Waratta Authayarat, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8550, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Associate Professor Hiroyuki Umemuro, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8550, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


Affective management is a new concept which suggests that top managers should take stakeholders’ affective experiences into account when making their management decisions. To show that this concept could contribute to the improvement of management performance in organizations, this study investigated the correlations between the affectiveness of top management and management performance indices. Our questionnaire based on the Affective Management Scorecard was employed to assess top managers’ recognition of the importance, as well as the actual practices of affective management. Top managers from 43 Thai organizations participated in the study. A correlation analysis was conducted to observe whether affective management indices would correlate with management performance indices, such as return on equity, return on assets, price to earnings ratio, and price to book value ratio. The findings showed that the results for organizations practicing affective management were positively correlated with their management performance in both profitability and good perceptions by investors.

Keywords: affective management, stakeholder, management, affect, emotion, feeling.


In principle and in practice, management decision-making has traditionally been based on objective measurements such as costs, sales, benefits, and efficiency. Recently, a new concept emerged suggesting that those objective measurements might not be a sufficient basis for decision-making, and that decisions focusing on the affective experiences of all stakeholders, as well as the objective measurements, would be more appropriate (Authayarat, Umemuro, Murata, and Jiamsanguanwong, 2011; Strong, Ringer, and Taylor, 2001; Umemuro, 2009, 2011). Affective management is defined as management that takes stakeholders’ affective experiences into consideration in management decisions (Umemuro, 2011). The capability of top management to consider the affective influence on stakeholders (hereafter affectiveness) is an important measure to evaluate management quality or overall organizational quality (Umemuro, 2011).

Conventional management has emphasized efficiency, including reducing costs, but affective management emphasizes the stakeholder’s affective experiences. For example, a product might be designed especially for a customer, deliberately including superior building design, quality materials, and skilled finishes, and this may result in additional costs (Umemuro, 2009). Thus, when top management considers affective experiences of stakeholders, the idea may conflict with conventional management theories based on rational and objective measurements (Authayarat et al., 2011; Umemuro, 2009). To claim that affective management actually leads to better performance, the relationship between the extent to which management considers stakeholders’ affective experiences in their decisions and actual organizational performance needs to be established.

To show the effectiveness of affective management, it is crucial to have the means to measure it. Two approaches for evaluating affectiveness are possible. One is to perform an evaluation based on publically available information, such as financial reports or corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. However, as public information is authored by the organizations themselves, the information may be biased. Another way is to base the evaluation on the direct assessment of top management, through such means as interviews or questionnaires. Although this approach may be costly, the results would be highly accurate and trustworthy if systematic measurement methods were employed. Authayarat et al. (2011) proposed the Affective Management Scorecard to assess and quantify the affectiveness of an organization. This study employed this scorecard as a measurement of affectiveness of organizations, and compared the results with conventional management performance.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the affectiveness of organizations’ top management and their management performances. A questionnaire-based investigation was conducted with top management from 43 Thai organizations. The Affective Management Scorecard was employed to assess the affectiveness of the respondents. Overall scores of affectiveness were calculated and an analysis performed by stakeholder categories. These scores were compared with management performance indices for profitability and market valuations.

Related works and hypotheses

Affective management

In psychology, the term affect has long been used to represent a person’s general response, including emotion, mood, and feeling. In this study, affective is defined as being capable of involving a person’s mind or as being capable of provoking deliberate responses in a person’s mind (Umemuro, 2009).

Affective management can be defined as “management of an organization that takes into consideration the potential influences of its decision-making on its stakeholders’ affects or affective experiences” (Umemuro, 2011, p. 514). Affective management should recognize what might potentially influence people’s affects and evaluate the possible impacts. This concept promotes the idea that top management should make decisions considering not only conventional quantitative indices but also the effects of decisions upon the affective experiences of stakeholders (Authayarat et al., 2011; Umemuro, 2009, 2011).

Although the concept of affective management may have only recently emerged in the field of management, successful managers have long understood the influence of affect in their decisions and behaviors. However, those managers have practiced this concept implicitly or subconsciously, as it has not been explicitly identified and still remains in the shadows of rational decision-making (Umemuro, 2009). Amsa (1991) reports the urgent need for “a mature ideational construct and conceptual framework for understanding and improving the affective world of management students or the embryo managers” (p. M130). This desire is to prepare tomorrow’s managers to relate to the real world—to its emotions, passions, dispositions, motives, moral and aesthetic sensibilities, capacity for feeling, concern, attachment or detachment, sympathy, and appreciation (Amsa, 1991). To further understand, endorse, and promote this concept, we need evidence that it also promotes good management performance.

Stakeholders of affective management

A stakeholder is defined as any individual or group who affects or is affected by the organization and its processes, activities, and functioning (Carroll and Näsi, 1997). Frequently, companies only focus on the specific stakeholder targets stated in their company mission statement or annual report (Campbell, Shrives and Bohmbach- Saager, 2001). However, the affective management concept requires that not only customers, but also employees, the local community, and society in general should be included. Top management should pay attention to the affects of these stakeholders.

Customers as stakeholders

Management is concerned with many aspects of how the company can best serve its customers (Bahn, Lee, Nam, and Yun, 2009; Larson, 2009; Locke 1996; Millard, 2006; Parasuraman, Zeihaml, and Berry, 1988). It is common for consumer-oriented product development to be the focus because there is competition between goods in the market. Customers tend to buy attractive products or services that affect their feelings (Nagamachi, 2008). Tang and Umemuro (2012) extracted the affective factors that can elicit a person’s emotions in products. Vendors of products and services should not only be concerned with the functionality and usability of the products, but should also find out how their products can evoke customers’ emotions such as feelings of enjoyment or pride (Norman, 2004).

The customer’s affective experience, through word-of-mouth, ownership, and by providing suggestions and complaints, is the first stage in developing loyalty and commitment (Millard, 2006). Once customers perceive high quality service or have positive affective experiences with products or services, they become loyal customers (Devaraj, Matta, and Conlon, 2001; Lewis and Soureli, 2006). Retaining loyal customers who positively and intentionally spread recommendations by word-of-mouth makes good business sense (Millard, 2006) and is sustainable over a long period (Locke, 1996; Reinartz and Kumar, 2003). Significantly, perceived service quality improves the company’s sales performance (Babakus, Bienstock, and Scotter, 2004). From the investors’ perspective, Nayyar (1995) reported that improvements in customer service are positively valued and decreases in customer service are negatively valued by the stock market.

The nature of businesses can vary depending on the target customers, being either personal customers or business customers. Business-to-customer (B2C) and businessto- business (B2B) companies are different. B2C companies may focus more on the importance of customers’ affective experiences to increase their share and survive in the market with the general public, while B2B companies rely on more specific and a limited number of business customers. Thus, the concern from top management toward customers or business customers may be unequal. This idea leads to the first and second hypotheses.

H1: Management that takes care of and considers the importance of customers’ affects tends to have higher management performance.

H2. The correlations between affectiveness and management performance of B2C are higher than for B2B.

Employees as stakeholders

Employees are one of the most important mechanisms that drive and maintain an organization. The consequences of employees’ positive affective experiences have received much attention and have been widely acknowledged (Fisher, 2003; Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener, 2005; Staw and Barsad, 1993; Zelenski, Murphy, and Jenkins, 2008; see Fisher, 2010 for review). The claim by Zelenski et al. (2008) that employees’ positive affects contribute to productivity is similar to other studies (Fisher, 2003; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Staw and Barsade, 1993). Previous studies have suggested that employees who experience more positive affects are more productive, and thus people are at their most productive when experiencing positive moods (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002).

Positive affects among employees also increase task persistence and performance, resulting in higher motivation levels (Erez and Isen, 2002; Ilies and Judge, 2002; George and Brief, 1996). Positive affect is associated with the process of motivating employees (Fisher, 2010, Fredrickson, 2003). Positive affective experience may result in job satisfaction and employee engagement with the organization, which are also likely to be associated with employee effectiveness and good job performance (Harrison, Newman, and Roth, 2006).

Engagement of employees is also related to their happiness (Stair and Galpin, 2010). Strong engagement improves effort and employee performance (Hodges and Asplund, 2010). Engagement is a concept that goes beyond “satisfaction” or “motivation” (Stairs and Galpin, 2010). It involves positive affective experiences regarding work, and as a result employees are willing to go the extra mile to complete jobs to the best of their abilities (Truss, Edwards, Wisdom, Croll and Burnett, 2006). Earlier studies have shown that organizations with strong employee engagement achieve higher profits (Harter et al., 2002, 2010). Affective involvement of employees as stakeholders leads to the following hypothesis:

H3: Management that takes care of and considers the importance of employees’ affects tends to achieve higher management performance.

Local community and society as stakeholders

The local community stakeholder refers to a community nearby to an organization, and one that interacts with the organization; society stakeholder refers to people in the general public (Authayarat et al., 2011). Affective management should also take care of people outside the organization, in terms of both emotional and well-being issues.

Organizations may reinforce the positive affective experiences of the community through various activities. These may include taking good care of the community environment, providing financial support to community activities such as sports or education, and by providing special experiences such as inviting local people to view the production facilities. These generate the community’s positive affective experiences towards the organization and increase the engagement of local customers. As a result, they promote community sustainability and, in turn, bring reputational profits to the organization and increase the long-term market valuation (Bird, Hall, and Momentè, 2007).

Providing affective experiences for society members is a significant challenge for affective management. Organizations are considered as social actors embedded in society and responsible for social activities by providing products and services to social members as they are needed (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). Society is protected by CSR activities that are designed to prevent or repair the negative impact of the business or operations on society (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006), and, on a larger scale, improve quality of life (Holme and Watts, 2000, cited in Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). The benefits from such activities may attract interested people in society who are current or potential customers and, thus, may become a potential trend for sustaining organizational growth (Authayarat et al., 2011) and financial performance (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006; McWilliam and Siegel, 2000). The business benefits of CSR can also include economic sustainability through developing and enhancing relationships with customers through products or services, increasing customer and shareholder retention, and developing the company’s networks. As a result, organizations that apply CSR develop a unique selling point that sets them apart from competitors (Bird et al., 2007; Whitehouse, 2006); for example, by reducing energy costs (Bird et al., 2007). CSR is a way of achieving long-term results and maintaining business continuity (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006).

The size of the organization may influence the practice of affective management. In the case of CSR, small companies tend to be less familiar with the concept and might find it difficult to put it into practice (Broeck, 2009). Affective management might be in a similar situation. Large organizations with many employees may be more concerned with affective management than small ones. The notion of community as stakeholders leads to the fourth, fifth, and sixth hypotheses.

H4: Management that considers and responds to the importance of the local community’s affects tends to have higher management performance.

H5: Management that considers and responds to the importance of society’s affects tends to have higher management performance.

H6: The size of an organization affects how it recognizes and practices the affective management concept.



Participants were top managers of organizations listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. A questionnaire was sent to 380 businesses in six sectors: service (22.1%), consumer products (10.3%), property and construction (28.7%), agricultural and food (10.5%), resources (7.1%), and industrial products (21.3%).


This investigation was conducted between early March and May 2011. Each participant received a questionnaire as well as a brief outline explaining the concept of affective management and the importance of top managers taking part in this research. The questionnaire investigated the extent to which participants recognized the importance of considering stakeholders’ affects when making management decisions, and the extent to which they actually put affective management into practice. Participants were asked to provide demographic data and profiles of their organizations. Participants were also asked to complete the questionnaire in their own time and return it to the investigator by post.


The Affective Management Scorecard developed by Authayarat et al. (2011) was used to measure affectiveness in this study. This scorecard consists of 15 dimensions, such as a company’s products or services, company’s brand, and company’s philosophy and corporate identity. These dimensions corresponded to issues that the top managers would have to make decisions about in the course of their jobs (see Table 1 for overall dimensions and relations with each stakeholder). For each dimension, there were three question types. The first type asked whether the respondent made decisions on issues in each of the 15 dimensions (e.g., “Do management boards make decisions about the company’s philosophy and corporate identity?”). The second type asked how much the top manager believed that each of the 15 dimensions was important to each of the stakeholders’ affects (e.g., “How much do management boards believe that the company’s philosophy and corporate identity are important for employee’s affects?”). The final question type asked to what extent top managers actually considered stakeholders’ affects when they made decisions regarding the 15 dimensions (e.g., “To what extent do management boards consider employee’s affects when making decisions about the company’s philosophy and corporate identity?”). For the second and third type of questions, participants were asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). In the process of developing a scorecard and improving its reliability, the content was examined by specialists from various fields of industry and tested with pilot samples that were not a target group. Thus, the scorecard was considered to have valid items and high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) (Authayarat et al., 2011).

Based on the responses, two types of affectiveness scores were calculated: a winning score and an average score. Table 2 illustrates how the winning score was calculated. Winning score reflects how top managers recognize both the importance of stakeholders’ affects (Im or importance score) and actually consider them when making decisions in practice (Pr or practice score). Likert scale responses were coded into levels (scores of 4 or 5 coded as high, 3 as medium, and 1 or 2 as low) of affectiveness for each decision-making dimension and each stakeholder. The winning scores reflected combinations of recognition of importance and actual practice and ranged between –2 and +2. For example, if a respondent scored the “importance” of a question item as “high” (4 or 5) and the actual “practice” of it as “medium” (3), the winning score for the item will be +1. In the same way, if the “importance” was scored as “high” and the “practice” was scored as “low”, the score will be 0. Positive winning scores represented top managers who both recognized the importance and actually considered the stakeholders’ affects in their decision-making. Conversely, negative scores reflected the managers who neither recognized the importance of stakeholders’ affects nor practiced affectiveness. The average of the winning scores across all dimensions and all stakeholders was defined as the affectiveness winning score.

Table 1. Affective Management Scorecard dimensions and relations with each stakeholder
No.DimensionCustomerEmployeeLocal communitySociety
1 Company's product/service O O O O O O O O
2 Company's philosophy and corporate identity O O O O O O O O
3 Company's brand O O O O O O O O
4 Business strategy or plan, project management, business process, performance of company's activity O O O O O O O O
5 Organization's structure O O O O        
6 Company's investment O O O O     O O
7 Price of product or service O O     O O O O
8 Human resource     O O O O    
9 Advertisement and customer's community or communication O O O O O O O O
10 Product patent and industrial standard (e.g., ISO, JIS) O O O O     O O
11 Office equipment     O O        
12 Atmosphere at workplace and team management     O O        
13 Payment and welfare system (e.g., job training, education, health care system)     O O        
14 Location and construction design O O O O O O O O
15 CSR activity O O O O O O O O
Note. “Im” indicates importance score; “Pr” indicates practice score; “O” indicates that top management was involved in decision-making for that particular dimension and stakeholder.
Table 2. Winning Score System
Importance High +2 +1 0
Medium +1 0 -1
Low 0 -1 -2

The second score type, average score, was a simple average of responses on the Likert scales across all dimensions and stakeholders. For ease of understanding, the average scores were converted linearly as a range of 0–100. Affectiveness average scores represented the overall tendency of how top managers recognized the importance of and actually considered the stakeholders’ affects when making decisions. Average scores were also calculated for each stakeholder, calculating averages across 15 dimensions and across recognition and practice, and further converted to a range of 0–100. These average scores by stakeholders are referred to as stakeholder sub-scores (e.g., customer sub-score, employee sub-score) hereafter.

Return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), price to earnings ratio (PER), price to book-value ratio (PBR), and profit after tax as of the end of the fiscal year 2010 were used as measurements of management performance. These data for the participants’ organizations were sourced from the Stock Exchange of Thailand (www.set.or.th/en/ index.html), which has had sufficient liquidity and efficiency in previous years, and thus stock prices used in this research can be considered as efficiently or reasonably priced (www.set.or.th/en/market/market_statistics.html#annual). In addition, log values of number of employees as of the end of the fiscal year 2010 were used as an index of the size of the organization.


Of the 380 questionnaires sent to top managers, 43 were completed and returned. Table 3 shows the demographic data of the participants. The majority of respondents were male (79.5%). Most of the participants were aged between 41 and 60 years old and had gained a master’s degree.

Table 4 shows the number of participants by industry sector. Overall the return rate was 11.3%, while return rates of the industry types were 7.1% for service, 10.3% for consumer products, 11.0% for property and construction, 12.5% for agriculture and food products, 18.5% for resources, and 13.6% for industrial products. The proportional returns of each industry type were essentially in the same, approximately 10%, thus the respondents can be said to represent samples of all the industries. Of the 43 respondents, 23 were engaged in B2B businesses, 15 in B2C businesses, and 5 were engaged in both B2B and B2C businesses as shown in Table 5.

Correlations between affectiveness and management performance

A series of correlation analyses was conducted to investigate the correlation between the affectiveness scores and management performance of the organizations. Although the number of samples in this study is rather limited, it is still possible to argue the relationships between affectiveness scores and performance indices when significant correlations are available. Thus, correlation analysis was adopted in this study.

Table 6 shows the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between affectiveness scores (affectiveness winning scores, average scores, and stakeholders sub-scores), ROA, and ROE. Table 6 shows that there were no significant correlations between overall winning score or average score and financial performances (ROA and ROE). However, employee sub-score was moderately correlated with ROA (r = 0.30, p < 0.10). This result means that companies with high employee sub-scores tended to have high ROA. Thus, these findings suggest that organizations that care about employees’ affect are more likely to yield stronger financial performances.

Table 3. Demographic data of respondents
  Number of responses *Percentage
Gender Male 31 79.5
Female 8 20.5
Total 39 100.0
Age <40 years old 7 20.0
41–50 years old 13 33.3
51–60 years old 14 35.9
> 60 years old 5 12.8
Total 39 100.0
Education Bachelor’s degree 11 28.2
Master’s degree 25 64.1
Doctor’s degree 3 7.7
Total 39 100.0
Note. * The total number in each subcategory may not equal 43 because of missing data.
Table 4. Respondent population by industry sector and response rates for questionnaires
Types of industrySent (n, (%))Returned (n, (%))
Service 84 (22.1) 6 (14.0)
Consumer products 39 (10.3) 4 (9.3)
Property and construction 109 (28.7) 12 (27.9)
Agro and food products 40 (10.5) 5 (11.6)
Resource 27 (7.1) 5 (11.6)
Industrial products 81 (21.3) 11 (25.6)
Total 380 (100.0) 43 (100.0)
Table 5. Organization data according to each respondent
IndustryRespondentSectorBusiness typeNo. of EmployeesCompany age
Service R1 Transportation & logistics B2B, B2C 4570 7
R2 Transportation & logistics B2B 296 15
R3 Health care services B2C N/A 20
R4 Tourism and leisure B2C 11307 21
R5 Tourism and leisure B2B 73 6
R6 Media and publishing B2B 1402 7
Consumer product R7 Fashion B2C 487 34
R8 Fashion B2B 11312 23
R9 Personal and pharmaceutical products B2B 1680 23
R10 Personal and pharmaceutical products B2B, B2C 1539 5
Property and construction R11 Property development B2C N/A 5
R12 Property development B2C 2823 16
R13 Property development B2C N/A 21
R14 Property development B2B 1089 7
R15 Property development B2C 142 2
R16 Property development B2C 486 18
R17 Property development B2B 188 9
Property and construction R18 Property development B2B N/A 6
R19 Property development B2B N/A 2
R20 Property development B2B N/A 2
R21 Constructon materials B2C 2471 19
R22 Constructon materials B2B, B2C 30820 36
Agro and food products R23 Food and beverage B2C 65206 24
R24 Food and beverage B2C 18036 23
R25 Food and beverage B2C 878 3
R26 Food and beverage B2C 3195 33
R27 Agribusiness B2B 419 17
Resources R28 Energy and utlites B2B, B2C 994 17
R29 Energy and utlites B2C 148 14
R30 Energy and utlites B2C 441 16
R31 Energy and utlites B2B N/A 2
R32 Energy and utlites B2B 5199 16
Industrial product R33 Steel B2B 594 20
R34 Steel B2B 260 6
R35 Steel B2B N/A 19
R36 Industrial material and machinery B2B 578 19
R37 Industrial material and machinery B2B 1822 7
R38 Industrial material and machinery B2B N/A 16
R39 Petrochemical and chemical products B2B 93 6
R40 Petrochemical and chemical products B2B, B2C 202 16
R41 Petrochemical and chemical products B2B 1030 27
R42 Automotve B2B 830 6
R44 Packaging B2B 821 34
Table 6. Pearson’s correlaton coefcients between affectveness scores and management performance (ROA and ROE)
  Affectveness scoreSub-score
  WinningAverageEmployeeCustomerLocal communitySociety
ROA r 0.14 0.12 0.30+ 0.04 0.06 0.06
n 40 40 40 39 39 39
ROE r 0.14 0.05 0.12 -0.35 0.08 0.14
n 38 38 38 37 37 37
Note. + p < 0.10.

Table 7 shows Pearson’s correlaton coefcients between affectveness scores and PER, PBR, and net proft margin. In Table 7, both winning score and average score were moderately correlated with PER (winning score: r = 0.32, p < 0.10; average score: r = 0.31, p < 0.10) and PBR (winning score: r = 0.30, p < 0.10; average score: r = 0.31, p < 0.10), while they were not correlated with net proft margin.

The employee sub-score was moderately correlated with PBR (r = 0.29, p < 0.10 and net proft margin (r = 0.28, p < 0.10). This fnding means that the companies with high employee sub-scores tended to have higher PBR and net proft margins. Thus, this result suggests that organizatons that take employees’ affects into account yield beter fnancial performances. This result partally proves the third hypothesis that if affectve management focuses on employees’ affects, then ROA, PBR, and the net proft margin of the organizaton will improve.

The customer sub-score was signifcantly correlated with PER (r = 0.36, p < 0.05) and PBR (r = 0.38, p < 0.05). This result shows that companies with high customer sub-scores had higher PER and PBR. This result indicates that organizatons that highly value customers’ affects yield beter performances, and thus supports, in part, the frst hypothesis that affectve management that prioritzes customers’ affects will increase PER and PBR.

The society sub-score was signifcantly correlated with PBR (r = 0.35, p < 0.05). This result implies that management that cares about the affect on society results in high PBR, and thus partally supportng the ffh hypothesis. However, there was no support for the fourth hypothesis.

Finally, Table 8 shows the correlatons between the affectve scores and the size of the organizatons. The size of the organizaton was signifcantly correlated with the affectveness scores: winning score (r = 0.40, p < 0.05), average score (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), customer subscore (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), local community score (r = 0.40, p < 0.05), and society score (r = 0.39, p < 0.05). This fnding implies that larger organizatons tend to recognize the importance of affectve management and/or actually take into account stakeholders’ affects when they made management decisions. This result supports the sixth hypothesis.

Table 7. Pearson’s correlaton coefcients between affectveness scores and management performance indices related to investors’ perspectve (PER, PBR, net proft margin)
  Affectveness scoreSub-score
  WinningAverageEmployeeCustomerLocal communitySociety
PER r 0.32+ 0.31+ 0.11 0.36* 0.07 0.22
n 32 33 32 31 31 31
PBR r 0.30+ 0.31+ 0.29+ 0.38* 0.20 0.35
n 36 36 36 35 35 35
Net proft r 0.11 0.16 0.28+ 0.01 0.05 0.10
n 40 40 40 39 39 39
Note. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05.
Table 8. Pearson’s correlaton coefcients between affectveness scores and size of the organizaton
  Affectveness scoreSub-score
  WinningAverageEmployeeCustomerLocal communitySociety
Size r 0.40* 0.42* 0.20 0.46* 0.40* 0.39*
n 34 34 34 33 33 32
Note. * p < 0.05.

Difference between B2B and B2C businesses

Organizatons that engage in business with consumers (B2C) may be more sensitve to their influences on customers’ and other stakeholders’ affects than those doing business with other businesses (B2B). The affectveness of management may have a greater impact on stakeholders of B2C than B2B businesses. Thus, the relatonship between affectveness scores and management performance indices might be different between B2B and B2C businesses. To investgate these possible differences, we further divided the responses into B2B and B2C groups and then compared them.

Table 9 summarizes the means and standard deviatons of affectveness scores and management performance indices by the business categories of B2B and B2C groups, as well as the results of t-tests between business categories. B2C businesses had higher affectveness scores than B2B businesses: winning score (t = –2.04, p < 0.05), average score (t = –2.01, p < 0.10), local community sub-score (t = –2.55, p < 0.05), and society sub-score (t = –2.79, p < 0.01). Furthermore, B2C businesses also showed higher management performance with ROA (t = –1.75, p < 0.10) and signifcantly higher net proft margin (t = –2.28, p < 0.05) than B2B businesses.

Table 9. Means, standard deviatons, and t-test results of affectveness scores and management performance indices by B2B and B2C businesses
  Type of businessnMSDt
Affectveness scores Winning B2B 23 0.90 0.54 –2.04*
B2C 15 1.30 0.67  
Average B2B 23 69.80 9.25 –2.01+
B2C 15 77.11 13.24  
Sub-scores Employee B2B 23 67.70 8.71 –1.18
B2C 15 71.68 12.16  
Customer B2B 23 74.23 10.40 –0.88
B2C 15 77.80 14.81  
Local community B2B 23 54.90 19.14 –2.55*
B2C 15 70.83 18.42  
Society B2B 23 57.40 14.60 –2.79**
B2C 15 72.75 19.44  
Performance indices ROA B2B 20 8.09 10.59 –1.75+
B2C 15 14.45 10.72  
ROE B2B 18 6.65 25.35 –1.43  
B2C 15 16.74 11.38  
PER B2B 14 15.70 9.82 –0.23
B2C 14 16.88 17.27  
PBR B2B 17 1.62 0.79 –1.36
B2C 15 2.44 2.32  
Net profit B2B 20 -2.09 27.25 –2.28*
B2C 15 14.89 10.81  
Note. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Tables 10 and 11 show the results of a correlaton analysis between affectveness scores and fnancial performance indices by business categories (B2B and B2C). Table 10 shows correlatons between overall affectveness scores (winning and average scores) and performance indices, while Table 11 shows correlatons between stakeholder subscores and performance indices.

In Table 10, though not statstcally signifcant, B2C responses showed some positve correlatons between affectveness scores and PER and PBR, while B2C responses did not. This issue is addressed later in the discussion secton.

In Table 11, B2C responses showed a moderate positve correlaton between employee sub-score and PER (r = 0.47, p < 0.10). In additon, although not statstcally signifcant, B2C responses showed some positve correlatons between customer sub-score and management performance indices (PER and PBR). This point will be addressed further in the discussion secton.

Table 10. Pearson’s correlaton coefcients between affectveness scores (winning score and average score) and management performance indices
  Affectveness score
  Winning scoreAverage score
ROA r 0.14 0.01 –0.01 –0.07
n 20 15 20
ROE r 0.21 –0.13 0.01 –0.24
n 18 15 18 15
PER r –0.05 0.40 0.14 0.36
n 14 14 14 14
PBR r 0.23 0.37 0.19 0.27
n 17 15 17 15
Net proft r –0.01 –0.18 0.01 –0.08
n 20 15 20 15
Table 11. Pearson’s correlaton coefcients between stakeholder sub-scores and management performance indices
ROA r 0.28 0.07 –0.19 0.01 –0.07 –0.09 –0.09 –0.14
n 20 15 20 15 20 15 20 15
ROE r 0.08 –0.13 –0.20 –0.18 0.02 –0.18 0.21 –0.23
n 18 15 18 15 18 15 18 15
PER r 0.20 0.47+ 0.22 0.36 –0.02 0.13 0.11 0.17
n 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
PBR r 0.22 0.26 0.04 0.38 0.13 0.14 0.22 0.25
n 17 15 17 15 17 15 17 15
Net profit r 0.33 0.01 –0.16 –0.08 –0.19 –0.06 –0.18 –0.13
n 20 15 20 15 20 15 20 15
Note. + p < 0.10


This study investgated the relatonship between the affectveness of management and the management performance of organizatons. The overall results suggest that if the top management of an organizaton considers the affectve experiences of stakeholders (such as customers, employees, local community and society), then the performance of the organizaton appears to be beter. These results support the underlying purpose of this study, i.e., to study the importance of the concept of affectveness in management.

Scores that represented the overall affectveness of the organizaton, i.e., winning score and average score, did not show statstcally signifcant correlatons with earnings indices such as ROA and ROE (Table 6), but these scores were signifcantly correlated with PER and PBR (Table 7). This fnding implies that while the affectve management concept might not have an instant impact on earnings, organizatons that practce affectve management are more likely to be appreciated by investors in the market. It might also be possible for a linkage between practces of affectve management and performance to develop over the long term, and thus the relatonship between them should be studied on the basis of a tme series considering possible tme delays.

It is also noteworthy that affectveness scores (except for the employee sub-score) showed signifcant correlatons with the size of organizatons (Table 8). The larger the organizaton is, the more likely it is that its management recognizes the importance of considering the affectve experiences of stakeholders and/or actually practces affectve management. One possible reason for this could be that larger organizatons ofen have more stakeholders than smaller ones, and thus they are required to take into consideraton the influences of management decisions on stakeholders’ affectve experiences. Another possible reason might be that the larger organizatons have a greater capacity than smaller ones to take account of stakeholders’ affects in management decisions.


In terms of affectveness scores by stakeholder categories, the positve correlatons between customer sub-scores and management performance were intuitve. The results for PER and PBR showed statstcally signifcant correlatons (Table 7) while those for ROA and ROE did not (Table 6), suggestng that taking care of customers’ affectve experiences might have a greater direct influence on market appreciaton than on instant proftability.

It is also understandable, although not statstcally signifcant, that B2C businesses had higher correlatons between fnancial performances (PER and PBR) and customer sub-scores than B2B businesses (Table 11). One possible explanaton for the nonsignifcant correlatons could be the small number of organizatons in this study. However, Table 9 illustrates that while both B2C and B2B businesses have their highest stakeholder sub-scores in the customer category, the B2C businesses showed a higher average customer sub-score than the B2B businesses. This result suggests that top managers of B2C businesses are paying more atenton and making efforts to take customers’ affects into their management decision-making.


Employee sub-scores were also found to have moderate positve correlatons with ROA, PBR, and net proft margin. Research has already shown that employees’ positve affectve experiences in the workplace lead to the development of positve behaviors such as acton and cogniton (Fredickson, 2003), work engagement (Stairs and Galpin, 2010), motvaton (Fisher, 2010), increased productvity (Fredickson, 2003), and willingness to work overtme (Truss et al., 2006). Employees’ positve experiences are known to lead to beter fnancial performance for the organizaton, improve the discretonary efforts of employees (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004), raise target sales goals (Wellings, Bernthal, and Phelps, 2005), and drive more proft (Harter et al., 2002, 2010) and beter earnings per share (ISR, 2006). In additon, employees’ positve attudes towards the workplace are known to lead to improved organizatonal performance (Fulmer, Gerhart, and Scot, 2003; Ballou, Godwin, and Shortridge, 2003). While there are a number approaches for organizatons to improve the positve experiences of employees, including botom-up approaches and making it the responsibility of middle managers, this study has emphasized the importance of the commitment of top managers to the affects of employees. The results show that the greater the extent that top management takes into account employees’ affectve experiences in their management decision-making, the beter the performance of the organizaton.

Local community and society

In this study, using samples from Thailand, the local community sub-scores showed no signifcant correlatons with performance indices, while society sub-scores showed overall positve correlatons. It might be possible that the top managers who partcipated in this study did not pay much atenton to the affectve experiences of the local community. This fnding is also suggested by the results that showed that the local community sub-scores were the lowest amongst stakeholder sub-scores, for both B2B and B2C businesses (Table 9). It might be expected that top management would care less about their local community than society in general because, for example, of their small populaton when compared with the entre country. The limited impact of the local community, in turn, may result in relatvely small or delayed impacts on the management performance of the organizatons, for example in terms of proftability or market valuatons—valuatons by local community populatons may be dominated by those of the larger society, if these are indeed different.

Another possibility is the cultural background. The respondents in this study were all from Thailand. It might be possible that awareness among top management of the importance of considering stakeholders’ affectve experiences, especially of those other than customers and employees, has not yet matured in this country. Evidence from European companies shows a positve relatonship between fnancial performance and supportng local community actvites (Bird et al., 2007). To address this cultural difference, internatonal comparatve studies with broader samples should be pursued in future research. It might also be interestng to investgate how the attudes of the respondents in this study may change in the future.

Commitment to society has positve influences on fnancial performance (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006; McWilliam and Siegel, 2000). Branco and Rodrigues (2006) showed that CSR actvites bring sustainability to the fnancial performances of organizatons. While the results of this study accord with previous studies, this study also emphasized the importance that top managers themselves should be aware and actually commit to the affectve experiences of society to improve organizatonal performance.


This study represented preliminary results regarding the relatonship between awareness and practce of affectve management and management performance of organizatons. The overall results showed that affectveness indices were positvely correlated with performance indices, suggestng that those affectveness indices could be good predictors of organizatonal performance. The results also suggest that the further promoton of the affectve management concept might lead to a beter appreciaton by stakeholders and the market, and thus result in beter management performance, i.e., growth, proftability, and the sustainability of organizatons.

The limitatons of this study include the following issues. First, the sample organizatons are only from Thailand. Although it seems logical that a study from other cultures would reveal a similar patern to this study, to uncover possible differences across cultures, internatonal comparatve studies with samples from a range of countries should be pursued because top management from different countries may behave differently.

Second, the performance indices employed in this study were only from one fscal year (2010). To eliminate any possible economic anomalies in a partcular year, and to analyze the long-term relatons between affectveness indices and management performance as discussed, management indices and fnancial data from more than one year should be used for analysis.

Third, the stakeholders in this study were limited to customers, employees, local communites, and society in general. Other categories of stakeholders, such as shareholders or business partners, may impact on organizatonal performance through their affectve experiences. The analysis of these categories should also be included in future studies.

Fourth, as the personality of individuals relates with actons, desires, feelings, and thoughts, it is expected that the affectvity personality of top managements might result in difference in their effectveness and attude towards affectve management. Thus, the differences in the affectvity personality of top management might be further studied in relaton to their affectve management practces and performances.

Finally, although this study showed evidence of correlatons between affectve indices and management performance indices, the mechanisms that connect them are not yet clear. Possible causal relatonships should be further explored and validated with greater numbers of resp


