Emotion Regulation in the Workplace.pdf

7/26/2019 Emotion Regulation in the Workplace.pdf

1/16

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Copyright 2000 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

2000, Vol. 5,N o. 1,9 5-1 10 1076-8998/00/ 5.00 DO I: 10.1037//1076-8998.5.1.95

E m o t io n R e g u l a ti o n in th e W o rk p la ce A N e w W a y

t o C o n c e p t u a l iz e E m o t io n a l L a b o r

A l i c i a A . G r a n d e y

P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a te U n i v e r s i t y

The topic o f emotions in the workplace is beginning to garner closer attention b y researchers and

theorists. Th e study of emotional labor addresses the stress of managing emotions when the w ork

role demands that certain expressions be shown to customers. However, there has been no

overarching framework to guide this work, and the previous studies have often disagreed on the

definition and operationalization of emotional labor. The purpos es o f this article are as follows: to

rev iew and compare previous perspectives of emotional labor, to provide a definition of emotional

labor that integrates these perspectives, to discuss emotion regulation as a guiding theory for

understanding the mechanisms of emotional labor, and to present a model o f emotional lab or that

includes individual differences (such as emotional intelligence) and organizational factors (such as

supervisor support).

I n t h e p a s t , e m o t i o n s w e r e i g n o r e d i n t h e s t u d y o f

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r ( A r v e y , R e n z , & W a t s o n ,

1 9 9 8 ; P u t n a m & M u m b y , 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e w o r k p l a c e w a s

v i e w e d a s a r a t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t , w h e r e e m o t i o n s

w o u l d g e t i n t h e w a y o f s o u n d j u d g m e n t . T h u s ,

e m o t i o n s w e r e n o t e v e n c o n s i d e r e d a s e x p l a n a t i o n s

f o r w o r k p l a c e p h e n o m e n o n . T h i s v i e w i s b e i n g

d i s m a n t l e d a s m o r e r e s e a r c h e r s a r e f i n d i n g h o w

w o r k p l a c e e m o t i o n s h e l p t o e x p l a i n i m p o r t a n t i n d i -

v i d u a l a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o u t c o m e s ( f o r a r e v i e w , s e e

A r v e y e t a l . , 1 9 9 8 ) . M o r e s p e c i f ic a l ly , r e s ea r c h e r s a r e

b e g i n n i n g t o e x p l o r e h o w e m o t i o n s a r e m a n a g e d b y

e m p l o y e e s t o i m p r o v e w o r k o u t c o m e s . O n e e x a m p l e

i s a n e m p l o y e e c h a n g i n g h o w s h e f e e l s , o r w h a t

f e e l i n g s s h e s h o w s , i n o r d e r t o i n t e r a c t w i t h

c u s t o m e r s o r c li e n t s in a n e f f e c t i v e w a y. T h e f o c u s o f

t h e p r e s e n t a r t i c l e i s o n t h e m a n a g e m e n t , o r

m o d i f i c a t i o n , o f e m o t i o n s a s p a r t o f t h e w o r k r o l e .

M a n a g i n g e m o t i o n s f o r a w a g e h a s b e e n t e r m e d

e m o t ion l l bor

( H o c h s c h i l d , 1 9 8 3 ).

O v e r v i e w o f E m o t i o n a l L a b o r

E m o t i o n a l l a b o r m a y i n v o l v e e n h a n ci n g , f a k i n g , o r

s u p p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s t o m o d i f y t h e e m o t i o n a l

e x p r e s s i o n . G e n e r a l l y , e m o t i o n s a r e m a n a g e d i n

r e s p o n s e t o t h e

displ y ru les

f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r

j o b ( E k m a n & F r i e s e n , 1 9 7 5 ; G o f f m a n , 1 9 5 9 ;

H o c h s c h i l d , 1 9 8 3 ). T h e s e r u l e s r e g a r d i n g t h e e x p e c t a -

t i o n s f o r e m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n m a y b e s t a t e d

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to Alicia A. Grandey, Department of Psychology,

Pennsylvania State U niversity, University Park, P ennsylvania

16802-1304. Electronic mail m ay be sent to [email protected].

exp l i c i t l y i n se l ec t i on and t r a in ing m a te r i a l s , o r

k n o w n b y o b s e r v a t io n o f co w o r k e r s . M a n y w o r k

r o l e s h a v e d i s p l a y r u l e s r e g a r d i n g t h e e m o t i o n s t h a t

e m p l o y e e s s h o u l d s h o w t h e p u b l i c ( B es t , D o w n e y , &

