The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sensemaking and emotion in organizations
Abstract
Emotion is a critical but relatively unexplored dimension of sensemaking in organizations. Existing models of sensemaking tend to ignore the role of emotion or portray it as an impediment. To address this problem, we explore the role that felt emotion plays in three stages of individual sensemaking in organizations. First, we examine emotion’s role in mediating the relationship between unexpected events and the onset of sensemaking processes. We argue that emotion signals the need for and provides the energy that fuels sensemaking, and that different kinds of emotions are more and less likely to play these roles. Second, we explore the role of emotion in shaping sensemaking processes, focusing on how emotions make sensemaking a more solitary or more interpersonal process, and a more generative or more integrative process. Third, we argue that sensemakers’ felt emotion plays an important role in concluding sensemaking, particularly through its effect on the plausibility of sensemaking accounts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218 · Cited by 18,025
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 · Cited by 7,143
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
Higgins, E. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 · Cited by 6,775
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2 · Cited by 4,342
Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Forgas, J. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 · Cited by 3,470
Park, C. L. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018301 · Cited by 3,174 · cited 3×
“Finally, prior research in the therapeutic (Greenberg & Pascual-Leone, 2001) and meaning making (Park, 2010) literatures has demonstrated the important role played by emotion in achieving cognitive closure following personal crises.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Psychology of Life Stories
McAdams, D. P. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100 · Cited by 2,808 · cited 2×
“Specifically, we have illustrated the complex and multifaceted role of emotion in triggering, shaping, and concluding sensemaking processes.”
BackgroundEmotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass.
Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466 · Cited by 2,542
Guilt: An interpersonal approach
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243 · Cited by 1,884
Psychological foundations of incentives
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/s0014-2921(01)00208-2 · Cited by 1,240
The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.839 · Cited by 1,217
Communication Failures: An Insidious Contributor to Medical Mishaps
Sutcliffe, K. M., Lewton, E., & Rosenthal, M. M. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200402000-00019 · Cited by 1,069
Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 · Cited by 964
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1997) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2734 · Cited by 572
Cited by
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Self-citationLin, W., & Chang, Y.-C. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059572 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Maitlis, S., Vogus, T. J., & Lawrence, T. B.
- Venue
- Organizational Psychology Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-05-26
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 222-247
- ISSN
- 2041-3866 (ISSN-L)
- 2041-3874
- OpenAlex
- W2152664775
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 28.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.