INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL TOPIC FORUM
CARE AND COMPASSION THROUGH ANORGANIZATIONAL LENS: OPENING UP
NEW POSSIBILITIES
SARA L. RYNESUniversity of Iowa
JEAN M. BARTUNEKBoston College
JANE E. DUTTONUniversity of Michigan
JOSHUA D. MARGOLISHarvard University
In this article we introduce AMR’s Special Topic Forum on Understanding and Cre-ating Caring and Compassionate Organizations. We outline why the time is right forsuch a forum, uncover scholarly and philosophical roots of a focus on compassion andcare, and provide a brief introduction to the diverse and rich set of articles containedin this forum. We describe the innovative theorizing uncovered by the special issuearticles and summarize the rich set of possibilities they suggest for the practice oforganizing.
Compassion surprises. In 1970 twenty-four offorty Princeton Theological Seminary studentswalking to an adjacent building to deliver atalk—for some of them, about the Good Samar-itan—either failed to offer aid to an ill victimthey encountered on the way or failed to noticethe victim altogether (Darley & Batson, 1973).Thirty-one years later and fifty-five miles to the
north, in New York City, as the bare-knuckledcenter of capitalism scrambled to get back on itsfeet, Wall Street veterans extended a helpinghand to one of their competitors in the wake ofSeptember 11 (Whitford, 2011). Such surprisingpuzzles extend beyond the United States andencompass care as well as compassion. In Mum-bai, India, in 2008, kitchen workers at the TajHotel risked their lives to care for customersunder terrorist siege (Deshpandé & Raina, 2011),whereas in 2011 in Kolkata, medical staff fledfrom their patients as fire raged through theirhospital (Times of India, 2011). Care and com-passion, it would seem, may emerge where theyare least expected and may well be endangeredwhere they are most expected.
Compassion is a timely topic. According to theOxford English Dictionary, compassion comesfrom the ecclesiastical Latin stem compati, or to“suffer with.” Clearly, the world does not lacksuffering. In the course of their daily work lives,people suffer the death of loved ones, lossesfrom illness, and grief from restructuring andchange (e.g., Hazen, 2008). On a larger scale,
We offer a well-deserved thank you to all who made thisSpecial Topic Forum on Understanding and Creating Caringand Compassionate Organizations possible. First and fore-most, we thank Anne Tsui, whose foresight, compassion, andleadership inspired the “Dare to Care” annual programtheme for the 2010 Academy of Management meeting, aswell as this special topic forum. We also thank former AMReditor Amy Hillman and her editorial team for feedback onearly drafts of this proposal and their ultimate decision to goahead with the project. Thanks, too, to managing editorSusan Zaid, who traveled to Boston to help us master theintricacies of Manuscript Central and who facilitated theprocess throughout completion of the issue. Finally, wethank Sherry Immediato, Erik Jansen, copy and productioneditor Sandra Tamburrino-Hinz, and the authors whose workappears in this forum for their helpful input on earlier draftsof this introduction.
� Academy of Management Review2012, Vol. 37, No. 4, 503–523.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0124
503Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
suffering is everywhere. The recent global fi-nancial crisis has destroyed the livelihoods ofmillions, and daily we witness those in our owncountries and throughout the world living withinadequate food and shelter. Natural disasterssuch as hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, anddroughts have created thousands of orphans,disabled victims, and homeless in their wake.Similar results have occurred as a result of man-made catastrophes, such as the Fukushimapower plant disaster and the BP oil spill in theGulf of Mexico. Residential, energy, and agricul-tural developments have dislocated both nativepeoples and animal species, while wars con-tinue to maim and kill thousands in variousparts of the world. The gap between the rich andpoor continues to increase, while more than abillion people do not get enough to eat (Foodand Agriculture Organization, 2011).
Compassion is also timely because of thegrowing interdependence of the world’s econo-mies, nations, and ecosystems. Financial criseson one continent spill over onto others. Dwin-dling forests in one country shift weather pat-terns in others. Lax labor laws in some statesthreaten the well-being of workers in others. Atthe same time, damaging events in one part ofthe world elicit aid efforts from all over, andrevolutions in one country are emulated in oth-ers. As organizations, nations, and people be-come more interdependent, collaboration andcoordination become more essential to theachievement of both individual and collectivegoals. Care and compassion, which aregrounded in relationships and relatedness,have much to contribute to an interconnected,suffering, and surprising world.
New scientific discoveries and conversationsare causing scholars to reevaluate what wethink we know about human motivations andbehavior. A sharpened focus on care and com-passion in organizations is consistent with aparadigm shift in the social sciences that em-phasizes neurological, psychological, and soci-ological bases of human interrelating that haveother-interest as opposed to self-interest at theircore (Brown, Brown, & Penner, 2012; Mansbridge,1990). These accounts, sometimes closely alignedwith evolutionary theories of human development,give new insights into the power and pervasive-ness of compassion and caregiving systems ascentral to human survival and flourishing (e.g.,Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010). These dis-
coveries also reflect new conversations and newvisions of possibilities opened up when Westernbehavioral and social scientists engage withTibetan Buddhism (e.g., Davidson & Harrington,2002; Goleman, 2003) and when new interdisci-plinary research collaborations put compassion(Stanford University, http://ccare.stanford.edu/),generosity (Notre Dame University, http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/), the study of virtues(University of Chicago, http://scienceofvirtues.org/), and links between the role of hope andcompassion fatigue (http://www.hope-lit.ualberta.ca/ResearchHFA.html) center stage.
Together, these new intellectual paths—along with broader social collaborations suchas the Charter for Compassion (http://charterforcompassion.org/), business school collabora-tions such as 50 � 20 (http://50plus20.org/), andnonprofits such as Compassionate Action Net-work International (http://www.compassionateactionnetwork.com/home.asp)—remind usthat care and compassion are more than feelingsand actions with instrumental outcomes. Theysymbolize values that are also a “means ofexpression, a way of behaving, a perspective onsociety” (Wuthnow, 1991: 308). No less than themost famous scientist of the twentieth centurysuggested that widening our circle ofcompassion is the means by which we mightrevise the misguided assumptions we carryabout our humanity:
A human being is a part of the whole called by us“Universe,” a part limited in time and space. Heexperiences himself, his thoughts and feelings assomething separated from the rest, a kind of op-tical delusion of his consciousness. This delusionis a kind of prison for us, restricting us to ourpersonal desires and to affection for a few per-sons nearest to us. Our task must be to free our-selves from this prison by widening our circle ofcompassion to embrace all living creatures andthe whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody canachieve this completely, but the striving for suchachievement is, in itself, a part of the liberationand a foundation for inner security (Albert Ein-stein, personal letter from 1950; quoted in the NewYork Times, 1972).
The world’s growing interdependence, the re-ality of suffering as part of the human condition,and the possibilities that are opened up by afocus on care and compassion prompt this spe-cial topic forum. Compassion has deep roots inintellectual history. Aristotle described compas-sion as an emotion, directed toward “the misfor-
504 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
tune one believes to have befallen another”(Nussbaum, 1986: 306). In contrast to Plato andthe Stoics writing at a similar time, who focusedprimarily on the emotion associated with com-passion, for Aristotle the emotion of compassionnecessarily also included a cognitive compo-nent in the form of three beliefs: that the otherperson’s suffering is serious (not trivial), that itis unmerited, and that it is something that mightbefall the self (Gallagher, 2009).
Although care and compassion are not new tophilosophical, theological, and scientific in-quiry (indeed, their study goes back thousandsof years), they have only occasionally been theexplicit focus of management scholarship. AnneTsui (2010) challenged management scholars toadopt a more explicit focus on compassion inher call for papers for the 2010 Academy of Man-agement meeting, and, indeed, there are soundrationales for bringing care and compassion tothe fore in management research at this time.
For example, comparatively recent psycholog-ical research has illuminated the positive ef-fects on well-being and resilience of empathy(Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995; Davis, 1996),receiving and giving care and social support(e.g., Broadhead et al., 1983; Brown, Ness, Vi-nokur, & Smith, 2003; Cohen & Willis, 1985), andforgiveness (e.g., Worthington & Scherer, 2004).Conversely, there is plenty of evidence of thenegative effects of contrasting behaviors, suchas neglect, incivility, derision, bullying, andabuse (e.g., Ashforth, 1994; Frost, 2003; Pearson,Andersson, & Wegner, 2001; Pearson & Porath,2009; Tepper, 2007). Theories and research onorganizational and individual care and compas-sion can also draw from diverse works by re-searchers writing about caring systems (Kahn,1993), care and caring work (e.g., Lopez, 2006;Meyer, 2000), caring and relational practices(e.g., Benner & Wrubel, 1989; Steyaert & VanLooy, 2010), organizational healing (e.g., Powley& Piderit, 2008), care and knowledge enabling(e.g., Von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000), andapplications of an ethic of care in organizations(Gilligan, 1982; Liedtka, 1996; Walker, 1991).
Interest in compassion in the managementsciences was catalyzed by Frost’s (1999) procla-mation that “Compassion Counts!” and by his(2003) assertion that the inevitable pain gener-ated within organizations requires an academicresponse. These early forays in managementresearch on compassion were further extended
by Kanov et al. (2004), who, building on Clark(1998), proposed a tripartite model of the com-passion process. By incorporating cognitive (no-ticing), affective (feeling), and behavioral (act-ing) components, Kanov and colleaguessynthesized a long historical tradition in philos-ophy and theology and set up the rich possibil-ities for inquiry that this issue of AMR seeks toadvance.
This special topic forum explores what hap-pens to our understanding of management andorganizations when theorists focus on and drawfrom theories related to care and compassion.What happens when analysis and theorizingmove beyond efforts to explain striking individ-ual episodes of compassion and care (or theirabsence) and go on to consider the role playedby compassion and care in the ongoing life andfunctioning of organizations and the individualswithin them? What new states, processes, anddynamics are revealed when compassion andcare become more center stage in managementscholarship? What does an organization looklike when its organizing principles are based onthe logics and principles of caring and compas-sion? This special topic forum illuminates thenovel insights we gain into the work of manag-ing and organizing when care and compassionserve as a focal point for theorizing.
