Reflexivity and Emotion at Work: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Reflexivity is a metacognitive process traditionally applied to tasks and actions. Although emotions are a significant component of work life, the application of reflexivity to the emotional domain has received limited attention. This study addresses this gap by critically reviewing empirical evidence on reflexivity and emotions, aiming to understand this relationship and its outcomes in the workplace. A systematic literature review on Scopus and PsycINFO identified 722 records resulting in a final sample of 15 studies that met the PICO inclusion criteria and were included. These studies were analyzed according to recursively developed criteria. The findings showed that reflexivity affects emotions by considering them as the application domain; emotions, in turn, can trigger reflexivity. The outcomes of this relationship concern organizational learning and the workers’ role and identity. This relationship was more frequently investigated in high-emotion professional contexts and with a focus on specific professional roles. Due to the limited number of studies, the findings cannot be generalized. However, this study helps to define the role of reflexivity as a metacognitive competence applicable to emotions. Developing reflexivity within professional and organizational settings may help professionals regulate their own and others’ emotions by learning to detect, make sense of, and question critical emotional episodes.

1. Introduction

“To wait is a way of knowing the things to come”. Folk wisdom, too, provides proverbs that extol pausing as an opportunity for learning and change. Unfortunately, however, many workplaces where efficiency and productivity are core values tend to equate pausing with wasting time and money. This leaves little room for reflexivity, a crucial process for making well-informed decisions, learning from experiences, and capturing opportunities for growth and improvement. Indeed, reflexivity is the ability to pause, observe one’s own experiences, practices, and routines, reflect on and question them, and decide accordingly (Edmondson, 1999; Farnese & Livi, 2016; West & Sacramento, 2006). It inherently expresses the ability to reflect in action, aiming to foster one’s learning (and unlearning) through experience, as well as contextual and relational practices (Lee & Sukoco, 2011). This competence of being aware of understanding when suspending the action and reflecting on it underpins more thoughtful and effective outcomes. Hence, it may represent a resource, allowing individuals to shape and “give meaning to the world from within” (Ripamonti et al., 2016, p. 57), contributing to its reflexive restructuring.

Although reflexivity is a metacognitive process ascribed to individuals, it can also be conceived as a collective capability within groups or organizations. In such cases, it is defined as “the extent to which group members overtly reflect on, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies (decision making) and processes (communication) and adapt these to current or anticipated circumstances” (West, 2000, p. 3). This capability allows a group to engage in effective decision-making by critically evaluating alternative ideas or points of view, thus avoiding the risk of groupthink mechanisms (Schippers et al., 2015).

Considering both individual and group levels, reflexivity can yield several positive outcomes for individuals, groups, and organizations. Indeed, reflexivity enables individuals to better self-knowledge within relationships (Ellis & Berger, 2003), enhances individual and organizational learning processes (West, 1996; West & Sacramento, 2006), and boosts team and organizational performance (Schippers et al., 2013; Brav et al., 2009) and innovation (Wong et al., 2007; Farnese et al., 2016; Schippers et al., 2015).

Despite the long tradition of studies on emotions at work (Zapf, 2002; Zapf & Holz, 2006; Grandey, 2008), the literature has primarily focused on reflexivity applied to the domain of practices (such as tasks, operations, and routines), overlooking the emotional domain (Arvey et al., 1998; Putnam & Mumby, 1993). Only a few scholars have conceptualized the relationship between emotions and reflexivity (Holmes, 2015; Burkitt, 2012), and empirical evidence remains sparse.

To address the need to systematize the reflexivity–emotions relationship in the workplace, this study critically reviews empirical evidence on this relationship, aiming to understand its nature, potential differences at the individual and team level, and key outcomes. This analysis is important for three main reasons. Firstly, the direction of the relationship between emotions and reflexivity is unclear. Some scholars have suggested that reflexivity is a metacognitive competence applicable to the emotional domain (Travers et al., 2020; McCray et al., 2018; Wu & Song, 2023; Lemarchand-Chauvin, 2023; Grisoni, 2017; Helm, 2017; Hatch, 1997; Morrissey & Higgins, 2019; Thille et al., 2018; Quinn & Bunderson, 2016; Barbot & Dodier, 2015; Andela & Truchot, 2017; Diochon & Nizet, 2019). Conversely, other scholars proposed that emotions may act as a trigger for reflexivity (Hibbert et al., 2022; Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017). Thus, the direction of this relationship needs to be disentangled. Secondly, reflexive competence becomes more relevant in contexts with high emotional demands, where professionals root their practices in managing others or their own emotions (e.g., psychiatry, emergency settings, and nursing) (Seidler et al., 2014; Andela & Truchot, 2017; Thille et al., 2018; McCray et al., 2018). A deeper understanding of how reflexivity may contribute to emotion sensemaking and regulation, and how this dynamic unfolds, leading to different outcomes, could provide valuable insight into the emotion work discourse. Thirdly, this enhanced awareness could make reflexivity in the workplace a tool for enabling emotions to steer deliberate action, choices, and effective decision-making processes (Mendonça & Sàágua, 2019).

Overall, the reflexivity–emotions relationship may provide insights for scholars and organizations alike as a relevant aspect to be valued and developed in the work environment.

Hence, our aim is to unravel the nature of the relationship between emotions and reflexivity in the workplace, seeking to understand the underpinning link and what outcomes it may produce, by conducting a systematic literature review on existing research in workplace settings.

Literature Review

Reflexivity is the metacognitive competence to question habits or routines, helping people make decisions and change based on a critical understanding of events, embracing doubt, and exploring possibilities (Giddens, 1990; Kpakol & Zeb-Obipi, 2017). According to West (2000, p. 4), reflexivity “includes behaviors such as questioning, planning, exploratory learning, analysis, diverse exploration, playfulness, learning at a meta-level, reviewing past events with self-awareness, making use of knowledge”, leading to new awareness based on circumstances. Reflexive practices presuppose openness to experience and willingness to dialog about challenges and opportunities, thus assuming the risk of bewilderment and uncertainty while encouraging exploratory forms of making sense and innovating (Farnese & Livi, 2016; West, 1996; West & Sacramento, 2006). In this sense, reflexivity is a double-loop learning process that challenges the practices in use (Argyris, 2003), aiming to alter the status quo by critically “interacting with and affecting the institutional setting in which people operate” (Beers & van Mierlo, 2017, p. 418).

