and self-evaluation (Tangney & Fischer, 1995). When we do something wrong or bad, adverse feelings of shame, guilt, or embarrassment are likely to occur. When we do something right or good, positive feel- ings of pride and self-approval are likely to result. During such appraisals, the self becomes the object of one’s self-conscious emotions, which provide instant punishment or reinforcement of one’s feelings and behaviors. In effect, self-conscious emotions serve as a “moral barometer” providing immediate and salient feedback on what is socially and morally acceptable behavior (McCullough et al., 2001). Due to societal expectations concerning the role of leadership, how- ever, positively valenced moral emotions, such as pride and gratitude, may exert strong influences on leader behaviors. First of all, leadership is associated with positive attributes, including intelligence, dedication, cha- risma, and strength (Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). Successful leaders seem to exude an air of confidence, competency, and optimism as well as enthu- siasm for work-related activities. Because the leader- ship role is associated with an optimistic, confident outlook, it is likely that leaders will have a tendency to focus on positive outcomes that give rise to experi- ences of positive emotions. Given this bias toward positive emotions, leaders may discount the impor- tance of negatively valenced moral emotions and even Michie / Pride and Gratitude 395 attempt to suppress feelings of guilt, shame, and embarrassment when they arise. As a result, posi- tively valenced moral emotions may play a critical role in increasing the prosocial behaviors of organiza- tional leaders. Social power and status inherent to the leadership role provide further insights as to why negative self- conscious emotions may exert less influence on leader behavior. The primary role of leadership is influenc- ing others to achieve group or organizational goals. Therefore, leadership brings with it special normative expectations about the importance of pursuing collec- tive goals. Hollander (1964) argued that emergent leaders achieve status by fulfilling expectancies and demonstrating task competencies. As they continue to build credibility, leaders may eventually reach a threshold that permits deviation from commonly accepted behavior, if their actions are perceived to be in the organization’s best interests. Expectations that leaders pursue goals designed to promote group inter- ests are part and parcel of the moral psychology of leadership (Price, 2003). In the pursuit of a “greater good,” organizational leaders may come to believe that their actions are somehow excepted from moral requirements that generally apply to the rest of soci- ety (Price, 2003). An example would be a CEO who relies on norms of leader effectiveness and feels “morally justified by underscoring that downsizing was necessary for the organization’s survival and for the benefit of the remaining employees and other stakeholders” (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 204). Thus, due to normative expectations surrounding the leadership role, leaders may be less likely to experi- ence the moral barometer effect of negative self- conscious emotions and be more likely to act in response to experiences of positive morally relevant emotions. As such, leaders may represent a unique group that can provide a better understanding of how these emotions influence prosocial behavior. Pride and Gratitude Pride and gratitude are the focus of this study because they are considered to be morally relevant emotions that are positively valenced (Hart & Matsuba, 2007; McCullough et al., 2001; Tangney et al., 2007). Valence refers to the primary cognitive appraisal that individuals make in assessing whether a particular event is positive or negative. Emotions and feelings are also influenced by a number of secondary appraisals, including perceptions of agency or control over outcomes (e.g., To what extent am I, another person, or external factors responsible for a particular out- come?). Pride and gratitude differ with respect to con- trol in that feelings of pride occur when a positive outcome is attributed to one’s own efforts, whereas gratitude is felt when a positive outcome is attributed to the contributions of others. Thus, gratitude is typi- cally classified as an other-directed emotion, whereas pride is considered to be more self-directed. Pride is the “neglected sibling” of self-conscious emotions (Tangney et al., 2007, p. 360). Mascolo and Fischer (1995) define pride as an emotion “generated by appraisals that one is responsible for a socially valued outcome or for being a socially valued person” (p. 66). From this perspective, pride not only enhances self-worth but also encourages future behavior that conforms to social standards of what is valued or has merit. Yet, pride appears to be somewhat of a black sheep in the family of self- conscious emotions. Little empirical research has been conducted on individual differences in prone- ness to pride, and theorists often portray prideful- ness as an impediment to moral behavior (Hart & Matsuba, 2007). It is important to note, however, that scholars acknowledge two types of pride: hubris versus authentic pride (Lewis, 2000; Tangney, 1990; Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007). Hubris refers to excessive pride that is not tempered by self- awareness of one’s shortcomings and failures (Hart & Matsuba, 2007). In failing to recognize that one’s efforts produce worthwhile accomplishments in some pursuits but not in others, individuals who experience hubris tend to perceive themselves as god-like and above reproach. To distinguish between hubris and authentic pride, scholars point to the appraisal process. Self-appraisals associated with hubris are not differentiated in that all positive events are attributed to a powerful “global self” that possesses stable, desirable traits (Hart & Matsuba, 2007; Tangney et al., 2007). In contrast, the apprais- als associated