Whats Love Got to Do With It?

: A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of a Culture of Companionate Love on Employee and Client Outcomes in the Long-term Care Industry
Sigal Barsade & Olivia (Mandy) O Neill Wharton School School of Management University of Pennsylvania George Mason University

Early Management Theorists

I have left to the last what seems to me the chief function, the real

service, of business: to give an opportunity for individual development through the better organization of human relationships. . . .I think it
offers a larger opportunity than any single profession in the possibilities of those intimate human interweavings through which all development of man must come.
Mary Parker Follett, 1925, p. 113

What is companionate love?

An Other-focused vs. Ego-focused emotion (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) Compassion (Shaver et al., 1987) Affection (Lazarus, 1991) Caring (Fehr, 1988; Walster & Walster, 1978) Tenderness (Fehr & Russell, 1991) A basic emotion Fundamental to human experience (Hatfield, Rapson &
Helps keep people connected and committed (Reis & Aron, 2008) It doesnt stop at the office door - and it can live in long-term relationships, and in short moments
Martel, 1993 ; Reis & Aron, 2008).

Link

Companies are also beginning to recognize the importance of companionate love as part of their culture
Pepsi Caring is the first guiding principles MagnaPowerTrain Caring as a key value Zappos We watch out for each other, care for each other, and go above and beyond for each other- CEO Tony Hsieh Love is first of Whole Foods management. principles

The Intersection of Companionate Love and Organizational Culture

Companionate Love is a social emotion and could have particularly relevant outcomes at the collective, cultural, level. Organizational culture has been shown to be related to motivation, commitment, turnover, leadership, demography, cooperativeness, and performance (Carroll & Harrison, 1998; Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Denison and
Mishra, 1995; OReilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991; Ott, 1989; Schein, 2004; van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983)

BUT. Organizational culture research has ignored the construct of emotional culture, focusing only on shared cognitions, or cognitive culture.

What is the missing piece? Emotional Culture A Culture of Companionate Love

A Culture of Companionate Love:
Visible norms and artifacts, underlying values and assumptions, reflecting degree of perceived appropriateness and actual expression or suppression of affection, caring, compassion and tenderness within a social unit. . Relies heavily on non-verbal expression. Varies from weak to strong Operates through feeling mechanisms nonverbal manifestations through facial expression and body language are critical (Haviland, 1982) If you came to work at this Operates through normative place and you werent as enactments which keep compassionate a person as members conforming and others . . .I think it just committed to the group becomes a part of your norm (Durkheim, 1912; Ekman, if it wasnt before. If you 1973; van Maanen, 1991; practice it enough, it Hochschild, 1983). Can be becomes the norm (Lilius et strategic and intentional. al., 2011, p. 881).

Why Study the Culture of Companionate Love in a Long-term Care Setting?

Long-term care settings - a world of emotions (Ruckdeschel and Van Haitsma,
2004)

Health-care organizations characterized as ecologies of compassion

There are issues in long-term care that a culture of companionate love could help address Healthcare workers display some of the highest levels of employee dissatisfaction (Aiken et al., 2001) Turnover ranging from 48% nurses to as high as 119% for Certified Nursing Assistants (Castle, 2006)
(Miller, 2007)

Method
Sample comes from a large not-for-profit long-term healthcare facility in a metro city in the Northeast. 185 employees, 108 patients and 42 families across 13 units in the geographic sites. Multiple ratings of a culture of companionate love: outside research observers, employees, and patients families Multiple measures of employee, patient and family outcomes spanning the attitudinal, emotional, behavioral, and health domains. Includes ratings of patient mood, objective patient health care outcomes, and employee absenteeism. Longitudinal: Predictor variables were gathered at Time 1 and all dependent variables were collected 16 months later (Time 2)

Culture of Companionate Love: Multiple Ratings of Companionate Love

How frequently did employees on the unit express the following emotions? Caring, compassion, affectionate, and tenderness (1=Never Trained research assistants (M = 3.35, s.d=.97) Rated affective culture of caring and compassion for unit visits > 20 minutes Avg. # of visits = 7.98 (s.d. = 4.10), ICC = .73 Employee Ratings (M = 3.97, s.d. = .70, = .73) Family Ratings (M = 3.94, s.d.=.93, = .91)
through 5=Very Often).

