Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:25:12.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

When organization meets emotions, does the socio-relational framework fail?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

Frédéric Basso
Affiliation:
Center for Research in Economics and Management (UMR 6211), University of Rennes 1, Rennes, France; Graduate School of Business Administration (Institut de Gestion de Rennes – Institut d'Administration des Entreprises), 35708 Rennes Cedex 7, France. frederic.basso@univ-rennes1.frhttp://www.neuroeconomie.fr/
Olivier Oullier
Affiliation:
Université de Provence, Aix-Marseille University & CNRS, 13331 Marseille cedex 03, France; Human Brain and Behavior Laboratory, Center for Complex Systems and Brain Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431. olivier@oullier.frhttp://www.oullier.fr/http://www.neuroeconomie.fr/

Abstract

We suggest that the framework proposed by Vigil is useful in laboratory contexts but might come up short for in vivo social interactions. Emotions result from cost-benefits trade-offs but are not solely generated at the individual level to establish emotional social spheres. In organizational contexts, emotion expression can be a constitutive part of a professional activity, and observed sex differences might vanish.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2005) Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature 43 (1):964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R. & Gneezy, U. (2009) Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. 47 (2):448–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. (2009) Le désintéressement. Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. & Sefton, M. (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior 6:347–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, W., Schmittberger, R. & Schwarze, B. (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3:367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 85 (3):551–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1983) The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. & Powell, P. (1994) Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different? British Journal of Management 5 (2):123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A., Clark, L., Labuzetta, J. N., Sahakian, B. & Vyakarnum, S. (2008) The innovative brain. Nature 456 (7219):168–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masters, R. & Meier, R. (1988) Sex differences and risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management 26 (1):3135.Google Scholar
Mumby, D. K. & Putnam, L. L. (1992) The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review 17:465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oullier, O. & Basso, F. (2010) Embodied economics: How bodily information shapes the social coordination dynamics of decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 365 (1538).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rafaeli, A. & Sutton, R. I. (1987) Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of Management Review 12:2337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1967) Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review 74 (1):2939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, H. A. (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I. & Rafaeli, A. (1988) Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal 31 (3):461–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar