Anthony Cacioppo

Emotional Sensitivity:An approach to Decision making

Introduction

 There are numerous organisations operating in same environment, producing same product, catering to the same market and facing the same challenges yet some are highly successful while others fight for their survival. What makes them successful or failure is the decisions they take. A single right decision can make an organization at the same time, a single wrong decision can break the organisation. Decision making, in short, is a major activity in organisational life as its outcomes are crucial for the survival of an organisation. Success and failure of any organisation depends on not only the decisions they make but to a large extent how they make the decisions.

 Role of Emotion in Decision making                

Decisions do not exist by themselves they are made by people who are not only ‘thinking' but also ‘feeling beings. Despite this, over the years the emphasis has been on rationality and cognition and on ways of diminishing the influence of subjectivity and emotions while making decisions. It was assumed that emotions could seize decision making process, thus leading to poor decisions. As a consequence, emotions were considered as a disruptive force in rational thought and adaptive action(Bernstone et.al.1993).However, unlike the past where emotions were typically considered outside the purview of a rational analysis, emotions are increasingly recognized for the role they play in decision making.

 This shift perhaps, was due to the finding of a researcher named Antonio Damasio. Damasio (1994), drew this finding from patients with specific lesion. Some patients who have suffered damage in their frontal lobes became emotionally flat and lost their ability to make, while retaining other cognitive functions. From the analysis of these patients, Damasio (1994) concluded that they were unable decision making due to lack of emotions. Antonio Damasio (1994) has described vivid examples of this lack of rationality in his book "Descartes Error". He argued that emotions actually promote rational behaviour in situation of indeterminacy. He showed that emotions allow us to avoid potentially problematic choices because we have a feeling or a hunch that something about the choice is not worthwhile. Without this feeling, we might not notice anything wrong or we might get lost trying to reason out unimportant differences between options. Thus he claimed that not only that person (who suppresses emotions while making decisions) would make irrational decision, he also claimed that in many situations this person would make no decision at all or might delay it for very long.Thus in order to behave rationally we need emotions.

 Contrary to the popular notion that decision makers are very rational and logical in their approach while taking decision, they do not always follow logically optimal path or conform to organisationally defined rationality. Since they have to be contended with the information at hand and as there are too many possible alternatives for them to evaluate, therefore rationality is subjective and bounded. Relevant informations, therefore can be missed and hunches, preferences and gut feelings might play an important role in decision making process (Fineman, 1993).

In decision making process both cognitions and emotions play an important role. If cognitions help us in generating ideas, emotions allow us to decide, what is worth thinking about what is not. Emotions also help us in deciding what is appropriate and inappropriate. Emotions block ideas which are irrational when both time period and our ability to test all possible alternatives is limited .They allow us to act in a manner which is compatible with long term interest. When stakes are high and rational headed person is asked to make decision, he frequently becomes lost as to what decision he /she should take. When making decision at initial stage the decision maker has many rational thoughts with only a small amount of emotions. But when it comes to make a decision finally we find that ratio of rational to emotional thoughts is reversed. This intelligent and rational person changes into different person. He may not show his emotion, but his action or tone of voice however may provide a clue.By saying "I've got to think over it" or "It's not a bright idea". The decision maker shows that  she/he is not only thinking but also a feeling being. When executives are asked to make decision that involves significant considerations, risk and more importantly their honour and when their reputation and image is at stake then they are bound to use emotion in deciding.

 Reason and emotion, therefore, act as two complimentary systems in human brain for making decision. When it is important to get the answer right and we have a lot of time at our disposal, we can use the slow and tried method of reasoning things through. When we have little time and information or it is not simple but a complex decision that needs to be made, we use emotions to decide.

 Research indicates that emotion in decision making has been viewed as alternating between two contrasting positions. At one pole, researchers assume (often implicitly) that emotions are primarily impediments to adaptive action. According to view, emotions disorganize or interrupt current thought and disrupt ongoing behaviour. Emotion related thought processes are seen as lacking the direction and principled orderliness of reason (Dewey, 1985; Hebb, 1946; Mandler, 1984).Emotional expressions from anger to proclamation of love are seen as reflecting the more uncontrollable side of human nature that threatens the social order.

