UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

A Theory of Collective in Corporate Philanthropy Decisions

Muller, A.R.; Pfarrer, M.D.; Little, L.M. DOI 10.5465/amr.2012.0031 Publication date 2014 Document Version Final published version Published in The Academy of Management Review License CC BY-NC-ND Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A Theory of Collective Empathy in Corporate Philanthropy Decisions. The Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0031

General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

Download date:28 Sep 2021 ஽ Academy of Management Review 2014, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0031

A THEORY OF COLLECTIVE EMPATHY IN CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY DECISIONS

ALAN R. MULLER University of Amsterdam

MICHAEL D. PFARRER LAURA M. LITTLE University of Georgia

Prevailing perspectives on corporate philanthropy are predominantly rational and limit decision making to the executive suite. Recently, however, recognition has grown that employees are also important drivers of corporate philanthropy efforts and that their motives may be more empathic in nature. Integrating arguments from affective events theory, intergroup theory, and infusion theory, we develop a framework in which organization members’ collective empathy in response to the needs of unknown others infuses executives’ decisions, thereby affecting the likelihood, scale, and form of corporate philanthropy. Our theory has implications for research on emotions in organizations, as well as for our understanding of the role of organizations in society.

Corporate philanthropy is a type of organiza- mechanism (Brammer & Millington, 2005), and a tional social engagement that involves the allo- tool to manage financial flows (Lev, Petrovits, & cation of time, money, or goods aimed at ad- Radhakrishnan, 2010). dressing a social need (Foundation Center, In contrast to this primarily top-down rational 2009). Scholars, however, continue to debate why interpretation, researchers have increasingly organizations give, as well as how these deci- recognized that, alongside the executive deci- sions take shape. Prevailing views once consid- sion makers, other employees are also impor- ered philanthropy as a misappropriation of tant actors in corporate philanthropy (e.g., Kim, shareholder wealth by the executive (Friedman, Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2010). Specifically, recent work 1970) or as a self-interested managerial perqui- suggests that employees do not just passively site (Barnard, 1997; Fry, Keim, & Meiners, 1982). await philanthropy decisions from the executive Over time, calls to align corporate philanthropy suite but, rather, are important drivers of and with broader business objectives (Porter & participants in corporate philanthropy initia- Kramer, 2006) led to a widespread interpretation tives from the “bottom up” (Aguilera, Rupp, Wil- of philanthropy as a tool that executives use to liams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Chong, 2009; Macla- achieve strategic goals (Lee, 2008). For example, gan, 1999). Additionally, employee involvement corporate philanthropy has been described as a in corporate philanthropy appears to be driven marketing instrument (Sen, Bhattacharya, & more by emotional mechanisms, such as a col- Korschun, 2006), a reputation management lectively shared to help others in need, than by individual rational considerations, such We acknowledge the helpful comments of our associate as job skills enhancement or organizational re- editor, Neal Ashkanasy, and three anonymous reviewers. wards (Comer & Cooper, 2002; Grant, Dutton, & We also thank the following for fruitful conversations about Rosso, 2008; Peterson, 2004). the ideas in this manuscript or for insights on previous versions: Frank Belschak, Flore Bridoux, Jon Bundy, Deanne The disparity between the rational interpreta- den Hartog, Jane Dutton, Janaki Gooty, Morela Hernandez, tion at the executive level and the emotional Ans Kolk, Arno Kourula, Jacoba Lilius, Jessica Rodell, John interpretation at the employee level is particu- Paul Stephens, Gail Whiteman, Nachoem Wijnberg, and par- larly striking in light of research showing that ticipants in the University of Amsterdam Business School’s philanthropy outside the organizational context, ISM brown bag series. We presented an earlier version of this paper at the 2011 Academy of Management annual as an “active effort to promote human welfare” meeting. (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011), is pri-

1 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2 Academy of Management Review January marily motivated by of empathy (Bat- Levine, 2011). This more participative perspec- son, 1998; Bekkers, 2005). Empathy is an other- tive on organizations’ social behaviors (Macla- oriented emotional response elicited by and gan, 1999; Takala & Pallab, 2000) represents a congruent with the perceived welfare of a per- major shift away from traditional models of the son in need, forming a potent source of motiva- philanthropic manager as a “lone actor” (La- tion to help relieve the empathy-inducing need roche, 1995: 64) making a rational, utilitarian (Batson, Eklund, Chermok, Hoyt, & Ortiz, 2007; business decision (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Sec- Kanov, Maitlis, Worline, Dutton, Frost, & Lilius, ond, by explaining how external events can 2004). The other-directed reparative action ten- elicit empathy among organization members dencies associated with empathy stem from ap- that affects executives’ philanthropy decisions praisals of how others are affected by their from the bottom up, we integrate arguments plight (Gault & Sabini, 2000; Oveis, Horberg, & from AET, IET and AIM in order to broaden our Keltner, 2010). Thus far, however, organizational understanding of the role of emotions in organi- research has not explicitly considered empathy zational decision-making processes and, thus, in relation to corporate philanthropy. the emotional foundations of organizational ac- Given the contrast between the prevailing tion across organizational levels (Ashton-James view of corporate philanthropy as a rational, & Ashkanasy, 2008; Barsade & Gibson, 2012; Et- executive-level decision and the empathic na- zioni, 1988; Forgas, 1995). Third, we offer a model ture of employees’ collective involvement, a in which human need, as a specific type of af- closer examination of the links between the em- fective event, triggers processes related to em- pathy of organization members and executive- pathy, a specific . By explicating the ef- level corporate philanthropy decision making is fects of a specific emotion’s appraisal and needed. To address this gap, we integrate argu- action tendencies, we provide a more nuanced ments from three theories of emotions in organi- understanding of the workings of discrete emo- zations to develop a multilevel theory of empa- tions in organizations (Briner & Kiefer, 2005; Cro- thy in corporate philanthropy decisions. panzano, Weiss, Hale, & Reb, 2003; Gooty, Gavin, Specifically, we draw on affective events theory & Ashkanasy, 2009). (AET; Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; Weiss & In the pages that follow, we begin by discuss- Cropanzano, 1996) to illustrate how the needs of ing the limitations of the top-down rational view others outside the organization arouse empathy of corporate philanthropy decisions, given how in individuals inside the organization; inter- little is known about how such decisions are group emotions theory (IET; Barsade, 2002; made and on what criteria they are based. Next, Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000) to explain how we discuss how the philanthropy decision is individual empathic emotion then converges to clouded in uncertainty and ambiguity, circum- become collective; and the affect infusion model stances that allow for emotion in general and (AIM; Forgas, 1995; Lerner & Keltner, 2000) to empathy more specifically to affect decision explicate how the executive’s corporate philan- making. We then link this empathic view with thropy decision making is infused with that col- research on emotions in organizations to de- lective empathic emotion. Drawing from these velop a bottom-up theory of collective empathy theoretical foundations, we also highlight indi- in corporate philanthropy decisions. In subse- vidual-, interpersonal-, and organization-level quent sections we explain the roles of emotion- factors that moderate empathy , conver- specific factors and more general organiza- gence, and infusion. tional structures that in concert enable the Our theoretical framework complements ex- process. We conclude with a discussion of the isting approaches to both corporate philan- theoretical and practical implications of our thropy and emotion in organizations in three theory. primary ways. First, we offer a more comprehen- sive and affective view to explain why some CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY DECISIONS organizations are more likely to respond to the AND EMPATHY needs of others, do so on a higher scale, and adopt higher-involvement forms of giving, de- Evidence suggests that organizations are in- the limited strategic benefit recipients pro- creasingly important contributors in times of hu- vide to the organization (Haslam, Reicher, & man need (Fritz Institute, 2005; U.S. Chamber of 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 3

Commerce, 2010). Data show that the scale of Kramer, 2006: 4) and be able to enhance its “com- corporate giving has increased in recent years, petitive context” (Porter & Kramer, 2002: 3). Thus, even as charity from other sources has stag- the prevailing paradigm depicts corporate phi- nated (GivingUSA, 2011). Corporate giving is di- lanthropy as a rational business decision made rected at a wide range of social issues, from in the executive suite, based on clear strategic donating medicines to fight AIDS (Dunfee, 2006) criteria (Figure 1). Once aware of a given human and river blindness in Africa (Dunfee & Hess, need, be it illiteracy, health, or the environment, 2000) to allocating resources for disaster relief in the executive assesses whether the need helps the wake of catastrophic events (Crampton & the organization achieve overall strategic, repu- Patten, 2008; Muller & Whiteman, 2009; Zhang, tational, or financial goals. When such consid- Rezaee, & Zhu, 2009). Corporate philanthropy erations are assessed positively, the executive also takes various forms, limited not only to will allocate organizational resources toward cash and in-kind donations but increasingly in- alleviating that need with the expectation that cluding employee matching programs and em- doing so will generate tangible benefits for the ployee time in the form of corporate volunteer- organization. ing (Fry et al., 1982; Grant, 2012; Marquis, Glynn, However, research on how likely companies & Davis, 2007). are to donate, the scale of resources they allo- Yet organizational scholars primarily study cate, and the form in which they donate is highly corporate philanthropy as a business tool em- fragmented, and, thus, little is known about how bedded in the broader domain of strategic, busi- corporate philanthropy decisions are made. For ness-related decisions (Lee, 2008; Porter & instance, research suggests that companies are Kramer, 2002; Saiia, Carroll, & Buchholtz, 2003; more likely to give, and to give more, when the Sen et al., 2006). This strategic perspective pro- human need in question is related to business poses that managers should think purposefully considerations (Dunfee, 2006; Dunfee & Hess, about how addressing social causes may gen- 2000) or is geographically proximate to the orga- erate fiscal and financial benefits (Lev et al., nization (Crampton & Patten, 2008; Muller & 2010; Navarro, 1998; Useem, 1988) or marketing Whiteman, 2009), but the underlying motives are and reputational value (Bhattacharya, Kor- only inferred and the decision itself remains a schun, & Sen, 2009; Brammer & Millington, 2005). black box. Other research has theorized about By aligning philanthropic decision making with conformity across firms when it comes to forms the strategic goals of the organization (Marquis of corporate philanthropy (e.g., cash or volun- & Lee, 2012), an organization is supposed to teering; cf. Marquis et al., 2007) but not the cir- avoid the ineffective “hodgepodge of uncoordi- cumstances under which organizations opt for nated CSR and philanthropic activities discon- one form over another. Similarly, while research nected from the company’s strategy” (Porter & links volunteering to “bottom-up grassroots ef-