J o n e s , 1 9 9 7 ; H o c h s c h i l d , 1 98 3) . F o r e x a m p l e , t h o s e

w h o w o r k i n c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e m a y e n c o u r a g e r e p e a t

b u s i ne s s b y s h o w i n g s m i l e s a n d g o o d h u m o r , w h e r e a s

t h o s e w h o w o r k a s b i l l c o l l e c t o r s o r i n l a w

e n f o r c e m e n t m a y f i n d t h a t a n a n g r y d e m e a n o r r e s u l t s

i n t h e b e s t c u s t o m e r r e s p o n s e ( H o c h s c h i l d , 1 98 3 ;

S u t t o n , 1 9 9 1 ; V a n M a a n e n & K u n d a , 1 9 8 9 ) . F o r

t h e r a p is t s o r j u d g e s , a l a c k o f e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n d i n g

m a y b e n e e d e d w h e n l i s t e n i n g t o c l ie n t s . I n e a c h c a s e,

t h e e m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n ( o r s u p p r e s s i o n ) r e s u l t s i n

m o r e e f f e c t i v e w o r k p l a c e i n t e ra c t io n .

A l t h o u g h e m o t i o n a l l a b o r m a y b e h e l p f u l t o t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b o t t o m - l i n e , t h e r e h a s b e e n r e c e n t

w o r k s u g g e s t in g t h a t m a n a g i n g e m o t i o n s f o r p ay m a y

b e d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e e m p l o y e e . H o c h s c h i l d ( 1 9 8 3 )

a n d o t h e r s h a v e p r o p o s e d t h a t e m o t i o n a l l a b o r i s

s t r e ss f u l a n d m a y r e s u l t i n b u r n o u t. T o d a te , h o w e v e r ,

t h e s p e c i f ic m e c h a n i s m s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r e la t i o n

o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r w i t h s tr e s s o u t c o m e s h a v e b e e n

u n c l e a r . I n f a c t , t h e p r e v i o u s w o r k s h a v e n o t e v e n

a g r e e d o n w h a t i s m e a n t b y e m o t i o n a l l a b o r . I n t h i s

a r t ic l e , I f i r st r e v i e w p r e v i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s

a n d t h e n p r e s e n t a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l

l a b o r t h a t i n t e g r a t e s t h e s e i d e a s . I n t h e s e c o n d s e c t io n ,

I i n t r o d u c e e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n a s a g u i d i n g t h e o r y f o r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e m e c h a n i s m s b y w h i c h e m o t i o n a l

l a b o r m a y b e s t r e s s f u l t o i n d i v i d u a l s b u t s t i ll b e u s e f u l

t o t he o rgan i za t i on . F ina l l y , I spec i fy an t eceden t s and

c o n s e q u e n c e s o f e m o t i o n a l l a b or , b a s e d o n t h is

t h e o r y , a n d p r e s e n t i n d i v i d u a l a n d s i t u a t i o n a l

95


2/16

96 GRANDEY

variables that may have implications for the relation-

ships and human resource processes.

P r e v io u s P e r s p e c t i ve s o n E m o t i o n a l L a b o r

Three conceptualizations of emotional labor that

have greatly influenced the field also demonstrate the

confusing nature of the definition of emotional labor

(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Hochschild, 1983;

Morris & Feldman, 1996). Each of these assume that

emotions are being managed at work in order to meet

the display rules stated by the organization and

suggest either individual or organizational outcomes

of emotional labor. These articles provide useful

groundwork for future studies. However, they contain

contradictions in terms of how to define and

conceptualize emotional labor. Such contradictions

create difficulties for future researchers, as discussed

by Brotheridge and Lee (1998). These previous

articles are discussed below in terms of their

contributions to understanding organizationally man-

dated emotion management, and their limitations.

H o c h s c h i l d s ( 1 9 8 3 ) P e r s p e c t i v e

One of the earliest works to bring this facet of

organizational life to the public's attention was the

book

The Managed Heart: The Comm ercial izat ion o f

Feeling, by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild.

Hochschild (1983) coined the term

emotional labor

to

refer to the management of feeling to create a

publicly observable facial and bodily display (p. 7).

Hochschild's work stemmed from the dramaturgical

perspective of customer interactions, where the

customer is the audience, the employee is the actor,

and the work setting is the stage (Goffman, 1959;

Grove & Fisk, 1989). In this perspective, the

performance involves impression management of

service employees where actors may employ

expressive devices in order to achieve this goal

(Grove & Fisk, 1989, p. 430). In other words,

managing emotions is one way for employees to

achieve organizational goals. If an employee were to

express a depressed mood or anger toward a coworker

or customer, that would ruin the performance.

Hochscbild's (1983) dramaturgical perspective of-

fered two main ways for actors to manage emotions:

through

surface act ing,

where one regulates the

emotional expressions, and through

deep acting,

where one consciously modifies feelings in order to

express the desired emotion.

One of Hochschild's (1983) major tenents is that

this management of emotions requires effort. Hochs-

child's book raised public and academic conscious-

ness that managing emotions in the work setting

existed and may be detr imental to the employee. Not

only are the processes of surface and deep acting

effortful, but as Hochschild (1979) stated, when

deep gestures of exchange enter the market sector and

are bought and sold as an aspect of labor power,

feelings are commoditized (p. 569). This commoditi-

zation, where the organization controls something as

personal as emotions, is suggested to be unpleasant to

the employee. Because of this unpleasantness and the

effort i t takes to maintain a smiling face while coping

with difficult customers, emotional labor is proposed

by Hochschild to relate to burnout and job stress.

A s h f o r t h a n d H u m p h r e y s ( 1 9 9 3 ) P e r s p e c t i v e

Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) defined emotional

labor as the act of displaying appropriate emotions,

with the goal to engage in a form of impression

management for the organization (Gardner & Mar-

tinko, 1988). In comparison with Hochschild's (1983)

perspective, Ashforth and Humphrey were more

concerned with emotional labor as an observable

behavior than as a management of feelings. Ashforth

and Humphrey (1993) downplayed the importance of

the internal management of emotions through surface

and deep acting and suggested instead a broader array

of factors that affect the emotional expression of

employees. In addition, they argued that emotional

labor does not necessarily require conscious effort. In

fact, they suggested that surface and deep acting may

become routine and effortless for the employee, rather

than sources of stress.

In terms of outcomes, Ashforth and Humphrey

(1993) focused mainly on the relationship between

these observable expressions and task effectiveness or

performance. They proposed that emotional labor

should be positively related to task effectiveness,

provided that the customer perceives the expression

as sincere.

Ashforth and Humphrey agreed with

Hochschild that if employees are not showing

genuine expressions, emotional labor may be dysfunc-

tional to employees by creating a need to dissociate

from self (particularly if deep acting). However, they

do not provide a way of understanding how this may

happen within the individual.

Thus, there are two main differences between this

perspective and Hochschild's. The definition of

emotional labor suggested here focuses on observable

behaviors, not feelings, including emotional displays

that are effortless or genuine. And second, they focus

on the impact of emotional labor on task effective-

ness, rather than on the individual'shealth or stress.


3/16

SPECIAL SECTION: EMOTION REGULATION N THE WORKPLACE 97

Morris a nd Feldman s (1996) Perspective

Morris and Feldman (1996) defined emotional

labor as the effort, planning, and control needed to

express organizationally desired emotion during

interpersonal transactions (p. 987). This definition

comes from an interactionist approach, where emo-

tions are expressed in, and partially determined by,

the social environment. This perspective is similar to

those of Hochschild (1983) and Ashfot~th and

Humphrey (1993) in that it acknowledges that

emotions can be modified and controlled by an

individual , and the broader social setting determines

when that happens. These authors proposed that

emotional labor consists of four dimensions: (a)

frequency of interactions, (b) attentiveness (intensity

of emotions, duration of interaction), (c) variety of

emotions required, and (d) emotional dissonance.

Emotional dissonance was discussed by Hochschild

(1983) as a state wherein the emotions expressed are

discrepant from the emotions felt. Surface and deep

acting, focused on by Hochschild (1983) and

discussed by Ashforth and Humphrey (1993), are

discussed as a minor facet within the dimension of

attentiveness. Job dissatisfaction and emotional ex-

haustion are proposed as outcomes of the dimension

of dissonance, although again, the mechanisms by

which these outcomes would occur are vague.

This definition of emotional labor includes the

organizational expectations for employees in their

interactions with customers (how long, how intense,

how often), as well as the internal state of tension that

occurs when a person must display emotions that are

discrepant from his or her true feelings (emotional

dissonance). The problem with this conceptualization

is that a good case is not made for how frequency,

duration, and variety define emotional labor. The

explanation provided by Morris and Feldman (1997)

for the dimensions as components of emotional labor

is circular: Emotional labor can best be described in

terms of frequency of emotional labor (p. 257).

Other researchers (Kruml & Geddes, 1998; Zerbe,

1998) have used the dimension of dissonance as a

defining dimension of emotional labor, but this

definit ion has some difficulties as well. One, it is a

state of being, rather than an effortful process, which

does not fit the authors' definition of emotional labor.

Two, experiencing dissonance does not comprehen-

sively cover all the ways one may manage emotions

at work. In short, I suggest that the four proposed

dimensions do not completely define the emotion

management process of the employee.

Emotional Labor as Managing Expressions

and Feel ings: Surface and Deep Act ing

Thus, emotional labor has been defined as the

characteristics of the job (as defined by Morris and

Feldman, 1997) and the observable expressions of

employees (as defined by Ashforth and Humphrey,

1993). However, isn' t it conceivable that the former

contributes to the situation that invokes emotional

labor, and the latter is the proximal goal of emotional

labor? The more distal goal is to gain loyal customers

for the organization (the focus of Ashforth and

Humphrey, 1993). Other ancillary outcomes may

include negative attitudes and poor health for the

employee (the focus of Hochschild, 1983, and Morris

and Feldman, 1997). In order to understand all of

these components, an integrated definition and

theoretical model are needed.

For the definition, one can look at the similarities

across the three studies. Although these previous

works stem from different perspectives, define

emotional labor differently, and focus on different

outcomes, they all have the same underlying theme:

Individuals can regulate their emotional expressions

at work. Emotional labor, then, is the process of

regulat ing both feelings and expressions for the

organizational goals. Specifically, each perspective

discusses surface and deep acting as a way of

managing emotions. The processes of surface acting

(managing observable expressions) and deep acting

(managing feelings) match the working definition of

emotional labor as a process of emotional regulation,

and they provide a useful way of operationalizing

emotional labor.

Thinking of emotional labor as surface and deep

acting is beneficial for several reasons. First, surface

and deep acting are not inherently value laden.

Although dissonance is a negative state of being,

surface and deep acting are processes that may have

positive or negative results. This allows researchers to

explain negative outcomes such as individual stress

and health problems, and positive results such as

customer service. Second, conceptualizing surface

and deep acting as emotional labor has utility. I f there

are differences in how these two processes of emotion

management relate to the outcomes, suggestions can

be made for organizational training and stress

management programs. Finally, seeing emotional

labor as surface and deep acting ties directly into an

established theoretical model. Although models have

been proposed, they do not clearly explain why

managing emotions should relate to the proposed

outcomes. I suggest that the concepts of surface and


4/16

98 GRANDEY

deep acting map onto well-established emotion

regulation theory. Hochschild (1983) discussed gen-

eral emotion theory, but it is not explicitly applied to

the relationships she proposed. A broad emotion

theory can help organize and make predictions about

these mechanisms of emotional labor. In the follow-

ing section, I review the theory of emotion regulation

as it applies to emotional labor.

Emotion Regulation Theory Applied

to Emotional Labor

Strangely, perspectives on emotional labor have

not specifically considered emotion theory since

Hochschild. In the emotions literature, there is little

agreement on what is meant by emotions (Arvey et

al., 1998), but the term usually refers to physiological

arousal and cognitive appraisal of the situation. By

regulating the arousal and cognitions that define

emotions, individuals can control their emotional

expressions to fit the display rules of the situation

(Goffman, 1959). Similarly, employees regulate their

arousal and cognitions in order to display the

appropriate emotions at work. Emotion regulation

theory, defined as the processes by which individu-

als influence which emotions they have, when they

have them, and how they experience and express

these emotions (Gross, 1998b, p. 275), provides a

very useful guiding framework for emotional labor.

Not only that, but emotion regulation research has

explicitly considered the role of physiological arousal

much more closely than emotional labor theorists

have in the past. Understanding the effect that

prolonged arousal and suppression of this arousal

have provides the literature with the mechanisms by

which emotional labor may lead to burnout and stress.

General M odel o f Em ot ion Regula tion

Recent works by Gross (1998a, 1998b) propose a

process model of emotion regulation that may be

specifically useful for the emotional labor topic. In

this input -output model, individuals receive stimula-

tion from the situation and respond with emotions.

The situation acts as a cue to the individual, and the

individual'semotional response tendency (physiologi-

cal, behavioral, cognitive) provides information to

that individual and the others in the social environ-

ment (Freud, 1936/1961; Frijda, 1986).

Gross's (1998b) model proposes that emotion

regulation can occur at two points in this process. At

the first point, called antecedent-focused, an indi-

vidual can regulate the precursors of emotion such as

the situation or the appraisal. At the second point,

response-focused, the individual modifies the physi-

ological or observable signs of emotions. These two

processes of emotion regulation correspond to the

emotional labor concept of deep acting and surface

acting. Application of general emotion theory to

emotional labor can help explicate these processes of

emotion management and form predictions about

consequences as well. According to both emotional

labor theorists and emotion researchers, the manage-

ment of emotions through acting may have detrimen-

tal outcomes for individuals. In the next two sections,

I discuss the two methods of emotion regulation,

antecedent-focused and response-focused, and how

they apply to the concepts of deep acting and surface

acting. In the following section, I propose general

predictions for these processes based on emotion

regulation theory and previous research.

Antecedent Focused Emotion Regulat ion

According to emotion regulation theory proposed

by Gross (1998a, 1998b) the individual can regulate

emotions at two points. At the first intervening point,

an individual can engage in antecedent-focused

emotion regulation, where the individual modifies the

situation or the perception of the situation in order to

adjust emotions. Gross (1998b) stated that different

types of antecedent-focused emotion regulation are

situation selection, situation modification, attention

deployment, and cognitive change. The first two types

involve adjustments in the emotion-inducing situa-

tion. As interact ionist theory discusses, people often

choose the situations in which they act, including the

situations that may create emotions (Buss, 1987).

Employees may choose their jobs, but for service

employees there may be little opportunity for

situation selection beyond that as a method to regulate

emotions. To enact situation modification, an em-

ployee may choose to leave the work floor if a certain

customer approaches (Bailey, 1996), but this lack of

availability is not quali ty customer service (Parasura-

man, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and may result in

consequences for the individual. With the lack of

options to choose or modify the situation, emotion

regulation may take the form of the employee leaving

the organization. In short, service employees may not

have the breadth of situation modification that is

available outside of a work role.

However, more relevant for this article are the

other two techniques of antecedent-focused emotion

regulation. In these, employees can modify how they

perceive the situation in order to adjust their

emotional response to the situation. With attentional


5/16


deployment and cognitive change, the regulation

involves the employee managing emotions by chang-

ing the attenfional focus and appraisal of the situation.

Attentional deployment.

Attentional deployment

is done by thinking about events that call up the

emotions that one needs in that situation, known as

method acting in theatre (Gross, 1998b, p. 284;

Stanislovsky, 1965). The concept of deep acting, in its

original form by Hochschild (1983), is very similar to

attentional deployment. An example of this form of

emotion management is an aspiring opera singer I

knew whistling arias while serving customers in a

coffeehouse. Doing something she loved helped her

to focus on feeling good and to express positive

emotions at work. One employee in a pilot study by

the author wrote an example of attentional deploy-

ment: Somet ime s. .. I have to change my mood and

boost my energy to teach . . . . I have to focus on being

positive and maintaining hat (Grandey, 1998).

Cognitive change. The other antecedent-focused

method is cognitive change, where one perceives the

situation so that the emotional impact is lessened

(Lazarus, 1991). For example, Hochschild (1983)

described flight attendants who were trained to

cognitively reappraise passengers as children so that

they would not become angry with passengers'

potentially infant ile behaviors. Reapprais ing work

events as challenging, rather than stressful, can also

help buffer against stress reactions (Folkrnan &

Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus, 1991). This type of emotion

regulation is also deep, in that the internal

processes (thoughts and feelings) are modified with

the goal to make the expression more genuine. The

difference is that attentional deployment focuses upon

changing the focus o f personal thoughts, and

cognitive change focuses on changing appraisals of

the external situation.

Response Focused Emotion Regulation

At the second intervention point, according to the

process model by Gross (1998b), an individual could

engage in response-focused emotion regulation, or

response modulation. In this process, the person has a

tendency toward an emotional response, but manipu-

lates how he or she shows that emotional response by

directly influencing physiological, experiential, or

behavioral responding (Gross, 1998b, p. 285).

Rather than adjusting the situation or the perception

of the situation, the individual manipulates the

emotional expression of his or her reaction to the

situation. This could be done with exercise or drugs

that induce the appropriate state (which helps explain

why organizat ions may want to provide free coffee to

their front-line employees). An individual may also

adjust the intensity of the displayed emotion, or fake

the expression entirely.

Response-focused emotion regulation corresponds

with the process of surface acting. An employee may

paste a smile on her face though she is feeling blah

(adjusting intensity) or may put on a empathic

mask in order to remain polite toward the customer

who is annoying (fake the display). In a pilot study by

the author, employees wrote about such experiences

in their jobs: I had to be very accepting and

empathetic to a client who I did not at all like and I

was worried about a personal matter, but had to be

polite to other workers (Grandey, 1998). Response-

focused processes have also been found in descriptive

studies of service workers (Hochschild, 1983; Van-

Maanen & Kunda, 1989). In this emotion manage-

ment technique, employees work to display more

emotion than they feel, or to suppress true feelings

and show acceptable expression. This emotional

regulation technique is concerned with modifying

expression, not the internal feelings, as in deep acting.

Mechanisms of Emotion Regulation

According to emotion regulation theory, individu-

als may regulate their emotions at several points in

the emotion process. If we apply this to the work

setting, we can think of the process general ly in the

following way. The job environment or a particular

work event may induce an emotion response in the

employee (e.g., anger, sadness, anxiety), and behav-

iors may follow that would be inappropriate for the

encounter (e.g., verbal attack, crying, complaining).

Because the display rules state that such reactions are

not appropriate, emotional labor regulates his or her

response. This regulation involves modifying feelings

by thinking good thoughts or reappraising the

event (deep acting), or modifying expression by

faking or enhancing facial and bodily signs of

emotion (surface acting).

But how does regulating emotions result in

burnout, job dissatisfaction, or emotional estrange-

ment, as proposed by Hochschild (1983) and others?

To answer this question regarding the mechanism of

emotional labor, one must go to general theories of

emotion and stress (see Lazarus, 1999). The experi-

ence of both emotions and stress are known to be

accompanied by a physiological state of arousal

involving he endocrine system (release of hormones)

and the autonomic nervous system (increased heart

rate, breathing, blood pressure, skin conductance).

While in this arousal state, the body is converting its


6/16

l ~ GRANDEY

resources to energy to respond to the current crisis.

This means that energy is not available for other tasks,

such as the immune system. For the past 30 years or

so, psychologists have found that emotions and the

management of emotions are associated with health

problems such as cancer and heart disease (Gross,

1989, 1998a; Pennebaker, 1990; Steptoe, 1993).

Generally, individuals experience a physiological

state of arousal or emotion (anger or fear), and they

then have an emotional tendency (attack or flee). This

corresponds with Frijda's (1986) idea of action

readiness, and Freud's (1936/1961) idea that emo-

tions provide cues about the environment. The

arousal state from emotions informs them and gets

them in a bodily state to respond to the situation. But

in today's society, people learn to regulate that

emotional tendency, so that their emotional reactions

to other people don't result in fight or flight (Cannon,

1932). So, these action tendencies to respond to

emotion-producing stimuli are overridden by coping

or regulatory processes so that people do not act

inappropriately in social settings (Lazarus, 1991).

In order to show the appropriate emotion for a

situation, sometimes individuals must inhibit or

suppress feelings. Research on deception has found

that people are able to inhibit expressions with only

slight observable signs of the deception taking place

(Ekman & Friesen, 1975). However, this regulation

for the social interaction may tax the system.

Inhibiting feelings and emotional expression lowers

behavioral activity, but has actually been found to

increase autonomic nervous system activity (Gross,

1998a; Pennebaker, 1985). Thus, it is reasonable to

predict that long-term inhibition would be associated

with overall heightened physiological activity (Pen-

nebaker, 1985, p. 85). This physiological activity, or

bottling up of emotions, taxes the body over time

by overworking the cardiovascular and nervous systems

and weakening the immune system. As evidence of

this process, research has linked the inhibit ion of

emotions to a variety of physical illness, including

higher blood pressure and cancer (Blackburn, 1965;

Gross, 1989; King & Emmons, 1990; Smith, 1992).

In fact, inabili ty o express negative emotion is one of

the strongest predictors of cancer (Cox & McCay,

1982; Derogatis, Abeloff, & Melisaratos, 1979).

emotions for social situations, but regulation of

emotions may be stressful to their health. Emotional

labor, or regulating emotions for the work role, may

be successful in the impression management sense,

but may be detrimental to the employee's health.

Specific studies from this paradigm are instructive in

how deep acting and surface acting, two proposed

processes of emotional labor, would relate to

organizational and individual outcomes.

Deep c t ing

Engaging in deep act ing through reappraisal or

self-talk has been called a good faith type of

emotional labor because it shows the employee has

goodwill toward the organization (Rafaeli & Sutton,

1987). However, the effect of this regulatory process

on the individual s uncertain. The emotion regulation

work in one lab study suggested that encouraging

participants to interpret verbal harassment in a more

detached, nonthreatening way decreased physiologi-

cal arousal to that stimulus (Stemmler, 1997). This

cognitive change modified participants ' actual

emotional arousal state in response to this negative

situation. But emotion is a complex construct. Gross

(1998a) found mixed support for the effect of deep

acting on arousal in another study. Using self-reports

of emotion, mult iple physiological measures such as

finger temperature and heart rate, and rater's observa-

tions of emotion expressions, he measured the

responses of participants to a video designed to elicit

disgust. Individuals who were told to engage in

reappraisal reported lower levels of self-reported

emotion and lower observable signs of emotions than

those who were not told to reappraise the situation.

These two taken together would suggest an actual

change in feelings had occurred, or that deep acting

was successful. Interestingly, however, the reap-

praisal group did

not

have lower physiological signs

of emotion than the other group. Although deep

acting in this form may regulate observable signs of

emotions and even the individual' s perception of his

or her own emotions, it is unclear whether deep acting

actually lowers the physiological arousal.

Surface cting

Gen eral Predict ions for Surface and De ep

cting Base d on Em otion Regulation Theory

The emotion research is valuable to the study of

emotional labor in that it supports two main

assumptions: Individuals can and do regulate their

Surface acting, or antecedent-focused emotion

regulation, may be desirable to organizations so that

customers or clients always see the expressions that

are mandated, even when the employee may feel

differently. However, Hochschild (1983) suggested

that this job demand results in stressful experiences


7/16

SPE CIAL SE CT ION: E MO T ION RE GUL AT ION IN T HE WO RKPL ACE 101

f o r t h e e m p l o y e e . T h i s m a y b e b e c a u s e i n d i v i d u a l s

g e n e r a l l y d o n o t l i k e t o f e e l f a k e , o r i n t h e

l o n g - t e r m , b e c a u s e s u p p r e s s i n g t r u e e m o t i o n s a n d

e x p r e s s i n g f a l s e e m o t i o n s r e q u i r e s e f f o r t t h a t r e s u l t s

i n s tr e s s o u t c o m e s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n t w o r e c e n t s t u d i e s

p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d t o s u p p r e s s t h e e m o t i o n a l

e x p r e s s i o n o f e i t h e r s a d n e s s o r d i s g u s t ( G r o s s , 1 9 9 8 a ;

G r o s s & L e v e n s o n , 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e s u p p r e s s i o n c o n d i t i o n

r e s u l t e d i n d e c r e a s e d o b s e r v a b l e s i g n s o f e m o t i o n ,

s u c h t h a t r a t i n g s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ' f a c i a l a n d b o d i l y

r e s p o n s e s t o e m o t i o n - i n d u c i n g s t i m u l i w e r e l o w e r

t h a n a n o n s u p p r e s s i o n c o n d i t i o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s ,

p e o p l e a r e c a p a b l e o f s u p p r e s s i n g t h e i r e m o t i o n s s o

t h a t o t h e r s c a n n o t s e e h o w t h e y t r u l y f e e l . H o w e v e r ,

t h e l e v e l s o f t h e s e l f - r e p o r t e d e x p e r i e n c e o f e m o t i o n

i n t h e s e t w o s t u d i e s , a n d t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l s i g n s o f

e m o t i o n a l a c t i v a t i o n , d i d n o t d e c r e a s e . T h u s , t h e

p a r t i ci p a n t s w e r e a w a r e t h a t t h e y w e r e f a k i n g , a n d

t h e y s t i l l h a d a s t a te o f e m o t i o n a l a r o u s a l . A c c o r d i n g

t o r e c e n t e m o t i o n t h e o r y a n d r e c e n t e m o t i o n r e g u l a -

t i o n l a b s t u d i e s , b o t h s u r f a c e a n d d e e p a c t i n g

t e c h n i q u e s m a y r e s u l t i n t h e r e q u i r e d e m o t i o n a l

e x p r e s s i o n , b u t t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e

m a y s t i l l b e a c t i v e . S u c h s t u d i e s m a y h e l p e x p l a i n

h o w e m o t i o n a l l a b o r c a n r e l a t e f u n c t i o n a l l y t o

p e r f o r m a n c e m e a s u r e s b u t c a n b e d y s f u n c t i o n a l f o r

t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s h e a l t h a n d s t re s s .