Together, the articles in this special issueopen new windows for seeing possibilities inand about organizations. First, they humanizepeople working inside organizations as peoplewho suffer, people who care, and people whoindividually and collectively may respond topain (e.g., Atkins & Parker; Gittell & Douglass;Lilius). Second, they illuminate how organiza-tions as contexts—with members, tasks, roles,shared values, resources, and norms—meaning-fully and importantly shape patterns of interper-sonal thoughts, emotions, and behaviors bothwithin and outside organizational boundaries(e.g., Fehr & Gelfand; Gittell & Douglass; Law-rence & Maitlis; Madden, Duchon, Madden, &Plowman). Third, they illustrate how the motiva-tions and actions of a single individual can mat-ter in terms of changing the culture of a workunit (Grant & Patil) or determining the purposeof an entire organization (e.g., Miller, Grimes,McMullen, & Vogus). Fourth, they illuminatehow the ways in which we speak about ourexperiences at work can create self-fulfillingprophecies (e.g., Lawrence & Maitlis). Fifth, they
2012 505Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
suggest the underlying dynamics by which al-ternative organizational forms that are typicallyregarded as mutually exclusive can be meldedinto hybrids that incorporate the strengths ofeach (e.g., relational bureaucracies for Gittell &Douglass and social entrepreneurship for Milleret al.). Sixth, they respond to a call from organi-zational researchers (e.g., Feldman & Rafaeli,2002; Felin & Foss, 2009) to create a deeper un-derstanding of the micro emotional and rela-tional mechanisms that underlie caring andcompassion at the organizational level (e.g.,Fehr & Gelfand; Gittell & Douglass; Maddenet al.).
In order to place the articles in this specialissue in context, we first examine some of theintellectual foundations of research on care andcompassion, both historically and in recentyears. We then introduce the articles and theircentral contributions.
CARE AND COMPASSION:BOTH TIMELY AND TIMELESS
Care and compassion have very long intellec-tual and moral histories. Compassion “lies atthe heart of all religious, ethical and spiritualtraditions, calling us always to treat all othersas we wish to be treated ourselves” (Armstrong,2011: 6). For example, in Confucianism compas-sion (rén) or benevolent love and humanenesstoward others is “the loftiest ideal of moral ex-cellence” (Chong, 2007: 24). In Hinduism the con-cept of ahimsa, the injunction to do no harm andto treat all creatures as oneself, is key (Jackson,2008). In Judaism there are mandates to pursuejustice and righteousness, to imitate God’s com-passion, to seek peace, and to work for the heal-ing of the world (Sears, 1998). In Christianityactions of mercy or compassion are “central forJesus. To gain his favor, the poor and the sickhad only to say, ‘Sir, have mercy on me’” (So-brino, 2009: 454). Gülen (2004) suggests that toler-ance, love, and compassion have been primaryvalues throughout Islamic history and reflect God,or Allah, as the source of compassion, from whomthese values flow to individuals.
In philosophy compassion has had a morecontentious history. Many influential philoso-phers (including Plato, the Stoics, Descartes,Nietzche, and Kant) were skeptical of compas-sion as a basis for decision making and takingaction (Gallagher, 2009; Sznaider, 2001). Focus-
ing mostly on compassion’s emotional aspects,they viewed compassion (and emotion moregenerally) as potentially incompatible withother moral principles, such as reason and jus-tice, which were held in higher regard. Theyworried that feelings of compassion might leadto sentimentality, which would cloud judgmentand reasoning. Moreover, they argued that com-passion actually increases suffering by causingpeople to share in the misery of others (White,2008). In addition, the Stoics often portrayedcompassion as a weakness and a feminine trait.
Still, the historical view of compassion in phi-losophy has sometimes been very positive. Phi-losophers such as Aristotle saw compassion ascomplementary with concepts such as justice,reason, and self-interest. Rousseau emphasizedcompassion as the foundational virtue thathelps society to develop. He did not see compas-sion as a substitute for justice or as inconsistentwith reason. Rather, he argued that compassion“can modify and be modified by reason for theindividual’s good and the good of others”(Marks, 2007: 728). Similarly, Schopenhauer(1998/1840) argued that compassion—rather thanrational rules or God-given commandments—was the central basis of morality and ethics(Madigan, 2005). Even Adam Smith, who is ofteninvoked as the patron saint of self-interest,wrote about the positive effects of compassion.Indeed, compassion was the first virtue men-tioned in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments(Smith, 2010/1759). Smith viewed pity and com-passion (he used the terms interchangeably) ascomplementary to self interest: “Nature en-dowed us with these sentiments for the good ofmankind,” and they “persist because they pro-mote the survival of people as a species”(quoted in Frank, 1988: 44). Contemporary moralphilosophers have continued with the line ofargument that compassion fundamentally con-tributes to the well-being of individuals and so-ciety, although they are also mindful of compas-sion’s limits and blinders (e.g., Nussbaum,1996, 2003).
The philosophy that perhaps elevates com-passion to the highest level is Buddhism. ForBuddhists all beings desire happiness, while atthe same time all beings suffer. Compassion is afundamental attribute or potential inherent inall people—the highest form of moral wisdom(Dalai Lama, 1995). However, Buddhism recog-nizes that people are often more motivated by
506 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
greed, anger, hatred, or similar hindrancesrather than by this fundamental attribute (e.g.,Sullivan, Wiist, & Wayment, 2010). Compassionis generated by the mind but focused outward.It manifests in generosity directed toward oth-ers. The ultimate goal of Buddhist compassion(karuna) is to remove suffering (dukkha), includ-ing that which arises from our (self-centered)desires and attachments to various ambitions,people, and material objects.
It may seem odd to juxtapose Buddhist com-passion with business enterprises where theprimary focus is so often material in nature. So,in attempting to place this long and venerablehistory of compassion in context, it is useful todraw on recent empirical evidence and concep-tual arguments that suggest the potential fruit-fulness of focusing more explicitly on care andcompassion in management and organizationalstudies. In the past twenty-five years or so, em-pirical evidence has begun to suggest the pos-sibility of symbiotic positive relationships be-tween emotions and reason, compassion andjustice, and altruism and self-interest. For exam-ple, there has been a growing understanding byneuroscientists that emotions are not separatefrom reason and that, contrary to earlier beliefs,emotions often enhance reasoning abilitiesrather than detract from them (e.g., Damasio,1994; Frank, 1988). Related findings concern theenhancing effect of positive emotions and posi-tive interrelating on creativity, motivation, emo-tional and physical well-being, resilience, andmany types of performance (e.g., Amabile &Kramer, 2011; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Dutton& Ragins, 2007; Fredrickson, 2001, 2009; House,Umberson, & Landis, 1988; Staw, Sutton, &Pelled, 1994). These arguments are consistentwith efforts in psychology (e.g., Seligman &Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and organizational re-search (e.g., Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012) tobroaden consideration of the types of psycholog-ical and social conditions and processes thatfoster individual and collective flourishing.
In social sciences, which have human behav-ior at their root, there is increasing recognitionthat we are born to interrelate. For example,Brown, Brown, and Preston (2012) offer a neuro-scientific model of compassionate motivationsuggesting that humans enjoy a dedicated neu-robiological system that is responsive to socialbonds and that fosters other-interested feelingsand behaviors. Similarly, Crocker and Cane-
vello (2012) describe and compare an egosystemversus ecosystem, where the latter model, incontrast to self-interested theories, portrays in-dividuals as being motivated by caring aboutthe well-being of others. In their account thesemotivations arise from people seeing them-selves as part of a larger whole and seeingdesired outcomes of the other and self as nonzero sum. Although fairly new to the field ofexperimental psychology, theoretical modelsthat put care and concern for others at their corein order to explain behavior, personal and pro-fessional development, and even organizationaleffectiveness have long been staples of applieddisciplines, such as education and nursing,where relationships are foundational to thework of the profession (e.g., Noddings, 2003).
Rather than seeing care and compassion asantithetical to or outside of “normal” or “impor-tant” work in and of organizations, the contrib-utors to this special issue view them as central:“Compassion and care are not separate from‘being a professional’ or ‘doing the work of theorganization.’ They are a natural and living rep-resentation of people’s humanity in the work-place” (Frost, Dutton, Worline, & Wilson, 2000:25). Further, the authors in this issue make im-portant contributions toward enriching our un-derstanding of relational dynamics and behav-iors in organizations (Bradbury & Lichtenstein,2000; Ferris et al., 2009; Gersick, Bartunek, & Dut-ton, 2000).
Theoretical developments such as these pro-vide important fuel for more deeply understand-ing patterns and consequences of interrelatingthrough care and compassion in and among or-ganizations. They echo and strengthen relatedcalls to see our species (e.g., de Waal, 2009;Keltner, 2009) and our civilization (Rifkin, 2009)as more collaborative, empathetic, and caringthan typically portrayed in our managementtheories. These developments beckon research-ers to move beyond theories of human interre-lating based on reward or punishment (self-interest) and suggest that other-interest,emotion, and biology are central to explaininghow and when care and compassion happenand how and when they matter.
Ferraro, Pfeffer, and Sutton (2005) and Ghoshal(2005) remind us that theories not only attempt toexplain but also shape behavior. In the words ofeconomist Robert Frank:
2012 507Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
Our beliefs about human nature help shape hu-man nature itself. What we think about ourselvesand our possibilities determines what we aspireto become, and shapes what we teach our chil-dren, both at home and in the schools. Here thepernicious effects of the self-interest theory havebeen most disturbing. It tells us that to behavemorally is to invite others to take advantage of us.By encouraging us to expect the worst in others, itbrings out the worst in us: dreading the role of thechump, we are often loath to heed our noblerinstincts (1988: xi).
Given this reality, it is crucial that we havetheories that reflect the accumulating evidencethat other-centeredness and interconnectednessare central aspects of humanity. Furthermore,we (and our students) need access to theoriesand discourses that help us understand the com-plex and important processes and conditionsthat enable and thwart care and compassion.With this in mind, it is our pleasure to introducethe articles selected for this special topic forum.
THE ARTICLES
The nine articles selected for this special is-sue represent an interesting mix of characteris-tics. Five are positioned mainly at the individuallevel of analysis (Atkins & Parker; Grant; Grant& Patil; Lilius; Miller et al.), while the other fourprimarily address the group or organizationallevel (Fehr & Gelfand; Gittell & Douglass; Law-rence & Maitlis; Madden et al.). Some focus onhow care and compassion might emerge and besustained without formal planning (e.g., Mad-den et al.), while others present testable modelsfor enacting planned change (e.g., Grant & Pa-til). Still others present models that appear to betypically intuitive, spontaneous, or emergentbut might nevertheless (by using the proposedmodel) be used to guide planned change (e.g.,Lilius). Some present models or theories of howone set of organizational norms or assumptions(e.g., independence and self-reliance) might bereplaced with a different set of norms (e.g., rela-tional and interdependent; Lawrence & Maitlis),while others suggest how two presumably op-positional or competing models (e.g., relationalversus bureaucratic forms of organization)might be melded into new forms (e.g., Gittell &Douglass; Miller et al.). The articles and theirmajor characteristics, including the possibilitiesthey suggest for future research and practice,are summarized in Table 1.
