Positive feelings among staff in the workplace, such as joy, love, and interest, are important for the achievement of organizational and individual goals (Fredrickson, 2013). Through the acknowledgement of scholars of the social nature of affect, positive moods and emotions are increasingly being considered not only as individual attributes, but also as collective constructs, usually at the group level (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2012). From this perspective, scholars recognize that the positive affective similarity of work groups—namely, positive group affective tone (PGAT)—also carries important implications (Collins, Jordan, Lawrence, & Troth, 2016). Among the positive consequences of PGAT, work engagement is particularly critical for high-technology organizations because, in related research, it has been treated as an important indicator of employees’ job performance and well-being (Bledow, Schmitt, Frese, & Kühnel, 2011). However, to our knowledge, how PGAT may influence employees’ work engagement has not been well researched.

In the present study, we employed characteristics of employees and group leaders simultaneously to examine the relationship between PGAT and employee work engagement. Barsade (2002) indicated that positive affect expressed by individuals may be observed by others and may have a great impact on those others during the process of social interaction. Moreover, these affective linkages within teams are stronger for those with collectivistic tendencies (Ilies, Wagner, & Morgeson, 2007) than they are for those with individualistic tendencies. Given that employees and their group leaders are situated within a social context in which there is the opportunity for them to mutually influence one another, more research is needed to understand how PGAT serves a broad affiliation and bonding function to influence work effectiveness for key actors in interpersonal relationships (Barsade & Knight, 2015).

We expected that our study would help to bridge the research gaps in the following two ways: First, although scholars have noted that PGAT may trigger symmetrical beneficial outcomes (e.g., Barsade, 2002), it is unclear what mechanism explains this relationship. We examined whether PGAT leads to employee work engagement through employee core self-evaluation (CSE). The purpose of using this approach was to help to illustrate how and why PGAT predicts employee work engagement.

Second, to further clarify the trickle-down effect of positive leadership that may influence realization of the full benefits of PGAT, we integrated leader psychological capital into our study. Although findings reported in prior research have shown that CSE is positively related to positive work outcomes (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012), little is known regarding the potential boundary conditions that may promote or impede the effect of employee CSE on their work engagement. We took an interactional perspective to explore whether or not leader psychological capital moderated the effects of employee CSE on work engagement. Our findings may provide more information pertaining to when employees’ CSE is either most or least effective for their work engagement.

Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses

Positive Group Affective Tone and Work Engagement

Work engagement has evolved as a motivational construct to describe the work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). In their recent review of the literature regarding antecedents of work engagement, Bakker, Demerouti, and Sanz-Vergel (2014) confirmed that resources are the most important predictors of employee work engagement. As proposed by Fredrickson (2013), positive affect can broaden people’s momentary thought–action repertoires, which, in turn, serves to build their enduring resources. Accordingly, in a meta-analysis performed by Christian, Garza, and Slaughter (2011), these authors showed that positive affect is positively related to work engagement. With respect to positive affect at the group level, it has been demonstrated that PGAT develops among employees through various mechanisms of their positive affective connection, including emotional comparison, emotional contagion, and empathy (e.g., Knight & Eisenkraft, 2015). Because these mechanisms are promoted among employees through open positive affective expression and frequent interpersonal interactions, PGAT is considered one of the more important of the resources that may enhance group relationship quality (Walter & Bruch, 2008). Consistent with these arguments, Kahn (1990) reported that a high frequency and intensity of interactions with coworkers may be particularly helpful for mobilizing an employee’s work engagement. For those reasons, PGAT provides a valuable opportunity for employees to acquire the job resources necessary to increase their work engagement. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Positive group affective tone will be positively related to employee work engagement.

Positive Group Affective Tone, Core Self-Evaluation, and Work Engagement

Core self-evaluation represents the fundamental appraisals individuals make about their self-worth and capabilities in general. CSE is indicated by self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge & Hurst, 2007). In the context of PGAT, high-CSE individuals tend to focus on the positive aspects of a job and are sensitive to positive job context (Ferris et al., 2011), which would increase the individual’s sense of his or her membership in a highly appreciated group. For example, Swann, Rentfrow, and Guinn (2003) found that, in comparison with individuals with low CSE, individuals with higher CSE may seek more self-consistent information and employ self-consistent interpretations to confirm their positive self-view. As such, these high-CSE individuals are more likely than are their low-CSE peers to attend to, and seek positive feedback from the environment. In another simulation and field study, Gibson (2003) also indicated that PGAT may bring individuals’ work context in line with their positive cognitions about work experiences. Taken together, as an important social context within the work group, PGAT may not only help individuals to confirm their positive identity (Milton & Westphal, 2005), it may also play the role of reinforcing individuals’ positive cognitions. Thus, we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Positive group affective tone will be positively related to employee core self-evaluation.

CSE has been linked to motivational concepts such as overall goal commitment and task motivation (e.g., Erez & Judge, 2001). To a large degree, work engagement is also a motivational concept reflecting the simultaneous investment of an individual’s energy in task and contextual performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). Judge and Hurst (2007) indicated that individuals with high CSE appraise demands more positively than do their low-CSE peers, have greater ability to cope with these demands effectively, and, thus, have more resources available to invest into their work roles. This will influence the subsequent motivations and behaviors of these individuals in pursuit of their performance goals. For these reasons, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Core self-evaluation will be positively related to employee work engagement.

We extended previous research on work engagement, and by following the logic of Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, we examined PGAT as a more distal predictor of employee work engagement. We believed that PGAT could play a positive role in employee work engagement by enhancing the employee’s CSE. In support of this argument, scholars have suggested that PGAT may continuously spiral through the process of group interaction, contributing to a self-reinforcing flow of positive affective responses among employees (Walter & Bruch, 2008). For example, in their meta-analysis of the effects of group affect, Knight and Eisenkraft (2015) found that positive group affect may influence individuals’ cohesion, identification, and interpersonal attraction, which will then enhance their task performance. Similarly, in a recent longitudinal field study, Barsade and O’Neill (2014) found that a culture of love is a salient source of information that can spark positive reactions and responses among employees, which may subsequently ripple out to influence their work and nonwork outcomes. Importantly, in several studies researchers have discovered that group affect may indirectly influence workplace outcomes through different mechanisms, including group efficacy (Gibson, 2003) and socially shared cognition (van Knippenberg, Kooij-de Bode, & van Ginkel, 2010). To account for other paths through which PGAT may influence employee work engagement, we expected that CSE would partially mediate the effects of PGAT on employee work engagement. We, therefore, proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Core self-evaluation will be a partial cross-level mediator of the relationship between positive group affective tone and employee work engagement.

The Trickle-Down Effects of Leader Psychological Capital

Psychological capital represents individual propensities that accrue through positive psychological constructs such as efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). By displaying high levels of psychological capital during group interactions, group leaders are inclined to influence the development of PGAT through a trickle-down process. In support of the link between leader psychological capital and PGAT, scholars have suggested that the management of group moods and emotions is a crucial element of effective leadership (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2012). Sy and Choi (2013), for example, proposed that the positivity of leaders induces affect contagion, which then transfers to employees and leads those employees to experience shared PGAT. According to the above theoretical and empirical evidence, we expected leader psychological capital to trickle down and serve as an exemplary guide to the formation of employee PGAT. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Leader psychological capital will be positively related to positive group affective tone.

Trait activation theorists have suggested that individuals possess unique dispositional profiles related to each situation, but demonstrate certain traits only when situational cues signal it is appropriate to do so (Tett & Burnett, 2003). In this regard, in previous studies on the trickle-down effect researchers have also noted that leaders’ characteristics may constitute a potent situational factor to influence their subordinates in the workplace (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012). In proximal leadership situations, group leaders are usually highly visible to employees who are one hierarchical level subordinate to them. Thus, group leaders can always signal to employees what the values of the group are, and employees are likely to look to their group leader for corresponding signals regarding display rules within their work group (Mawritz et al., 2012). For instance, the inclusive leader may signal that employees’ expressions, such as accessibility, instilling pride, and faith, are highly appropriate, which would prompt individual employees in the leader’s group to be more engaged in their work (e.g., Choi, Tran, & Park, 2015). In addition, given the conceptual similarities between CSE and psychological capital (Avey, Luthans, & Yousef, 2010), individual employees with high CSE might also expect their leaders to be competent and capable. Accordingly, Kacmar, Collins, Harris, and Judge (2009) found that high-CSE employees highly respect their leaders when they perceive that their leaders are effective, and such judgment may be further reflected in the employees’ performance. Thus, we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: Leader psychological capital will moderate the relationship between employee core self-evaluation and work engagement, such that the association will be more strongly positive when leader psychological capital is high than when it is low.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We collected survey data from 76 research and development groups employed by high-technology companies located in China. We prepared and distributed one survey for employees and a different survey for their group leaders. Specifically, the employees responded to items pertaining to their individual positive affect (later aggregated into PGAT), their CSE, and their work engagement, and the group leaders completed a measure designed to assess their psychological capital. All participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and they each returned the survey form they had completed in a sealed envelope directly to the researchers.

We received 398 valid forms for analysis from 74 research and development groups, comprising 324 from employees and 74 from group leaders. The mean group size was 4.39 people and 71.9% of the employees were men. The employees’ education level was as follows: junior college or below (34.9%), university degree or postgraduate studies (65.1%).

Measures

The English language measures were translated into Chinese using the method of translation and back-translation set out by Brislin (1970). The translating process was first completed by two language experts who were fluent in both Chinese and English, and then two social psychologists reviewed the translation to ensure appropriate content or face validity of the items in the measures.

Positive group affective tone. We used Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) 10-item Positive Affect Schedule to measure employees’ positive affect at the individual level (α = .88). According to George’s (1990) definition and operationalization of PGAT, we asked participants to describe how they felt when interacting with other group members during the work process. Sample items include positive emotion adjectives, such as excited, proud, and enthusiastic. Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely).

We then tested the within-group agreement (r_wg) on employees’ positive affect to determine whether or not it was suitable to aggregate data from the individual to the group level. We calculated the r_wg values, intraclass correlation (ICC) (1) and (2) values for PGAT. The results indicated the mean and median of r_wg value was .88/.93, ICC(1) was .26, and ICC(2) was .68 for PGAT. Thus, we believed it was acceptable to aggregate individual scores for positive affect at the group level.

Core self-evaluation. We used Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen’s (2003) 12-item Core Self-Evaluation Scale to measure employee CSE (α = .84). In this measure participants rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements such as “Overall, I am satisfied with myself.” Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Work engagement. We used the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) to measure employee work engagement (α = .93). A sample item is “I can continue working for very long periods at a time.” Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = never to 6 = always).

Psychological capital. We used the 24-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans et al., 2007) to measure group leaders’ psychological capital (α = .81). A sample item is “I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job.” Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Control variables. In accordance with the method used in previous studies, we used employees’ gender and education level as the control variables (Liu, 2016).

Data Analysis

Because positive affect, CSE, and work engagement were all reported by employees themselves, we examined the validity of the measures to see whether or not these three variables could be distinguished. Two confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using Amos 17.0 to compare the following fit indices of three-factor and one-factor models: goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Results showed that the three-factor model fit the data better (χ²/df = 3.25, GFI = .81, NFI = .87, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .03) than the one-factor model when all items were loaded on a single factor (χ²/df = 6.56, GFI = .64, NFI = .70, CFI = .69, RMSEA = .10). These results indicated that the data would not be significantly influenced by common method bias.

Because our theoretical model was multilevel in nature and the employees’ data were nested within different groups and group leaders, we conducted hierarchical linear modeling analyses to examine the hypotheses. When testing the hypotheses, all the Level 1 predictors were group-mean centered to avoid any possible confounding effects.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of major variables are shown in Table 1; employees’ gender and education level were unrelated to work engagement. As such, these two variables were not controlled for in the following models. The correlations for other variables were in the expected direction.

Hypothesis Testing

The results of hierarchical linear modeling for testing our hypotheses are presented in Table 2. We first specified employee work engagement as the dependent variable and included no predictors at either Level 1 or Level 2 to examine the between-group variance. The results showed that for Model 1 the ICC(1) value was .27 (F = 3.82, p < .001) for work engagement, suggesting that the group in which the employee is working does influence his or her work engagement. Thus, we proceeded with hypothesis testing by conducting hierarchical linear modeling.

The results for Model 2 showed that PGAT significantly predicted employee work engagement (γ₀₁^c = 1.73, p < .001). In Model 3, PGAT also significantly predicted employee CSE (γ₀₁^a = .65, p < .001). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were, therefore, supported. In addition, in Model 4, employee CSE was positively associated with work engagement (γ₁₀^b = 1.71, p < .001), and the positive relationship between PGAT and work engagement was reduced (γ₀₁c’= 1.20, p < .001) when employee CSE was entered into the model. Using the Monte Carlo simulation procedure with 20,000 replications, we found that the indirect ratio through CSE was 0.64, with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of [0.018, 0.098]. This finding suggests that employee CSE partially mediated the effect of PGAT on employee work engagement. Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported.

As leader psychological capital and PGAT were Level 2 variables, we performed hierarchal regression analyses to examine Hypothesis 5. The result shows that leader psychological capital was significantly and positively related to PGAT, supporting Hypothesis 5 (β = .43, p < .001). In Hypothesis 6, we predicted that leader psychological capital would moderate the association between employee CSE and work engagement. As can be seen in Table 2, Model 5, leader psychological capital had a significant and positive cross-level moderating effect on the employee CSE–work engagement relationship (γ₁₁ = 0.12, p < .05). To clarify the form of moderation, we also followed Aiken and West’s (1991) approach to plot the graph (see Figure 1), which indicates that when leader psychological capital was high (one standard deviation above the mean), employee CSE had a strongly positive association with work engagement (γ = 0.12, t = 3.48, p < .01), and that employee CSE was unrelated to their work engagement (γ = 0.06, t = 1.90, ns) when leader psychological capital was low (one standard deviation below the mean). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 received support.

Discussion

In this study, we examined the process through which PGAT may contribute to employee work engagement. Overall, the results indicate that group leaders’ psychological capital may trickle down to influence the functioning of PGAT, and PGAT may ripple out to improve employee CSE and, in turn, to enhance their work engagement. The results of this study also indicate that not all employees may fully benefit from their high CSE. When group leaders have low psychological capital, high employee CSE is not powerful enough to promote employee work engagement.

We have extended earlier work in which researchers mainly focused on individual positive affect to examine PGAT. Our findings reveal that PGAT is critical for employee work engagement and thereby demonstrate the importance of cultivating shared positive feelings among employees to improve group functioning and performance. Future researchers should examine the consequences of specific discrete forms of PGAT, such as group happiness and group contentment, in order to further advance understanding of group-level affective constructs.

Collins, Lawrence, Troth, and Jordan (2013) pointed out that group affect is always associated with group-level outcomes. However, we have gone one step further to examine the mediating role of employee CSE when the PGAT–engagement link moves to the cross level. The results of this study show that PGAT may strengthen employee CSE by providing them with positive feedback from the situation, and it is CSE that partially triggers the mechanism by which PGAT is transformed to change behavior and performance in the workplace. This process highlights that high-technology organizations should try to select research and development workers with high CSE, as they are more likely than others are to share positive feeling in the workplace and will tend to focus selectively on positive characteristics of the situation (Chang et al., 2012), which will enhance the ripple effect of PGAT.

Further, although it has been shown in prior research how leadership may trickle down to influence employee’s affect and behavior (Mawritz et al., 2012), relatively few researchers have examined the relationship between leader psychological capital and PGAT. Walter and Bruch (2008) proposed in their conceptual paper that a charismatic leader facilitates the functioning of PGAT. Consistent with those findings, in this study, we found that leader psychological capital carries important implications for the formation of PGAT. In the future, more empirical evidence is needed for how leader psychological capital influences and, reciprocally, is influenced by, the positive feelings of the groups in which they are embedded.

The potential cross-level moderating effect of leader psychological capital on the relationship between employee CSE and work engagement also merits consideration. Collins et al. (2013) noted that group leaders, through their implicit or explicit expressions, are likely to set informal norms to regulate employees’ behavior in the workplace. When leader psychological capital is low, employees’ negative expressions tend to be relatively acceptable, whereas when employees are working with leaders possessing high psychological capital, such expressions are perceived as highly unacceptable because they pose a threat to group harmony (van Kleef, 2014). In the context of a collectivist culture in which group-oriented values are highlighted, employees are more inclined to conform to such values norms during interactions with group leaders. For example, Chang et al. (2012) found in their meta-analysis that CSE had a stronger relationship with job satisfaction among employees from collectivist cultures (e.g., China, Korea, Japan). Similarly, we also demonstrated the importance of cultural values in explaining the trickle-down effect of leader psychological capital.

Our study has some limitations. First, because we used a cross-sectional design, we cannot make causal inferences. We encourage future researchers to re-examine our study by employing an experimental research design. Second, although we collected data from two sources, employees and their group leaders, there is the potential for the problem of common method variance. Future researchers should be more careful to avoid this. Third, our study included 74 workplace-based research and development groups. As information and communication technologies, such as email, texting, and video-conferencing, have altered what it means to work together as a group, it might be worthwhile to take virtual teams into account in future research.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430–452. https://doi.org/b5qtc3

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411. https://doi.org/b9mh

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. https://doi.org/c46xwv

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2012). Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 119–123. https://doi.org/f33f63

Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 21–46. https://doi.org/b9mj

Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 551–598. https://doi.org/b9mk

Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1246–1257. https://doi.org/dsvw84

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/b99wbg

Chang, C.-H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81–128. https://doi.org/dbd9nb

Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 43, 931–943. https://doi.org/f7k76t

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136. https://doi.org/c6b58z

Collins, A. L., Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., & Troth, A. C. (2016). Positive affective tone and team performance: The moderating role of collective emotional skills. Cognition and Emotion, 30, 167–182. https://doi.org/b9mm

Collins, A. L., Lawrence, S. A., Troth, A. C., & Jordan, P. J. (2013). Group affective tone: A review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S43–S62. https://doi.org/b2b6

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279. https://doi.org/fk62j5

Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. R., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S. D., & Heller, D. (2011). Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64, 137–161. https://doi.org/d8t2w6

Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 1–53. https://doi.org/b9mn

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. https://doi.org/g5b

Gibson, C. B. (2003). The efficacy advantage: Factors related to the formation of group efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2153–2186. https://doi.org/bttrzf

Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism–collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1140–1148. https://doi.org/dxsnhn

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. https://doi.org/fxf5qz

Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1212–1227. https://doi.org/bs323h

Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572–1580. https://doi.org/b3wr9b

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. https://doi.org/cbfz7t

Knight, A. P., & Eisenkraft, N. (2015). Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1214–1227. https://doi.org/f7j8p5

Liu, W. (2016). Effects of positive mood and job complexity on employee creativity and performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 44, 865–880. https://doi.org/b9mq

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. https://doi.org/bjbhzd

Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357. https://doi.org/b7zr

Milton, L. P., & Westphal, J. D. (2005). Identity confirmation networks and cooperation in work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 191–212. https://doi.org/fwnmvz

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. https://doi.org/b4fnsh

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/chm

Swann, W. B., Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367–383). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Sy, T., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Contagious leaders and followers: Exploring multi-stage mood contagion in a leader activation and member propagation (LAMP) model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 127–140. https://doi.org/b9mr

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. https://doi.org/fpk5zz

van Kleef, G. A. (2014). Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it. Human Relations, 67, 1145–1164. https://doi.org/b9ms

van Knippenberg, D., Kooij-de Bode, H. J. M., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2010). The interactive effects of mood and trait negative affect in group decision making. Organization Science, 21, 731–744. https://doi.org/crjkjj

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 239–261. https://doi.org/dfsb46

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/cs7zhv

This research was supported by grants from the National Social Science Foundation of China (13CSH079)

the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of China (HEUCFW171302)

and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71472054).

Linlin Zhang, Department of Applied Psychology, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Engineering University, 145 Nantong Street, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]