FIGURE 1 The Rational View of Corporate Philanthropy Decisions

The executive suite

Strategic, financial, & reputational considerations

Likelihood, Executive scale, and form Human need decision making of corporate philanthropy

4 Academy of Management Review January forts of employees” (Grant, 2012: 590), no known clear. In conclusion, there appear to be few research has addressed the mechanisms and clear-cut decision rules in terms of when to en- processes associated with executives’ decisions gage in corporate philanthropy, at what scale, to allocate employee time to charity. and in what form. If the information driving de- Thus, the reality of corporate philanthropy de- cision making is ambiguous and the potential cisions appears to be more complex, and our benefit for the organization uncertain, the pre- conceptual understanding less developed, than vailing view of corporate philanthropy as a cal- the prevailing paradigm in Figure 1 would sug- culative, rational decision appears limited (Bar- gest. In spite of their strategic prescriptions, for nard, 1997). instance, Porter and Kramer (2002: 6) observed that corporate philanthropy decisions are typi- Corporate Philanthropy As the Outcome of an cally made in a much more ad hoc fashion, often Affect-Infused Decision based on “beliefs and values.” Instead of sys- tematically assessing the degree to which phi- Highlighting the limitations of the rational lanthropy will “enhance the competitive con- perspective, a growing body of research based text” (Porter & Kramer, 2002: 3) or generate on AIM shows that when the criteria for corpo- quantifiable “moral reputational capital” (God- rate decisions are ambiguous and their impact frey, 2005: 783), executives seem to make gut- on an organization’s bottom line is uncertain, level decisions influenced by an underspecified emotions play a key role in decision making set of considerations. Therefore, even though a (Forgas, 1995; Huy, 2012). Emotions are “activi- majority of executives report considering busi- ties of perceptual/motivational/affective sys- ness goals when making philanthropy decisions tems” (Gault & Sabini, 2000: 497) that, when trig- (Galaskiewicz, 1997), such goals do not appear gered, lead to specific appraisal and action to be the overriding evaluation element when tendencies that affect decision making. Ap- they are deciding whether to respond to a given praisal tendencies are emotion-specific percep- need with charity (likelihood), at which level tual processes that interrupt ongoing cognitive (scale), and with which resources (form). processes and direct attention, memory, and One key reason the philanthropy decision is judgment, thereby coloring the interpretation of unlikely to be based on purely rational consid- stimuli (Lerner & Keltner, 2000). Action tenden- erations stems from the mixed signals manag- cies are “prewired action patterns” (Frijda, ers receive from the external environment re- Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989: 213) or “states of garding philanthropy’s potential value to the readiness to execute a given kind of action” organization. As mixed empirical evidence on (Frijda, 1986: 70) associated with specific ap- the relationship between corporate philan- praisal patterns. , for example, is an indi- thropy and financial performance shows, it is vidual-focused emotion triggered by events per- unclear if or how philanthropy serves strategic ceived as personally offensive. Anger leads to business objectives (Brammer & Millington, appraisals that others are responsible for sub- 2008; Dean, 2003; Godfrey, 2005). Charity recipi- sequent events and to retaliatory, punitive ac- ents are often unknown or “unidentifiable” oth- tion tendencies aimed at preserving or enhanc- ers (Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007: 144)— ing self-esteem (Gault & Sabini, 2000; Lerner & faceless “statistical populations” (Trout, 2009: Keltner, 2000; Oveis et al., 2010). 53) whose ability to deliver future benefits to the Through appraisal and action tendencies, firm is far from clear. Thus, the potentially busi- emotions guide information processing, influ- ness-strategic information upon which corpo- encing what information is attended to, what is rate philanthropy decisions might be based is likely to be recalled and acted upon, and what is often either absent or ambiguous. For these rea- likely to be ignored (Nabi, 2003). This selective sons some scholars see corporate philanthropy information processing, or “infusion” (Forgas, as unrelated to business, subject instead to ex- 1995), allows emotions to affect the consider- ecutive discretion (Carroll, 2004). However, while ations that are used in the decision-making pro- research has sought to explain variance in the cess and how those considerations are evalu- amount of discretion executives enjoy ated (Etzioni, 1988). Thus, emotion infusion leads (Galaskiewicz, 1997), the criteria that inform an to an affective reranking of available options executive’s discretionary decision remain un- and, ultimately, a different decision outcome 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 5 than would occur under rational criteria alone recting, employees’ desire to respond. At Lease- (Gaudine & Thorne, 2001). If emotion infusion is Plan employees note, “[We] come up with ideas particularly relevant for decisions made under and our management not only lets us run with uncertainty and ambiguity (Elfenbein, 2007; For- them, but they also embrace and participate in gas, 1995; Huy, 2012), then the uncertainty and our ideas” (Tierney, 2011: 8G). Recent work also ambiguity associated with corporate philan- suggests that employees’ urges to help lead to thropy decisions means that emotion is likely to forms of corporate philanthropy that engage em- be an important but understudied element in ployees more actively, such as volunteering and those decisions. employee matching programs. For example, in- stead of simply writing a check in the wake of the 2004 South Asian tsunami, DHL facilitated its Employees’ Collective Empathy As a Source of employees’ desire to help by flying scores of Affect Infusion volunteers to Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, and In particular, corporate philanthropy decision- the Maldives (Chong, 2009). In response to that making processes are likely to be infused with same disaster, Cisco employees donated more empathy. Empathy, associated with feelings than $460,000, which the company pledged to like , , tenderness, and match dollar for dollar (Cisco, 2004). Thus, em- softheartedness, refers to other-directed emotion pathy, particularly among employees, seems to aroused in response to the needs of others that be a factor in when and how organizations re- elicits caretaking behavior (Batson et al., 2007). spond to the needs of others. The appraisal tendencies of empathy are soci- Moreover, IET (Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007) etally focused, creating perceptions of similarity suggests that empathy, as an inherently other- with those in need and leading to action tenden- directed and social emotion, can become collec- cies aimed at reparative behaviors, such as al- tive—that is, a palpable attribute of a group that truism and helping (Gault & Sabini, 2000; defines the group as more than just an aggrega- Lazarus, 1991). While empathy is increasingly tion of individuals (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, recognized as an important emotion in the orga- 2011; Barsade, 2002; Huy, 2011). By strengthening nizational context (Batson et al., 1995; Kellett, the bonds of group membership, collective emo- Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002, 2006; Sadri, Weber, & tions carry more powerful action tendencies Gentry, 2011), most research thus far has focused than do individual emotions (Barsade & Gibson, on the role of empathy in addressing the needs 2012; Mackie, Silver, & Smith, 2004). Given that of others inside the organization (Grant et al., executive decisions can be subject to infusion 2008). For example, when an organization mem- by collective emotions (Huy, 1999; Parkinson & ber experiences the loss of a loved one or takes Simons, 2009; Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009; van ill, his or her colleagues may be moved to help Kleef, de Dreu, & Manstead, 2010), collective em- by providing emotional support, organizing a pathy can influence executives to make philan- rotating schedule to cover missed shifts, or help- thropic decisions that reflect the empathic ac- ing out with household tasks (Lilius, Kanov, Dut- tion tendencies of the group (LeBon, 1896; Smith ton, Worline, & Maitlis, 2012). et al., 2007). Thus, anecdotal and scholarly evi- Yet AET suggests that events outside the or- dence suggest that corporate philanthropy deci- ganization can also evoke emotions inside the sions are not exclusively calculative decisions organization (Ashton-James & Ashkanasy, 2008). made in by rationally minded “corpo- In the context of our theorizing, evidence indi- rate leaders” (Grant, 2012; Marquis & Lee, 2012), cates that the empathic desire to enhance the as Figure 1 depicts, but, rather, can be linked to well-being of others outside the organization is the collectively shared empathic desire of em- a key factor underlying organizational respon- ployees to respond to the needs of others outside siveness to human needs. In a release following the organization. the 2010 Haiti earthquake, for instance, Sanofi- What is needed, therefore, is a more compre- Aventis (2010) spoke of its donation as an ex- hensive model of corporate philanthropy deci- pression of its employees’ “sincere compassion” sions in order to more fully understand the rela- in the face of victims’ “dire need.” In this fash- tionships we advance in Proposition 1. Figure 2 ion, the role of organizational leadership is illustrates such a model. Specifically, by inte- geared more toward facilitating, rather than di- grating arguments from AET, IET, and AIM, we 6 Academy of Management Review January