The Influence of a Culture of Companionate Love on Employee, Patient and Family Outcomes
Employee outcomes Teamwork Satisfaction Emotional exhaustion Absenteeism

Patient outcomes Satisfaction Quality of Life Mood (rated by CNAs) Health (objective measures) Patient family outcomes Satisfaction Willingness to Recommend Facility

Qualitative Comments: Strong Culture of Companionate Love

I would like to add that [this organization] has not only been a

home for the patients, it has been a home for me. My co-workers have been a family. They have watched me grow. Since I started coming here theyve been cooperative, compassionate and moreover, loving. Comment from Nurse My co-workers are caring, compassionate people Nurse The staff genuinely cares and feels the loss, which shows their compassion. Family member commenting on how employees deal
with patient death on the units I love them all. Family Member

Qualitative Comments: Weak or Mixed Culture of Companionate Love

[People] need to have love and [a] caring spirit. Suggestion from employee about other employees A small minority of the staff was particularly empathetic and caringthey should be encouraged. Family Member Staff members described as less than satisfactory specifically because they are the opposite of very caring. Family Member

Conclusion
A culture of companionate love positively impacts employees, patients and their families Leaders need to consider and manage emotional culture as well as cognitive culture
Create organizational structures and procedures to support a culture of love

Leaders own emotions influence the culture emotional contagion Leaders coaching others in companionate love can help their own health

Questions?

Thank you!

Appendix Slides

Does a Culture of Companionate Love Matter in Other Industries?

Illustrative examination of culture of companionate love among 3,201 employees in 17 organizations within 7 industries (Biopharmaceutical, Engineering, Financial Services, Higher Education, Real Estate, Travel & Utilities) In general how frequently do other employees in your division/organization express the following emotions (affection, caring, compassion and tenderness) at work?
Mean = 2.93 (s.d.=.76, Cronbach Alpha = .77) Public Utility lowest (M=2.59, s.d.=.81) & Real Estate highest (M=3.26, s.d.=.80)

Does a Culture of Companionate Love Matter in Other Industries? Relationship to Employee Attitudes

Relationship between of Culture of Companionate Love and: Employee Job Satisfaction (r=.23, p < .001) Employee commitment to the organization (r=.23, p < .001) Accountability for individual work performance (r =.07, p < .01)

Individual Difference Moderator: Trait Positive Affect

The attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of higher trait positive affect employees will be more strongly influenced by a culture of companionate love than those of lower trait positive affect employees.

Longitudinal Models Predicting Employee Engagement and Withdrawal at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Employee Teamworka Time 2 Employee Satisfactionb Time 2 Employee Emotional Exhaustiona -.18 -.32 -.22 .00 .05 -.28 -1.78 -.40 .07 Time 2 Employee Absenteeismc

Site 1 Site 2 Male Tenure Certified nursing assistant Trait positive affectivity Social desirability Culture of companionate love Outsider raters observations Pseudo R2

-.00 .29 .31 .00 .08 .05 1.39 .56

.05

.02 .23 .24 .00 -.11 .05 1.49 .51

.11

-.47 -.22 .02 .00 .55 -.02 -.34 -.21

.08

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 156 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 137 observations nested in 13 units. cn = 120 observations nested in 13 units p < .05, p< .01, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Longitudinal Models Predicting Employee Engagement and Withdrawal at Time 2 from Employees Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Employee Teamworka Time 2 Employee Satisfactionb Time 2 Employee Emotional Exhaustiona -.15 -.13 -.29 .00 .02 -.37 -1.70 -.07 -.30 Time 2 Employee Absenteeismc

Site 1 Site 2 Male Tenure Certified nursing assistant Trait positive affectivity Social desirability Culture of companionate love Employees observations Culture of companionate love * Trait positive affectivity Pseudo R2

.07 .01 .29 .00 .08 .05 1.37 .29

.25

.05 -.02 .28 -.00 -.09 .08 1.40 .27

.41

-.66 -.12 .02 .00 .56 .02 -.47 -.14

.08

.15

.21

.08

.00

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Trait affectivity, social desirability, culture of companionate love, and interaction terms all grand-mean centered. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 137 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 156 observations nested in 13 units. cn = 120 observations nested in 13 units p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Figure 1: Interaction of a Culture of Companionate Love and Trait Positive Affect on Employee Satisfaction.

