Based on the five-level model of emotions in the workplace (FLMEW), we present an analysis of emotion and mindfulness at work. The five levels of emotion are: (1) temporal variations in emotion at the within-person level of analysis, which relate to state mindfulness; (2) stable individual differences in experiencing and expressing emotions at the between-persons level, which correspond with trait mindfulness; (3) perceiving and communicating emotions in dyadic relationships at the inter-personal level, reflecting interpersonal mindfulness; (4) emotional processes and leadership at the group level, which are associated with team mindfulness; and (5) and emotional culture and climate at the organizational level, which relate to organizational mindfulness. We provide a definition of mindfulness at each level. We argue that mindfulness tends to be associated with more positive and less negative affective experience at each level. We highlight practical implications and suggest future research at each level.

Research uncovering the behavioural and cognitive foundations of capability development has gained traction in recent years. However, the emotional foundations of capability development have not been adequately addressed. This is an important gap; if emotions impact decisions and actions of key organisational actors, this suggests an influence on capability development processes in organisations, with implications for their survival and evolution. In this paper, we therefore explore ‘how do the emotions of key strategists enable and/or hinder capability development?’ Our in-depth qualitative research, based on five small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), shows that emotions of key strategists, including emotional tensions and ambivalence, have multi-faceted effects on capability development depending on the activation level of pleasant and unpleasant emotions experienced. This adds to extant understanding of idiosyncratic foundations of capability development and extends conversations regarding the internal dynamics behind organisational survival and evolution.

Organisations and associated management practices are generally considered responsible for promoting employees' enjoyment of work. Our study, on the other hand, seeks to examine the capacity of individual workers to regulate their own experience of fun. We interviewed eight ‘remarkable’ workers who claimed to always (or nearly always) have fun at work. We utilised a critical realist approach in the analysis that enabled the consideration of both structure and agency in the experience of workplace fun. A key research finding was that participants possessed a strong sense of control over their own happiness at work, demonstrated in four ways: (1) a priority placed on fun, (2) a sense of responsibility for fun, (3) a positive orientation to the world and (4) a sense of mastery and challenge in work tasks. Research findings may inspire both individual workers and organisations to adopt an agentic outlook in the workplace, implementing strategies that enhance employee control.

While a wealth of evidence exists about failure in organisational settings and the emotions evoked by failure, researchers have paid less attention to failure and its related emotional consequences in academic life. Given that failure is often a cause of significant stress, which in turn can lead to damaging consequences, we argue that this is an issue deserving of greater consideration. In this article, we adopt Ashkanasy’s five-level model of emotion in organisations, and explore the potential role of emotions in academics’ experiences of failure at five levels: within-person, between-persons, interpersonal interactions, groups and teams (and leadership), and organisation-wide. In doing so, we draw on findings from scholarly literature, anecdotal evidence, and our own experiences as academics to build arguments. Following discussion of the model, we suggest how academics might begin to normalise the experience of failure in academia and to build resilience in the coming generations of young scholars.

Research on prosocial behavior has tended to focus on the positive consequences of prosocial behavior. This paper draws on attribution, emotion and justice motive literature to expand the discussion of prosocial behavior in organizations. Specifically, an expanded definition of prosocial behavior is offered and a process-oriented process model of prosocial behavior is introduced. The process model of prosocial behavior is used to discuss the idea that prosocial behavior might have negative consequences. This paper contributes to the literature on prosocial behavior in organizations by (1) accounting for the effects of emotion and the need for justice on decisions to engage in prosocial actions and (2) identifying negative consequences of specific prosocial actions.