 At the other pole, theorists assume that emotions function in an organized and useful ways. Emotions are reliable guides to action and help in sustaining the harmony and continuity of social interaction and relationships. Emotions, according to this view,prioritize and organize the ongoing the individual's adjustment to the demands of the physical and social environment (Darwin,1872 & Ekman,1992).Emotions often act a tiebreaker in decision  involving high degree of indeterminacy by enabling us to focus on the salient features of the situation(Nutt,1984).Thus emotion can facilitate as well as hinder the decision making process and whether they would facilitate or hinder would depend on a large number of factors like nature of decision, environment and organisational constraints.

 In most of the studies emotions have been categorized into two types- the positive emotions and the negative emotions. Studies have concentrated on how positive and negative emotions influence decision making in terms of processes and outcomes. Frank and Hirshlefer(1993) ,suggest that negative emotions such as anger, serve to enhance credibility of threat, while positive emotions such as love and affection ensures credibility of cooperation in decision process. Similarly whereas negative emotions can result in a limited search for new alternatives and less vigilant use of information, positive emotions can increase or enhance active generation of ideas such as inference making, productive thinking and facilitate the assimilation of information in decision making process( Ansoff,1965;Andrews,1980;Porter,1998).

 Contrary  to the popular assumption that, positive emotions would always  facilitate decision making and negative would hinder it , the effect of  positive and negative emotions on decision making process have not always been parallel or symmetrical. Negative emotions lead to more thorough treatment of information. People who are sad or depressed seek and consider more information and process persuasive messages more thoroughly. In contrast, positive emotions lead to reduction of deliberative or systematic processing of information. People, who are in positive mood tend to prefer the use of heuristics and decisional shortcuts and base their judgment on stereotypes.

 Thus both positive and negative emotions have both positive and negative implication. In order to maximize the positive aspects and minimize the negative aspects, organisations employ a variety of mechanism to neutralize emotions at workplace. These mechanisms aim either at preventing emotions from arising in the first place or to safely control these emotions when they arise. Hence organisations adopt strategies like feeling rules and emotionalized zones.

 Feeling rules play an important role in determining the nature of the decision process. Decisions like, layoff, demotion and dismissal are governed by feeling rules prevalent in the organisations. These decisions can be emotionally taxing; decision maker may feel guilt for the loss of someone's job or livelihood. If such feelings are allowed to persist, then, there would be no layoff or suspension in the organisation. Feeling rules probably keep in check the personal feelings of individuals. Decision makers are not expected to feel compassionate, guilty, ashamed or sad as they may act as an obstacle in taking decision. Managers become impersonal and justify their actions by giving explanations like "It was for organisation's survival", "I was just doing my job". Feeling rules help decision maker to adjust his focus and prioritize his preferences. When there is emphasis on being loyal towards organisation, the decision maker, may not mind taking decision, which involves, lying, fraud and deceit. On the other hand rigid feeling rules may prevent employees from airing their true feelings about various policies and decisions. Even when s/he expresses his/her discontent s/he might do so in low voice or mellowed tone and once his/her idea is rejected s/he might not take it up again. As a consequence the employee is likely to accept the suggestions or decisions of the MD even though s/he does agree with him.

 Since organisations do not allow or encourage expression of emotions like fear, uncertainty and apprehension, it creates problem at not only during the process but also during the implementation stage and when the decision is being evaluated as being good or bad. When doubts, fears, anger and apprehensions are not encouraged or even entertained, it might prevent the decision maker from expressing his /her genuine views or prevent him/her from expressing anything at all. Suppression of apprehension and fear might force the decision maker either to take decision which he himself does not approve of or lead to half hearted commitment towards the decision taken. So when such decisions backfire the decision maker does not feel guilty or responsible for the decisional outcome as he feels that he had already expressed his fear in decisional phase but the organisation went ahead with the decision, ignoring or downplaying his fear or apprehensions.