The first five articles in this issue focus pri-marily on the individual level of analysis. In thefirst of these, “Understanding Individual Com-passion in Organizations: The Role of Apprais-als and Psychological Flexibility,” Paul Atkinsand Sharon Parker expand on Kanov et al.’s(2004) model of compassionate responding. Spe-cifically, in addition to the three components ofcompassionate responding specified by Kanovet al. (i.e., noticing, feeling, and acting), Atkinsand Parker add a fourth (mainly cognitive) com-ponent: people’s appraisal of the situation. Ap-praisal comes between noticing and feeling andinfluences the specific types of feelings gener-ated: “After noticing that another is suffering, aperson might feel empathic concern (necessaryfor compassion), but he or she might equally feelanger, distress, sadness, coldness, or other emo-tions that do not lead to compassion” (this issue:526). This observation is consistent with discus-sions about compassion in political science,where people with a wide range of politicalviews have adopted compassion as one of theirsignature issues yet disagree considerably onwho merits compassion and what should bedone about suffering, depending on the attribu-tions they make about why people are sufferingand what will improve the situation (e.g., Marks,2007; Stone, 2008).
Drawing on relational frame theory, Atkinsand Parker then discuss how and why peoplewho are higher in psychological flexibility—“being open and curious regarding the presentmoment and, depending on what the situationaffords, acting in accordance with one’s chosenvalues” (this issue: 528)—have a greater propen-sity to respond to situations of suffering in acompassionate way. In the authors’ view, psy-chological flexibility “provides a way of bridg-ing the apparent tension between distancingand connection—distancing so that one does notbecome absorbed in another’s suffering and onecan place it in context, and connection so thatone cares” (this issue: 539).
In “Challenging the Norm of Self-Interest: Mi-nority Influence and Transitions to HelpingNorms in Work Units,” Adam Grant and ShefaliPatil develop a temporal model of how a singleindividual might successfully challengework unit norms favoring self-interested behav-ior, particularly in low task-interdependentwork units where self-interested norms tend topredominate. Drawing on minority influence
508 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
TABL
E1
Con
tent
and
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofth
eSp
ecia
lTo
pic
Foru
mA
rtic
les
Art
icle
Prim
ary
Purp
ose
Prim
ary
Leve
lof
Ana
lysi
s
Prim
ary
Focu
sW
ithi
nth
eD
omai
nof
Car
ean
dC
ompa
ssio
nFu
ture
Poss
ibil
itie
sfo
rR
esea
rch
Futu
rePo
ssib
ilit
ies
for
Prac
tice
Atk
ins
&P
ark
erT
od
evel
opa
nex
pa
nd
edm
odel
ofco
mp
ass
ion
ate
resp
ond
ing
tha
ta
dd
sa
pp
rais
al
ton
otic
ing
,fe
elin
g,a
nd
act
ing
Ind
ivid
ua
lD
evel
ops
pro
cess
esth
rou
gh
wh
ich
not
icin
gsu
ffer
ing
lea
ds
toco
mp
ass
ion
ate
act
ion
.Des
crib
esh
owm
ind
fuln
ess
an
dva
lues
-d
irec
ted
act
ion
can
fost
erth
eel
emen
tsof
com
pa
ssio
n
Use
mu
ltip
lem
eth
ods
(su
rvey
,la
bor
ato
ry,q
ua
lita
tive
)to
exp
lore
the
role
ofa
pp
rais
als
an
dp
sych
olog
ica
lfl
exib
ilit
yin
com
pa
ssio
n.I
nve
stig
ate
con
text
ua
lm
oder
ato
rsof
the
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
np
sych
olog
ica
lfl
exib
ilit
ya
nd
com
pa
ssio
na
tere
spon
din
g.
Exa
min
eth
ere
lati
onsh
ips
bet
wee
nm
otiv
ati
ona
nd
cap
ab
ilit
yin
com
pa
ssio
na
tere
spon
din
g
Pro
vid
etr
ain
ing
inp
sych
olog
ica
lfl
exib
ilit
y
Gra
nt
&P
ati
lU
sere
sea
rch
onm
inor
ity
infl
uen
ceto
dev
elop
theo
rya
bou
th
owa
nin
div
idu
al
can
succ
essf
ull
ych
all
eng
en
onh
elp
ing
wor
ku
nit
nor
ms
Ind
ivid
ua
lw
ith
inw
ork
un
itP
rop
oses
tha
ttr
an
siti
ons
tow
ard
nor
ms
con
sist
ent
wit
hca
rin
ga
rem
ost
like
lyw
hen
ah
igh
-sta
tus
cha
llen
ger
mod
els
pro
soci
al
hel
pin
gfo
rm
idd
le-s
tatu
sa
nd
ag
reea
ble
wor
ku
nit
mem
ber
s.D
escr
ibes
how
seq
uen
ces
ofin
qu
iry,
mod
elin
g,a
nd
ad
voca
cya
rem
ost
like
lyto
trig
ger
nor
mtr
an
siti
ons
Exa
min
eti
pp
ing
poi
nts
tha
tg
over
nn
orm
tra
nsi
tion
s.E
xam
ine
the
con
seq
uen
ces
ofh
elp
ing
beh
avi
ors
inta
sk-
ind
epen
den
tw
ork
un
its.
Inve
stig
ate
inte
ract
ion
sb
etw
een
org
an
iza
tion
al
cha
ract
eris
tics
an
dou
tcom
esof
nor
ma
tive
cha
llen
ges
Use
the
mod
elto
dev
elop
ap
pro
pri
ate
“ch
all
eng
er”
stra
teg
ies.
Com
bin
ero
lem
odel
ing
,ad
voca
cy,a
nd
inq
uir
yto
cha
ng
en
orm
s
Lili
us
To
exp
lain
how
care
giv
ers
mig
ht
bec
ome
rest
ored
du
rin
gcl
ien
tin
tera
ctio
ns
rath
erth
an
only
du
rin
g“o
ff-w
ork”
per
iod
s
Ind
ivid
ua
la
nd
care
giv
er-c
lien
tin
tera
ctio
ns
Exp
lore
sva
ria
bil
ity
inca
reg
iver
s’in
tera
ctio
ns
wit
hcl
ien
tsin
term
sof
the
cog
nit
ive
an
dem
otio
na
lre
sou
rces
req
uir
edve
rsu
sth
ere
sou
rces
gen
era
ted
.A
rgu
esth
at
som
ein
tera
ctio
ns
are
rest
ora
tive
rath
erth
an
dep
leti
ng
,th
us
pro
vid
ing
afo
rmof
on-t
he-
job
“res
pit
e”fr
omb
urn
out
Con
du
ctep
isod
icst
ud
ies
wit
hca
rew
orke
rsto
reve
al
vari
ab
ilit
yin
rest
ora
tion
vers
us
dep
leti
ona
cros
scl
ien
ts.U
sein
terv
iew
met
hod
olog
ies,
taki
ng
pre
cau
tion
sto
red
uce
soci
all
yd
esir
ab
lere
spon
din
g
Bec
ome
mor
ea
wa
reof
vari
ab
ilit
yin
reso
urc
ep
att
ern
sa
cros
scl
ien
ts.
Seq
uen
cecl
ien
tin
tera
ctio
ns
wit
hre
sou
rces
inm
ind
.Im
pro
vecl
ien
t-ca
reg
iver
fit.
Rei
nfo
rce
pos
itiv
ep
roso
cia
lcu
esfo
rca
reg
iver
(Con
tin
ued
)
TABL
E1
(Con
tinu
ed)
Art
icle
Prim
ary
Purp
ose
Prim
ary
Leve
lof
Ana
lysi
s
Prim
ary
Focu
sW
ithi
nth
eD
omai
nof
Car
ean
dC
ompa
ssio
nFu
ture
Poss
ibil
itie
sfo
rR
esea
rch
Futu
rePo
ssib
ilit
ies
for
Prac
tice
Gra
nt
To
dev
elop
ath
eory
ofth
efa
ctor
s,p
art
icu
larl
yw
ork
des
ign
,th
at
sup
por
tsu
sta
ina
ble
corp
ora
tevo
lun
teer
ing
pro
gra
ms
Ind
ivid
ua
lE
xplo
res
corp
ora
tevo
lun
teer
ing
pro
gra
ms
as
cha
nn
els
for
exp
ress
ing
care
an
dco
mp
ass
ion
.Pro
pos
esth
at
such
pro
gra
ms
ma
yb
em
ore
mot
iva
tin
g(a
nd
thu
ssu
sta
ined
over
lon
ger
per
iod
sof
tim
e)fo
rem
plo
yees
wh
ose
job
sa
red
eple
ted
inte
rms
ofta
sk,
soci
al,
an
dkn
owle
dg
ech
ara
cter
isti
cs
Em
pir
ica
lly
test
the
corp
ora
tevo
lun
teer
ing
mod
el.E
xam
ine
on-t
he-
job
an
dvo
lun
teer
wor
ksp
illo
ver.
Exa
min
eth
esu
sta
ina
bil
ity
ofvo
lun
teer
effo
rts
focu
sed
onca
reve
rsu
sco
mp
ass
ion
.Exa
min
ed
iffe
ren
tia
lef
fect
sof
mot
ives
onin
itia
lve
rsu
sco
nti
nu
ing
volu
nte
erin
itia
tive
s.In
vest
iga
teco
rpor
ate
volu
nte
erin
ga
sa
“pu
re”
form
ofor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lci
tize
nsh
ipb
eha
vior
Use
the
mod
elto
dev
elop
ap
pro
pri
ate
corp
ora
tevo
lun
teer
ing
pro
gra
ms
for
the
situ
ati
ona
th
an
d.V
iew
volu
nte
erp
rog
ram
sa
sa
pot
enti
al
sub
stit
ute
for
enri
ched
job
s
Mil
ler,
Gri
mes
,M
cMu
llen
,&V
ogu
s
To
exp
lain
com
pa
ssio
na
sa
mot
iva
tion
al
orig
ina
nd
dev
elop
men
tal
mec
ha
nis
mth
at
un
der
lies
soci
al
entr
epre
neu
rsh
ip
Ind
ivid
ua
l(o
rga
niz
ati
ona
lfo
un
der
s)
Sp
ecif
ies
the
cog
nit
ive
an
dem
otio
na
lp
roce
sses
thro
ug
hw
hic
hco
mp
ass
ion
sust
ain
sef
fort
sb
yin
div
idu
als
tosu
rmou
nt
the
dif
ficu
ltie
sa
nd
lon
god
ds
ofla
un
chin
ga
soci
al
ente
rpri
seth
at
reli
eves
oth
ers’
suff
erin
g.