with experiencing authentic pride are based on specific accomplishments and accompa- nied by feelings of genuine self-worth (Tracy & Robins, 2007). Thus, authentic pride is a power – fully pleasant emotion or highly prized consequence that individuals experience when their actions are valued by other members of their social networks. Scholars have proposed that pride is a moral affect because it has the potential to promote self-respect and respect for others as well (Hart & Matsuba, 2007; Kristjansson, 2002; Tangney, 1999). In other 396 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies words, people strive to achieve goals or to treat oth- ers well because the pride they experience when they succeed in these endeavors feels good. Thus, authentic pride can reinforce both achievement- oriented and prosocial behaviors, because this type of emotional feedback informs individuals that their actions have enhanced their status and accep- tance among social group members (Tracy & Robins, 2007). In this article, the term pride is used to refer to authentic, achievement-oriented pride. I acknowledge, however, that excessive experi- ences of achievement-oriented pride can lead to hubristic tendencies. McCullough, Emmons, and Tsang (2002) describe the grateful disposition as a “generalized tendency to recognize and respond with grateful emotion” (p. 112) to the contributions of others toward the positive out- comes that one obtains. McCullough and his colleagues point out, however, that recognizing the benevolence of others does not necessarily mean that grateful people discount their own causal efforts. Rather, a dis- tinguishing feature of the grateful disposition is a tendency to stretch one’s agency attributions to incor- porate a wider range of people who contribute to one’s achievements. As previously mentioned, a primary goal of lead- ership is influencing others to achieve group or orga- nizational goals. Thus, it is often essential for leaders to motivate group members to devote extra time, energy, and effort to endeavors that benefit the orga- nization as a whole. A successful leader would, no doubt, recognize one’s own efforts in attaining orga- nizational outcomes. Due to one’s leadership posi- tion, however, one might also be more likely to recognize other people’s contributions. For example, the leader might attribute the organization’s success to extra effort on the part of employees or to their willingness to forego self-benefits for the sake of the organization as a whole. Gratitude is classified as a moral affect, not because experiencing gratitude is a moral response in and of itself, but because feelings of gratitude typically result from and stimulate proso- cial behaviors (McCullough et al., 2002; Tangney et al., 2007). In summary, the leadership role is inherently tied to achieving organizational or group goals, which should produce feelings of accomplishment, achieve- ment, and self-worth. Because an organizational lead – er’s accomplishments are primarily the result of motivating group efforts, the leader’s feelings of pride are likely to be followed by feelings of gratitude toward those who contributed to the organization’s accomplishments. Hypothesis 1: A leader’s tendency to experience authen- tic pride will be positively related to the leader’s tendency to experience grateful emotions. Mediating Influence of Gratitude Although several theorists have labeled pride as a morally relevant emotion, empirical research linking prideful emotions to moral or prosocial behavior is scarce (Hart & Matsuba, 2007). In a single study based on the MIDUS survey data set (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development), Hart and Matsuba (2007) found that feelings of pride motivated prosocial actions in the form of commitment to community volunteer work. The only significant predictor, however, was feelings of pride in one’s community. In the same study, feel- ings of pride in family, home, and work, which could be viewed as more individual-based achievements, were not significantly related to community volun- teering. In a series of studies focused on individuals’ academic achievements, Wentzel (1989, 1991, 1994) found that prosocial behaviors in the form of “being cooperative” and “willing to share” were positively associated with academic success. Pride was not measured in Wentzel’s research, but his studies indi- cated an “intimate link” between individual achieve- ment, which would naturally evoke feelings of pride, and prosocial behaviors. According to Wentzel, the reasons for this relationship were not entirely clear. Emotion scholars suggest that pride motivates proso- cial behavior in one of two ways. First, experiencing pride motivates people to act in ways that improve their image of self in the eyes of others. Second, pride motivates people to prosocial actions in order to feel better about themselves (Dovidio & Penner, 2004; Hart & Matsuba, 2007; Tracy & Robins, 2007). As Tangney (1999) explained, pride enhances people’s self-worth, which encourages future behavior that conforms to social standards of worth or merit, and prosocial acts are considered to be admirable behav- ior in most societies. In either case, however, the pride-induced motivation to act prosocially is egois- tic in nature. In this study, I propose an alternative explanation for the connection between prideful emotions and prosocial behavior in organizational leaders. Specifically, I contend that for leaders in particular, the motivating influence of pride on prosocial behavior is likely to Michie / Pride and Gratitude 397 be indirect and mediated through feelings of gratitude. Gratitude has been shown to be related to prosocial behavior. McCullough et al. (2002) found that grate- ful people were reported to perform more prosocial behaviors and to possess more prosocial traits than less grateful people. They also observed that grateful peo- ple are motivated to respond prosocially—not only toward their benefactors but also toward others not involved in the gratitude-soliciting