FIGURE 2 A Model of Collective Empathy in Corporate Philanthropy Decisions

Strategic, financial, & The organization reputational considerations

AIM Likelihood, scale, and Executive P7 form of corporate decision making philanthropy

P6a & b Management P5 • Emotion selling • Managerial discretion Infusion

IET Collective empathy

Interpersonal P4a–c • Group identification P3 • Emotion norms • Communication channels Convergence

AET Individual empathy

Individual P2a & b P1 • Perceived vividness • Centrality of moral identity Arousal

Human need

explicate how and when feelings of empathy to the executive suite alone. In line with re- are aroused among employees in response to search demonstrating the importance of empa- the needs of others outside the organization, thy for the likelihood, scale, and form of chari- how and when they converge and become col- table behavior outside the organization (Batson, lective, and how and when they infuse execu- 1998; Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987; Bekkers, tives’ corporate philanthropy decisions such 2005; Frey & Meier, 2004) and for other-directed that they affect the likelihood of donating, the helping behavior inside the organization (Dut- scale of the donation, and the form of donation ton, Worline, Frost, & Lilius, 2006; Kanov et al., chosen. 2004), our model explicates how empathy affects By highlighting processes of empathy arousal, these decision outcomes from the bottom up. In convergence, and infusion, our model extends doing so our model exposes the rational para- the rational perspective presented previously in digm’s neglect of these fundamental emotional Figure 1, in which decision making is restricted processes related to corporate philanthropy. 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 7

Additionally, just as individuals and organi- environment, also have affective consequences zations do not always respond philanthropically for organization members (Venkataraman & Van to a given need, processes of empathic arousal, de Ven, 1998). For any given organization, some convergence, and infusion do not always unfold external events will be more relevant than oth- in response to a human need outside the orga- ers, and, thus, some external events will be more nization. AET establishes how individual emo- likely than others to arouse emotions among the tion is subject to variation based on disposi- members of that organization. tional features and perceptions of the affective As noted previously, human needs arouse em- event (Ashton-James & Ashkanasy, 2008; Weiss pathy, an other-directed emotion that elicits re- & Cropanzano, 1996); we therefore consider indi- parative behaviors, such as altruism and help- vidual-level factors that affect the degree to ing (Batson et al., 2007; Gault & Sabini, 2000; which a human need arouses feelings of empa- Lazarus, 1991). Given the wide span of human thy. IET research shows that emotion conver- needs, organization members are not likely to gence hinges on the intensity and nature of in- perceive all human needs as equally relevant terpersonal interaction (Kelly & Barsade, 2001; for their organization. Rather, human needs are Smith et al., 2007); we therefore consider factors more likely to be perceived as relevant—and that enable interpersonal-level processes of em- thus arouse empathy among organization mem- pathy convergence. Further, as our model un- bers—when there is alignment between the pur- folds in the organization as a whole (Figure 2) as suit of organization members’ work-related ob- opposed to the executive suite alone (Figure 1), jectives and the alleviation of a particular need. we consider the role of organizational features that propagate and legitimate empathy, en- Alignment means that organization members abling affect infusion from the bottom up (Dut- possess the adaptive resources required to cope ton et al., 2006; Kanov et al., 2004). Thus, our with the stimulus. In the case of corporate phi- model is built on the interplay between emotion- lanthropy, this alignment is manifested in the specific factors and more general organiza- ability to contribute to the alleviation of a given tional structures, which in concert facilitate em- human need (Ashton-James & Ashkanasy, 2005). pathic arousal, convergence, and infusion in From this perspective, it is no coincidence that organizations. We begin by exploring how hu- Intel aims philanthropy at science education man needs are affective events that arouse em- among elementary and high school students in pathy inside organizations, as depicted in developing countries, DHL provides logistics for Figure 2. the delivery of humanitarian aid, and Merck do- nates medication in Sub-Saharan Africa (Chong, 2009; Dunfee & Hess, 2000). Whereas proponents A MODEL OF COLLECTIVE EMPATHY IN of the strategic paradigm would argue that CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY DECISIONS these patterns reflect rational choices driven by the prospect of financial gain, conclusive empir- Human Needs As Empathy-Arousing Affective Events ical support for such a link remains elusive (Bhattacharya et al., 2009), and, hence, utilitar- AET holds that discrete events give rise to ian gain cannot be the primary rationale driving specific emotions in individuals in the work en- these philanthropy outcomes. In contrast, AET vironment, depending on whether the event has suggests that those human needs that members relevance for the individuals’ personal goals or of the organization are best “equipped to deal objectives (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Although with” (Ashton-James & Ashkanasy, 2005: 36) are AET was initially aimed at explaining how most likely to spill over the organizational events inside the organization can affect indi- boundary (cf. Rothbard, 2001) and arouse empa- vidual-level attitudes and behaviors, Ashton- thy in organization members. We therefore pro- James and Ashkanasy (2005) extended this per- pose the following. spective to include extraorganizational events that have relevance for the organization as a Proposition 1: The more organization whole. For instance, research has shown how members perceive an organiza- “environmental jolts” (Meyer, 1982) that impact tion-external human need to be rele- organizations, such as changes in the regulatory vant to their organization, the more 8 Academy of Management Review January

likely they are to experience empathic tingent on the extent to which the observer iden- arousal in response to that need. tifies with those in need. That is, those in need must be “easily imaginable individuals rather However, research based on AET suggests than statistical populations” (Trout, 2009: 53). that events do not arouse empathy in individu- The degree of identification with those in need als in organizations to the same degree (Huy, affects appraisals of self-other similarity, which, 2002; Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). Rather, the by blurring the self-other boundary, drives em- affective significance of an event is contingent pathic arousal in the observer (Batson et al., on characteristics of the observer (Ashton-James 1997; Davis, 2004; Oveis et al., 2010). & Ashkanasy, 2008). In line with these assump- The appraisal of self-other similarity is evi- tions, we examine two factors that affect indi- dent when others in need are familiar, such as vidual organization members’ experiences of family, friends, or colleagues (Goetz et al., 2010). empathy in response to human needs outside Human needs outside the organization, how- the organization. ever, are typically associated with unknown oth- Vividness of human need. Vividness is a qual- ers. In that case, the appraisal of self-other sim- ity characterizing the perception of stimuli as ilarity will be linked to the centrality of emotionally interesting and temporally, senso- organization members’ moral identity. Moral rially, or spatially proximate and speaks to the identity is a facet of individual identity that gov- relevance of the event in the eyes of the ob- erns whether an individual considers others to server. Vivid imagery of human beings in need be objects of his or her concern (Frijda, 1988; can trigger the visceral responses and physio- Reed, Aquino, & Levy, 2007). Since moral identity logical arousal in observers that are the precur- varies in its centrality to the self-concept sors to the empathic urge to help (Arnold, 1960; (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Treviño, Weaver, & Reyn- Hendriks & Vingerhoets, 2006; Loewenstein, olds, 2006), individuals with greater centrality of 1996; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Marsh & Am- moral identity have a more extensive “circle of bady, 2007), as demonstrated in research on do- moral regard” (Reed & Aquino, 2003: 1271), in nations in response to the 2004 South Asian tsu- which a larger pool of others are considered nami (Smith & McSweeny, 2007) and the 2001 objects of the observer’s concern (Frijda, 1988). “9/11” attacks (Piferi, Jobe, & Jones, 2006). In the Thus, individuals with greater centrality of context of our theorizing, we propose that by moral identity are more likely to experience oth- altering perceptions of proximity to those in er-regarding emotions like empathy in response need, vividness affects whether the empathy- to the needs of others, even if those others are evoking properties of that need arouse empathy unknown or hard to identify with (Small et al., in the workplace irrespective of the human 2007; Trout, 2009). need’s relevance for the organization or work- place functioning (Dutton et al., 2006; Judge & Proposition 2b: The greater the cen- Ilies, 2004; Mennino, Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005; trality of an organization member’s Rothbard, 2001). moral identity, the more intense the arousal of empathy. Proposition 2a: The more vivid an or- ganization member’s perception of a human need outside the organization, Intergroup Emotions and the more intense the arousal of Empathy Convergence empathy. Research based on IET suggests that interac- Centrality of moral identity. In addition to the tions between individual organization members perceived features of the need itself, individual experiencing feelings of empathy can lead to dispositional characteristics also influence the convergence of members’ empathic states intensity of empathic arousal. Cognitive ap- through both implicit and explicit sharing pro- praisals of need acuity and others’ deserving- cesses (Barsade, 2002; Kelly & Barsade, 2001; ness form an individual-level regulative mech- Smith et al., 2007). Implicit sharing processes anism that can either amplify or attenuate occur when individuals unconsciously spread empathic arousal (Fong, 2007; Goetz, Keltner, & empathy through the organization by express- Simon-Thomas, 2010). Such appraisals are con- ing their own feelings. For example, facial ex- 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 9 pressions or physiological manifestations of empathy will converge to become empathic arousal trigger similar emotional ex- collective. periences for organization members (Sanchez- Additionally, IET suggests that both affective Burks & Huy, 2009). Alternatively, individuals and nonaffective factors of the group impact the may vicariously place themselves in another convergence of emotion. Among the most impor- person’s circumstance (Lazarus, 1991). Explicit emotional sharing processes occur when indi- tant of these are the level of group identification viduals consciously adopt or actively attempt to among organization members, the organiza- influence others’ emotions. For instance, one or- tion’s emotion norms, and the organization’s ganization member’s expressed empathy may communication channels (Kelly & Barsade, 2001; be openly evaluated by others as a signal of Smith et al., 2007). Thus, we examine how these how they should appropriately feel (Barsade, factors affect the degree to which individual or- 2002), or one organization member may inten- ganization members’ empathy in response to tionally induce empathy in others by vividly de- human needs outside the organization con- scribing those in need. Research also suggests verges to become collective. that the more intense the emotion aroused in Group identification. Group identification re- individual members, the more intensely emo- fers to the degree to which organization mem- tions are shared and the greater the degree to bers identify with and define themselves by the which they converge (Barsade, 2002; Rimé, 2007). same attributes they believe define the organi- Empathy, as an inherently social emotion, lends zation (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). itself particularly well to sharing and conver- Group identification forms an emotional attach- gence (Smith et al., 2007). ment to the organization that shapes individu- As organization members’ empathic emotions als’ experiences of emotion in the organiza- converge, that empathy takes on properties of a tional setting (Foreman & Whetten, 2002). In the collective phenomenon, becoming a palpable context of our theorizing, group identification attribute of a group (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, relates to the extent to which organization mem- 2011; Barsade & Gibson, 1998). Collective empa- bers will feel, express, and adopt empathic emo- thy is qualitatively different from the sum of tion in the organization. First, greater group individual empathy for a number of reasons. identification implies a higher level of “perme- First, individuals can experience collective emo- ability” between private and work-related role tions such as empathy even when they are not identities, increasing the likelihood of sharing personally involved in or exposed to the empa- non-work-related emotions in the workplace thy-arousing event through processes known as (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Kreiner, Hol- secondary or tertiary sharing (Rimé, 2007). Sec- lensbe, & Sheep, 2006; Lilius, Worline, Dutton, ond, the group sharing processes underlying Kanov, & Maitlis, 2011). Second, group identifi- convergence are typically recurrent such that cation affects the degree to which empathy con- collective empathy is continually reactivated verges (Dutton et al., 2006). That is, individuals and, thus, sustained at higher intensity levels who identify themselves as members of the than any one individual’s empathy alone (Rimé, same group are more likely to adopt each other’s 2007). Third, as a function of group membership, empathic emotions in a given situation than are collective empathy carries more powerful action individuals who do not (de Waal, 2009; Haslam tendencies than individual empathy (Barsade & et al., 2011; Huy, 1999) because their appraisals Gibson, 2012). Specifically, by bringing group of the need will be a function of both individual members closer together (Barsade & Gibson, concerns and of group membership (Smith, 1993, 1998; Rimé, 2007), collective empathy creates a 1999). Thus, by bringing the collective emotional heightened sense of cooperation and galvanizes bond formed by group membership to the fore group members to act together in ways that re- (Elfenbein, 2007; Smith et al., 2007), a stronger flect the collective (Barsade & Gibson, 2012; sense of group identification means that em- Mackie et al., 2004; McDougall, 1923). pathic emotions of group members will still con- Proposition 3: The more intense the verge even when some group members are less arousal of empathy in organization concerned than others with those in need out- members, the more their feelings of side the organization (Barsade, 2002; Rimé, 2007). 10 Academy of Management Review January