Drawing on the social constructivism perspective, some authors (Scaratti et al., 2009; Norander & Harter, 2012) defined reflexivity as a process that questions how individuals make meaning of their reality and make it accessible to others, thereby helping to shape the organizational environment, interaction with colleagues, and affecting the way they operate and position in the world. The agentic willingness to critically question and impact decisions and behaviors is the features that inherently distinguish this construct from reflection. So, “reflexivity is thought to be more than reflection” (Holmes, 2010, p. 140). Furthermore, reflexivity recognizes that it is the individual who gives shape and meaning to the world from within, like an internal conversation (Archer, 2003), while reflection is about “taking oneself outside” (Ripamonti et al., 2016, p. 57) the external social world, purposing to analyze it by adopting an objective position.

This construct was originally rooted in the Action Research theory, which emphasized self-reflexivity as a key process for consultants or researchers, who are recognized as knowledgeable actors. By adopting a reflexive method for building knowledge, they shape the objectives of knowledge (Rosenberg, 1990). Initially applied in research contexts, this construct has been extended to other work contexts such as organizations and various professionals including coaches and counselors. Schön’s (1993) seminal work on reflexivity in professional settings conceived it as an individual-level process highlighting a professional’s capability to deal with work situations and change their course by critically reflecting in action.

Due to its intrapsychic nature, reflexivity has been operationalized primarily at the individual level with self-reflexivity defined “as the extent to which a subject periodically reviews his or her work objectives and methods” (Matsuo, 2018, p. 120). However, reflexivity can also be the result of group processes elicited by team dynamics, social relations among colleagues, and the organizational climate. Indeed, “team reflexivity enhances the ability of a group to engage in the decision-making process through critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, so avoiding the risk of activating groupthink mechanisms” (Farnese & Livi, 2016, p. 526).

Most conceptualizations and research on reflexivity, especially in workplace settings, captured its cognitive component while neglecting its relationship with emotions. However, conceiving reflexivity in these terms is reductive since emotions play a relevant role—both as a factor of disturbance and discomfort and as a valuable resource—in several work processes, such as understanding complex events, informed decision-making, and managing relationships with customers and colleagues.

Only a few scholars have specifically examined the relationship between reflexivity and emotions. Drawing on this niche literature (Burkitt, 2012), we identify three distinct perspectives which are graphically represented in Figure 1. These perspectives propose the following: (1) emotions are a way of relating to others and us, therefore representing an inherent component of reflexivity, along with its cognitive component; (2) emotions serve as a trigger emerging from social relationships that, in turn, influence reflexive processes; (3) emotions constitute a distinct domain of reflexivity.

Notably, Holmes (2010, 2015) defined reflexivity as a process involving the interplay between a cognitive and an emotional component. She considered reflexivity as a skill through which individuals actively examine the social context in which they are embedded and make informed and critical decisions. This process includes the adoption of an emotional point of view that, by considering individuals’ emotional experiences—such as their emotions, feelings, and sensations—also contributes to reshaping the action. Also, Archer (2007) affirmed that reflexivity is the mental capacity of people to connect themselves with their social contexts but considering it only as a “purely cognitive” (Archer, 2003, pp. 101–102) internal conversation is an error. Still, her acknowledgment of emotions is also somewhat hidden.

Most scholars conceptualize emotions and reflexivity as independent constructs. In some cases, emotions serve as the means for the attainment of other ends (Rosenberg, 1990) and act as the causal factor or trigger point for reflexivity (Hibbert et al., 2022; Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017).

Other scholars focused on emotions as a potential reflexivity domain (Travers et al., 2020; Helm, 2017), assuming that individuals can activate this metacognitive process on their emotions as well as their actions. Interactions with others in any social context (e.g., workplace) promote the assessment of feelings and emotions, and reflexivity facilitates this process through aware and intentional cognitive reflection on emotions. As emotional regulation theory suggests (Gross, 1998), emotion regulation can occur in various ways, whether automatic, implicit (as seen in internal conversation by Archer, 2003), or controlled, with different degrees of awareness ranging from conscious to unconscious (Grandey, 2000). Overall, the emotional regulation framework underscores that there are “processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross, 1998, p. 275). Among them, reflexivity on emotions stands out as a conscious and deliberate process of emotional regulation (Travers et al., 2020; Mendonça & Sàágua, 2019).

In light of the different perspectives and inconsistent conceptualizations on the reflexivity–emotions relationship, along with the limited empirical evidence on this link, this review seeks to provide a more fine-grained understanding of how emotions and reflexivity interact in organizational and professional settings. To address this issue, this review aims to identify and analyze studies that explore the nature of the relationship between reflexivity—at both the individual and team level—and emotions in workplace settings. Specifically, this study focuses on the following questions:

I.

How are reflexivity and emotions related? Specifically, are emotions the domain or the trigger of reflexivity?

II.

What are the outcomes of the relationship between reflexivity and emotions?

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA guidelines). This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD420251067178).

The search was conducted between August 2023 and January 2024. We performed searches in the following databases: PsycINFO and Scopus. The search strategy included a comprehensive search in database, targeting the title, abstract, and keywords of the following terms: “reflexive” AND “emotion” OR “feeling” OR “affective state” OR “mood” OR “meta-emotion”. Aiming to focus on work settings, these core labels were combined with the terms “workplace” OR “organization”. Because this search string yielded an insufficient number of results, the term “profession” was further included. In doing so, a satisfactory number of papers was achieved. The search was not limited to a specific time range.

The PICO design method, developed to facilitate structured questioning (Schiavenato & Chu, 2021), was used to define the eligibility criteria. PICO is an acronym for Population (the subjects or the studies were included), Intervention (main condition acting on the population), Comparison (the comparative tool in the studies), Outcome (the outcome measure(s) of interest), and Study design (the research design). The eligibility criteria for this review are outlined in

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for including and excluding academic articles in the review.

PICOS	Eligibility Criteria
Population	Included the following: - Teams and single workers employed in organizations; - Autonomous professionals; - The research in any country. Excluded the following: - Any study targeting the researcher’s reflexivity as a method to conduct research.
Intervention	Included the following: - Any study where reflexivity is related to emotions in any way; - Any study that provides a description of reflexivity either explicitly (e.g., in an operational definition) or with enough information provided throughout the abstract, introduction, method, results, and/or discussion sections to clearly indicate that reflexivity was a variable of interest or an outcome. Excluded the following: - Any study including reflexivity as a research method.
Comparison	Not relevant.
Outcomes	Included the following: - Any outcomes associated with reflexivity and workers’ or professionals’ feelings or emotions.
Study design	Included the following: - Any peer-reviewed, academic articles using any empirical study design; - Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies; - Not limited to a specific time range.