act. These find- ings are consistent with the popular notion that grati- tude is a moral affect because grateful emotions result from the prosocial behavior of a benefactor and engender subsequent prosocial responses on the part of the recipients. The hypothesized mediating influ- ence of gratitude on the relationship between leader pride and prosocial behavior is predicated on the notion that gratitude serves as a meta-emotion to regulate initial feelings of pride. Several authors have noted that people are cogni- zant of the need to self-regulate pride. Experiencing pride evokes feelings of accomplishment, along with a felt urge to inform others about how well one is doing. At moderate levels, pride is conducive to main- taining a healthy sense of self-worth and social status. If pride becomes immoderate or excessive, however, it can be a source of conceit, overconfidence, and ego- istic behaviors. People become sensitive to the dangers of excessive pride through previous experience, feed- back from significant others, and representations in the media. If pride becomes too extreme or too pub- lic, it can appear boastful and inappropriate to others (Fischer & Tangney, 1995). Displays of excessive pride by leaders, for example, could provoke envy or disdain in followers, which in turn might disrupt cooperation and teamwork. Verbeke and Bagozzi (2003) discovered that salespeople regulated feelings of pride to avoid negative consequences. They hypothesized and found that feelings of pride were accompanied by fear of retribution and anticipated regret when salespeople believed that persons wit- nessing their pride would be envious, resentful, or scornful. According to Verbeke and Bagozzi, fear and anticipated regret functioned as meta-emotional responses to self-regulate the salespeople’s initially felt pride and diminish prideful action tendencies and behaviors. In this study, I explore the possibility that gratitude, a positive emotion, can serve to regulate pride and lead to positive leader behaviors. Because a leader’s accomplishments are inherently tied to the combined efforts of group or organiza- tional members, I expect that leader experiences of pride will be followed by feelings of gratitude toward those who contributed to the leader’s success. As a result, pride is transformed into gratitude such that the latter emotion operates as a meta-emotion to apprais- als of felt pride and self-regulates the leader’s action tendencies. As pride transitions into gratitude, the leader’s experiences of grateful emotion will, in turn, motivate behaviors that balance the pursuit of self- promotion with promoting the well-being and integ- rity of others. Following the preceding discussion, and to the extent that a leader’s felt pride is followed by feelings of gratitude, which in turn motivate prosocial behaviors, I expect the pride–prosocial behavior rela – tionship to be indirect, operating through the motiva- tional implications of grateful emotions toward others who have contributed to the leader’s achievements. Hypothesis 2: A leader’s tendency to experience grateful emotions will mediate the relationship between the leader’s prideful disposition and prosocial behaviors. Method Sample and Procedures The participants for this study were managers and employees from 71 different organizations in the south- west region of the United States. The organizations operated in various industries, including financial services, consulting, health care, construction, manu- facturing, and retail sales. The sample included 71 managers and 227 employees and provided an aver- age of three follower reports per leader. Approximately 59% of the followers were female and 41% male. Their ages ranged from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 35. The average organizational tenure for this group was 4 years. The follower sample consisted of various occupational positions, including clerical, sales, and professional types, and also production jobs such as linemen and factory workers. All employees were directly supervised by the managers they were asked to evaluate. In the leader sample, 66% of the participants were female and 34% male. The mean tenure of leaders in their current organizations was 10.5 years and their average age was 44 years. Contact with the organiza- tion was made via students enrolled in a management course. Each student provided contact information for one manager and three to five employees. Managers were contacted to obtain permission to conduct the study and to verify that all employees were under 398 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies their direct supervision. Data collection was adminis- tered online and separate surveys were e-mailed to the managers and employees. The participants were informed that their participation was completely vol- untary and not required or expected by the company or their managers. Seventy-one out of 73 managers and 227 out of 258 employees contacted returned com- pleted surveys, thus, the response rate was 97% and 87%, respectively. The manager survey collected data for the independent and control variables, and the fol- lower survey provided the data for the dependent vari- ables. The managers were not aware of the content of the corresponding employee surveys. Using this method attenuated problems with producing biased or same source data for the statistical analyses. Measures Independent variables. To assess a manager’s pro- pensity to experience pride and gratitude in a leader- ship role, we asked the managers how often they felt these emotions toward others at work. Following Emmons and McCullough (2003), we aggregated the leaders’ scores on three adjectives related to gratitude (grateful, thankful, and appreciation) to derive a sin- gle measure of mean gratitude. The internal consis- tency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) estimate for these three adjectives was .79; however, previous research by Emmons and McCullough has produced reliability estimates for this measure ranging from .86 to .92. In a similar manner, we assessed pride by aggregating the leaders’ scores on three adjectives from Tracy and Robins’s (2007) measure of authentic self-pride ( accomplished, achieving, and self-worth). These three adjectives were highly correlated with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87. Previous research has shown that this method is effective for assessing emotions both as momentary experiences and as chronic dispo- sitional tendencies (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Dependent variables. Based on Brief and Motowidlo’s (1986) assertion that strong prosocial tendencies reflect an individual’s standards about justice and social responsibility, we measured two constructs to capture the leaders’ prosocial behaviors: social justice and altruism. Social justice was measured using five items based on Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) research in organizational justice. This measure was designed to capture observable characteristics of decision-making procedures, such as following ethi- cal standards and the degree to which the needs of employees are taken into consideration. Sample items were, “My manager shows concern for the rights of oth- ers,” and “My manager treats people with respect.” The scale’s reliability estimate (Cronbach’s alpha) was .96. Two items from Wagner (1995) were used to mea- sure the leaders’ altruistic behavior. The items were, “My manager is willing to give up personal benefits for the sake of the organization as a whole,” and “My manager is willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of employee well-being.” These two items were highly correlated and with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85. To assess the appropriateness of aggregating the followers’ reports of their leaders’ observed behav- iors, ICC (1) and ICC (2) were calculated for each dependent variable as recommended by Bliese (2000). ICC (1) values were .25 for altruism and .33 for social justice. ICC (2) values were .53 for altruism and .62 for social justice. Within-group agreement (r wg) was also computed to assess the appropriateness of aggregating these outcome variables (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The median r wg for both measures exceeded .70, which indicates that there is consider- able agreement in how subordinates rated their lead- ers on these two dependent variables. In addition, the ICC (1) values show that there are substantial (and significant) between-leader properties in these vari- ables. The ICC (2) values for both variables are somewhat below typical cutoff levels, but overall, the results indicated that there are substantial leader-level properties. Hence, all subsequent analyses were con- ducted with aggregated dependent variables. It should be noted, however, that borderline ICC (2) values mean that significant relationships for these outcome variables will be more difficult to detect (Bliese, 2000) and may result in more conservative tests. Control variables. We controlled for two demo- graphic variables and one individual difference vari- able that could potentially confound the results. Previous research has shown that age and sex are associated with individual differences in prosocial behavior and emotional response tendencies (Caprara & Steca, 2005; Grossman & Wood, 1993; Van Lange et al., 1997). Therefore, the leader’s age and sex were collected for this study. In addition, a measure of social desirability was included in the leader survey. Social desirability is defined as a need to obtain approval by responding in a culturally appropriate and acceptable manner. Although other-reports of the leaders’ behaviors were used in this study, it is plau- sible that social desirability could motivate the Michie / Pride and Gratitude 399 leaders’ prosocial behaviors due to social or organizational pressures to do so, rather than feelings of pride or gratitude. Hence, social desirability on the part of the leaders was controlled for using a shortened form of the original Marlowe -Crowne scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Reynolds, 1982). Reynolds’s measure consists of nine items, for example, “I am always cour – teous, even to people who are disagreeable.” Each item is scored as true (1) or false (0) and then the items are totaled to yield a scale score (α = 75). Data Analysis The hypothesis that gratitude acts as a mediator between pride and outcome variables was tested via a series of regression analyses. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), four conditions must be met in order to conclude that mediation has taken place. First, the independent variable (pride) must affect the mediator (gratitude); second, the mediator must affect the depen- dent variables (altruism and social justice) while control – ling for the independent variable; third, the independent variable must affect the dependent variables; and fourth, the relationship between the independent vari- able and the dependent variable must either become nonsignificant or be reliably reduced when the media- tor is controlled. To test the magnitude and significance of the reduction, we used a method developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004). This procedure generates a confidence interval for the indirect effect, and when the interval does not include zero, one can conclude that the indirect effect is significantly different from zero at the given confidence level. Results Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are reported in Table 1. The bivariate correlations revealed an exceptionally high correlation (> .70) between the two dependent variables. Therefore, we conducted a preliminary factor analysis for these two measures using principle axis factoring with oblimin rotation. The results revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 that accounted for 85% of the variance. All five items for social justice loaded on a single factor with loadings greater than .85. The two altruis- tic behavior items loaded on a