Based on these arguments, we posit the cultural differences within organizations as a following. factor in the accurate perception of colleagues’ emotions (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). Other Proposition 4a: The stronger the sense scholars have looked at the effects of geo- of group identification among organi- graphic distance on sharing processes and the zation members, the more their feel- development of a collectively shared emotional ings of empathy will converge to be- climate or tone (Fehr & Gelfand, 2012). Thus, come collective. communication channels that help overcome Emotion norms. An organization’s emotion the effects of geographic and cultural distance norms form an important feature of the organi- within the organization are likely to be key fac- zation’s social architecture moderating the pro- tors in the processes by which group members’ cesses by which empathic emotion converges empathic emotions converge. (Lilius et al., 2012). Emotion norms are an orga- Communication channels that facilitate the nization-level set of rules (cf. e.g., Hochs- convergence of members’ emotions over greater child, 1983) governing the display of and sensi- distances include the same Internet technolo- tivity to others’ emotions (Barsade & Gibson, gies, such as email and video conferencing, that 2007; Elfenbein, 2007; Huy, 1999). In some organi- enable common organizational practices like zations emotional expressions may be discour- telework and virtual teams (Fehr & Gelfand, aged for they will be considered inappro- 2012). For instance, Dutton and colleagues (2006) priate (Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Stephens, have described the use of email in drawing at- 2010). In other organizations, however, emotion tention to colleagues’ in times of need and norms legitimate and propagate feelings and in coordinating a response. In the context of our expressions of empathy (Dutton et al., 2006; Kelly own theorizing, UPS (2010) set up a web-based & Barsade, 2001). In such settings the sharing blog following the Haiti earthquake with an in- and convergence of empathy becomes a funda- teractive platform that allowed employees to mentally social process by which organization comment and communicate with one another members collectively cope with each other’s em- about the disaster and UPS’s response, sharing pathic emotions, doing so as an expression of their feelings about the event. Similarly, video other-directed concern (Grant et al., 2008; Lilius conferencing can reduce the effects of cultural et al., 2012). This leads to the following distance in organizations by allowing nonver- proposition. bal communication to play a greater role in in- terpersonal interaction. Such channels thus facil- Proposition 4b: The more an organiza- itate the sharing processes that lead to tion’s emotion norms facilitate the le- convergence even across geographic and cultural gitimation and propagation of empa- distances. Hence, we propose the following. thy, the more organization members’ feelings of empathy will converge to Proposition 4c: The more an organiza- become collective. tion’s communication channels facili- tate the legitimation and propagation Communication channels. Empathy, as an in- of empathy, the more organization herently social emotion, requires interpersonal members’ feelings of empathy will interactions in order to converge among organi- converge to become collective. zation members. Given that the operations of many organizations are internationally dis- persed, convergence will depend on structural The Infusion of Executives’ Philanthropy organizational characteristics that affect the Decision Making with Collective Empathy ability of organization members to interact across significant distances. International man- In the final stage of our model, we draw on agement research, for instance, has demon- AIM (Forgas, 1995) to explain how executives’ strated the negative effects of cultural differ- philanthropic decision-making processes are in- ences and geographic distance on knowledge fused with the empathy that exists among orga- and information flows within multinational en- nization members, affecting “the extent to which terprises (Pedersen, Petersen, & Sharma, 2003). decision making takes place, the information Similarly, research has described the effects of gathered, the ways it is processed, the infer- 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 11 ences that are drawn, the options that are being anisms that might otherwise lead to an emo- considered, and those that are finally chosen” tional “upward spiral” (Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008: (Etzioni, 1988: 127). In particular, collective em- 41) in the organization may be insufficient. In pathy will have a strong impact on top-level recognition of this organizational reality, we in- decision-making processes given that the action troduce emotion selling as a mesolevel mecha- tendencies associated with collective empathy nism that facilitates the of empathic emo- are more powerful than those associated with tion from the bottom up to the executive decision individual empathy (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). maker. Emotion selling refers to actions through This is because the representative nature of col- which middle managers convey the collective lective emotions makes them appear less bi- empathy among organization membership to ased, whereas individual emotions can seem the executive suite. Emotion selling can thus be idiosyncratic. Also, collective emotions reflect understood as a form of “issue selling,” which group solidarity as well as a sense of shared refers to middle managers’ direction of senior values and action readiness (Smith et al., 2007). management’s limited attention to and percep- Finally, since more convergent collective emo- tion of certain issues (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, tion is associated with a more palpable collec- Hayes, & Wierba, 1997: 408). tive action readiness, it follows that greater em- Middle managers are in a unique position to pathic emotion convergence will lead to greater sell emotions because they form the linchpin infusion effects on executives’ decision-making between senior management and their subordi- processes (LeBon, 1896; Mackie et al., 2004; Smith nates. By interacting directly and frequently et al., 2007). This leads to the following with their subordinates, middle managers are proposition. most likely to “recognize, monitor, discriminate and attend to [their] members’ emotions” (Huy, Proposition 5: The more empathic 1999: 325). At the same time, when communica- emotion in the organization converges tion between senior executives and middle and becomes collective, the greater managers is based on exchange and reciprocity, the degree to which it will infuse ex- middle managers have many opportunities for ecutives’ corporate philanthropic de- communicating directly with senior executives cision-making processes. (Treviño et al., 2006). Through open and recipro- Additionally, we present two organization- cal interactions with senior managers, middle level factors affecting the degree to which col- managers transmit the emotionally charged col- lective empathy in response to human needs lective urge to act, aroused in response to the outside the organization infuses executives’ cor- of unknown others, to the decision porate philanthropy decisions: emotion selling, making of senior management. Emotion selling a key mesolevel mechanism that enables the is therefore a function of organization-level abil- micro-macro linkages in our model (Dasbor- ities by which middle managers bring patterns ough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009), and mana- of shared emotion into focus and convey their gerial discretion, a key factor that determines content and significance to senior management the degree of flexibility present in organiza- (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). This leads to the tional decision-making frameworks (Kidder & following proposition. Buchholtz, 2002). Proposition 6a: The more emotion Emotion selling. Our framework emphasizes selling takes place in the organiza- the organization as a multilevel context in tion, the greater the degree to which which empathy develops at the individual level, collective empathy will infuse exec- proceeds upward through groups, and ends up utives’ corporate philanthropy decision- at the macroorganizational level (Ashkanasy & making processes. Humphrey, 2011). Interactions between leaders and members have been identified as a key Managerial discretion. Additionally, AIM stip- mesolevel organizational factor establishing ulates that the level of uncertainty and degree of the “micro-macro nexus” (Dasborough et al., ambiguity inherent in a decision impact the 2009: 572). Yet as Huy (2002) points out, executive emotion infusion process (Forgas, 1995). As decision makers are often removed from their stated previously, uncertainty and ambiguity employees such that the direct contagion mech- are both inherent in corporate philanthropy de- 12 Academy of Management Review January cisions. However, Forgas (1995) also has sug- comes of corporate philanthropy decisions. Yet a gested that the flexibility of existing decision- wealth of prior research outside the organiza- making frameworks impacts the degree of affect tional context has established that more intense infusion. Thus, the degree to which collective feelings of empathy are linked to a greater like- empathy in the organization can infuse senior lihood of giving, as well as to giving at a greater executives’ decision-making processes also de- scale (Batson, 1990; Batson et al., 1997; Sargeant, pends on the degree of managerial discretion 1999). Additionally, research has highlighted the executives enjoy in their decision making—that role of empathy in the choice between different is, the “latitude to decide” (Buchholtz, Amason, & forms of philanthropy. For instance, empathy Rutherford, 1999: 172). Managerial discretion is predicts individuals’ increased willingness to therefore also a function of executives’ ability to donate their time (i.e., volunteer) for the benefit recognize and act on the discretion they receive, of others (Griffin, Babin, Attaway, & Darden, as well as the structural organizational charac- 1993). Similarly, people have a greater prefer- teristics that enable or constrain executives’ lat- ence to donate time instead of money to chari- itude of action (Kidder & Buchholtz, 2002). The ties when they are more emotionally invested in concept of managerial discretion is premised, on the cause (Reed et al., 2007). Theorizing in the the one hand, on the notion that managers’ deci- organizational context, we argue that the infu- sion environments are full of choices and, on the sion effects of empathy inside the organization other hand, on the notion that managers’ actions will lead to similar patterns in executives’ orga- can never be completely “prescribed by corporate nization-level philanthropy decision outcomes. procedures, formal job definitions, resource avail- When executives feel collective empathy, their abilities, or technologies” (Wood, 1991: 699). empathic appraisal and action tendencies may The role of managerial discretion has been override rational arguments against donating linked previously to corporate philanthropy in (i.e., an of insufficient strategic, fi- that philanthropy reflects a category of deci- nancial, or reputational benefits); alternately, if sions that fall under the purview of the execu- rational arguments favor donating, they will be tive but for which society does not provide reinforced through collective empathy infusion. “clear-cut” expectations (Carroll, 1999: 283). Un- Thus, the infusion of executive decision making der these circumstances, such decisions are left with collective empathy increases the likelihood to individual executives’ judgments and that decision makers will make choices that re- choices. However, while establishing that some flect the emotions of their social group, aimed at executives will experience greater freedom to group solidarity and harnessing the energy of make a decision than others, this perspective the collective. does not explain circumstances under which Additionally, in social settings where group greater discretion is more or less likely to lead to bonds are strong, a collectively shared urge to one outcome over another. With respect to em- behave altruistically leads to a greater likeli- pathy infusion, we provide such a mechanism hood of collective action. Thus, with respect to by proposing that variance in executives’ “lati- corporate philanthropy, the greater propensity tude to decide” enables greater infusion of the to act collectively leads to forms of philanthropy decision because corporate philanthropy deci- that capitalize on that collective action readi- sion making in the organization is less scripted. ness. Specifically, this occurs through the adop- tion of higher-involvement forms of philan- Proposition 6b: The greater executives’ thropy that engage employees directly in the managerial discretion, the greater the philanthropic response, as opposed to lower- degree to which collective empathy involvement forms such as cash donations or will infuse executives’ corporate phi- the provision of in-kind goods. One high- lanthropy decision-making processes. involvement form of corporate philanthropy is corporate volunteering. Corporate volunteer- ing—the formal sponsoring and subsidizing of Infusion of Executive Decision Making and employees’ community service and outreach ac- Corporate Philanthropy tivities on company time—represents a signifi- Thus far, research has not explicitly ad- cant philanthropic resource commitment on the dressed affect infusion in relation to the out- part of the organization (Grant, 2012). With re- 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 13 spect to group ties and empathy, corporate vol- volve higher-engagement forms of unteering is known to be higher when employee philanthropy. attachment to the organization is high and when employees feel a strong affinity with the cause DISCUSSION in question (Turban & Greening, 1997). In the same way that collective emotions like empathy In this article we have integrated arguments are recursive and self-sustaining (Rimé, 2007), from AET, IET, and AIM to develop a framework high-involvement philanthropy efforts, such as in which feelings of empathy among organiza- volunteering, depend on positive reinforcement tion members, triggered by a human need out- in the organizational context (Bekkers & Wiep- side the organization, affect the likelihood, king, 2011; Peloza, Hudson, & Hassay, 2009). scale, and form of organization-level philan- Another higher employee engagement form of thropic responses directed at the alleviation of philanthropy is the establishment of a matching that need. Additionally, acknowledging that our process relies on individual agency as well as program. Employee donation matching is a form contextual structures, we have highlighted dis- of philanthropy by which the organization positional and organizational factors that en- pledges to match employee donations, usually able the bottom-up process to unfold across its dollar for dollar. Matching programs legitimate three levels. With respect to human needs as and facilitate employees’ urge to respond, giv- affective events, we emphasized the role of viv- ing the collective a specific outlet for its feelings idness and centrality of moral identity in empa- of empathy (Bekkers, 2005). For example, Amer- thy arousal at the individual level. With respect ican Family Insurance stated, in response to the to intergroup emotions, we explained how group 2010 Haiti earthquake, that identification, interpersonal norms, and commu- American Family employees and agents demon- nication channels affect processes of empathy strate their compassion and generosity time and convergence. With respect to affect infusion, we again, and many of them are choosing to help the explicated the roles of emotion selling and man- victims of this colossal tragedy. By matching their agerial discretion in processes of empathy infu- individual contributions, we’re enabling our em- sion in corporate philanthropic decisions. Our ployees and agents to have an even greater im- pact on the recovery efforts (2010). theory contributes to a better understanding of corporate philanthropy as a collective, empathy- Matching programs also facilitate the collec- infused organizational behavior and a greater tive element by enhancing “crowding in”—an understanding of the linkages between AET, increased willingness of individuals to partici- IET, and AIM. As such, it better encompasses the pate in the collective response—and reducing variance in giving among corporations and “crowding out”—by which some members free adds depth to existing multilevel research on ride on the donations of others (Bekkers & Wiep- emotions in organizations. We expand on our king, 2011; Frey & Meier, 2004; Shang & Croson, contributions below. 2009). In sum, the appraisal and action tenden- cies associated with collective empathy infuse Theoretical Contributions executives’ corporate philanthropy decisions such that the reranking of available options af- First, our theoretical framework complements fects the outcome in terms of philanthropy’s like- existing approaches to corporate philanthropy. lihood, scale, and form. Based on these argu- Including the bottom-up emotional perspective ments, we propose the following. of why organizations respond to the needs of others offers an extension to the top-down ra- Proposition 7: The more executives’ tional view that predominates in extant re- corporate philanthropy decision-mak- search. By showing how collective empathy af- ing processes are infused with collec- fects the considerations used in the decision- tive empathic emotion, the greater the making process and how those considerations likelihood of engaging in corporate are evaluated, our model helps explain the ap- philanthropy, the greater the scale of parently “ad hoc” nature of corporate philan- resources allocated, and the greater thropy (Porter & Kramer, 2002: 6). Instead of be- the likelihood the response will in- ing based on clear, strategic criteria and 14 Academy of Management Review January unambiguous information, corporate philan- lence can have very different appraisal and ac- thropy decisions are inherently uncertain, both tion tendencies (Lerner & Keltner, 2000). Empa- in terms of how a decision is to be made and on thy involves feeling badly for others in need but, what criteria it should be based and in terms of at the same time, carries positive action tenden- possible benefits to the firm. While the potential cies that involve helping those in need (Batson strategic, reputational, or financial gains de- et al., 2007). Studying the specific appraisal and rived from philanthropy remain important ele- action tendencies associated with specific emo- ments of consideration (Galaskiewicz, 1997), em- tions such as empathy advances our under- pathy infusion affects the way those standing beyond broader categorizations based considerations are evaluated, even though the on valence alone (van Kleef et al., 2010). executive may not be consciously aware of em- pathy’s effects on his or her decision making Practical Implications (Bargh & Williams, 2006; Berridge & Winkiel- man, 2003). Our model also has practical value for man- Second, by drawing from and integrating ar- agers, organizations, and their stakeholders. guments from AET, IET, and AIM to explain how First, it can contribute to a reduction in the cyn- collective empathic emotion ultimately infuses icism about the role organizations play in soci- executives’ philanthropic resource allocation ety stemming from the predominantly rational decisions, we heed the call to shed more light on interpretation of corporate philanthropy. A con- the role of emotions in organizational decision- sequence of the cynical view is that corporate making processes (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, philanthropy can negatively affect organiza- 2011; Ashton-James & Ashkanasy, 2008; Etzioni, tions’ reputations if societal actors assume phi- 1988; Forgas, 1995). Our bottom-up perspective lanthropy is used simply for impression man- complements existing research that has primar- agement. In contrast, recognition of the ily examined the top-down role of emotions in bottom-up and empathic elements of corporate organizations (such as leaders’ emotions and philanthropy is likely to engender a more posi- their impact on employees; e.g., Dasborough & tive societal response (Godfrey, 2005). It also al- Ashkanasy, 2002). Moreover, the top-down and lows for a less stringent interpretation of man- bottom-up aspects of emotions in organizations agerial discretion regarding corporate are likely to be intertwined and mutually rein- philanthropy by acknowledging that while ra- forcing. For instance, by harnessing and acting tional, strategic considerations matter, they are on employees’ collective emotions, executives not likely to be the overriding element in the will make their subordinates feel understood decision. Moreover, repeatedly acknowledging and valued while simultaneously reinforcing and legitimating the role of empathy in corpo- their leadership position (Kellett et al., 2006; cf. rate philanthropy over time may even affect the also Tierney, 2011). ordering of rational considerations and how Third, we shed light on the specific mecha- they are evaluated in subsequent situations, nisms that explain how a discrete emotion— leading to a more empathic and philanthropic empathy—is aroused in individuals, becomes culture in the organization. At the same time, collective, and ultimately affects the likelihood, however, the potential for convergence between scale, and form of corporate philanthropy in re- empathic motives and rational considerations sponse to human needs. Despite the differences over time means that by directing employees’ in the action tendencies associated with various attention to some needs and not others, execu- emotions, emotions research thus far has fo- tives may try to steer their employees’ empathic cused primarily on investigating broad catego- desire to help others to be better aligned with ries of positive and negative emotions (Briner & the organization’s business objectives. Kiefer, 2005; Gooty et al., 2009). As a result, many Second, by explicating the infusion of a col- emotions have been unnecessarily assigned va- lective, emotionally driven urge to act into the lence despite having both positive and negative executive decision process, our model allows features (Lazarus & Cohen-Charash, 2001), not only for a more nuanced understanding of which has limited our understanding of their the potential motives behind corporate philan- effects (Barsade & Gibson, 2012; Cropanzano et thropy but also for a broader perspective on its al., 2003). Additionally, emotions of similar va- manifestation. Whereas a considerable body of 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 15 research has explained some of the variance in thropy decision to the executive suite and over- the scale of corporate philanthropy, only a small emphasizes the role of business objectives by number of studies have addressed the likeli- offering a more collective, inclusive, and em- hood of giving, and we know of no research in pathic process. However, corporate philan- which scholars have tried to explain variance in thropy, no matter how well-intentioned, may not the form of giving. As scholarly research and alleviate the needs it aims to alleviate. The po- anecdotes about corporate giving suggest, the tentially limitless human need in society may legitimation of employees’ desire to alleviate lead to empathy “fatigue” or “burnout” in the the needs of others leads to philanthropy deci- organization (cf. Elliot, 2008; Frost et al., 2006). sions in which employees have the opportunity Both could lead to emotional distress among to contribute their own time and money as part organization members and, ultimately, have a of the donation effort, making it a truly collective negative effect on the organization’s emotional endeavor (cf. Chong, 2009). Thus, bottom-up, em- climate (Ashkanasy, 2003). However, the primary pathy-infused corporate philanthropy is likely to focus of our theorizing is on the empathic mo- be associated with positive repercussions in the tives underlying corporate philanthropy. Future future, such as increased volunteering levels, research therefore should explore both the orga- greater employee contributions, and manage- nization-internal and organization-external out- ment-level legitimation through, for example, comes related to this process, including the the structural development of employee dona- impact on such factors as organizational repu- tion matching programs. tation, employee engagement, and beneficia- Third, our model implies that by addressing ries’ well-being. collective empathic emotion and reinforcing so- Also, we acknowledge that our more “partici- cial bonds within the group (Mackie et al., 2004), pative” model of corporate social engagement empathy-infused corporate philanthropy deci- (Aguilera et al., 2007; Anthony, 1978; Takala & sions generate positive feedback loops at mul- Pallab, 2000) may still imply that corporate phi- tiple levels in the organization. For example, lanthropy decisions can be contested within the executive decisions influenced by collective em- organization and that empathy-driven actions pathic emotion will feed back into individuals’ cannot become the sole objective of organiza- level of organizational identification and will tional activity. Empathy-driven decisions, espe- reinforce the organization’s empathy-legitimat- cially those given little strategic thought, can be ing and empathy-propagating emotion norms ineffectual or even detrimental if they lead to (Tierney, 2011). Moreover, the actions leaders conflicts between management and sharehold- take in response to emotion have a profound ers. Negotiating competing demands for short- impact on followers’ emotional reactions (Wal- term concerns associated with day-to-day busi- ter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2011); adeptly addressing ness operations and long-term efforts to followers’ feelings and concerns can help lead- “enhance the collective goodness of the organi- ers generate and maintain follower and zation” can subject organizations and their man- cooperation (George, 2000). Thus, the infusion of agers to the strains associated with “role con- executive decisions with collective emotion can flict” (Heugens, Kaptein, & van Oosterhout, 2008: be important for the management of emotions in 113). Alternately, empathy could be co-opted by the organization (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002), with executives for instrumental purposes (Frost et longer-term benefits for employees, the organi- al., 2006). Our model opens up avenues for re- zation, and the executive’s position as a leader searchers to explore the results of bottom-up, (Kellett et al., 2006). empathy-driven actions versus top-down pro- cesses considering a variety of outcomes, in- cluding societal goals, organizational engage- Limitations and Future Directions ment, and business objectives (cf. Tierney, 2011). In our theory we acknowledge that rational With respect to emotions research, we focused arguments can work in tandem with other- on a discrete emotion—empathy—which devel- directed objectives and that such seemingly ops as a result of observing others in need and contradictory motives can exist simultaneously manifests as a desire to alleviate that need. We (cf. Muller & Kräussl, 2011). In doing so we ex- acknowledge that the bottom-up process we de- pand current thinking that limits the philan- scribe may also be influenced by other emo- 16 Academy of Management Review January tions, such as , excitement, and Conclusion cheerfulness. However, the action tendencies In the preceding pages we took several impor- associated with these emotions are related to tant steps toward understanding how and why strong self-agency and approach-related behav- organizations’ philanthropic decisions need not ior rather than a specific desire to help others in be seen as purely calculative decisions but may need (Frijda et al., 1989). Thus, these emotions also stem from empathy. While our perspective may likely serve as antecedents to the bot- is not intended to explain all pathways by tom-up process we have described above: when which human needs elicit philanthropic re- individuals feel excited and enthusiastic, their sponses, we suggest our model paints a more self-agency may drive them to feel that they can complete picture of organizations’ charitable make a difference and proactively seek out in- giving. By including emotional elements that dividuals who are in need. Additionally, the bot- have been largely ignored in research on corpo- tom-up empathic infusion of corporate philan- rate philanthropy, we further an empathy-based thropy decisions may elicit other discrete perspective of organizational decision making emotions in employees, such as enthusiasm or and behavior (Aguilera et al., 2007; Swanson, , which, in turn, may lead to more proac- 1999) that helps “breathe life” into organiza- tive, empathy-driven corporate philanthropy in tional studies (Dutton, 2003: 6). the future. Future research should investigate the specific effects of other discrete collective emotions on the bottom-up empathic infusion of REFERENCES corporate philanthropy decisions, as well as on other executive decisions. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibil- Finally, our model includes moderators at the ity: A multilevel theory of social change in organiza- individual level and organizational level that tions. Academy of Management Review, 32: 836–863. facilitate empathy arousal, convergence, and in- American Family Insurance. 2010. American Family Insur- fusion. Some of our moderators are empathy ance donates funds to Haiti recovery efforts. Available at specific, such as the perceived vividness of hu- http://www.amfam.com/about-us/news-room/archives/ man need, centrality of moral identity, and em- archives.asp?articleϭ2010_0118; accessed July 5, 2011. pathy-legitimating emotion norms, whereas oth- Anthony, W. 1978. Participative management. Boston: ers capture more structural organizational Addison-Wesley. features, such as communication channels, Aquino, K., & Reed, A. 2002. The self importance of moral emotion selling, and managerial discretion. identity. Journal of Personality and , While our model includes moderators that, in 83: 1423–1440. concert, uniquely support empathy from the bot- Arnold, M. B. 1960. Emotion and personality. Volume II: Neu- tom up, the mix of emotion-specific and more rological and physiological aspects. New York: Colum- bia University Press. general structural features may serve as a tem- plate for exploring the dynamics of other dis- Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy crete emotions in organizations. At the same of Management Review, 25: 472–491. time, our model may exclude other potentially Ashkanasy, N. M. 2003. Emotions in organizations: A multi- important factors, such as perceptions of deserv- level perspective. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino ingness (Fong, 2007) or symbolic actions by or- (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, vol. 2: 9–54. Oxford: ganization members (Dutton et al., 2006). In ad- Elsevier/JAI Press. dition, other emotion-related variables may play Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. 2002. Emotion in the work- a role in this model. , for place: The new challenge for managers. Academy of example, is related to the ability to experience Management Executive, 16(1): 76–86. empathy, factors into the processes involved in Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. 2011. Current emotion sharing emotions, and has been shown to be an research in organizational behavior. Emotion Review, 3: important factor in decision making (Caruso, 214–224. Mayer, & Salovey, 2002; Mayer, Roberts, & Bar- Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2005. What lies sade, 2008). Future research could expand on our beneath? A process analysis of affective events theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), model to elucidate the workings of additional Research on emotion in organizations. Volume 1: The moderators or to develop a more general multi- effect of affect in organizational settings: 23–46. Oxford: level model of emotions in organizations. Elsevier Science. 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 17

Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2008. Affective tually beneficial corporate social responsibility initia- events theory: A strategic perspective. In W. J. Zerbe, tives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85: 257–272. C. E. J. Härtel, & N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2005. Corporate reputation and emotion in organizations. Volume 4: Emotions, ethics, philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business and decision-making: 1–34. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Ethics, 61: 29–44. Bargh, J. A., & Williams, E. L. 2006. The automaticity of social Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2008. Does it pay to be differ- life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15: 1–4. ent? An analysis of the relationship between corporate Barnard, J. 1997. Corporate philanthropy, executives’ pet social and financial performance. Strategic Manage- charities, and the agency problem. New York Law ment Journal, 29: 1325–1343. School Law Review, 41: 1147–1178. Briner, R. B., & Kiefer, T. 2005. Psychological research into the Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: experience of emotion at work: Definitely older, but are and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Sci- we any wiser? In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. ence Quarterly, 47: 644–675. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations. Vol- Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. 1998. : A view ume 1: The effect of affect in organizational settings: from top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld, E. A. Mannix, & 281–307. Oxford: Elsevier Science. M. A. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. 1999. teams, vol. 1: 81–102. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top manage- Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. 2007. Why does affect matter ment discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. in organizations? Academy of Management Perspec- Business & Society, 38: 167–187. tives, 21(1): 36–59. Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. 2012. Group affect: Its influ- of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38: 268– ence on individual and group outcomes. Current Direc- 295. tions in Psychological Science, 21: 119–123. Carroll, A. B. 2004. Managing ethically with global stake- Batson, C. D. 1990. How social an animal? The human ca- holders: A present and future challenge. Academy of pacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45: 336–346. Management Executive, 18(2): 114–120. Batson, C. D. 1998. Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. 2002. Relation of an Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of ability measure of emotional intelligence to personality. social psychology, vol. 2: 282–316. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79: 306–320. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Chong, M. 2009. Employee participation in CSR and corpo- Shaw, L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. R. 1995. Empathy and the rate identity: Insights from a disaster-response program collective good: Caring for one of the others in a social in the Asia-Pacific. Corporate Reputation Review, 12: dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106–119. 68: 619–631. Cisco. 2004. Cisco systems issues statement on company re- Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, lief efforts for Dec. 26 earthquake and tsunami. http:// B. G. 2007. An additional antecedent of empathic con- newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2004/corp_122904.html; accessed cern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal June 11, 2012. of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 65–74. Comer, D. R., & Cooper, E. A. 2002. A model of employees’ Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. 1987. Distress and responses to corporate “volunteerism.” Research in Eth- empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions ical Issues in Organizations, 4: 145–168. with different motivational consequences. Journal of Crampton, W., & Patten, D. 2008. Social responsiveness, prof- Personality, 55: 19–39. itability and catastrophic events: Evidence on the cor- Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & porate philanthropic response to 9/11. Journal of Busi- Dawson, K. 1997. Is empathy-induced helping due to ness Ethics, 81: 863–873. self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Hale, J. M. S., & Reb, J. 2003. The Psychology, 73: 495–509. structure of affect: Reconsidering the relationship be- Bekkers, R. 2005. When and why matches are more effective tween negative and . Journal of Man- subsidies than rebates. Paper presented at the 33rd Ar- agement, 29: 831–857. nova annual conference, Washington, DC. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Emotion and Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. 2011. A literature review of em- attribution of intentionality in leader-member relation- pirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that ships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615–634. drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, Quarterly, 40: 924–973. H. H. M. 2009. What goes around comes around: How Berridge, K. C., & Winkielman, P. 2003. What is an uncon- meso-level negative emotional contagion can ulti- scious emotion? (The case for unconscious “liking”). mately determine organizational attitudes toward lead- Cogntion & Emotion, 17: 181–211. ers. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 571–585. Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. 2009. Strength- Davis, M. H. 2004. Empathy: Negotiating the border between ening stakeholder-company relationships through mu- self and other. In L. Tiedens & C. Leach (Eds.), The social 18 Academy of Management Review January