Figure 2: Interaction of a Culture of Companionate Love and Trait Positive Affect on Employee Teamwork.

Figure 3: Interaction of a Culture of Companionate Love and Trait Positive Affect on Employee Emotional Exhaustion.

Longitudinal Models Predicting Resident Mood at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Predictor Variables Time 2 Resident Pleasant Mood (as rated by primary Certified Nursing Assistants) a

Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outside raters observations Pseudo R2

-.01 -.14 -.02 .46

.10

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later.

a n = 109 observations nested in 13 units.

p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Longitudinal Models Predicting Resident Satisfaction and Quality of Life at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Predictor Variables Time 2 Resident Satisfaction a Time 2 Resident Quality of Life Dignity b Time 2 Resident Quality of Life Good Relationships b

Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outside raters observations Pseudo R2

-.06 .33 -.30 .60

.19 .65 -.44 .75

-.28 .14 -.05 .57

.04

.18

.10

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 32 observations nested in 13 units; bn = 39 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Longitudinal Models Predicting Resident Health Outcomes at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Predictor Variables
Time 2 Resident Weight Gain a Time 2 Resident Fewer Trips to Emergency Room a .25 .07 -.04 1.61 .02 Time 2 Resident Lower Incidence of Ulcers b -.31 -.19 -1.16 .20 .09

Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outside raters observations Pseudo R2

-.21 -.42 .16 .57 .00

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 114 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 111 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Longitudinal Models Predicting Family Attitudes at Time 2 from Outsider Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Family Member Satisfaction a -.18 .38 .26 -.43 .17 .32 .16 Time 2 Family Member Would Recommend to Othersa -.32 .19 .31 -.47 .11 .29 .20

Site 1 Site 2 Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outsider raters observations Pseudo R2

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. Poor health, cognitive impairment, and poor physical functioning measures are for the family member in the hospital. a n = 91 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Longitudinal Models Predicting Family Attitudinal Variables at Time 2 from Family Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Time 2 Family Member Satisfactiona Family Member would Recommend to Othersa

Site 1 Site 2 Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Family observations Pseudo R2

.59 .52 -.01 -.39 .29 .41 .07

.52 .46 .02 -.42 .26 .49 .19

*Unstandardized beta coefficients. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. Poor health, cognitive impairment, and poor physical functioning

measures are for the family member in the hospital. a n = 47 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Table 10: Longitudinal Models Predicting Employee Engagement and Withdrawal at Time 2 from Culture of Companionate Love Artifacts at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Employee Teamworka .91 .69 .35 .00 .11 .05 1.31 .55 .05 Time 2 Employee Satisfactionb .35 .76 .32 .00 -.06 .06 1.40 .44 .10 Time 2 Employee Emotional Exhaustionb -.95 -.72 -.30 .00 .01 -.29 -1.68 -.48 .08 Time 2 Employee Absenteeism -1.08 -.62 -.01 .00 .51 -.04 -.24 -.38 .09

Site 1 Site 2 Male Tenure Certified nursing assistant Trait positive affectivity Social desirability Culture of companionate love Artifacts Pseudo R2

*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 156 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 137 observations nested in 13 units. n = 120 observations nested in 13 units p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).

Prototype Approach to Emotions

link

Source: Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & OConnor, 1987

General Model of Emotional Culture

Construct Mechanisms
Normative response Emotional culture
Emotional artifacts & norms Emotional values - Prescriptive - Descriptive Emotional assumptions Social exchange Conformity Surface acting

Consequences
Individual attitudes and behaviors Group dynamics and effectiveness Organizational survival & effectiveness

Feeling the emotion

Self-generated emotion Facial feedback Emotional contagion Deep acting

Individual Differences
Trait affect Emotional intelligence Propensity towards Emotional Contagion Big-5 Personality Variable