Sh
ows
how
key
inst
itu
tion
al
con
dit
ion
sm
ake
soci
al
entr
epre
neu
rsh
ipa
via
ble
opti
onsu
chth
at
com
pa
ssio
nca
nfu
elth
ein
teg
rati
veth
inki
ng
,pro
soci
al
cost
-b
enef
ita
na
lysi
s,a
nd
du
rab
leco
mm
itm
ent
nec
essa
ryto
then
act
ua
lly
lau
nch
aso
cia
len
terp
rise
Exa
min
ew
het
her
soci
al
entr
epre
neu
rsa
ccep
tm
ore
risk
tha
nco
mm
erci
al
entr
epre
neu
rs.D
ova
lues
ofsu
cces
sfu
lso
cia
len
terp
rise
sch
an
ge
over
tim
e?W
ha
ta
reth
ere
lati
onsh
ips
bet
wee
np
roso
cia
la
nd
pro
self
mot
iva
tion
sin
soci
al
entr
epre
neu
rsh
ip?
Law
ren
ce&
Ma
itli
sT
od
evel
opa
mod
elof
how
an
eth
icof
care
can
be
ena
cted
inor
ga
niz
ati
ons
thro
ug
hn
arr
ati
vep
ract
ices
emb
edd
edin
end
uri
ng
wor
kre
lati
onsh
ips,
an
dh
owsu
cha
net
hic
can
fost
erre
sili
ence
inw
ork
tea
ms
Gro
up
sor
tea
ms
wit
hin
an
org
an
iza
tion
Des
crib
esth
ree
na
rra
tive
pra
ctic
esin
org
an
iza
tion
s—co
nst
ruct
ing
his
tori
esof
spa
rkli
ng
mom
ents
,co
nte
xtu
ali
zin
gst
rug
gle
s,a
nd
con
stru
ctin
gp
olyp
hon
icfu
ture
-ori
ente
dst
orie
s—in
wh
ich
care
can
be
emb
edd
ed.D
escr
ibes
stru
ctu
ral,
cult
ura
l,a
nd
skil
led
pra
ctic
ech
ara
cter
isti
csof
org
an
iza
tion
sth
at
can
fost
era
net
hic
ofca
rea
nd
sug
ges
tsit
sp
osit
ive
imp
act
son
resi
lien
cew
ith
inw
ork
tea
ms
Con
du
ctre
sea
rch
root
edin
ma
tern
al
rela
tion
s.In
corp
ora
tefe
min
ist
pol
itic
sin
toth
est
ud
yof
care
an
dco
mp
ass
ion
toid
enti
fyso
cia
la
nd
org
an
iza
tion
al
stru
ctu
res
tha
tcr
eate
ad
vers
ity
for
mem
ber
s.R
esea
rch
wh
ich
na
rra
tive
pra
ctic
esa
rem
ost
effe
ctiv
e.E
xam
ine
rela
tion
ship
sb
etw
een
org
an
iza
tion
al
na
rra
tive
sa
nd
coll
ecti
veou
tcom
es(s
uch
as
resi
lien
ce)
Wor
kte
am
sca
na
da
pt
the
reco
mm
end
edd
iscu
rsiv
ep
ract
ices
.Org
an
iza
tion
sca
ntr
eat
dis
curs
ive
an
dd
ialo
gic
al
pra
ctic
esa
sa
tra
ina
ble
skil
l
Feh
r&
Gel
fan
dT
oex
pla
inh
owa
forg
iven
ess
clim
ate
emer
ges
inor
ga
niz
ati
ons
an
dto
exp
lore
its
cros
s-le
vel
infl
uen
ces
onem
plo
yees
Org
an
iza
tion
Sp
ecif
ies
how
org
an
iza
tion
al
envi
ron
men
t,p
ract
ices
,an
dle
ad
era
ttri
bu
tes
are
lin
ked
toco
mp
ass
ion
as
wel
la
sot
her
valu
es.C
omp
ass
ion
as
ash
are
dva
lue
isa
ba
seco
nd
itio
nth
at
sup
por
tsor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lp
ract
ices
tha
tfo
ster
the
emer
gen
ceof
afo
rgiv
enes
scl
ima
te
Em
pir
ica
lly
test
the
pro
pos
edre
lati
onsh
ips
bet
wee
nfo
rgiv
enes
scl
ima
te,
emp
loye
eco
mm
itm
ent,
inte
rper
son
al
citi
zen
ship
,a
nd
per
form
an
ce.D
evel
opm
easu
res
ofa
forg
iven
ess
clim
ate
.In
vest
iga
tea
lter
na
tive
form
sof
clim
ate
emer
gen
ce
Cu
ltiv
ate
afo
rgiv
enes
scl
ima
teth
at
can
hel
pto
fost
erem
plo
yees
’pro
soci
al
resp
onse
sto
con
flic
t.D
evel
opcu
ltu
ral
valu
es,
org
an
iza
tion
al
pra
ctic
es,a
nd
lea
der
ship
beh
avi
ors
tha
tm
ake
the
emer
gen
cea
nd
inst
itu
tion
ali
zati
onof
afo
rgiv
enes
scl
ima
tem
ore
like
ly
(Con
tin
ued
)
TABL
E1
(Con
tinu
ed)
Art
icle
Prim
ary
Purp
ose
Prim
ary
Leve
lof
Ana
lysi
s
Prim
ary
Focu
sW
ithi
nth
eD
omai
nof
Car
ean
dC
ompa
ssio
nFu
ture
Poss
ibil
itie
sfo
rR
esea
rch
Futu
rePo
ssib
ilit
ies
for
Prac
tice
Ma
dd
en,
Du
chon
,M
ad
den
,&P
low
ma
n
To
exp
lain
the
syst
emco
nd
itio
ns
an
din
form
al
pro
cess
esth
at
incr
ease
the
org
an
iza
tion
al
cap
aci
tyfo
rco
mp
ass
ion
,an
dh
owth
isca
pa
city
alt
ers
org
an
iza
tion
al
fea
ture
sov
erti
me
Org
an
iza
tion
Exp
lain
sor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lca
pa
city
for
com
pa
ssio
na
sa
self
-org
an
izin
gp
roce
ss.
Arg
ues
tha
tor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lca
pa
city
for
com
pa
ssio
nis
ma
nif
est
ina
da
pte
dro
les,
new
nor
ms,
exp
an
ded
rou
tin
es,a
nd
ad
just
edsc
an
nin
gm
ech
an
ism
s.Id
enti
fies
syst
emco
nd
itio
ns
(e.g
.,a
gen
td
iver
sity
,in
terd
epen
den
tro
les,
soci
al
inte
ract
ion
s)th
at
fost
erth
ese
lf-o
rga
niz
ati
onp
roce
ssa
rou
nd
com
pa
ssio
n
Ext
end
syst
emco
nd
itio
ns
toex
plo
reh
owor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lm
issi
ona
nd
stru
ctu
rea
ffec
tco
mp
ass
ion
cap
aci
ty.E
xten
dth
eco
nce
ptu
ali
zati
onof
ag
ent
div
ersi
ty,r
ole
inte
rdep
end
ence
,an
dth
eq
ua
lity
an
dq
ua
nti
tyof
inte
ract
ion
sa
nd
thei
rli
nks
toco
mp
ass
ion
cap
ab
ilit
y.E
xplo
rew
het
her
an
dh
owor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lca
pa
city
for
com
pa
ssio
nh
as
imp
act
sb
eyon
dor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lb
oun
da
ries
To
dev
elop
an
org
an
iza
tion
’sca
pa
city
for
com
pa
ssio
n,
con
sid
ercr
eati
ng
mor
eco
gn
itiv
e,em
otio
na
l,a
nd
reso
urc
ed
iver
sity
ofm
emb
ers,
hig
her
leve
lsof
role
an
dta
skin
terd
epen
den
ce,a
nd
gre
ate
rq
ua
nti
tya
nd
qu
ali
tyof
inte
ract
ion
bet
wee
nm
emb
ers
Git
tell
&D
oug
lass
To
des
crib
ea
rela
tion
al
bu
rea
ucr
ati
cfo
rmof
org
an
izin
gth
at
ha
sa
tit
sco
reth
ree
typ
esof
reci
pro
cal
inte
rrel
ati
ng
tha
tfo
ster
pa
tter
ns
ofa
tten
tive
nes
sex
pla
inin
gca
rin
g,t
imel
y,a
nd
know
led
gea
ble
resp
onsi
ven
ess
ina
wa
yth
at
issc
ala
ble
,rep
lica
ble
,an
dsu
sta
ina
ble
Org
an
iza
tion
Th
em
odel
ofre
lati
ona
lb
ure
au
cra
cysp
ecif
ies
the
pro
cess
by
wh
ich
un
iver
sal
cari
ng
bec
omes
pa
rtic
ula
rize
dth
rou
gh
reci
pro
cal
inte
rrel
ati
ng
tha
th
ap
pen
sb
etw
een
wor
kers
an
dcu
stom
ers,
wor
kers
an
dw
orke
rs,a
nd
wor
kers
an
dle
ad
ers.
Iden
tifi
esa
ran
ge
ofst
ruct
ure
sa
nd
pra
ctic
esth
at
fost
erth
ese
form
sof
reci
pro
cal
inte
rrel
ati
ng
an
d,
thu
s,th
ele
vel
ofca
rin
gre
spon
ses
ina
nd
ofor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lm
emb
ers
Exp
lore
syn
erg
ies
acr
oss
dif
fere
nt
reci
pro
cal
rela
tion
ship
s(e
.g.,
rela
tion
al
lea
der
ship
an
dre
lati
ona
lco
ord
ina
tion
).E
xam
ine
the
pos
sib
ilit
yof
mu
tua
lly
rein
forc
ing
cau
sali
tyb
etw
een
stru
ctu
res
an
dre
lati
onsh
ips
inre
lati
ona
lb
ure
au
cra
cies
Con
sid
erh
owd
iver
seor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lst
ruct
ure
sca
nfo
ster
reci
pro
cal
rela
tin
ga
mon
gor
ga
niz
ati
ona
lw
orke
rs,b
etw
een
wor
kers
an
dcu
stom
ers,
an
db
etw
een
wor
kers
an
dle
ad
ers.
Ifsu
chst
ruct
ure
sca
nfo
ster
mor
ero
le-b
ase
dre
cip
roca
lin
terr
ela
tin
g,w
her
eth
ere
are
mor
esh
are
dg
oals
,sh
are
dkn
owle
dg
e,a
nd
mu
tua
lre
spec
t,th
ere
wil
lb
ea
nin
crea
sed
like
lih
ood
ofm
ore
un
iver
sali
stic
nor
ms
for
cari
ng
for
pa
rtic
ula
rot
her
s
theories and previous empirical research, theyargue that such a shift requires two types ofproactive behaviors on the part of individualswho would challenge social norms. The first ofthese is repeated behavioral modeling of help-ing behaviors that are perceived as both proso-cial and impactful by others in the group. Thesecond is voice, which consists of two subtac-tics: inquiring about current practices in such away as to destabilize shared understandings,along with (smaller amounts of) advocacy ofhelping behaviors. They argue that the appro-priate temporal pattern for these behaviors in-cludes inquiry, followed by modeling, followedby advocacy. Together, these are hypothesizedto create uncertainty, stimulating new sense-making and norm building. Although theirmodel begins by describing the necessary pro-active behaviors of the individual “challenger,”it also incorporates characteristics of work unitmembers. Several of these characteristics—agreeableness, openness, status, and stage ofunit’s development—are likely to act as moder-ators of whether there will be a sustained shiftfrom self-interested to helping norms as a resultof the individual proactive behaviors.
In “Recovery at Work: Understanding the Re-storative Side of ‘Depleting’ Client Interactions,”Jacoba Lilius focuses on ways to combat theburnout caregivers often experience in responseto the “chronic emotional strain of dealing ex-tensively with other human beings” (Maslach,1982: 3). Until now, most research directed to-ward mitigating this strain has focused on find-ing respite away from work, either through va-cations or holidays (e.g., Westman & Eden, 1997)or through on-site breaks throughout the work-day (Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008).Drawing on Sonnentag and Fritz (2007), Liliusindicates that this prior focus on nonwork activ-ities for restoration reflects “a core assumptionwithin both the ego depletion literature andwork recovery literature that work activities areeffortful and, thus, regulatory resource deplet-ing” such that “recovery is thought to require en-gagement in nonwork activities that do not furthertax regulatory resources” (this issue: 570).
In contrast, Lilius illuminates how certaincaretaker-client interactions while performingthe work itself may themselves be restorative,depending on two variables: the amount of self-regulatory resources required by the interactionand the amount of personal resources generated
by it. Whereas previous work on caregiving andburnout has generally emphasized the deple-tion of resources, Lilius draws on new researchsuggesting that effortful work can also generateresources through positive feelings of increasedmastery, self-efficacy, or prosocial contribution,particularly when a successful outcome isreached on a difficult case. Using an episodicperformance perspective (Beal, Weiss, Barros, &MacDermid, 2005) and a 2 � 2 typology of per-sonal resources required and resources gener-ated, Lilius proposes four types of caregiver-client interactions: draining, low maintenance,replenishing, and breakthrough. She further de-velops a process model of the dynamics be-lieved to underlie restorative and breakthroughinteractions in the hope that application of themodel might increase the proportion of such in-teractions in caregiving situations and providea useful guide for future research.
In “Giving Time, Time After Time: Work De-sign and Sustained Employee Participation inCorporate Volunteering,” Adam Grant exploresthe rapidly growing phenomenon of corporatevolunteering as an important vehicle for deliv-ering care and compassion to worthy causesand communities in need. Integrating work de-sign and volunteering theories, he generates asomewhat counterintuitive model of whatcauses employees to participate in sustained(rather than one-time) volunteering activities as-sociated with their workplaces. Specifically, hismodel suggests that employees whose jobs areweakest in intrinsic task-, social-, or knowledge-related motivators are the ones most likely tofind sustained volunteering activities most en-riching. Grant proposes that, for such employ-ees, volunteer activities are more likely to com-pensate for the deficit of motivational featuresinherent in the work itself, making it more likelythat volunteer activities will be self-reinforcingand become part of the employee’s identity. Hedevelops a work design model of long-term cor-porate volunteering that incorporates workcharacteristics of the employee’s job; the em-ployee’s volunteering motives; the task, social,and knowledge characteristics of the volunteer-ing project; and organizational practices such asvolunteering pressure, matching incentives,managerial support, and whether the organiza-tion’s identity is aligned with the volun-teer cause.
2012 513Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
Grant’s model presents a new way of under-standing employees’ involvement in care andcompassion by conceptualizing organizationalcitizenship behavior (OCB) in an alternativeway. Most previous work on OCB has been fo-cused on behaviors that benefit coworkers, su-pervisors, and customers. Doing work that ben-efits organizational members and customers isoften viewed as a role requirement or core as-pect of job performance, thus raising the ques-tion of whether it is actually “true” citizenship(e.g., Bolino, 1999). Because corporate volunteer-ing is directed toward beneficiaries and causesoutside the organization’s main mission, sus-tained participation in corporate volunteering isless likely to reflect perceived obligations andmay therefore reflect a purer form of citizenshipbehavior. If so, examination of corporate volun-teerism may enable researchers to gain adeeper grasp of the forces that motivate employ-ees to offer care and compassion not only topeople inside their place of employment butalso to communities, charities, and disadvan-taged groups.
In “Venturing for Others with Heart and Head:How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepre-neurship,” Toyah Miller, Matthew Grimes, JefferyMcMullen, and Timothy Vogus explore themechanisms through which compassion encour-ages social entrepreneurship among organiza-tional founders. They begin by emphasizing justhow difficult it is to create a social enterprise ofthis type, which seeks to meld two principlesthat are often thought to be incompatible—thatis, an enterprise that seeks “to create socialvalue” but “employ[s] a market-based organiza-tional form to sustain this value creation” (thisissue: 616). Because the underlying assumptionsof traditional market-based logics and compas-sion-based logics are nearly the flip side of oneanother (e.g., while market logics emphasize theprimacy of the self, compassion logics empha-size the connectedness of all things and the pri-macy of others), marrying the two in a singleorganization form makes social entrepreneur-ship “both admirable and theoretically problem-atic” (this issue: 616).
The core of Miller et al.’s article is a modelthat begins with how compassion facilitatesthree emotional and cognitive processes thatincrease the likelihood of engaging in (and per-sisting with the challenges of) social entrepre-neurship. In particular, the authors describe
how compassion increases integrative thinking,spurs prosocial judgments of costs and benefits,and strengthens commitment to alleviating oth-ers’ suffering. The theoretical model explainshow these emotional and cognitive processes,when unleashed amid institutional conditionsthat make social entrepreneurship pragmati-cally thinkable and normatively legitimate, mo-tivate and sustain social entrepreneurship be-havior that would otherwise seem irrational andill advised.
In “Care and Possibility: Enacting an Ethic ofCare Through Narrative Practice,” Thomas Law-rence and Sally Maitlis explore how Carol Gil-ligan’s (1982) notion of an “ethic of care” mightbe realized in teams and workgroups. Theycharacterize an ethic of care as accepting localtruth and evaluating it in terms of its effects,recognizing vulnerability as ubiquitous, andvaluing growth in the cared-for and uncertainfuture.
Based on this ethic, Lawrence and Maitlis de-velop a model of how organizations might moveaway from viewing coworkers primarily as in-dependent, self-sufficient actors toward a wayof thinking and acting that considers them asrelational and interdependent. They focus onwork teams, elaborating the types of narrativepractices—constructing histories of sparklingmoments, contextualizing struggles, and con-structing polyphonic future-oriented stories—among team members that might institutional-ize an ethic of care, even in organizations wherecaregiving is not the primary function (e.g., man-ufacturing). They suggest that the enactment ofan ethic of care through these narrative prac-tices can help foster a belief system that empha-sizes possibility, and they conclude with a dis-cussion of the likely impact of adopting an ethicof care on team resilience.
The last three papers address the organiza-tional level of analysis. In “The Forgiving Orga-nization: A Multilevel Model of Forgiveness atWork,” Ryan Fehr and Michele Gelfand examinethe concept of forgiveness at the organizationallevel of analysis and develop a cross-levelmodel that reveals how individuals’ prosocialresponses to conflict can emerge from and besupported by organizational-level features. Tothis end, they introduce the “construct of forgive-ness climate—the shared perception that em-pathic, benevolent responses to conflict fromvictims and offenders are rewarded, supported,
514 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
and expected in the organization” (this issue:665), and they develop a multilevel model of howsuch a climate is created and sustained inorganizations.
Their three-phase model begins with a discus-sion of the values—restorative justice, compas-sion, and temperance—that “provide the bed-rock” (this issue: 667) of a forgiveness climate inthe climate construction stage. In this phasethey also discuss characteristics of the organi-zational environment (national culture, stake-holder culture, and geographic dispersion) andthe organizational leader (justice orientation,servant leadership, and self-control) that fosterand support organizational practices such asrestorative dispute resolution procedures, em-ployee support programs, and mindfulnesstraining and feedback. In the sensemakingphase the authors focus on how a forgivenessclimate triggers empathy, produces emotionalshifts in both victims and offenders, and facili-tates restorative changes such as offers of apol-ogy and forgiveness. In the action phase theauthors focus on the relational consequences offorgiveness climates—in particular, relationalcommitment and interpersonal citizenship.
In “Emergent Organizational Capacity forCompassion,” Laura Madden, Dennis Duchon,Timothy Madden, and Donde Ashmos Plowmanpropose that organizations can develop an en-during capacity for compassion without direc-tion from the formal organization. Drawing oncomplexity theory (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Chiles,Meyer, & Hench, 2004), as well as previous em-pirical research by Dutton, Worline, Frost, andLilius (2006) and Plowman et al. (2007), they ex-plicate how an initially painful triggering eventcan set off a series of processes that, particu-larly in the presence of facilitating conditions,can lead to self-organizing compassion that iscapable of enduring long past the triggeringevent. Specifically, they propose that complexadaptive systems (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999) “com-posed of highly interactive, interdependentagents who learn and adapt in order to producebehaviors that would not be predicted by ob-serving the system’s past” (this issue: 693) resultin new structures, norms, scanning mecha-nisms, and cultures. In addition, they elaboratespecific system conditions that enhance thelikelihood of self-organizing compassion, inwhich agents modify roles and norms to includecompassionate responding.