 What is needed, therefore that organisations become sensitive towards the emotions of the employees. It should be able to acknowledge and appreciate the significance of the emotions expresses by its employees's, understand why that emotion has surfaced and do something by which that emotions gets overcomed. For example if  employee expresses fear towards a decision , organisation should try to understand why he/ she is expressing that emotion and by clarifying or giving patient  hearing help employees to overcome his/ her fear.

 If organization is emotional sensitivity, it would bind people more deeply than shared beliefs and ideas. There would be enhanced commitment and loyalty towards the decision taken. Emotional sensitivity, therefore, becomes important as it might help in minimizing the conflicts, miscommunications during the decision making phase and protect organisations from making poor or wrong decisions.

 The Concept of Emotional Sensitivity

 Emotional sensitivity is related to the concept of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence focuses on not only emotional but also on social skills, like how relationships are handled, ability to take perspective of others etc. It emphasizes on, not only being aware of only one's own emotion but also of others. For emotional sensitivity, emotional intelligence is a prerequisite because unless one is aware of one's own as well as others emotions one cannot be sensitive towards others. Both terms are overlapping and interrelated as emotional intelligence as well as emotional sensitivity talk about being aware of emotion of one's own as well as that of others, understanding others and using emotions to attain a positive end.

 Emotional sensitivity like emotional intelligence does not ignore or suppress the emotion but try to understand its occurrence and use it in a constructive way. However there is a subtle difference between the two. Emotional sensitivity is one step ahead of emotional intelligence. Although emotional intelligence is prerequisite of emotional sensitivity however emotional sensitivity goes beyond emotional intelligence, for it  not only acknowledges and understand the emotion but emphasizes the way one handles the emotions that are being expressed whether one remains indifferent or empathizes with the person expressing the emotion.

 One the most, important prerequisite of being emotionally sensitive is to acknowledge the emotions being expressed and understand the reasons of its expression. Emotional sensitivity places emphasis on not only being aware of one's emotions but also that of others. Unless one is aware of ones emotion one cannot understand what others are feeling and why s/he is feeling that way? However emotional sensitivity goes beyond the realm of being aware and understanding emotions. It is more about the way one handles emotions that are being expressed by oneself as well as by others.

 Dalip Singh(2003) talks about emotional sensitivity as one of the component of emotional intelligence and it constitutes understanding the threshold of emotional arousal, managing the immediate environment, maintaining rapport, harmony and comfort with others, letting others feel comfortable in your company. It also involves being honest in interpersonal dealing, interpreting emotional cues truthfully, realizing communicability of emotions, moods and feelings and having and insight into how others evaluate and relate to you. Singh talks about understanding why the emotion is occurring, empathizing with person expressing the emotion thereby improving interpersonal relationship. However he has overlooked the issue of handing of emotions once they get expressed. Organisation may become indifferent or express helplessness towards emotions being expressed. If acknowledging emotions is important, then the way one responds to emotions is equally important. Emotional sensitivity places emphasis on how emotions are handled once they are expressed. Reaction to the emotions expressed (whether the organisation empathizes or remains indifferent) becomes important because it governs the interpersonal dynamic in the organisation and various organisational activities. If an organization, while being aware of the emotions being expressed remains indifferent towards them, then it might give rise to feeling of apathy among the employees towards the organisation. This in turn, might also result in emotional distancing, lack of commitment and loyalty towards the organisation on the part of the employees. Thus one cannot be emotionally sensitive if one remains indifferent to what the other is feeling or if s/he does'nt bring about a change in his/her behaviour.

 Here it is important to clarify that emotional sensitivity of organisation does not mean that the organisation cater to each and every emotion that is being expressed or that it functions according to the whims and fancies of the employees. Emotional sensitivity means that the organisation pays attention to the emotions, (especially to those emotions which affect organisation functioning) tries to understand why it is being expressed and to do something which would ensure those expressing the emotion that they are valued by the organisation, are heard, and are important. In short, unless there is an effort to change the attitude or behaviour (which leads to arousal of negative feelings in others) so that other person feels comfortable, sensitivity cannot be achieved.

