Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 507

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On Being Positive: Concerns and Counterpoints

Fineman, Stephen·2006·Academy of Management Review

Abstract

In this article I examine the attractions and shortcomings of the “positive” neohumanisitic turn in organizational theorizing and how positivity might be developed. I evaluate positivity's moral and cultural underpinnings and claims to separate positive from negative emotions, and I explore the deployment of positiveness in HRM programs of empowerment, emotional intelligence, and fun at work. I conclude with suggestions on how positive scholarship could be reconfigured in light of the present critique and against the emancipatory ideas of critical organizational theory.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amr.2006.20208680

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 507

Metadata

Authors
Fineman, S.
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Published
2006-04
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
270-291
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
OpenAlex
W2090029004
Cited by
507
References
11
FWCI
41.00
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.