Finally, in “Relational Bureaucracy: Structur-ing Reciprocal Relationships into Roles,” JodyHoffer Gittell and Anne Douglass theorize abouthow two organizational forms that are typicallyregarded as oppositional can be melded into asustainable relational bureaucratic form. Thisform combines the strengths of relational or net-work organizations with the strengths of bu-reaucracies. This hybrid form is “not a hodge-podge of misaligned characteristics but, rather,a logically coherent higher synthesis of the twoorganizational forms from which it emerges”(this issue: 709).
In relational bureaucracies (like SouthwestAirlines) formal structures support three criticalprocesses of reciprocal interrelating. The firstprocess is manifest in the way workers and cus-tomers interrelate, which involves ongoing co-production between organizational participantsand the outside parties for whose benefit thework is done. The second process, relational co-ordination, highlights reciprocal interrelatingthat happens between workers in the horizontaldivision of labor. The third type of critical recip-rocal interrelating process, relational leader-ship, takes place between workers and manag-ers. All three interrelating processes arecharacterized by shared goals, shared knowl-edge, and mutual respect. The authors’ model ofrelational bureaucracy specifies how severalstructures and practices (e.g., hiring and train-ing, cross-role protocols) foster embedding re-ciprocal interrelating into these different roles.Propositions link the three forms of reciprocalinterrelating in roles to caring, timely, andknowledgeable responses that are simultane-ously scalable, replicable, and sustainable.
GOING FORWARD
While recent scholarly contributions to careand compassion have been made in many so-cial science fields, a number of managementscholars (e.g., Ferraro et al., 2005; Ghoshal, 1996,2005; Khurana, 2007; Mintzberg, 2005) havetraced the processes by which the academicfield of management, following trends in eco-nomics and finance, has increasingly movedaway from humanistic, multistakeholder modelsof management to models centered on self-interest, the primacy of owners and sharehold-ers over other constituents, and the “need” toprovide financial incentives for effort-averse ex-
2012 515Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
ecutives who would otherwise “shirk” while pur-suing “self-interest with guile” (Williamson,1981: 554).
For example, Walsh, Weber, and Margolis(2003) showed that management researchers’concern about stakeholders other than share-holders has been dropping over time. Based on aforty-two-year analysis of articles appearing inthe Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), theyfound a large shift over time in terms of thedependent variables studied—in particular,whether the dependent variables were perfor-mance related, welfare related, or both. Overall,they found 383 articles that examined perfor-mance (and not human welfare), 227 that exam-ined human welfare (and not performance), and115 that examined both. However, they foundthat the relative emphasis placed on perfor-mance versus welfare largely reversed itself be-tween 1978 and 1999. Specifically, in 1978, 32 per-cent of articles focused on human welfare ascompared with only 19 percent in 1999. In con-trast, 17 percent of articles examined perfor-mance in 1978 as compared with 35 percent in1999. Walsh and colleagues concluded that “re-searchers’ increasing fascination with organiza-tion-level performance has not been matched bya parallel fascination with organizational or so-cietal-level welfare” (2003: 862).
In contrast to this trend, in his Academy ofManagement presidential address given in 2010,Walsh asked, “What can we do as an Academyto embrace the sacred and inspire and en-able . . . [a] better world?” (2011: 225). Thus, thisspecial topic forum comes at a potentially piv-otal time in management scholarship, whenthere is considerable social science scholarshipon care and compassion to draw from and muchgreater awareness that management researchhas not made as many contributions as it mightto these very important issues.
Implications for Future Theory and Research
As indicated in Table 1, each of the articlessuggests possibilities and implications for fu-ture empirical research. The suggestions theymake all reflect ways of carrying the presenttheorizing forward. Further, there are now a lim-ited number of studies in diverse areas of man-agement that at least touch on notions of com-passion, including negotiation (Galinsky, Gilin,& Maddux, 2011), emotional labor (Hsieh, Yang,
& Fu, 2012), negative emotional reactions (Shep-herd & Cardon, 2009), corporate image and rep-utation (Bennett & Gabriel, 2003), sexual harass-ment (Serri, 2006), and leadership (Boyatzis,Smith, & Blaize, 2006). The articles in this specialtopic forum may serve as intellectual stimuli forareas such as these, suggesting ways that careand compassion can be more fully incorporatedboth conceptually and empirically in organiza-tional research.
Taken as a whole, the canvas of articles inthis issue suggests three ways in which futuretheory and research on care and compassionmight relate to more traditional lenses on orga-nizational phenomena. First, care and compas-sion can contend with or replace what are takento be competing perspectives, providing an al-ternative rendering of what is going on insideorganizations and, through that conceptual di-chotomy, bringing to light otherwise diminishedaspects of organizational life. Care is contrastedwith justice, or compassionate relationships arejuxtaposed with economic exchange or con-tracts, or other-regarding motives are set oppo-site self-interested ones. Lawrence and Maitlis,for example, contrast an interdependent, rela-tional model of action in organizations—inspired by a focus on care and compassion—with the taken-for-granted model of independent,self-sufficient action that undergirds so many as-sumptions within existing theories.
Second, care and compassion can be cast notas substitutes for alternative perspectives butas complements, unearthing what other theoret-ical approaches do not or cannot explain aboutthe management of organizations. Where otheraccounts leave off, care and compassion pickup. Miller et al., for example, suggest that tradi-tional theories of entrepreneurship cannot anddo not explain what drives entrepreneurs to pur-sue for-profit social enterprises. Rationality andself-serving motives might explain traditionalentrepreneurial behavior, but they simply can-not account for the motivation and persistenceof social entrepreneurs. However, as Miller et al.argue, compassion can serve as a missing in-gredient that explains the cognition and emo-tion that spark and sustain such socialentrepreneurship.
Third, care and compassion can work symbi-otically with other theoretical accounts to ex-plain what neither could explain adequately onits own. Whereas a conceptual relationship of
516 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
contention replaces other accounts with one thatemerges from an eye on care and compassion,and conceptual complementarity explains whatwould otherwise be overlooked or go unex-plained, symbiotic integration pairs traditionaltheoretical accounts with findings and theoriesabout care and compassion to provide a fuller,more extensive explanation of certain phenom-ena in organizations. For example, Grant inte-grates the motivational power of both work de-sign and compassion to explain how peopleremain motivated across work designs that varyin their motivational power. Care and compas-sion work alongside work design, his modelsuggests, thereby sustaining motivation at workby driving people to pursue volunteer opportu-nities. It is not that care and compassion dis-place work design in explaining motivation, andGrant’s point is not simply that care and com-passion drive volunteerism whereas work de-sign does not; rather, job design and compas-sion work in tandem to provide a fuller portraitof how motivation is sustained across the broadspectrum of people and jobs that characterizemost organizations. In sum, whether it is by con-tending with, complementing, or symbioticallyintegrating with more conventional and ac-cepted accounts of organizational behavior,care and compassion fundamentally broadenand enrich what it is we see and understandabout organizations.
Implications for Practice
The principal intent of the articles in this spe-cial topic forum is to make a conceptual contri-bution; theoretical contributions are, after all,the primary purpose of AMR. However, all of thearticles, most of them explicitly, suggest impli-cations for practice as well. Reviewing their im-plications for practice offers another way to ap-preciate the contributions of the articles andsuggests the potentially frame-breaking natureof their visions of organizing.
Bartunek and Rynes (2010) suggest that impli-cations for practice can be characterized interms of three features: primary audience(s) forthe recommendations, types of actions sug-gested, and kinds of outcomes hoped for fromthose actions. In a special topic forum like thisone, it is possible to get an “overall” sense ofwhat the articles contribute to practice—whatkind of picture they jointly portray of what car-
ing and compassion look like in organizations.Comparison of the types of recommendationsmade in the articles in this special issue to thosethat most stood out in the Bartunek and Rynesstudy suggests that there are truly some differ-ent perspectives being offered in this spe-cial forum.
In Table 1 we have included a brief overviewof some characteristics of the implications forpractice in the different articles published in theforum. Here, drawing from the complete articles,we suggest their common audiences, actions,and hoped-for outcomes.
Target audience. Similar to Bartunek andRynes’ (2010) findings, recommendations for ac-tion are often addressed to the organization as awhole (Atkins & Parker; Fehr & Gelfand; Law-rence & Maitlis), as well as to managers or lead-ers (including social entrepreneurs; Atkins &Parker; Fehr & Gelfand; Grant; Grant & Patil;Miller et al.). In contrast to Bartunek and Rynes,however, a large number of the implications arealso addressed to individuals and/or work-groups who are not in formal leadership posi-tions (Grant; Grant & Patil; Lawrence & Maitlis;Lilius; Madden et al.). In other words, there is abroader expectation in these articles that theimpetus for action (in this case, with respect tocompassion and caring) does not need to comefrom “above” in an organization. Rather, it maycome from individuals who are trying, for exam-ple, to change group norms away from self-interest (Grant & Patil) or to improve the qualityof caregiving while simultaneously achievinggreater self-restoration at work (Lilius).
Recommended actions. Bartunek and Rynesfound that the general types of actions mostfrequently recommended in implications forpractice sections include increasing awarenessof particular phenomena, getting training or ac-quiring more knowledge in an area, makingstructural changes, and altering hiring and re-tention practices. Those same types of actionsare suggested in the present articles.
For example, with respect to awareness, At-kins and Parker discuss the importance of indi-viduals’ recognizing that caring is part of theirrole, Lilius advises individuals in caregivingroles to pay attention to the variability in andsequencing of life-giving versus -draining clientinteractions, and Miller et al. focus on the ben-efits of being aware of compassion as a proso-cial motivator when taking on the difficult tasks
2012 517Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
associated with social entrepreneurship. In thearticles in this special topic forum, then, in-creasing awareness is a meaningful and impor-tant activity.