 As already mentioned, the way emotions are handled (whether the organisation empathizes or remain indifferent) becomes important because it would not only govern the interpersonal dynamic in the organisation but also various organisational activities. Handling of emotions is very important because the way organisation reacts towards the emotion being expressed would determine the nature of various organisational processes both at micro as well as macro level. At micro level attitude, motivation, leadership, power, group behaviour etc. would be influenced. At macro level it would influence interpersonal relations, decision making and more importantly organisational culture. For example an organisation which remains indifferent to the emotions being expressed would have employees, who would remain detached, have low commitment, would not feel free to discuss things related to their jobs; a leader who would neither listen to nor take suggestions; a culture which would be hypothetically an autocratic and characterized by lack of openness and impersonal relationship; decision making characterized by single man decision making. An organisation which shows helplessness would hypothetically refer to written rules for almost everything would refrain from risky decisions; would have bureaucratic culture characterized by task orientation; less willingness to make decision and shifting responsibilities and blaming others, would predominate in decision making. Organisation which acknowledges and pay attention and empathize with the emotions being expressed would be flexible in approach and attitude; suggestions and idea would be easily sought and given; there would be high level of commitment and loyalty among employees; would be proactive in problem solving and organisation culture would be participative in nature.

 Another aspect of emotional sensitivity is that,sensitivity could be best judged when there is a problem or a crisis situation. How crisis is handled would indicate the sensitivity level of the organisation aspect. Organisation could react in two ways-reactively (like blaming others, loosing confidence and becoming dejected with failures) or proactively (remaining composed during crises, understanding the reason behind failure and being optimistic about future).An organisation  which indulges in reactive behaviours would give rise to a culture characterized by risk avoidance, shrinking from taking responsibility, lack of accountability and fear of failure. It would also set the tone for dealing with the crisis in future. Handling of crisis becomes all the more important as not every activity in the organisation is successful. Some end up in failure therefore the way failure or crisis is handled strongly determines the sensitivity of the organisation.

Emotional sensitivity refers to the ability of the organisation to acknowledge and understand the importance of the emotions being expressed by its employees, to link how their emotions influence their performance and thereby base their subsequent action on the basis of these emotional cues.

 There are four dimensions of emotional sensitivity:

a) Emotion Awareness: referred to the ability to recognize and have clarity of one's own emotions and that of others and to understand the relationship between emotional states and performance.

b) Handling of Emotions: referred to the ability to deal and mange emotions expressed by others. It consists of the following kind of responses - empathy, indifference and helplessness.

c) Interpersonal Dealing: referred to effectively managing interpersonal relationship through openness, bonding, trust and equality.

d) Handling of Crises: referred to  the strategies adopted bt the organisation to effectively deal with inadequate resources and threat to system's survival.It can be through understanding failure, making fresh plan , blaming others and maintaining poise during turmoil.

  Emotional sensitivity and Decision making

 McGregor (1960) in the context of decision making, outlined the characteristic of an effective group as one where the members listen to one another, every idea is given a patient hearing, members feel free to express their feelings as well as their ideas not only on the decision to be made but also on group's operation and where there are disagreements they are not overridden, criticism are frequent and frank, and there are little evidences of personal attack and effort to dominate the group.

 When decisions are taken in group, group members contribute to its success by participating actively in the execution of assigned roles. Each member is valuable resource. The contributions of each member are secured through active participation and commitment. Successful decision making involves a rich debate on the issues marked by trust (Simons & Peterson, 2000) where team members feel free to express doubts, change in minds (Lovelace et.al., 2001) and show ability to resist pressures to compromise quickly (Montoya – Weiss et.al., 2001) or to reach a premature consensus (Choi &Kim, 1999).

 The way the organization handles the emotions that are being expressed would set the tone of the process. If organization is indifferent towards the emotions being expressed then the people may also become indifferent, alienated or detached with the process. For example suppose during decision making, a confident and enthusiastic manager comes up with an idea but the top management instead of understanding his/her view point simply shoots down his/her idea because according to them the idea is not feasible .This may perhaps lower the morale of the manager ands/he may withdraw during the entire decision making process. S/he may also feel that s/he is unwanted. Here the organisation needs to be sensitive regarding what is being said, why s/he is saying so and to the emotions attached to that particular idea. Organisation should give a patient listening and if the ides is not feasible, make him/her understand this. This would make him/her feel that organisation has nothing personal against him/her or his/ her idea. It is just that the idea is not appropriate for organisation's survival and growth. This would help in encouraging people to actively participate in the process by giving their contributions or analyzing. 