  • Amsa, P. (1991). Influencing managers’ affectve world: Role of behavioural science training. Economic and Politcal Weekly, 26(48), 129-130.
  • Authayarat, W., Umemuro, H., Murata, K., and Jiamsanguanwong, A. (2011, June). Development of affectve management concept and scorecard. Paper presented at the Internatonal Conference on Business, Engineering, and Industrial Applicatons, Kuala Lumpur. Abstract retrieved from htp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all. jsp?arnumber=5994226andtag=1
  • Babkus, E., Bienstock, C. C., and Van Scoter, J. R. (2004). Linking perceived quality and customer satsfacton to store trafc and revenue growth. Decision Sciences, 35(4), 713-737.
  • Bahn, S., Lee, C., Nam, C. S., and Yun, M. H. (2009). Incorporatng affectve customer needs for luxuriousness into product design atributes. Human Factors Ergonomics Manufacturing, 19(2), 105-127. doi:10.1002hfm.20140.
  • Ballou, B., Godwin, N. H., and Shortridge, R. T. (2003). Firm value and employee attudes on workplace quality. Accountng Horizons, 17(4), 329-341.
  • Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Momentè, F., and Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility actvites are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 189-206. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9268-1.
  • Branco, M. C. and Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resourcebased perspectves. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 111-132. doi:10.1007/s10551- 006-9071-z.
  • Broeck, V. D. (2009). Factors influencing uptake of corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from European Working Conditons Observatory website: htp://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2009/05/LU0905019I.htm.
  • Cambell, D., Shrives, P., and Bohmbach-saager, H. (2001). Voluntary disclosure of mission statements in corporate annual reports: Signals what and to whom? Business and Society Review, 106(1), 65-87.
  • Carroll, A. B. and Näsi, J. (1997). Understanding stakeholder thinking: Themes from a Finnish conference. Business Ethics: A European Review, 6(1), 46-51. doi:10.1111/1467-8608.00047.
  • Corporate Leadership Council (2004). Driving performance and retenton through employee engagement: A quanttatve analysis of effectve engagement strategies. Retrieved from McKenzie Consultng website: http://www.mckpeople.com.au/SiteMedia/w3svc161/Uploads/Documents/ 760af459-93b3-43c7-b52a-2a74e984c1a0.pdf.
  • Devaraj, S., Mata, K. F., and Conlon, E. (2001). Product and service quality: The antecedents of customer loyalty in the automotve industry. Producton and Operatons Management, 10(4), 424-439.
  • Erez, A. and Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positve affect on the components of expectancy motvaton. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055-1067.
  • Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satsfacton and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizatonal Behavior, 24, 753-777.
  • Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. Internatonal Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 384-412. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x.
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positve emotons and Upward Spirals In Organizatons. In K.S. Cameron, J. E. Duton, R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positve organizatonal scholarship (pp. 163- 175). San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
  • Fulmer, I., Gerhart, B., and Scot, K. (2003). Are the 100 best beter? An empirical investgaton of the relatonship between being a ‘great place to work’ and frm performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 595-993.
  • George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (1996). Motvatonal agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of atenton and work motvaton. Research in Organizatonal Behavior, 18, 75-109.
  • Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., and Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attudes? Meta-analytc comparisons of integratve behavioral outcomes and tme sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.
  • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., and Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relatonship between employee satsfacton, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
  • Harter, J. K. and Blacksmith, N. (2010). Employee engagement and the psychology of joining, staying in, and leaving organizaton. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, and N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positve Psychology and Work (pp. 121-130). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Hodges, T. D. and Asplund, J. (2010). Strengths development. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, and N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positve Psychology and Work (pp.213- 220). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Ilies, R. and Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relatonships among personality, mood, and job satsfacton: A feld experience sampling study. Organizatonal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119-1139.
  • ISR. (2006, June 29). Engaged employees help boost the botom line. Retrieved from PRWEB website: htp://www.prweb.com/re;eases/2006/6/prweb405040.htm.
  • Larson, R. (2009). The Future of Customer Relatonship Management. Retrieved from Liberty University, Faculty Publicatons and Presentatons, Paper 7: Retrieved from htp://diftalcommons.liberty.edu/busi_fac_pubs/7.
  • Lewis, B. R. and Soureli, M. (2006). The antecedents of consumer loyalty in retail banking. Journal Consumer Behavior, 5, 15-31. doi:10.1002/cb.46.
  • Locke, K. (1996). A funny thing happened! The management of consumer emotons in service encounters. Organizaton Science, 7(1), 40-59. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.1.40.
  • Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., and Diener, E. (2005). The benefts of frequent positve affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletn, 131, 803-855.
  • McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and fnancial performance: Correlaton or misspecifcaton? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
  • Millard, N. (2006). Learning from the ‘wow’ factor – How to engage customers through the design of effectve affectve customer experiences. BT Tech Journal, 24(1), 11- 16. doi: 10.1007/s10550-006-0016-y.
  • Nagamachi, M. (2008). Perspectves and new trend of Kansei/Affectve engineering. The TQM Journal, 20(4), 290-298. doi:10.1108/17542730810881285.
  • Nayyar, P. R. (1995). Stock market reactons to customer service changes. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 39-53. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160106.
  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotonal design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic books.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeihaml, V.A., and Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptons of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 22-40.
  • Reinartz, W. J. and Kumar, V. (2003). The impact of customer relatonship characteristcs on proftable lifetme duraton. The Journal of marketng, 67(1), 77-99.
  • Stairs, M. and Galpin, M. (2010). Positve engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, and N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positve Psychology and Work (pp. 155-174). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Staw, B. M., and Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and Managerial Performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administratve Science Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
  • Strong, K. C., Ringer, R. C., and Taylor, S. A. (2001). The rules of stakeholder satsfacton (tmeliness, honesty, empathy). Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 219-230. doi:10.1023/A:1010714703936.
  • Tang, Q. and Umemuro, H. (2012). Factors that elicit human affects: Affectve responses among Japanese adults. Journal of Japan Industrial Management Associaton, 62(6), 311-322.
  • Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., and Burnet, J. (2006). Working life: Employee attudes and engagement 2006. London: Chartered Insttute of Personnel and Development.
  • Umemuro, H. (2009). Affectve technology, affectve management, towards affectve society. In J.A. Jacko. (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 5612/2009. Human-Computer Interacton. Ambient, Ubiquitous and Intelligent Interacton (pp. 683-692). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02580-8_75.
  • Umemuro, H. (2011). Affectve technology through affectve management. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 6766/2011. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interacton. User Diversity (pp. 513-518). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21663-3_55.
  • Wellings, R. S., Bernthal, P., and Phelps, M. (2005). Employee engagement: The key to realizing compettve advantage. Retrieved from DDI World Development Dimensions Internatonal website: htp://www.ddiworld.com/DDIWorld/media/ monographs/employeeengagement_mg_ddi.pdf?ext=.pdf.
  • Whitehouse, L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Views from the frontline. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 279-296.
  • Zelenski, J. M., Murphy, S. A., and Jenkins, D. A. (2008). The happy-productve worker thesis revisited. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(4), 521-537. doi:10.1007/s10902- 008-9087-4.