The articles also discuss the fact that, to fostercare and compassion, it is often necessary forindividuals or groups to receive training and/orincrease learning of some kind. For example,Atkins and Parker and Fehr and Gelfand sug-gest the usefulness of mindfulness training,while Lawrence and Maitlis discuss the impor-tance of training in using narrative practicesconsistent with an ethic of care.
Some of the articles also address structuralfeatures. For example, Gittell and Douglass talkabout embedding relational bureaucracy intoroles, and Fehr and Gelfand discuss the impor-tance of organizational practices, such as restor-ative dispute resolution and employee supportprograms, in creating a forgiveness climate.And hiring is not ignored, either: Madden et al.focus on the importance of a diverse workforcefor care and compassion to flourish, and Gittelland Douglass discuss how reciprocity can beembedded into roles through hiring andtraining.
In addition to these types of initiatives (previ-ously outlined by Bartunek & Rynes), several ofthe articles also emphasize the importance ofinteractions that model care and compassion.Such initiatives are not at all prominent in otherliterature. For example, Grant and Patil discussmodeling prosocial behaviors, accompanied byinquiry and advocacy. Madden et al. discusshow, during self-organizing compassion, agentsmodify their roles to include compassionate be-havior and then spread these role modificationsthroughout the organization via their interac-tions with other employees, customers, andmanagers. Lawrence and Maitlis describe andcall for caring narrative practices, while Gittelland Douglas discuss treating each other as sub-jects rather than objects.
Expected outcomes. Bartunek and Rynes (2010)found that by far the most frequent outcomelisted in most implications for practice sectionsis some sort of enhanced productivity or success.However, that is not by any means a prominentoutcome in the present articles.
Some of the articles focus particularly on out-comes for individuals: a higher level of well-being (Atkins & Parker), an enhanced quality ofcaring and more self-restorative interactions
with clients (Lilius), or an internalized volunteer-ing identity (Grant). Others focus more on group-or organization-level outcomes, such as creatingclimates and cultures that embody an ethic ofcare (Lawrence & Maitlis) and forgiveness (Fehr& Gelfand), or formalized structures that enablecare and compassion (Madden et al.), such asrelational bureaucracies (Gittell & Douglass) ormarket-based ventures with social missions(Miller et al.).
Care and Compassion As Radical Practice
Taken together, the articles in this special topicforum present somewhat diverse but complemen-tary views of what organizing might be like if careand compassion were to move to the forefront:care and compassion would be the responsibilityof everyone in the organization, there would bemuch to be learned to carry out this responsibilitybut also available practices that could help, andthe outcomes would be beneficial for individualsand organizations alike. Thus, in addition to theirconceptual contributions, as a set the articlespresent initial blueprints for what compassionateorganizing might look like in practice.
Reviewing the differences between the audi-ences for, practices, and ultimate objectives ofthe articles in this issue and those of the moretraditional management literature reviewed byBartunek and Rynes (2010) and Walsh et al.(2003), one is left with the thought that if careand compassion were to move to the forefront oforganizational scholarship, the results might betruly radical. Rather than targeting researchand theory primarily at managers and produc-tivity, organizational scholarship would be ad-dressed to people at all levels of the organiza-tion. Rather than assuming that revenues,profits, and wages or salaries are the ultimate(and, often, sole) objectives of organizations andorganizing, attention would be focused addi-tionally or instead on the health, happiness,well-being, and sustainability of organizations,their members, and those they serve. Althoughsome of the processes for attaining these out-comes would be similar for multiple types oforganizations (e.g., embedding norms in roles,creating new structures, providing training),others might differ considerably (e.g., changingnorms through narrative practices or prosocialbehaviors, inquiry, and advocacy).
518 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
Even as we embrace the need for greater sen-sitivity and attention to care and compassion inand of organizations, we also believe that weourselves are not exempt from that call. Thatsame concern applies to our own organizationsand profession. For example, there is nothinglike the journal review process to both awakenand deaden compassion (Day, 2011). Noticingthe efforts of authors, empathically graspingtheir struggle and stakes, and responding withcare to their ideas is met—at the very sametime—with the cold reality of deadlines and asense of responsibility to the profession to de-liver intellectual contributions worthy of read-ers’ time and effort. Loyalty to both sets of de-mands takes work and support.
More broadly, working on this special issueraised for us probing questions about how we doour academic and educational work. Do we ad-equately consider the potential toxicity and suf-fering that are an inevitable part of our workwith others (Gallos, 2008)? Do we care deeplyenough about our phenomena, our subjects, andour students (Adler & Hanson, 2012)? Or do werun the risk of treating them as mere means toour own ends? Do the dynamics of power anddistress increase our insensitivity to the pain ofothers (Van Kleef et al., 2008)? If fifteen-minuteconference presentations, relentless productiv-ity measures, tenure letters, and faceless jour-nal reviews create conditions inhospitable tofostering care and compassion—even as theyfoster other virtues of utmost importance to ourprofession—what complementary institutionsand practices do we need if we are to infuse ourscholarly community with care and compas-sion? How can we foster self-compassion (Neff,Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007) as we suffer the inev-itable setbacks and disappointments that arepart of our work lives?
Other professions have looked critically in-ward and created the resolve to infuse care andcompassion more fully into their values, beliefs,and practices. For example, in education, Nod-dings (2003) has been a strong proponent of theinfusion of ethics based on caring as core to theeducational enterprise. In professions as di-verse as policing (e.g., DeValve & Adkinson,2008), law (Gerdy, 2008), and engineering(Fleischmann, 2001), there have been recentcalls to embrace and infuse compassion and
care into how one becomes a practitioner inthese various fields. We are left to wonder andspeculate what it would mean to infuse care andcompassion into the practice of management aswell the practice of management research andteaching. This special topic forum stands as oneeffort to begin asking these kinds of questionsand inviting new forms of answers.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J., & Hanson, H. 2012. Daring to care: Scholarshipthat supports the courage of our convictions. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 21: 128–139.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. 2011. The progress principle:Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativ-ity at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Anderson, P. 1999. Complexity theory and organization sci-ence. Organization Science, 10: 216–232.
Armstrong, K. 2011. Twelve steps to a compassionate life.New York: Knopf.
Ashforth, B. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. HumanRelations, 47: 755–778.
Atkins, P. W. B., & Parker, S. K. 2012. Understanding individ-ual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisalsand psychological flexibility. Academy of ManagementReview, 37: 524–546.
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. 1999. Harnessing complexity:Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. NewYork: Free Press.
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. 2010. The construction andcontributions of “implications for practice”: What’s inthem and what might they offer? Academy of Manage-ment Learning & Education, 9: 100–117.
Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. 1995.Information function of empathic emotion: Learning thatwe value the other’s welfare. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 68: 300–313.
Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. 2005.An episodic process model of affective influences onperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1054–1068.
Benner, P., & Wrubel, J. 1989. The primacy of caring, stressand coping in health and illness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. 2003. Image and reputational char-acteristics of UK charitable organizations: An empiricalstudy. Corporate Reputation Review, 6: 276–289.
Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression management:Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of ManagementReview, 24: 82–98.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. 2006. Developingsustainable leaders through coaching and compassion.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5: 8–24.
2012 519Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. 2000. Relationality inorganizational research: Exploring the space between.Organization Science, 11: 551–564.
Broadhead, W. E., Kaplan, B. H., James, S. A., Wagner, E. H.,Schoenbach, V. J., Grimson, R., Heyden, S., Tibblin, G., &Gehlbach, S. J. 1983. The epidemiological evidence for arelationship between social support and health. Ameri-can Journal of Epidemiology, 117: 521–537.
Brown, S. L., Ness, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. 2003.Providing social support may be more beneficial thanreceiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortal-ity. Psychological Science, 14: 320–327 .
Brown, S. R., Brown, M., & Penner, L. A. (Eds.). 2012. Movingbeyond self interest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, S. R., Brown, M., & Preston, S. 2012. The human care-giving system: A neuroscience model of compassionatemotivation and behavior. In S. R. Brown, M. Brown, &L. A. Penner (Eds.), Moving beyond self interest: 75–88.New York: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. 2012. The Oxford handbook ofpositive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2008. Do peers make theplace? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of co-worker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs and per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1082–1103.
Chiles, T. H., Meyer, A., & Hench, T. 2004. Organizationalemergence: The origin and transformation of Branson,Missouri’s musical theaters. Organization Science, 15:499–519.
Chong, K. 2007. Early Confucian ethics: Concepts and argu-ments. Peru, IL: Open Court.
Clark, C. 1998. Misery and company: Sympathy in everydaylife. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, S., & Willis, T. 1985. Stress, social support, and thebuffering effect. Psychological Bulletin, 92: 257–310.
Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. 2012. Egosystem and ecosystemmotivational perspectives on caregiving. In S. R. Brown,M. Brown, & L. A. Penner (Eds.), Moving beyond selfinterest: 211–223. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dalai Lama. 1995. The power of compassion. London: Thor-sons.
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, andthe human brain. New York: Putnam.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. 1973. “From Jerusalem toJericho”: A study of situational and dispositional vari-ables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 27: 100–108.
Davidson, R. J., & Harrington, A. (Eds.). 2002. Visions of com-passion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, M. H. 1996. Empathy: A social psychological approach.New York: Westview Press.
Day, N. E. 2011. The silent majority: Manuscript rejection andits impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learn-ing & Education, 10: 704–718.
Deshpandé, R., & Raina, A. 2011. The ordinary heroes of theTaj. Harvard Business Review, 89(12): 119–123.
DeValve, M. J., & Adkinson, C. D. 2008. Mindfulness, compas-sion and the police in America: An essay of hope. Hu-man Architecture: The Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, VI(3): 99–104.
De Waal, F. 2009. The age of empathy: Nature’s lessons for akinder society. New York: Harmony Books.
Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.). 2007. Exploring positiverelationships at work: Building a theoretical and re-search foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates.
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006.Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 59–96.
Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. 2012. The forgiving organization: Amultilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy ofManagement Review, 37: 664–688.
Feldman, M. S., & Rafaeli, A. 2002. Organizational routinesas sources of connections and understandings. Organi-zation Science, 39: 303–331.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. 2009. Organizational routines andcapabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction to-ward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Man-agement, 25: 157–167.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economics lan-guage and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 8–24.
Ferris, G. F., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. R., Summers, J. K., Basic,K. J., & Buckley, M. R. 2009. Relationships at work: To-ward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadicwork relationships. Journal of Management, 35: 1379–1403.