second single factor with loadings greater than .81. and cross-loadings between the two factors did not exceed .15 for any item. Examining correlations for the control variables revealed that leader age was positively related to both measures of leader prosocial behavior, but leader sex and social desirability were not. These results may be due in part to sourcing the dependent variables from the aggregated responses of several subordinates of the leader. As a result, gender influences may have been attenuated and self-reported social desirability may have had less influence on observed leader behavior than it would on self-reported behavior (Fisher & Katz, 2000). Leader sex and social desir- ability were significantly correlated with the media- tor (leader feelings of gratitude). Based on the above findings, we tested the hypotheses using altruism and social justice as two distinct outcome variables and controlled for leader age, sex, and social desirability. Table 2 presents the results of the regression analysis. As shown in Model 1 (Hypothesis 1), a leader’s propensity for authentic pride was posi- tively related to experiencing gratitude. In addition, the results showed that a leader ’s pridefulness was related to both measures of prosocial behavior, social justice (β = .31, p < .05), and altruism (β = .25, p < .05). As shown in Model 2 (Hypothesis 2), the tendency to experience grateful emotions (media- tor) was significantly related to social justice, but the results for the gratefulness–altruism relationship Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Range, and Correlations of All Variables Variable M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Leader age 44.04 9.26 21–62 2. Leader sex –.14 3. Leader social desirability 4.88 2.74 0–11 .05 –.10 4. Pride 2.67 0.66 1.33–4.00 .03 .17 .23 5. Gratitude 3.10 0.63 1.00–4.00 .01 .25* .36** .33** 6. Social justice 5.80 0.94 1.75–7.00 .26* .02 .09 .29* .34** 7. Altruism 5.49 1.04 3.00–7.00 .29* .06 .02 .22 .15 .73* Note: n = 71 with listwise deletion. *p < .05. **p < .01. 400 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies were not significant. Thus, a required condition, for the mediating influence of gratefulness on the prideful– altruism relationship, was not met. The results for Model 2 did reveal, however, that the previously significant relationship between leader pridefulness and social justice behaviors ceased to be significant in the presence of the gratefulness mediator. In addition, Preacher and Hayes’s (2004) test of statis- tical significance for indirect effects indicated that the mediating effect of gratefulness, .13 (95% CI = .02, .41), was significantly different from zero (Preacher & Hayes, in press; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Taken together, the support for Hypothesis 1 and the significant relationships between leader feelings of pride and the prosocial outcomes con- firmed two of the conditions for testing mediation. Because gratefulness was not significantly related to altruism in Model 2, the third condition for mediation was supported for social justice only. Thus, Hypothesis 2 received partial support, in that gratefulness mediated the prideful–social justice rela- tionship but did not mediate the prideful–altruism relationship. Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate whether two positive morally relevant emotions, pride and gratitude, motivate prosocial behaviors in organizational leaders. Pride and gratitude were cap- tured as dispositional tendencies in leaders across various types of organizations. The results revealed that, after controlling for covariates, a leader’s ten- dency to experience authentic pride was positively related to two types of prosocial behavior: social jus- tice and altruism. Furthermore, the results provided preliminary evidence that a leader’s propensity for gratefulness mediated the effects of pridefulness on social justice behaviors. These findings suggest that if pridefulness is followed by feelings of gratitude toward those who contribute to a leader’s success, then the leader may be more likely to show concern for the rights of others and treat people with respect. In contrast, the hypothesized mediating effect of gratitude on the relationship between leader pride and altruistic behaviors was not supported. Furthermore, the proposed relationship between leader feelings of gratitude and altruistic behavior was not significant. This discrepancy may be due in part to the measure used to capture altruism, which consisted of only two items. Also, given that the predictors in this study were based on follower observations of the leaders’ behaviors, it may be that followers are more sensitive to social justice behaviors and more likely to notice them. The leaders’ altruistic behaviors may be less visible to followers, because they involve personal sacrifices that followers may not be aware of. The finding that authentic pride and gratitude were positively related to treating others with dignity and respect has practical implications for understanding how leaders balance self-interests with the interests of other organizational stakeholders. First, gratitude is known to serve as a moral motivator in that grateful people are motivated to respond prosocially toward those who act in ways that solicit gratitude and toward others who are not directly involved in such acts as well. Furthermore, grateful leaders will have a ten- dency to recognize the contributions of a wider range of people when making causal attributions for organi- zational success, thus, they will be more likely to focus on the well-being and interests of multiple stakehold- ers. Second, the findings suggest that a grateful dis – position can promote self-regulation of pride in organizational leaders. Research has demonstrated Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Observed Leader Behaviors Model 1 Model 2 Leader Social Variable Gratitude Justice Altruism Control variables Leader age .02 .30* .38** Leader sex .19 † .00 .05 Leader social desirability .29* .00 .07 R 2 .15** .05 † .10* Direct effects Leader pride .23* .31* .25* R 2 .04** .08* .05** Mediating effects Leader pride .23 † .22 † Leader gratitude .32* .11 R 2 .15** .04* Overall R 2 .19 .20 .14 Overall model F 5.00** 4.37** 3.32* Note: n = 71 with listwise deletion. Standardized regression coef- ficients and adjusted R 2 are reported. To test for direct effects (Model 2), we entered the controls and pride in two separate steps. To test for mediation effects (Model 2), we entered the controls in the first step and then entered pride and gratitude (mediator) in the second step. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. Michie / Pride and Gratitude 401 that excessive pride can be detrimental in that hubristic individuals are inclined to distort or invent situations to enhance the self at the expense of others (Lewis, 1992; Tracy & Robins, 2007). In this study, recogniz- ing and responding with grateful emotion toward organizational members appeared to regulate self- pride and, as a result, increase the leader’s focus on the well-being of others. Thus, a grateful outlook may be an important characteristic that enhances a leader’s ability to balance self-interests with the interests of multiple organizational stakeholders. Based on the results of this study, it would be worthwhile to con- sider interventions that encourage leaders to recognize and respond with gratitude to the contributions of oth- ers. Previous research has shown that exposure to gratitude interventions on a daily basis increased the likelihood that individuals would engage in helping behaviors or offer emotional support to another. Thus, education and training programs that focus on the ethical and moral aspects of leadership should consider positive morally relevant emotions as a promising path to recruiting and developing prosocial leaders. Although the results of this study suggest that pride and gratitude play a role in motivating prosocial behavior in organizational leaders, it is important to note its limitations. First, the findings are based on cross-sectional data. Thus, it is not possible to deter – mine if the leaders’ feelings of pride actually preceded feelings of gratitude and prosocial behaviors in the mediation process. The prediction that feeling proud of one’s achievements will be followed by feelings of gratitude toward those that contribute to one’s success is a logical approach to emotion sequences. However, reverse causality could exist such that leaders experi- ence grateful emotions toward their followers and then engage in gratuitous or prosocial behaviors that encourage followers to put forth extra effort. If this effort increases organizational performance that, in turn, increases the frequency of a leader’s prideful emotions, then leader feelings of gratitude could pre- cede feelings of pride in some situations. Post hoc regression analyses did not provide statistical support for pride as a mediator of the relationship between gratitude and social justice or altruistic behaviors. Future studies that link specific accomplishments to the tendency for leaders to experience pride and gratitude are needed to provide further support for this research. Another limitation is that the method used to collect the data for this study was based on a conve- nience sample; however, this method also had several strengths. The predictor and outcome variables were obtained from different sources, the follower observa- tions of the leaders’ behaviors were obtained from multiple direct reports that were not selected by the leaders, and finally, the study was conducted across multiple organizations. In addition to the suggestions for further research above, moral emotions can provide new opportunities for leadership research. Given the insignificant statis- tical relationship between moral emotions and the measure of altruism used in this study, future studies should examine whether pride and gratitude motivate other types of prosocial or altruistic behaviors in leaders, such as helping, sharing, donating, cooperat- ing, volunteering, and principled dissent. The self- regulating function of moral emotions provides another avenue for leadership research. For example, it would be interesting to explore the extent to which negative self-conscious emotions (i.e., shame, guilt, and embar- rassment) influence leader behavior and to determine whether positive moral emotions exert stronger influ- ences on leader behavior than do negative emotions. Elevation is considered to be another positive moral emotion (Tangney et al., 2007) that could potentially influence leader behaviors and should be included in these studies. Elevation is defined as the emotion elicited when seeing others behave in a virtuous, commendable, or superhuman way (Haidt, 2003). An important aspect of positive moral emotions in organizations is emotional contagion. Research has shown that emotion-generated behaviors can pro- duce similar emotional reactions in others (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993). Barsade (2002) found that emotional reactions played a significant role in work-group dynamics, influencing not only group members’ emotions but their individual cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors as well. The emotions of organizational leaders may be more likely to produce similar reactions in others, because leaders are often perceived as role models by other organizational members. Furthermore, positive emotions can spread through organizations by creating chains of events, such that people who witness emotion-generated prosocial behaviors are likely to engage in prosocial acts themselves (Fredrickson, 2003). Thus, further research could investigate how experiences of posi- tive morally relevant emotions in leaders influence the emotional reactions and behaviors of other orga- nizational members or even the prosocial culture of the organization as a whole. 