. Studies not mentioning any kind of connection with these criteria were excluded.

2.2. Selection Criteria

Two researchers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the first 100 records, discussing any discrepancies until they reached an agreement. Then, working in pairs, they independently screened all remaining titles and abstracts. In cases of disagreement, they discussed whether an article should proceed to full-text review until they reached a decision. If needed, a third researcher was consulted to make the final call.

Next, the two researchers independently reviewed the full texts of the selected articles to decide on inclusion. Again, disagreements were resolved through discussion, with a third researcher involved if necessary.

2.3. Data Collection Process

Data from the included studies were extracted using a standardized form. Two reviewers independently collected the relevant information. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion.

We extracted data on the following elements:

• Report information: Author(s) and year of publication;
• Study characteristics: Sample details and organizational context;
• Research design: Methodology adopted;
• Study content: Level of reflexivity examined, outcomes related to the reflexivity–emotion relationship, and supporting environment.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the potential effect of the risk of bias in the included studies.

2.4. Data Analysis

As this review included only qualitative studies, no quantitative effect measures were applicable.

In line with the review protocol, we used a thematic synthesis approach (Thomas & Harden, 2008) to analyze and summarize the qualitative findings. Themes were developed by identifying patterns across studies and grouping similar concepts together. The synthesis was conducted by two reviewers independently with discussion to resolve any differences.

To assess quality, we have considered the following three criteria (Popay, 2008): epistemological, whether the study is trustworthy; theoretical, whether an explicit theoretical framework shapes the design of the study; technical, the methods of study.

We have used GRADECERQual to assess certainty. Therefore, confidence in the review findings was considered through reflexive discussion among reviewers taking into account the consistency of findings and depth of qualitative data.

2.5. Data Extraction

Figure 2 shows the systematic review process following the PRISMA flow diagram. In total, we identified 51 papers through PsycINFO and 748 papers through Scopus. No additional studies were added. After removing duplicates, the research identified 721 papers. Of these, 411 records were excluded during the initial screening according to the following general exclusion criteria: centrality to the topic, language, type of scientific product, research context, and research methodology. In particular, 277 papers either did not include the population of interest (workers or professionals) or did not address the role of emotions; 52 papers provided marginal or no information on reflexivity; 32 studies focused on reflexivity as a research method; 49 records were books or book chapters. Among the 71 papers deemed eligible for full-text review, 56 did not meet the PICO’s inclusion criteria, leaving a final sample of 15 studies eligible for this review. Notably, none of them employed quantitative or mixed methods. All studies were published post-2015 with the notable exception of Hatch’s (1997) study.

3. Results

To address the research questions, the two authors analyzed the 15 papers and classified them according to several criteria developed recursively, as previously mentioned (see Section 3.3). Findings were interpreted by considering the consistency and depth of qualitative data across studies, resulting in a qualitative evidence synthesis based on thematic analysis. No formal assessment of reporting bias was conducted, as this is not routinely performed in qualitative evidence syntheses (Toews et al., 2017). However, we acknowledge the potential risk of reporting bias, particularly the selective publication of studies with more prominent or positive findings. We attempted to minimize this risk through a comprehensive search strategy and by applying the GRADECERQual approach.

Table A1. Interactive Summary of Qualitative Findings from GRADECERQual.

#	Summarized Review Findings	GRADE-CERQual Assessment of Confidence	Explanation of GRADE-CERQual Assessment	References
1	Using reflexivity on emotion enables the nurses to tolerate and hold the tensions of uncertainty as a positive creative force within the therapeutic relationship, which in turn helped them to engage in a more relational and embodied manner, listen to, and “take therapeutic risks” with the client.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Morrissey and Higgins (2019)
2	Emotions trigger reflexivity to adopt emotional work situations where authentic expression is difficult and to externalize the difficult emotions by orienting responsibility towards others rather than the self.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Hibbert et al. (2022)
3	Reflexivity on emotion locates contradiction and irony in thoughts and feelings.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding coherence, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Hatch (1997)
4	Reflexivity on emotion handles the tensions that compassion arouses.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Barbot and Dodier (2015)
5	Reflexivity on emotion amplifies the effects of experiential diversity, perceived job relevance, and attention to others’ emotions to the extent to which huddle participants learn significant and important things in huddles. Also, it enhances the effects of attending to and trying to understand the emotions of others on learning in huddles.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Quinn and Bunderson (2016)
6	Reflexivity on emotion reduces burnout induced by emotional dissonance.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Andela and Truchot (2017)
7	Reflexivity on emotion supports the containment of emotions and development of knowledge.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Helm (2017)
8	Emotions trigger reflexivity to manage them to, finally, perform in action.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Hedman-Phillips and Barge (2017)
9	Reflexivity on emotion supports personal and professional development concerning the issue of work-life balance.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Grisoni (2017)
10	Reflexivity on emotion creates space for the expression of more difficult emotions.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Thille et al. (2018)
11	Reflexivity on emotion supports taking unsettling emotional and political risks in the set to learn, change old habits, and challenge current practice in leadership interventions.	High confidence	no/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	McCray et al. (2018)
12	Reflexivity on emotion allows for the management of emotions in the form of emotional awareness, emotional unpacking, and emotional (dis)engagement.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Diochon and Nizet (2019)
13	Reflexivity on emotion promotes clarity of thought, emotional regulation, and a more circumspect view of complex situations.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Travers et al. (2020)
14	Reflexivity on emotion serves to construct emotional experiences and identity.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Wu and Song (2023)
15	Reflexivity on emotion can lead to a reversal in the valence of initial emotional responses.	High confidence	No/very minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no/very minor concerns regarding coherence, no/very minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no/very minor concerns regarding relevance	Lemarchand-Chauvin (2023)

in the Appendix A shows the synthesis results to assess the robustness of the included studies.

Table A2. Summary of findings.

Author and Year	Research Context	Participants	Adopted Methodology	Valence of Emotions	Nature of Relationship Between Reflexivity and Emotions	Outcome	Setting
Hatch (1997)	CP’s company	CP’s management team	Ethnography, managerial discourse	Negative	To locate contradiction and irony in the thoughts and feelings	Organizational identity construction	No information provided
Barbot and Dodier (2015)	Court lawyers	25 lawyers	Case study	Negative	To handle the tensions that compassion arouses		No information provided
Quinn and Bunderson (2016)	City editors	Employees from newspapers newsrooms	Newspaper newsrooms, interview, observations	No information provided	To amplify the effects of experiential diversity, perceived job relevance, and attention to others’ emotions to the extent to which huddle participants learn significant and important things in huddles. To enhance the effects of attending to, and trying to understand, the emotions of others on learning in huddles.	Learning	No information provided
Andela and Truchot (2017)	General hospital	445 nurses and nurses’ assistants	Questionnaire	Negative	To reduce burnout induced by emotional dissonance.	Lower burnout	Social reflexive context
Helm (2017)	Children and families practice social work team situated within a local authority	27 practitioners in children and family social work and their 7 team leaders	Descriptive observation	Positive	To support the containment of emotions and development of knowledge.	Creating sensemaking	Supportive office space
Hedman-Phillips and Barge (2017)	International manufacturing company	Top management team (9 directors)	Participatory action research	Positive	To manage the emotions to, finally, perform in action	Increasing communication	Positive discourse
Grisoni (2017)	No information provided	8 groups of 8 people (max) including managers and staff	Action inquiry	Positive	To support personal and professional development in relation to the issue of work-life balance.	Learning	Poetry workshop
Thille et al. (2018)	Children’s hospital in a large urban community	A children’s neuromuscular rehabilitation team (multiprofessional staff)	Dialogical methodology, ethnography	Negative	To create space for the expression of more difficult emotions and to strengthen the human dimensions of care in a children’s outpatient neuromuscular setting	Creating sensemaking	Dialogical environment
McCray et al. (2018)	NHS organizations	9 doctor leaders	Action learning, qualitative interview	Negative	To take unsettling emotional and political risks in the set in order to learn, change old habits, and challenge current practice in leadership interventions	Taking risks	Learning set experience
Morrissey and Higgins (2019)	In-patient and community services	33 mental health nurses of a large urban adult mental health service	Interview	Negative	To enable them to tolerate and hold the tensions of uncertainty as a positive creative force within the therapeutic relationship, which in turn helped them to engage in a more relational and embodied manner, listen to, and “take therapeutic risks” with the client.	Taking risks	Supportive reflexive system (clinical supervision)
Diochon and Nizet (2019)	Coaching associations	37 executive coaches	Interview	Positive	To allow for the management of emotions in the form of emotional awareness, emotional unpacking, and emotional (dis)engagement.	Decision-making process	No information provided
Travers et al. (2020)	Home care provider	11 home care workers	Diary method	Negative	To promote clarity of thought, emotional regulation, and a more circumspect view of complex situations	Commitment to the job	No information provided
Hibbert et al. (2022)	Academic organization	4 researchers	Reflexive autoethnography	Negative	To adopt emotional work situations where authentic expression was difficult and to externalize the difficult emotions by orienting responsibility towards others rather than the self.	Learning to be more ‘at home in ourselves’ and respond more effectively in future challenging situations	Supportive social context
Wu and Song (2023)	Three primary rural schools	Teachers	Ethnography, case study	Negative	To construct emotional experiences and identity	Lower emotional stress and sense of conflict	No information provided
Lemarchand-Chauvin (2023)	Secondary schools	14 teachers	Self-confrontation interviews	Positive and negative	To lead emotion to reverse the valence of initial emotions	Increasing work self-efficacy	No information provided

in the Appendix A summarizes these findings, which are described in detail below.

3.1. Relation Between Reflexivity and Emotions

The literature highlights the relationship between reflexivity and emotions from different perspectives. Some studies suggested that reflexivity affects emotions, viewing emotions as the object of reflexivity (Travers et al., 2020; McCray et al., 2018; Wu & Song, 2023; Lemarchand-Chauvin, 2023; Grisoni, 2017; Helm, 2017; Hatch, 1997; Morrissey & Higgins, 2019; Thille et al., 2018; Quinn & Bunderson, 2016; Barbot & Dodier, 2015; Andela & Truchot, 2017; Diochon & Nizet, 2019). Conversely, other studies focused on how emotions prompt and affect reflexivity, considering emotions as a causal factor (Hibbert et al., 2022; Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017). Aiming to understand how the reflexivity–emotions relationship unfolds, this review will consider both self and team reflexivity, examining how they relate to workplace emotions. Since the studies included several emotions, this review will also consider a basic criterion of the taxonomy of emotions, their valence.

3.1.1. Emotions as Starting Points for Reflexivity

Among the studies identified by this review, only two (Hibbert et al., 2022; Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017) considered emotions as a starting point and key facilitators of reflexivity. When relevant events occur in organizations, emotions support and facilitate individuals to understand and become aware of these events before they can even discuss them, thereby opening the flow of experience to reflexive inquiry (Davies, 2012; Gilmore & Kenny, 2015). In doing so, emotions act as signals that guide people’s decision-making and actions.

The analysis of the following papers suggests that both negative and positive emotions can prompt reflexivity, although the reasons for this seem different. Reflexivity triggered by negative emotions arises due to the difficulty in disentangling these emotions and the need to make sense of them (Hibbert et al., 2022). In contrast, reflexivity initiated by positive emotions stems from workers’ need to make not only the emotions themselves meaningful (as in the previous case) but also the professional situations they are experiencing (Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017).

In Hibbert et al.’s (2022) study, reflexive practice is shown to “both explain and advance the potential for learning through engagement with negative emotional experiences” (Hibbert et al., 2022, p. 798). Emotions, alongside behavior, act as alarm signals prompting individuals to critically recognize the need for change. This recognition is crucial for personal and professional growth, enabling different choices within organizational decision-making processes (Callahan & Elliott, 2020; Hibbert et al., 2010; Hibbert et al., 2019). Reflexivity arises from the need to understand negative emotions, become aware of negative emotional events, and find effective responses for future situations. This study contributed to clarifying “how individuals go from ‘containing’ negative emotional situations in organizations in order to learn reflexively from them, so as to be able to respond differently to similar organizational experiences in the future” (Hibbert et al., 2022, p. 799).