Fleischmann, S. 2001. Needed: A few good knights for theinformation age—Competence, courage and compas-sion in the engineering curriculum. Paper presented atthe ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno,NV.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2011. The state of foodinsecurity in the world: 2011. Rome: Food and Agricul-ture Organization of the United Nations.
Frank, R. H. 1988. Passions within reason: The strategic role ofthe emotions. New York: Norton.
Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in pos-itive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of pos-itive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L. 2009. Positivity. New York: Crown.
Frost, P. J. 1999. Why compassion counts! Journal of Manage-ment Inquiry, 8: 127–133.
Frost, P. J. 2003. Toxic emotions at work: How compassionatemanagers handle pain and conflict. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.
Frost, P., Dutton, J., Worline M., & Wilson, A. 2000. Narrativesof compassion in organizations. In S. Fineman(Ed.), Emotions in organizations: 25–45. London: Sage.
520 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
Galinsky, A., Gilin, D., & Maddux, W. W. 2011. Using bothyour head and your heart: The role of perspective takingand empathy in resolving social conflict. In J. P. Forgas,A. W. Kruglanski, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The psychologyof social conflict and aggression: 103–118. Hove, UK: Psy-chology Press.
Gallagher, P. 2009. The grounding of forgiveness: MarthaNussbaum on compassion and mercy. American Journalof Economics and Sociology, 68: 231–252.
Gallos, J. V. 2008. Learning from the toxic trenches: Thewinding road to healthier organizations and healthyeveryday leaders. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17:354–367.
Gerdy, K. B. 2008. Clients, empathy and compassion: Intro-ducing first-year students to the “heart” of lawyering.Nebraska Law Review, 87(1): 1–61.
Gersick, C. J. G., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Learningfrom academia: The importance of relationships in pro-fessional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43:1026–1044.
Ghoshal, S. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transac-tion cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21:13–47.
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroyinggood management practices. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 4: 75–91.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theoryand women’s development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Gittell, J. H., & Douglass, A. 2012. Relational bureaucracy:Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academyof Management Review, 37: 709–733.
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. 2010. Compas-sion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review.Psychological Bulletin, 136: 351–374.
Goleman, D. 2003. Destructive emotions. New York: BantamBooks.
Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work designand sustained employee participation in corporate vol-unteering. Academy of Management Review, 37: 589–615.
Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. 2012. Challenging the norm ofself-interest: Minority influence and transitions to help-ing norms in work units. Academy of Management Re-view, 37: 547–568.
Gülen, M. F. 2004. Toward a global civilization of love andtolerance. New Jersey: Light.
Hazen, M. 2008. Grief and the workplace. Academy of Man-agement Perspectives, 22(3): 78–86.
House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. 1988. Structuresand processes of social support. Annual Review of So-ciology, 14: 293–318.
Hsieh, C., Yang, K., & Fu, K. 2012. Motivational bases andemotional labor: Assessing the impact of public servicemotivation. Public Administration Review, 72: 241–251.
Jackson, W. 2008. Gandhi’s art: Using nonviolence to trans-form “evil.” Religion East and West, 8: 39–54.
Kahn, W. A. 1993. Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of or-ganizational caregiving. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 38: 539–563.
Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost,P. J., & Lilius, J. 2004. Compassion in organizational life.American Behavioral Scientist, 47: 808–827.
Keltner, D. 2009. Born to be good. New York: Norton.
Khurana, R. 2007. From higher aims to hired hands: Thesocial transformation of American business schools andthe unfulfilled promise of management as a profession.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. 2012. Care and possibility:Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice.Academy of Management Review, 37: 641–663.
Liedtka, J. M. 1996. Feminist morality and competitive reality:A role for an ethic of care? Business Ethics Quarterly, 6:179–200.
Lilius, J. M. 2012. Recovery at work: Understanding the re-storative side of “depleting” client interactions. Acad-emy of Management Review, 37: 569–588.
Lopez, S. 2006. Emotional labor and organized emotionalcare. Work and Occupations, 33: 133–160.
Madden, L. T., Duchon, D., Madden, T. M., & Plowman, D. A.2012. Emergent organizational capacity for compassion.Academy of Management Review, 37: 689–708.
Madigan, T. 2005. Schopenhauer’s compassionate morality.Philosophy Now, 52(Aug.-Sept.): 16–17.
Mansbridge, J. J. (Ed.). 1990. Beyond self-interest. Chicago:University of Chcago.
Marks, J. 2007. Rousseau’s discriminating defense of compas-sion. American Political Science Review, 101: 727–739.
Maslach, C. 1982. Burnout: The cost of caring. New York:Prentice-Hall.
Meyer, M. H. (Ed.). 2000. Care work: Gender, class and thewelfare state. New York: Routledge.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. 2012.Venturing for others with heart and head: How compas-sion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy ofManagement Review, 37: 616–640.
Mintzberg, H. 2005. Managers not MBAs: A hard look at thesoft practice of managing and management develop-ment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. 2007. Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning.Journal of Research in Personality, 41: 139–154.
Noddings, N. 2003. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics andmoral education (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. 1986. The fragility of goodness: Luck andethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. 1996. Compassion: The basic social emo-tion. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13(1): 27–58.
2012 521Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis
Nussbaum, M. C. 2003. Upheavals of thought: The intelligenceof emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. 2001. Whenworkers flout convention: A study of workplace incivil-ity. Human Relations, 54: 1387–1419.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2009. The cost of bad behavior:How incivility damages your business and what you cando about it. New York: Portfolio Penguin.
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T., Kulkarni, M., Solansky,S. T., & Travis, D. V. 2007. Radical change accidentally:The emergence and amplification of small change.Academy of Management Journal, 50: 515–543.
Powley, E. H., & Piderit, S. K. 2008. Tending wounds: Elementsof the organizational healing process. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 44: 134–149.
Rifkin, J. 2009. The empathetic civilization: The race to globalconsciousness in a world in crisis. New York: Penguin.
Schopenhauer, A. 1998. (First published in 1840.) On the basisof morality. Cambridge, MA: Hackett.
Sears, D. 1998. Compassion for humanity in the Jewish tradi-tion. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive psy-chology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55:5–14.
Serri, C. F. 2006. Self-compassion and the dynamics of inves-tigating sexual harassment. Business CommunicationQuarterly, 69: 443–446.
Shepherd, D. A., & Cardon, M. S. 2009. Negative emotionalreactions to project failure and the self-compassion tolearn from the experience. Journal of Management Stud-ies, 46: 923–949.
Smith, A. 2010. (First published in 1759.) The theory of moralsentiments. Lawrence, KS: Digireads.com.
Sobrino, J. 2009. Jesus of Galilee from the Salvadoran con-text: Compassion, hope, and following the light of thecross. Theological Studies, 70: 437–460.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. 2007. The recovery experience ques-tionnaire: Development and validation of a measure forassessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Jour-nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 204–221.
Staw, B., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. 1994. Employee positiveemotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Or-ganization Science, 5: 51–71.
Steyaert, C., & Van Looy, B. (Eds.). 2010. Relational practices,participative organizing. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Stone, D. 2008. The Samaritan’s dilemma: Should govern-ment help your neighbor? New York: Nation Books.
Sullivan, B. M., Wiist, B., & Wayment, H. 2010. The Buddhisthealth study: Meditation on love and compassion asfeatures of religious practice. Cross Currents, 60: 185–207.
Sznaider, N. 2001. The compassionate temperament: Careand cruelty in modern society. Lanham, MD: Rowmanand Littlefield.
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations:Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal ofManagement, 33: 261–289.
Times of India. 2011. AMRI hospital fire: Hospital staff aban-don patients to fire. December 9: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/AMRI-hospital-fire-Hospital-staff-abandon-patients-to-fire/articleshow/11045537.cms.
Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. 2008.Making the break count: An episodic examination ofrecovery activities, emotional experiences, and positiveaffective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51:131–146.
Tsui, A. S. 2010. Dare to care: Passion and compassion inmanagement research. Available at http://publications.aomonline.org/newsletter/index.php?option�com_content&task�view&id�387.
Van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LouKogan, A.,Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. 2008. Power, distress, and com-passion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others.Psychological Science, 19: 1315–1322 .
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. 2000. Enabling knowl-edge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowl-edge and release the power of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press.
Walker, L. J. 1991. Sex differences in moral reasoning. InW. M. Kurtini & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moralbehavior and development, vol. 2: 333–364. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walsh, J. P. 2011. Embracing the sacred in our scholarlysecular world. Academy of Management Review, 36:215–234.
Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. 2003. Social issues inmanagement: Our lost cause found. Journal of Manage-ment, 29: 859–881.
Westman, M., & Eden, D. 1997. Effects of a respite from workon burnout: Vacation relief and fade-out. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 82: 516–527.
White, R. 2008. Radical virtues: Moral wisdom and the ethicsof contemporary life. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Little-field.
Whitford, D. 2011. Sandler O’Neill’s journey from GroundZero. Fortune, 164: 94–106.
Williamson, O. E. 1981. The economics of organization: Thetransaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociol-ogy, 87: 548–577.
Worthington, E. L., & Scherer, M. 2004. Forgiveness is anemotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce healthrisks and promote health resilience: Theory, review andhypotheses. Psychology & Health, 19: 385–405.
Wuthnow, R. 1991. Acts of compassion: Caring for others andhelping ourselves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.
Sara L. Rynes ([email protected]) is the John F. Murray Professor of Managementand Organizations at the University of Iowa. She received her Ph.D. from the Univer-
522 OctoberAcademy of Management Review
sity of Wisconsin. Her research focuses on organizational staffing, compensation,academic-practitioner relations, and management education.
Jean M. Bartunek ([email protected]) is the Robert A. and Evelyn J. Ferris Chair andProfessor of Management and Organization at Boston College. She received her Ph.D.from the University of Illinois at Chicago and is a past president of the Academy ofManagement. Her research interests focus on organizational change and academic-practitioner relationships.
Jane E. Dutton ([email protected]) is the Robert L. Kahn Distinguished UniversityProfessor of Business Administration and Psychology at the University of Michigan.She received her Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Her research focuses on com-passion and organizations, positive identity processes, high-quality connections, andjob crafting. She cares deeply about positive organizational scholarship.
Joshua D. Margolis ([email protected]) is the James Dinan and Elizabeth MillerProfessor of Business Administration in the Organizational Behavior Unit at HarvardBusiness School. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University. His research focuseson the ethical challenges that companies and managers encounter and how peoplecan meet those challenges with practical effectiveness and moral integrity.
2012 523Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, and Margolis