Cited by 4Emotional Intelligence and PerformanceTeam Dynamics and PerformanceLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

The InBoard Emotional Contagion Model

Haag, Christophe, Getz, Isaac·2016·Emotions and Organizational Governance

Abstract

Abstract Purpose The quality of strategic decisions made at the helm of corporations matters a great deal. Predominantly, research on strategic decision-making has focused on CEOs as if they decide alone. Yet in reality, even the most powerful CEO makes strategic decisions together with an executive board. This chapter offers a theoretical explanation of strategic board decision-making through the emotional contagion between the CEO and board members. Methodology/approach We used both previous research and qualitative material – two case studies and interviews with several dozen CEOs of large corporations as well as the board members of one of them – to build our theoretical model. Findings Our inBoard Emotional Contagion Model (inBECM) specifies the following individual–collective emotional dynamics: After a strategic affective event has triggered an affective discussion within the boardroom, the emotionally intelligent CEO communicates verbally in order to – through an emotional contagion – homogenize board members’ emotional states leading to shared sense-making of the event and – potentially – to improved decision-making. Research/ Social/Practical implications Suggestions are made for the inBECM contribution to emotion theory. Implications are stated for the key role of emotion in improving board decision-making and strategizing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/s1746-979120160000012005

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The moderating effect of emotionally intelligent individuals is particularly crucial in high-pressure environments prone to emotional contagion.

    “This moderating effect is particularly crucial in high-pressure environments prone to emotional contagion (Haag and Getz, 2016; Hatfield et al., 1993; Sy et al., 2005).”

    From The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion (2026) · cites this paper as Haag and Getz, 2016

  • Emotionally intelligent individuals-able to regulate both their own and others' emotions-act as buffers against escalating affect and promote more balanced decision-making.

    “Emotionally intelligent individuals-able to regulate both their own and others' emotions-act as buffers against escalating affect and promote more balanced decision-making (Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Haag et al., 2025; Haag and Getz, 2016).”

    From The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion (2026) · cites this paper as Haag and Getz, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haag, C., & Getz, I.
Venue
Emotions and Organizational Governance
Published
2016-06-14
Pages
143-167
OpenAlex
W2476563133
Cited by
4
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotional Intelligence and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
emotional contagion, executive board, strategic decision-making, CEO-board relations, emotional intelligence, board decision-making, emotion theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review