 Handling of emotions predominately affects two most crucial and important stages of decision making they are the idea generation and evaluation of the idea stages. When an idea is expressed, it reflects the values belief and preferences of person expressing it and therefore it becomes difficult to detach our ego with the idea. When the idea is given due consideration it gives satisfaction to the one who gave the idea and a feeling that one has contributed positively to the outcome is instilled which increases his/ her commitment to and satisfaction with the decision ( Cialdini & Goldstein,2004).On the other hand, when ideas are criticized , ignored or downplayed, negative emotions are generated(Ayers, 2003) and therefore the  person starts  disassociating  with the process and the decision. As a result it gives rise to what Argyis (1957) called ‘pseudo participation) i.e. participation which looks like real but is not real. The participants become withdrawn, quite, and inattentive and restrain themselves from expressing their opinion. Thus it is important that each idea is given respect, clarified and evaluated in unbiased way. Apart from this, it is the stage which sets the rules for the way the decision has to be taken. If this stage is handled sensitively then rest of the decision making process follows a smooth pattern.

 Handling of emotion, in turn would define the nature of interpersonal relationship. An organization which handles the emotion effectively or in other words is emotionally sensitive then there would be trust and mutual concern for each other. Having mutual concern increases group cohesiveness, tolerance of personal differences in views and taking less time at the task. Therefore, another thing which enhances, not only, the quality of the decision but also the process is the, climate of support, trust, cooperation and openness. Trust in each other facilitates unilateral acts of cooperation and coordination (Meyerson et.al, 1996; Weick & Roberts, 1993). For members to have trust in the group, they must feel that the group will not harm the individual or his or her interests. Trust in decision making also enhances giving other the benefits of the doubt when views are being challenged or criticized. Criticism is structured, focused and ‘task oriented' rather than ‘person oriented' as a result they get appreciated and enhance the quality of decision. Where there is a lack of trust, people feel hesitant to express their views and opinions sincerely and frankly.

 

Emotional sensitivity enables one to frame criticism as a helpful critique rather than as a confrontational situation. It recognizes that feedback negative or positive is vital for running decision process smoothly. It helps employees in creating atmosphere where diversity in opinion is valued rather than as a source of friction. Thus it would enable employees to trust the management intentions even if their ideas had been rejected.

In a climate of indifference, distrust and close mindedness criticisms are taken as an attack on the person rather than his/ her ideologies. As such, participants spend more time and energy in defending themselves and downplaying others instead of taking decision When there is lack of, ability to cooperate, trust and respect for the fellow participants are missing the quality and speed of decision making suffers ( Forgas, 1998b; Mullen, et. al, 1994). Due to lack of cohesiveness there is lack of consensus regarding what the problem is, what has to be discussed first and how the problem is to be resolved. As a result more time is devoted to confirming, clarifying and substantiating ideas and less time in finding the appropriate solution. Where there is lack of consensus and mutual understanding, negative emotions get generated, interpersonal problems get created and time is wasted. Studies indicate that conflict in relationship has negative impact on team performance (Jehn, 1994).

 Lastly, not every decision can be successful, some decisions would backfire. The way organisation handles these failure would sets a tone for future decision making. If organisation is emotionally insensitive it would, instead of, confronting the failure and rectifying it would indulge in blame game, become anxious and spends all its energy in covering up the failure. An organisation which is emotionally sensitive would see failure as a learning process. When there is failure, the organisation would divert it energy in rectifying the loss and minimizing the damages done by the decision. The organisation would also provide emotional and moral support to the decision maker and not letting him/ her to feel abandoned. Failures would not inhibit the decision maker from taking decisions in future. Thus instead of being reactive, the organisation would confront the failure and proactively deals with them. 

Conclusion

 Thus sensitivity towards emotions of the people would not only help in understanding why decisions are taken the way they are, but also make people (especially those affected by the decision) confident that the management had taken into consideration their opinion and feeling (fears, doubts and apprehensions) and had made those decisions impartially in the overall interest of the organisation. Besides, it would also enable employees to trust the management intention even if their ideas had been rejected.