Hedman-Phillips and Barge’s (2017) study suggested that emotions foster team reflexivity in communication processes among teammates. This finding is in line with Fredrickson’s (2001) theory, which posited that (positive) emotions facilitate the information construction process and, consequently, the understanding of situations. Once emotions activate reflexivity, this heightens people’s awareness of the situation they are experiencing, subsequently addressing their actions.

3.1.2. Reflexivity on Emotion

Studies focusing on the reflexivity–emotions relationship mostly considered reflexivity as a primary factor, with emotions being the domain of its action. This perspective suggests that reflexivity acts upon emotions, guiding their assessment and regulation, thus affecting emotional experiences and responses in the workplace. Research in this area often explored the dynamics of this relationship at both the individual (Hatch, 1997; Travers et al., 2020; McCray et al., 2018; Wu & Song, 2023; Lemarchand-Chauvin, 2023; Morrissey & Higgins, 2019; Diochon & Nizet, 2019; Barbot & Dodier, 2015) and team reflexivity levels (Grisoni, 2017; Helm, 2017; Thille et al., 2018; Quinn & Bunderson, 2016; Andela & Truchot, 2017).

The studies included in this review mostly consider reflexivity as it applies to negative emotions or workplace crises. In these instances, reflexivity on emotions enables workers to navigate negative emotional events by providing the tools to understand and make sense of the situation. In contrast, studies focusing on reflexivity applied to positive emotions highlight the emergence of reflective practices, enhanced by psychologically safe workplace climates.

In general, reflexivity on emotions serves several functions, including making sense of and understanding the situation workers are facing, as well as facilitating potential changes. In Hatch’s (1997) seminal study, reflexivity on emotions encouraged self-criticism during crises. Managers’ awareness of the crisis they were facing, supported by reflexivity, helped them manage and reorganize their emotions. “Reflexivity locates contradiction and irony in the thoughts and feelings” (Hatch, 1997, p. 282), fostering a capacity for contradiction that enables actors to represent and design their organizations as both stable and flexible to change. According to Hatch, in the social construction processes of organizations by managers, reflexivity organizes their experience through contradiction and irony, making the understanding and awareness of their thoughts and emotions a “less threatening and more playful fashion” (Hatch, 1997, p. 287). Similarly, McCray et al. (2018) found that reflexivity on emotions helped reflexive leaders navigate negative emotional situations arising during crises. Adopting the framework of critical action learning, the study highlighted that leaders who were capable of critically reflecting on their emotions were better prepared to make decisions and cope with complex situations. These leaders were more willing to take emotional and political risks—risks that they might not have taken, according to the hierarchical concept of leadership—and to develop more adaptive, shared, and innovative responses to change (Heifetz, 1994; Haeusler, 2010).

Also, Travers et al. (2020) suggested that reflexivity enhances workers’ awareness of those factors that lead them to emotionally react, enabling them to respond to emotional strain in a detached manner. When reflexivity is applied to emotions, it helps workers to make sense of situations and serves as a means of emotional expression and stress management. In this sense, according to emotional regulation theory (Gross, 199), reflexivity could be the tool for understanding the emotions a worker feels, the time, and the expression of these emotions, overall, fostering heightened learning and greater self-awareness.

Similarly, Wu and Song’s (2023) study focused on reflexivity on emotions, confirming its role in helping workers experience negative emotions without avoiding them. In line with Holmes’ (2015) conceptualization, reflexivity on emotions is seen as an intersubjective capability to interpret one’s own and others’ emotions and their expressions. The study showed that reflexivity on negative emotions supported teachers in developing empathy toward students and parents, enabling them to engage in emotional self-regulation without suppressing negative emotional expressions. This process informed teaching practices and strengthened professional identity.

While previous studies highlighted the role of reflexivity on emotions in understanding complex or critical situations, Lemarchand-Chauvin’s (2023) study emphasized its impact on change. The findings revealed that reflexivity on emotions helped teachers transform their initially experienced emotions (whether positive or negative) into a reflexive cycle that fostered their growth in competence. In doing so, reflexivity on emotions became a major tool for building teachers’ professional identity. In the same vein, Morrissey and Higgins (2019) investigated how reflexivity helped nurses address their own and their patients’ emotional needs, thus creating a sense of emotional safety and facilitating a shift from “a death orientation to a life orientation”. Their study found that reflecting on their own emotions enabled nurses to tolerate and embrace uncertainty as a positive creative force within the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship, supporting them in consciously taking risks in the workplace.

Finally, Diochon and Nizet (2019) studied the intrapersonal interplay between emotions and reflexivity in ethical sensemaking within the specific practice of coaching. Their research showed that reflexivity played a crucial role in managing emotions at various stages in the ethical sensemaking process for coaches. Initially, reflexivity helped coaches detect and become more aware of their emotions, enabling them to accept these emotions without withdrawing from them, as well as use them as alerts indicating potential problems to address. Subsequently, reflexivity supported coaches in analyzing their emotions through emotional unpacking, which involves distancing themselves and distinguishing what belonged to them from what was influenced by circumstances. Ultimately, reflexivity led coaches to make informed decisions by reducing their emotional involvement in solving the problem.

Studies at the team level of reflexivity are largely related to facing crises or problematic episodes eliciting negative emotions. Thille et al. (2018) investigated difficult emotional reactions (such as anxiety and sadness) caused by discomfort or strange situations in clinicians. Reflexivity on these negative emotions—through collective discussions about their difficulties in emotional management and potential changes—allowed them to use emotions as a compass by providing sensemaking, unraveling situations of uncertainty, and strengthening their professional identity.

Andela and Truchot (2017) specifically focused on the role of reflexivity in addressing emotional dissonance, a conflictual intrapsychic state that hinders the spontaneous expression of emotions and requires regulation strategies (Jansz & Timmers, 2002). The authors identified a specific type of reflexivity, social reflexivity, which meets the emotional and social needs of the team. This form of reflexivity played an important role in mitigating the emotional exhaustion caused by emotional dissonance, thereby reducing the risk of burnout. Similarly, Barbot and Dodier (2015) explored how compassion for the suffering of testimonies generated tension for lawyers caught between the challenge of reducing this emotion to a legal category and the “incommensurability of the alleged losses” (Barbot & Dodier, 2015, p. e56). When lawyers shared feelings of compassion among the lawyer community (i.e., reflexivity on compassion), it helped them balance their role between remaining objective while also indulging in a moment of compassion without being overwhelmed by it.

