CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 671Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorManagement and Organizational StudiesAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change

Compassion in Organizational Life

Kanov, Jason M., Maitlis, Sally, Worline, Monica C., Dutton, Jane E., Frost, Peter J., Lilius, Jacoba M.·2004·American Behavioral Scientist
DOI 10.1177/0002764203260211
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, the authors explore compassion in work organizations. They discuss the prevalence and costs of pain in organizational life, and identify compassion as an important process that can occur in response to suffering. At the individual level, compassion takes place through three subprocesses: noticing another’s pain, experiencing an emotional reaction to the pain, and acting in response to the pain. The authors build on this framework to argue that organizational compassion exists when members of a system collectively notice, feel, and respond to pain experienced by members of that system. These processes become collective as features of an organization’s context legitimate them within the organization, propagate them among organizational members, and coordinate them across individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764203260211

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Most studies on compassionate leadership emerge from 2002, with several important contributions from Frost et al. (2004), Kanov et al. (2004), and Lilius et al. (2003) in the form of commentary and discussions.

    “Even though the year 1999 was selected as the base year for identifying studies based on the theme of compassionate leadership, most of the studies emerge from 2002 with several important contributions from (Frost et al. 2004; Kanov et al. 2004; Lilius et al. 2003) in the form of commentary and discussions.”

    From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Kanov et al. 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-02
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
808-827
ISSN
  • 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3381
DOI
10.1177/0002764203260211
OpenAlex
W2070452521
Cited by
671
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 24
FWCI
12.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cisco Systems
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Keywords
compassion, organizational compassion, work-related suffering, emotional response to pain, compassionate action, organizational legitimacy, organizational context

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