 When the process is marked by insensitivity towards the feelings and thoughts of the participants, it leads to poor interpersonal dealing which in turn affects the outcome of the process. Being insensitive to the emotions of the employees would not only lead to emotional distancing of the employees from the organisation but might also lead to indifference towards the decision process as well as the outcome. People are neither satisfied nor committed to the decision. They do not feel morally responsible for decisional outcomes. Thus the quality and speed of decision making suffers.

 In short, it must be emotionally sensitive, because by being emotionally sensitive, it would not only enhance the quality of the decisions in terms of time taken, satisfaction and commitment towards the decision, and their effective implementation, but also the accountability of the decision maker for the decision.

 References

  Ansoff, H.J. (1965). Corporate Strategy. New York: Harper & Row.

 Andrews, K.R. (1980). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.

 Argris , C. (1957). Personality and Organisation. New York:Harper & Row.

 Ayers, S.T. (2003). Lessons in Leadership. New York :Turning Point.

  Bernstone, G.G., Boysen, S.T.,& Cacioppo, J.T. (1993).Neurobehavioral organisation and the cardinal principles of evaluative bivalence. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 702:75-102.

 Choi, J.N., &Kim, M.U. (1999).The organisational application of groupthink and its limitations in organisations. J. Appl. Psychol., 84: 297-306.

 Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Putnam.

 Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.(later published in 1965).

 Dewey. (1895).Cited in Howards M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano (Eds.), Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of experiences at work. Research in Organisational Behavior.18:1-74.

 Ekman, P. (1992). A argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6:169-200.

 Forgas, J.P. (1998b). On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiation strategies and outcomes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol, 74: 565-77.

 Frank and Hirshlefer. (1993) Cited in Stewart R.Clegg & Cynthia Hardy (Eds.), Emotion and Organizing Stephen Fineman. Studying Organisation: Theory and Method .Sage Publication: 289-310.

 

 

Gladstein, D., & Quinn, J.B.(1985). Making decisions and producing action. In J.m.Pennings and Associates (Eds.), Organisational Strategy and Change. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass.

 

Hebb. (1946).Cited in Howards M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano (Eds.), Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of experiences at work. Research in Organisational Behavior.18:1-74.

 

Jehn, K.A. (1977).Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value based intragroup conflict. Int. J. Confl. Manage., 5:223-38.

 

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social Functions of Emotions at Multiple Level of Analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5): 505-522.

 

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L., & Weingart, L.R. (2001). Maximizing cross functional new product teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective. Acad.Manage. J., 44:779-93.

 

Mandler, L. (1984). Cited in Howards M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano (Eds.), Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of experiences at work. Research in Organisational Behavior.18:1-74.

 

McGregor, D. (1960).The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw –Hill.

 

Meyerson , D., Weick, K., & Kramer, R.M. (1996). Cited in Roderick, M. Kramer (Ed.,) Trust and distrust n organisations: Emerging perspectives, Enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569-598.

 

Montoya-Weiss., M.M, Massey, A.P., &Song, M. (2001).Getting it together: temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad. Manage. J., 44:1251-62.

 Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J.E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making. Small group Res., Vol  25,: 189-204.

 Nutt. (1984). Types of Organisational Decision Processes
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 414-450.

 Porter, M.E (1998). How competitive forces shape strategy. In J.B. Quinn, H. Mintzberg and R.M. James (Eds.). The Strategy Process: Concepts, Context and Cases. London: Prentice Hall.

 Simons, T.L., & Peterson, R.S. (2000).Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intergroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85:102-11.

 Wieck, K.E. & Roberts, K. (1993).Collective mind in organisations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357-81.

 

 

About the Author

 

[1] Dr. Azra Ishrat is working as Assitant Professor at Amity University Lucknow Campus, Lucknow,Uttar Pradesh,India

[1] Prof Namita Pande is working as Professor in the Department of Psychology, Allahabad university,Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh ,India.

Infiniti G35 Coupe dyno run (LOUDDD!!!)