Reflexivity on emotions is a capacity that can be applied not only when the experienced situation is emotionally straining, but also when the work setting is supportive. Indeed, building psychologically safe contexts that emphasize collaboration and support among colleagues can encourage reflexive practices. In these instances, reflexivity is not merely a response to a compelling need to manage, understand, and make sense of a demanding situation, but also a deliberate choice to engage in reflexive thinking.

In Grisoni’s (2017) study, poetry and imagination intertwined with reflexivity through collaborative inquiry. Reflexivity “helps participants move from intellectualizing to the personal experience of what it feels” (Grisoni, 2017, p. 139). Through reflexivity on their experiences and emotions, workers accessed their imagination and gained an appreciation for how others perceived and felt differently, nurturing both personal and professional development. Similarly, Helm (2017) explored the role of reflexivity on emotions within the context of social work strongly characterized by close proximity and interaction among colleagues who benefit from continuous feedback. The findings showed that this virtuous climate bolstered reflexivity, leading social workers to express and share emotions and feelings inherent to their role. The atmosphere of openness, trust, and collegiality created a safe environment for sensemaking and promoted an interconnected and critically reflexive practice (Ruch, 2007) which, in turn, enabled social workers to “explore gut feelings and explicit reasoning with sufficient rigor and depth” (Helm, 2017, p. 395). Quinn and Bunderson (2016) studied the role of informal interactions between colleagues, engaging in conversational reflexivity. Reflexivity, allowing participants to explore areas of agreement and disagreement, played a relevant role in understanding the information and emotions coming from colleagues during huddle interactions, thus enhancing their learning and strengthening the relationship among participants due to the attentional efforts and understanding of the emotions of others.

3.2. Outcomes of the Relationship Between Reflexivity and Emotions

Some of the reviewed studies described the outcomes of the reflexivity–emotions relationship in both professionals’ lives and work contexts. Some studies found that reflexivity on emotions led to workers’ learning due to heightened attention to their own and/or others’ emotions and the availability of information derived from this awareness (Quinn & Bunderson, 2016; Grisoni, 2017). Reflexivity on emotion encourages taking risks for making non-habitual choices (McCray et al., 2018; Morrissey & Higgins, 2019) and enhances workers’ awareness of their professional context (Helm, 2017; Hibbert et al., 2022; Thille et al., 2018) according to the emotion regulation process.

Additional studies found outcomes related to professional role and identity. For instance, Hatch (1997) showed that reflexivity on emotions facilitated identity construction for those managers who used humor. It further increases work self-efficacy (Lemarchand-Chauvin, 2023) and commitment to the job (Travers et al., 2020). Reflexivity on emotion can also have positive effects on workers’ well-being by reducing burnout (Andela & Truchot, 2017), minimizing the effects of emotional stress (Wu & Song, 2023), and reducing the sense of emotional conflict between performance and the needs of actors involved (Barbot & Dodier, 2015). Finally, reflexivity on emotions can create the context to start an effective decision-making process (Diochon & Nizet, 2019).

3.3. Findings Beyond the Research Questions: Exploring the Interplay

While analyzing the studies included in this review, we identified recurring patterns and relevant aspects that offer important interpretative insights into the dynamics of the reflexivity–emotions relationship in the workplace. Specifically, our review revealed several elements that provide support to this relationship, playing a key role in shaping this interplay. We identified three main aspects: (1) the qualitative methodologies employed in the studies; (2) supervision, understood as structured or informal spaces for fostering reflexivity; (3) the organizational and professional contexts in which these dynamics are most common. Although this section does not directly address the initial research questions, we believe it contributes meaningfully to understanding the reflexivity–emotion relationship and offers useful insights into the factors shaping its functioning in professional settings.

3.3.1. The Methodologies Adopted

All studies employed qualitative methods, except for Andela and Truchot’s (2017) study. Scholars have studied reflexivity by adopting two complementary approaches: methodologies aimed at detecting spontaneous reflexivity and those aimed at prompting reflexivity, facilitating the emergence of this process.

The studies that used ethnographic observation to investigate reflexivity (5 out of 15 studies) fall into the first approach. Ethnography, unlike other methodologies, fulfills two tasks: enables researchers to get closer to organizational contexts that promote reflexivity as an internal process; contributes, through the researcher’s reflexivity, to exploring workplace relationships, culture, and practices where emotions play a key role.

Within the prompting approach, interviews are the methodology most often adopted to study reflexivity (6 out of 15 studies) due to their inductive function through which reflexivity is ‘injected’ (Riach, 2009). Indeed, the interviewee’s answers can be conceived as reflexive products achieved through the reflexive work of both parties involved in the inquiry, the interviewee and the interviewer (Riach, 2009). Reflexivity, in this sense, is “something practiced within (rather than upon) the interview and consequently emerging through socialized activity” (Riach, 2009, p. 358). In some studies, interview data are integrated with other methods.

Other methodologies adopted to support the emergence of reflexivity are based on creating settings that facilitate questioning processes. For instance, Thille et al. (2018) fostered reflexivity by creating uncomfortable familiar situations through a series of three facilitated and interactive dialogs. In Grisoni’s (2017) study, collaborative inquiry combined with the symbolic method of writing a poem encouraged participants to reflexively explore their emotions. McCray et al. (2018), adopting critical action learning, showed that providing a setting of relative safety allowed for a discussion of the emotional impact of the power dynamics within the organizational context, critically rethinking everyday situations, disrupting habitual responses, and questioning the concept of conventional leadership.

In one case, the methodology used to investigate reflexivity was the diary, an instrument that both captures spontaneous reflexivity and induces reflexivity. Travers et al. (2020) adopted diaries to explore the ongoing emotional impact of work and to structure a systematic reflection on work-related emotions. In this study, writing diaries on the one hand has fixed a whirlwind of emotions and thoughts otherwise difficult to observe reliably; on the other hand, it has fostered clarity of thought, regulation of emotions, and a more cautious view of complex situations, leading to a deeper understanding of the underpinning features of the role eliciting emotional reactions.