life of emotions: 19-42. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- center.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/keyfacts_corp_ sity Press. 2009.pdf; accessed July 1, 2010. Dean, D. H. 2003. Consumer perception of corporate dona- Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. 2004. Pro-social behavior in a natural tions: Effects of company reputation for social responsi- setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, bility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 2(4): 54: 65–88. 91–102. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to de Waal, F. M. 2009. The age of empathy: Nature’s lessons for increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, Septem- a kinder society. New York: Three Rivers Press. ber 13: 32–33. Dunfee, T. W. 2006. Do firms with unique competencies for Frijda, N. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- rescuing victims of human catastrophes have special versity Press. obligations? Corporate responsibility and the AIDS ca- Frijda, N. H. 1988. The laws of emotion. American Psycholo- tastrophe in Sub-Saharan Africa. Business Ethics Quar- gist, 43: 349–358. terly, 16: 185–210. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. 1989. Relations Dunfee, T. W., & Hess, D. 2000. The legitimacy of direct among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readi- corporate humanitarian investment. Business Ethics ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: Quarterly, 10: 95–109. 212–228. Dutton, J. E. 2003. Breathing life into organizational studies. Fritz Institute. 2005. Logistics and the effective delivery of Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 5–19. humanitarian relief. Available at http://www.fritz Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S., O’Neill, R., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. institute.org/PDFs/Programs/TsunamiLogistics0605.pdf. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle managers assess Frost, P. J., Dutton, J. E., Maitlis, S., Lilius, J. M., Kanov, J. M., the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic & Worline, M. C. 2006. Seeing organizations differently: Management Journal, 18: 407–425. Three lenses on compassion. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organi- T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook zational images and member identification. Administra- of organization studies (2nd ed.): 843–866. London: Sage. tive Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263. Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. 1982. Corporate Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E., & Stephens, J.-P. contributions: Altruistic or for-profit? Academy of Man- 2010. When and how coworkers lend a hand: Compas- agement Journal, 25: 94–106. sionate responding to “gray-zone” events in coworkers’ Galaskiewicz, J. 1997. An urban grants economy revisited: lives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, Academy of Management, Montreal. 1979–81, 1987–89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006. 454–479. Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci- Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. 2001. Emotion and ethical decision- ence Quarterly, 51: 59–96. making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31: Elfenbein, H. A. 2007. Emotion in organizations: A review and 175–187. theoretical integration in stages. Academy of Manage- Gault, B. A., & Sabini, J. 2000. The roles of empathy, anger, ment Annals, 1: 315–386. and gender in predicting attitudes towards punitive, Elliot, J. 2008. With donors worn out, funding dries up. Hous- reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition ton Chronicle, September 18: http://foundationcenter.org/ & Emotion, 14: 495–520. ϭ pnd/news/story.jhtml?id 228100002. George, J. M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of Etzioni, A. 1988. Normative-affective factors: Toward a new emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53: 1027–1055. decision-making model. Journal of Economic Psychol- GivingUSA. 2011. The annual report on philanthropy for the ogy, 9: 125–150. year 2010 (executive summary). Available at http://www. Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. 2012. The forgiving organization: A givingusareports.org/products/GivingUSA_2011_Exec multilevel model of at work. Academy of Summary_Print.pdf; accessed November 23, 2011. Management Review, 37: 664–688. Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate phi- Fong, C. M. 2007. Evidence from an experiment on charity to lanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management welfare recipients: Reciprocity, altruism and the em- perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30: 777– pathic responsiveness hypothesis. Economic Journal, 798. 117: 1008–1024. Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. 2010. Compas- Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. 2002. Members’ identification sion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Sci- Psychological Bulletin, 136: 351–374. ence, 13: 618–635. Gooty, J., Gavin, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2009. Emotion re- Forgas, J. P. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion search in OB: The challenges that lie ahead. Journal of model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117: 39–66. Organizational Behavior, 30: 833–838. Foundation Center. 2009. Key facts on corporate foundations. Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work design May 2009 newsletter. Available at http://foundation and sustained employee participation in corporate vol- 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 19

