ler, and the anonymousASQ reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper. This paper explores the case for a general threat-rigidity effect in individual, group, and organizational behavior. Evidence from multiple levels of analysis is summarized, showing a restriction in information processing and constriction of control under threat conditions. Possible mechanisms underlying such a multiple-level effect are explored, as are its possible functional and dysfunctional consequences. Recent economic trends have engendered interest in how organizations cope with adversity. Some researchers have taken an evolutionary perspective on this issue, examining the life span of a large number of organizations under varying environmental conditions (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Aldrich, 1979). Others have taken a more policy-oriented perspective, examining how specific organizations have successfully or unsuccessfully adapted to threatening environments (Argenti, 1976; Rubin, 1977; Starbuck and Hedberg, 1977). This paper will also address the question of organizational adaptation in the face of adversity. However, rather than simply concentrating upon organizational actions in a social or market context, we will focus upon how adversity affects the adaptability of multiple layers of an organizational system. At present, sociological theory notes that organizations attempt to cope with potential sources of adversity (Thompson, 1967; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) by adjusting their internal structure or by taking actions to enhance their position in the environment. Many of these market strategies and buffering techniques (e.g., Thompson, 1967) have a rather anthropomorphic quality to them and could be construed as the product of a policy-making group or even a single decision maker. While it can be argued that sociological rather than psychological theories are best equipped to explain macro-level phenomena, there are, as Miller (1978) has noted, many effects that appear to generalize across levels of analysis. The reaction of entities to threat or adversity may be just such a phenomenon. The anthropomorphic quality of macro-level propositions may be the product of parallels in the effect of threat upon individual, group, and organizational behavior. Anthropomorphism may also result from the fact that organizational actions are often initiated by individual and group forces, such that social and psychological effects indirectly influence organization-level phenomena. Not only do current models emphasize organizational and not individual or group responses to adversity, but they also take a functional stance. It is commonly assumed that methods of coping with adversity are appropriate and increase the survival prospects of the organization (Thompson, 1967; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1 978) or protect local interests (Cyert and March, 1963). What is missing is the identification of maladaptive or pathological cycles of behavior (Merton, 1967; Hall, 1976). This article will therefore examine evidence for a...

No abstract

This study explored how affect relates to creativity at work. Using both quantitative and qualitative longitudinal data from the daily diaries of 222 employees in seven companies, we examined the nature, form, and temporal dynamics of the affect-creativity relationship. The results indicate that positive affect relates positively to creativity in organizations and that the relationship is a simple linear one. Time-lagged analyses identify positive affect as an antecedent of creative thought, with incubation periods of up to two days. Qualitative analyses identify positive affect as a consequence of creative thought events, as well as a concomitant of the creative process. A preliminary theory of the affect-creativity cycle in organizations includes each of these links and proposes mechanisms by which they may operate.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

No abstract