3.3.2. The Power of Supervision

The reviewed studies highlight a further specific methodology for encouraging reflexivity: supervision. This involves the establishment of a reflexive setting that organizations intentionally design to offer their professionals a space to share practices and emotions and receive guidance. In other cases, it is informally implemented by the workers themselves. For instance, in Morrissey and Higgins’ (2019) study, continuous clinical supervision is a space for guidance and support for nurses in the period following a patient’s suicide, where nurses can reflect on their emotions (especially fear) and the emotional impact of their work. This allowed nurses to immerse themselves in reflexive practice on their emotions, tolerate emotional tension by accepting the situation of uncertainty, and turn it into an opportunity to take “therapeutic risks” with these patients. In other studies, however, workers preferred informal peer discussion to formal supervision. For instance, Ingram (2015) adopted a forum for discussing the emotional aspects of work. This setting allowed for the emergence of social interactions and ongoing, timely confrontation, offering the potential for the emergence of reflexive practices and providing the necessary support for making sense of emotional information and knowledge development.

3.3.3. Main Research Contexts (And Professional Practice)

Comparing the research contexts of the reviewed studies, it emerges that some workplaces are more sensitive to reflexivity than others. Specifically, these tend to be complex organizational contexts, where contradiction and uncertainty are constantly present (Morrissey & Higgins, 2019).

Several studies have been conducted in personal care settings (four studies in clinical contexts and three in social care services) analyzing both individual and team reflexivity processes in relation to interactions with patients/clients, and how these processes can prompt professionals to rethink routinized practices of their roles. Personal care and assistance roles are highly emotionally demanding, often leading to burnout and low job satisfaction. Indeed, many healthcare providers frequently face patients’ pain, trauma, and death, requiring substantial physical and psychological demands. When these efforts occur frequently, individuals must cope with intense emotional arousal (Meneghini et al., 2024). The need to regulate emotions, combined with limited emotional support (Travers et al., 2020), requires professionals to develop the ability to question themselves and recognize both their own emotions and those of others. Likewise, social work is a profession that demands a combination of emotional, relational, and critical thinking skills (Ruch, 2007), which are intrinsically linked to self-reflexive learning (Cunliffe, 2009; Hibbert et al., 2015). These processes are enabled by supportive contexts where others encourage the expression and exploration of vulnerability and traumatic feelings (Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017).

Other professional settings sensitive to reflexivity include those whose aim is to promote learning. Indeed, among the reviewed studies, three have been conducted in education and counseling settings where reflexivity is a crucial tool for professionals to properly perform their roles and achieve their goals. Similarly, one study is set in an academic context where professionals experience structural and ideological pressures (Hibbert et al., 2022).

It is worth noting that some of the studies involved participants with managerial positions, exploring their capability to be reflexive on their own and others’ emotions, and to generate reflexivity by designing consistent organizational practices. These studies question the traditional role of managers, focusing on their ability to adopt reflexivity to effectively manage emotions, paving the way for enhanced leadership.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between reflexivity and emotions, exploring its nature and potential outcomes in the workplace. The systematic literature review highlighted a bidirectional relationship supporting both an emotion-to-reflexivity pathway where emotions trigger reflexivity and a reflexivity-to-emotions pathway where reflexivity acts as a metacognitive competence applied to the emotion domain. A more granular examination of the included studies suggested that these pathways unfold differently. When emotions affect reflexivity, they prompt individuals to critically reflect on their experiences, helping them untangle their inner world and enhancing their understanding of the professional situations they are facing. Conversely, when reflexivity acts upon emotions, it guides the assessment and regulation of emotional experiences (Travers et al., 2020), thereby shaping the professionals’ responses. This process, in turn, leads to several positive outcomes, such as reduced burnout (Andela & Truchot, 2017), increased work self-efficacy (Lemarchand-Chauvin, 2023), and stronger job commitment (Travers et al., 2020). While most studies adopted this reflexivity-to-emotions perspective, further research could explore the circular relationship between these two intertwined processes.

The findings also indicated that reflexivity could stem from both positive and negative emotions. When reflexivity is applied to the emotional domain, it primarily helps individuals or teams cope with critical or uncertain situations, such as crises, that trigger negative emotions and need to be addressed. While some emotion regulation mechanisms aim to shift negative emotions toward a more positive valence, reflexivity on negative emotions instead encourages individuals to focus on, become aware of, and question these emotions without necessarily reshaping them positively. In some cases, reflexivity also extends to positive emotions, typically rising in psychologically safe climates where it can foster a virtuous cycle that strengthens supportive and collaborative relationships.

This literature review further revealed that some professional settings are more sensitive to reflexivity and encourage practices for critically exploring workplace experiences. Personal care professions and teaching are among those that most frequently require and enact reflexive practices on emotions, as these roles daily elicit emotions from professionals themselves as well as from others—such as patients, clients, or students—and inherently require the capability to manage them effectively. Additionally, managers can leverage reflexive competence when navigating complex events such as organizational crises.

Finally, reflexivity requires reflexivity. In fact, the methods most frequently used in studies on reflexivity often presuppose a spiral of reflexive practices that tend to involve not only the research participants but also the researcher. Hence, the researcher plays a dual role, promoting reflexive thoughts in others while also questioning and reflecting on the study itself.

This review also provides some managerial suggestions (see

Table 2. Summary of future research directions and implications for practice.

	Summary
Theoretical opportunities	Extending research on reflexivity–emotions relationship to contexts with low emotional intensity. Improvement of methods and tools to better capture reflexivity on emotions.
Methodological challenges	Development of consistent and reliable measures for assessing reflexivity on emotions. Longitudinal research to better assess causal relationships and track changes in the reflexivity–emotions dynamic over time. Multilevel studies investigating this relationship at the team level (i.e., team reflexivity and emotional climate). Hybrid methods combining qualitative and quantitative data collection methods for a more comprehensive understanding.
Practical implications	Promoting a safe and supportive work environment to enhance workers’ reflexive practices on emotions. Investing in knowledge management practices that challenge routines, including emotional ones, to foster generative reflexive processes. Implementing reflexive practices to help organizations proactively navigate change, uncertainties, and crises. Promoting the concept of reflexivity on emotions as an essential soft skill in the workplace.

). The literature on emotions highlights their relevance in the workplace, regardless of their valence, as a potential resource for individuals, groups, and organizations. However, the contribution of emotions becomes valuable only if workers are able to identify and make them meaningful, use their informative value to navigate everyday job complexities (e.g., managing relationships) and critical events, and learn from these experiences by questioning dysfunctional patterns and improving practices. Therefore, the relationship between emotions and reflexivity becomes a fundamental resource in workplaces.