unteering. Academy of Management Review, 37: 589– Kidder, D. L., & Buchholtz, A. K. 2002. Can excess bring 615. success? CEO compensation and the psychological con- Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving com- tract. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 599– mitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial 617. sensemaking process. Academy of Management Jour- Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. 2010. Corporate nal, 51: 898–918. social responsibility and employee-company identifica- Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., Attaway, J. S., & Darden, W. R. 1993. tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 95: 557–569. Hey you, can ya spare some change? The case of empa- Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. On the thy and personal distress as reactions to charitable ap- edge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the interface of peals. Advances in Consumer Research, 20: 508–514. individual and organizational identities. Human Rela- Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. 2008. Emotion cycles: On the social tions, 59: 1315–1341. influence of emotion in organizations. Research in Or- Laroche, H. 1995. From decision to action in organizations: ganizational Behavior, 28: 35–59. Decision making as a social representation. Organiza- Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Levine, M. 2011. When other tion Science, 6: 62–75. people are heaven, when other people are hell: How Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Cognition and motivation in emotion. social identity determines the nature and impact of so- American Psychologist, 46: 352–367. cial support. In J. Jetten, C. Haslam, & A. Haslam (Eds.), Lazarus, R., & Cohen-Charash, Y. 2001. Discrete emotions in The social cure: Identity, health, and well-being: 154– organizational life. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), 174. London: Psychology Press. Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in Hendriks, M. C., & Vingerhoets, A. J. 2006. Social messages of management. New York: Wiley. crying faces: Their influence on anticipated person per- LeBon, G. 1896. The crowd: A study of the popular mind. New ception, emotions and behavioral responses. Cognition York: Macmillan. & Emotion, 20: 878–886. Lee, M.-D. 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social Heugens, P. M. A. R., Kaptein, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2008. responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. Contracts to communities: A processual model of orga- International Journal of Management Reviews, 10: 53–73. nizational virtue. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 100–121. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. 2000. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commercializa- choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14: 473–493. tion of human feelings. Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press. Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. 2010. Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelli- enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Jour- gence, and radical change. Academy of Management nal, 31: 182–200. Review, 24: 325–345. Lilius, J. M., Kanov, J., Dutton, J., Worline, M., & Maitlis, S. Huy, Q. N. 2002. Emotional balancing of organizational con- 2012. Compassion revealed: What we know about com- tinuity and radical change: The contribution of middle at work (and where we need to know more). In managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 31–69. K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds), Handbook of Huy, Q. N. 2011. How middle managers’ group-focus emo- positive organizational scholarship: 273–287. Oxford: Ox- tions and social identities influence strategy implemen- ford University Press. tation. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1387–1410. Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Kanov, J., & Maitlis, Huy, Q. N. 2012. Emotions in strategic organization: Oppor- S. 2011. Understanding compassion capability. Human tunities for impactful research. Strategic Organization, Relations, 64: 873–899. 10: 240–247. Loewenstein, G. 1996. Out of control: Visceral influences on Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. 2004. Affect and job satisfaction: A behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal Processes, 65: 272–292. of , 89: 661–673. Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. 2000. Intergroup Kanov, J., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an & Lilius, J. M. 2004. Compassion in organizational life. intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social American Behavioral Scientist, 47: 808–827. Psychology, 79: 602–616. Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. 2002. Empathy Mackie, D. M., Silver, L. A., & Smith, E. R. 2004. Intergroup and complex task performance: Two routes to leader- emotions: Emotion as an intergroup phenomenon. In ship. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 523–544. L. Z. Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions: 227–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. 2006. Empathy Press. and the emergence of task and relations leaders. Lead- ership Quarterly, 17: 146–162. Maclagan, P. 1999. Corporate social responsibility as a par- ticipative process. Business Ethics: A European Review, Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in 8: 43–49. small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 99–130. Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. 2010. Sensemaking in crisis and 20 Academy of Management Review January