402 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Evidence that moral standards and prosocial behav- iors are influenced in important ways by morally rele- vant emotions is well established in the social psychology literature. These emotions provide instant and salient feedback on what is socially valuable and acceptable behavior and, thereby, motivate individuals to act in the interest of others. Thus, moral emotions may represent an important but overlooked element in understanding the prosocial behaviors of organizational leaders. References Bagozzi, R. P. (2003). Positive and negative emotions in organi- zations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 176–193). San Francisco: BK Publishers. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675. Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. (2007, February). Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–218. Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organization behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as deter- minants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 191–217. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desir- ability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. Dovidio, J. F., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Helping and altruism. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Emotion and motivation (pp. 247–280). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ellsworth, P. C. (1991). Some implications of cognitive appraisal theories of emotion. In K. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 1, pp. 143–161). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting bless- ings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. Fischer, K. W., & Tangney, J. T. (1995). Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution: Framework and overview. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emo- tions (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford. Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 105–120. Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 163–175). San Francisco: BK Publishers. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H. (2006). The laws of emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Frijda, N. H., Manstead, A.S.R., & Bem, S. (2000). The influence of emotions on beliefs. In N. H. Frijda, A.S.R. Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010–1022. Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). Washington, DC: APA. Hart, D., & Matsuba, K. M. (2007). The development of pride and moral life. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions (pp. 114–133). New York: Guilford. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 96–99. Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press. James, L. R., Demaree, R. J., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. Kristjansson, K. (2002). Justifying emotions: Pride and jealousy. New York: Routledge. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York: Free Press. Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 623–636). New York: Guilford. Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in appraisals for pride, shame, and guilt. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emo- tions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 64–113). New York: Guilford. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topogra- phy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127. McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266. Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179–204. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and orga- nizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556. Michie / Pride and Gratitude 403 Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure and generaliz- ability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58. Ortony, A., Clore, G., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive struc- ture of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (in press). Asymptotic and resam- pling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational lead- ership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 67–81. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125. Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206-221. Scherer, K. R. (1984). Emotion as a multicomponent process: A model and some cross-cultural data. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 37-63). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommenda- tions. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445. Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in prone- ness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102–111. Tangney, J. P. (1999). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 541–568). New York: John Wiley. Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. New York: Guilford. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions, moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self- conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506–525. Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. N. M., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746. Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2003). Adaptive and maladaptive consequences of envy and pride in personal selling. Unpublished working paper, Rice University. Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–172. Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An interac- tionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131–142. Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: The relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24. Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173–182. Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R.M.A., Breugelmans, S. M., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 18–27. Susan Michie is a visiting professor of management at Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico. She earned her PhD in organizational behavior from Oklahoma State University. Her research interests focus on prosocial leadership in organizations.