For this reason, management should enhance workers’ awareness of the relevance of reflexive processes for their professional practice and promote workers’ competence in being reflexive. This can be achieved by encouraging workers to question the practices in use and the response patterns, tolerate negative feelings while trying to learn from them, engage in challenging yet supportive dialog with colleagues, and take time for self-reflexive learning.

Overall, the findings confirm that reflexivity on emotions can be considered a key process in the workplace. By implementing reflexive practices, organizations can support professionals toward a more thorough understanding of work events that require an emotional sensemaking of the situation (e.g., therapeutic relationships, motivational objectives, and creative processes), becoming more proactive in responding to emotionally demanding events, such as change, uncertainties, and crises.

At the same time, our study suggests potential policy implications. Although reflexivity on emotions is mainly conceived as a personal skill or as a resource for researchers, we argue that it can serve as a valuable strategic resource for organizations. Managers should be trained to recognize and constructively address emotions, legitimizing reflexivity within decision-making processes and encouraging open dialog during moments of crisis. Indeed, they can indirectly foster the adoption of reflexive processes related to workplace emotions by designing organizational conditions to ensure this interplay. For instance, they may foster an organizational culture that values a psychologically safe climate where people can fearlessly express themselves and self-criticize, thus allowing for complex situations that might threaten their professional and personal identity to be explored. Supporting team cultures oriented toward interpersonal safety and trust is essential for dialog that promotes reflexivity, as reflexivity involves “introspection, intersubjective reflection, and collaboration” (Kumagai & Naidu, 2015, p. 283). Managers can also implement knowledge management practices aimed at fostering generative reflexive processes or challenging routine practices. These can include supervision settings, formal or informal meeting sessions for debates and sharing feelings, and creative training units that disrupt habitual routines related not only to practices but also to emotions. Training programs aiming to enhance this metacognitive competence allow for connecting it to professional practices across diverse work contexts, including those characterized by lower emotional intensity. Finally, reflexivity should be embedded in human resource management policies and knowledge management systems to foster innovation and continuous learning.

This systematic review has several limitations stemming from the nature and quantity of the included studies. Firstly, the review is based on a limited number of empirical studies. This restricted sample size may affect the generalizability of the findings and limit the possibility of drawing broad conclusions. However, the small number of empirical studies identified confirms that the scientific literature has predominantly examined reflexivity adopting a cognitive perspective, neglecting its relationship with the emotional domain. This finding, therefore, highlights the need for further studies focused on the reflexivity–emotions relationship.

Additionally, all included studies were qualitative in nature. While qualitative research offers in-depth insights, it may lack the statistical generalizability or model testing offered by quantitative approaches, which could provide complementary perspectives. Furthermore, the qualitative nature of the studies included may introduce sampling bias related to specific sectors or professional contexts, potentially limiting the transferability of the findings. Nevertheless, this systematic review was conducted with a strong commitment to methodological rigor. Only studies demonstrating systematic and transparent methodologies—with comprehensive, methodical, and accurate reporting—were included. Moreover, although all included studies were qualitative, they employed diverse methodologies, enhancing the overall rigor and credibility of our review. Despite the inherent limitations of focusing only on qualitative studies, efforts were made to minimize bias risk and maximize the accuracy and credibility of the findings by employing tools such as GRADECERQual. The dominant adoption of qualitative research methods contrasts with studies on reflexivity related to practices, which mainly adopt quantitative methods. Therefore, extending research on the reflexivity–emotions relationship to include quantitative or mixed-methods could facilitate the comparison and integration of studies on reflexivity in both domains. Further research could also explore longitudinal paths to examine the chain of influence over time. Multilevel or diary studies could distinguish between levels, offering clearer assessments of the unique contribution of self vs. team reflexivity, or individual emotions vs. emotional climate, than qualitative methodologies.

This review was further limited by the inclusion criteria applied to participant characteristics and language, which might restrict the applicability of the findings to other cultural contexts. Our findings indicated that research on reflexivity and emotions is more prevalent in professional contexts characterized by high emotional intensity. Future studies could extend this line of inquiry by exploring this relationship in professional contexts with lower emotional intensity or involving different types of professionals.

Another limitation of our study is that it was not possible to determine whether the studies addressed the self or the structural context as the target of reflexivity. Indeed, in the case of reflexivity on emotions, the boundary between internal and external is inherently blurred: individuals reflect both on their own emotions (which are elicited by external situations and intertwined with their actions) as well as on the emotions of others (which are external but can be triggered by one’s behavior). This ambiguity, therefore, should not be viewed solely as a methodological limitation; rather, it reflects an intrinsic characteristic of the phenomenon itself. Accordingly, in the context of reflexivity on emotions, it may be more useful to embrace this intertwining rather than attempting to disentangle self-focused and context-focused reflexivity.

Despite these limitations, the review offers valuable insights into the research topic and highlights areas for future investigation. As summarized in Table 2, there are several promising theoretical opportunities for advancing our understanding of the relationship between reflexivity and emotions.

One key direction is to extend research into contexts characterized by low emotional intensity, which remains underexplored. Additionally, including quantitative approaches and developing consistent, reliable measurement tools to capture reflexivity on emotions would allow for a more precise understanding of this complex process and improve comparability and rigor across studies. Longitudinal research designs are also needed to better assess causal relationships and to track how reflexivity and emotions interact and evolve over time. Moreover, multilevel studies could examine this process not only at the individual level but also at the collective level, for instance by investigating team-level reflexivity or broader organizational factors such as emotional climate or the occurrence of emotionally charged events.

5. Conclusions

This literature review highlights that reflexivity and emotions are intertwined in a twofold relationship, overall adding value to several individual and organizational outcomes. However, it also underscores that our understanding of this relationship is still in its infancy, due to the limited number of empirical studies, their specific methods and targets, and the lack of interconnections with the literature on reflexivity on practices.

This dichotomy reflects the mind vs. emotions Cartesian dualism, deeply rooted in Western cultures, tending to conceptualize cognition as separate from emotions. This review shows a profound interplay between cognitive and emotional components, since reflexivity, as a metacognitive ability, can both arise from emotions and be applied to the emotional domain. Reflexivity can question not only implicit beliefs or current practices, but also emotions, by providing meaningful frameworks to understand emotional episodes, legitimizing their informative value, or disrupting routine responses to them. This process offers opportunities to shape professional practice, managerial decision-making, and ultimately, organizational performance.