change: Inspirations and insights from Weick (1988). Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advan- Journal of Management Studies, 47: 551–580. tage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Re- view, 80(12): 56–68. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. 2007. Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy and society: The Management Review, 32: 925–945. link between competitive advantage and corporate so- cial responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 78– Marquis, C., & Lee, M. 2012. Who is governing whom? Exec- 92. utives, governance and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 483– Reed, A., & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Moral identity and the expand- 497. ing circle of moral regard towards out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1270–1286. Marsh, A. A., & Ambady, N. 2007. The influence of fear facial expression on prosocial responding. Cognition & Emo- Reed, A., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. 2007. Moral identity and tion, 21: 225–247. judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Market- ing, 71: 178–193. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. 2008. Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psy- Rimé, B. 2007. The social sharing of emotion as an interface chology, 59: 507–536. between individual and collective processes in the con- struction of emotional climates. Journal of Social Issues, McDougall, W. 1923. An . London: 63: 307–322. Methuen. Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics Mennino, S. F., Rubin, B. A., & Brayfield, A. 2005. Home-to-job of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative and job-to-home spillover: The impact of company poli- Science Quarterly, 46: 655–684. cies and workplace culture. Sociological Quarterly, 46: 107–135. Sadri, G., Weber, T. J., & Gentry, W. A. 2011. Empathic emo- tion and leadership performance: An empirical analysis Meyer, A. D. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Adminis- across 38 countries. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 818–830. trative Science Quarterly, 27: 515–537. Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. 2003. Philan- Muller, A., & Kräussl, R. 2011. Doing good deeds in times of thropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at need: A strategic perspective on disaster donations. home.” Business & Society, 42: 169–201. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 911–929. Sanchez-Burks, J., & Huy, Q. N. 2009. Emotional aperture and Muller, A., & Whiteman, G. 2009. Exploring the geography of strategic change: The accurate recognition of collective corporate philanthropic disaster response: A study of emotions. Organization Science, 20: 22–34. Fortune Global 500 firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84: 589–603. Sanofi-Aventis. 2010. Sanofi-Aventis and employees unite for Haiti. Available at http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/press/ Nabi, R. L. 2003. Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do press_releases/2010/ppc_27067.asp; accessed October discrete emotions differentially influence information 28, 2010. accessibility, information seeking, and policy prefer- ence? Communication Research, 30: 224–247. Sargeant, A. 1999. Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15: Navarro, P. 1988. Why do corporations give to charity? Jour- 215–238. nal of Business, 61: 65–93. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. 2006. The role of Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. 2010. Compassion, corporate social responsibility in strengthening multi- pride, and social intuitions of self-other similarity. Jour- ple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 618–630. nal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 34: 158–166. Parkinson, B., & Simons, G. 2009. Affecting others: Social Shang, J., & Croson, R. 2009. A field experiment in charitable appraisal and emotion contagion in everyday decision contribution: The impact of social information on the making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37: voluntary provision of public goods. Economic Journal, 1071–1084. 119: 1422–1439. Pedersen, T., Petersen, B., & Sharma, D. 2003. Knowledge Small, D., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. 2007. Sympathy and transfer performance of multinational companies. Man- callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on do- agement International Review, 43: 69–90. nations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organiza- Peloza, J., Hudson, S., & Hassay, D. 2009. The marketing of tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102: 143– employee volunteerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 85: 153. 371–386. Smith, E. R. 1993. Social identity and : Toward Peterson, D. K. 2004. Benefits of participation in corporate new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & volunteer programs: Employees’ perceptions. Personnel D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Review, 33: 615–627. Interactive processes in group perception: 297–315. San Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Jones, W. H. 2006. Giving to others Diego: Academic Press. during national tragedy: The effects of altruistic and Smith, E. R. 1999. Affective and cognitive implications of a egoistic motivations on long-term giving. Journal of So- group becoming part of the self: New models of preju- cial and Personal Relationships, 23: 171–184. dice and of the self-concept. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg 2014 Muller, Pfarrer, and Little 21

(Eds.), Social identity and social cognition: 183–196. Ox- 01/13/ups-donates-1-million-to-haitian-relief-%E2%80% ford: Blackwell. . 93-here%E2%80%99s-how-you-can-help/; accessed Octo- Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. 2007. Can emotions ber 28, 2010. be truly group level? Evidence regarding four concep- U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 2010. Business contributions to tual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Haiti surge past $43 million. January 15 press release. ogy, 93: 431–446. Available at http://library.uschamber.com/press/releases/ Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. 2007. Charitable giving: The 2010/january/business-contributions-haiti-surge-past- effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behavior 43-million; accessed August 13, 2010. model in predicting donating intentions and behavior. Useem, M. 1988. Market and institutional factors in corporate Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17: contributions. California Management Review, 30(2): 77– 363–386. 88. Swanson, D. L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of busi- van Kleef, G. A., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. 2010. ness and society: A research strategy for corporate so- An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision cial performance. Academy of Management Review, 24: making: The emotions as a social information model. 506–521. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 45–94. Takala, T., & Pallab, P. 2000. Individual, collective and social Venkataraman, S., & Van de Ven, A. 1998. Hostile environ- responsibility of the firm. Business Ethics: A European mental jolts, transaction set, and new business. Journal Review, 9: 109–118. of Business Venturing, 13: 231–256. Tierney, M. 2011. They’re all in it together. Atlanta Journal- Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. 2011. Emotional Constitution, April 17: 7–8G. intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or folderol? Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. 2006. Behav- Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1): 45–59. ioral ethics: A review. Journal of Management, 32: 951– Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: 990. A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and Trout, J. D. 2009. The empathy gap: Building bridges to the consequences of affective experiences at work. Re- good life and good society. New York: Penguin. search in Organizational Behavior, 18: 1–74. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social per- Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. formance and organizational attractiveness to prospec- Academy of Management Review, 16: 691–718. tive employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40: Zhang, R., Rezaee, Z., & Zhu, J. 2009. Corporate philanthropic 658–672. disaster response and ownership type: Evidence from UPS. 2010. UPS donates $1 million to Haitian relief—Here’s Chinese firms’ response to the Sichuan earthquake. how you can help. Available at http://blog.ups.com/2010/ Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 51–63.

Alan R. Muller ([email protected]) is an associate professor at the University of Amster- dam Business School. He received his Ph.D. in management from RSM Erasmus University. His research centers on intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of corporate social behaviors, as well as the firm-level consequences of such behaviors. Michael D. Pfarrer ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. He received his Ph.D. in strategic manage- ment from the University of Maryland. His research focuses on firm reputation and celebrity, impression and crisis management, media accounts, and the role of busi- ness in society. Laura M. Little ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Oklahoma State University. Her research focuses on emotions in orga- nizations and the performance impacts of emotion regulation.