A C a v e a t

I t is r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e s e s t u d i e s d i f f e r in s e v e r a l

w a y s f r o m t h e s i t u a t i o n s f a c e d b y e m p l o y e e s i n m o s t

o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h e e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s t u d i e s d o n o t

a d d r e s s s i tu a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l s u p p r e s s e s

o n e e m o t i o n a n d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e x p r e s s e s a d i f fe r e n t

e m o t i o n ( i. e. , a c u s to m e r s e r v i ce e m p l o y e e m a y n e e d

t o i n h i b i t a n g e r a n d s m i l e a t a d i f f i c u l t c u s t o m e r ) .

L i k e w i s e , s t u d i e s a r e n o t t e s t i n g t h e i m p a c t o f

e n h a n c i n g o r e n l a r g i n g f e l t e m o t i o n s i n o r d e r t o m e e t

the d i sp l ay ru l e s o f t he j ob . F ina l l y , t he f ac t t ha t

e m p l o y e e s a r e p a i d f o r t h e i r e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n m a y

a f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r e n t l y t h an w h e n t h e r e g u l a t i o n

i s f o r a l a b s t u d y o r t h e s a k e o f s o c i a l n o r m s . T h e s e

s i t ua t i ons s t i l l need t o be s t ud i ed i n l ab and f i e ld

se t t i ngs .

A M o d e l o f E m o t i o n a l L a b o r

T h e p r o c e s s o f r e o r g a n i z i n g a n d i n t e g r a t i n g t h e

p r e v i o u s m o d e l s o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r a r o u n d t h e

w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n a n d u t i l i z i n g t h e g e n e r a l e m o t i o n

r e g u l a t i o n t h e o r y p r o v i d e s a c o n c e p t u a l m o d e l o f

e m o t i o n a l l a b o r ( s e e F i g u r e 1 ) . A n t e c e d e n t s o f

e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n a r e t h e s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , a s

s t a te d b y G r o s s ( 1 9 9 8 b ) . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f e m o t i o n a l

l a b or , t h e s i t u a ti o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e t h e e m p l o y e e ' s

i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c u s t o m e r s . D r a w i n g o n p r e v i o u s

e m o t i o n a l l a b o r s t u d i e s , t h e v a r i a b l e s d e s c r i b i n g t h e

n a t u r e o f c u s t o m e r c o n t a c t a n d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s

e m o t i o n d i s p l a y r u l e s s h o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e

e m o t i o n a l l a b o r p r o c e s s ( H o c h s c h i l d , 1 9 8 3 ; M o r r i s &

F e l d m a n , 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e ,

i n t e g r a te d w i t h t h e e m o t i o n a l l a b o r t h e o r i e s , s u p p o r ts

Situational Cu es

ln te rac f ionExpec ta t ions

.Frequency

.Dura t ion

Variety

. D i s p l a y m l e s

Emo tional Events

,Positive events

Negative events

Emotion R egulation Process

m o t i o n a l L a b o r

Deep Acting: M odi fy Fee l ings

Attentional deployment

Cognit ive chan ge

Surface Act ing : Modi fy Express ions

Response modula t ion

Long Term Consequences

Individual W ell-Being

eBurnout

Job satisfaction

Organizational W ell-Being

,Performance

Withdrawal behavior

Individual Factors

,Gender

-Emotional expressivity

Emotional ntelligence

Affectivity NA/PA)

\

Organizational Factors

Job autonomy

Supervisor support

Cow orker support

Figure 1 The proposed conceptual framework o f emotion regulation performed in the work

setting. N A = negative affect; PA = positive affect.


8/16

102 GRANDEY

the existence of several means of performing emotion

management in work settings. Two such methods,

called deep acting and surface acting in the emotion

labor literature, can be understood more broadly as

ways of regulating feelings or manipulating expres-

sion. Based on the emotion regulat ion lab studies and

emotional labor field studies, the effortful processes

of surface acting and deep acting may be related to

employee stress and health as well as organizational

well-being. See Figure 1 for the proposed model. The

next sections propose more specifically the previous

research on and propositions regarding the anteced-

ents and consequences of emotional labor.

Situational ntecedents of Emotional Labor

As seen in the emotion regulation literature, the

situation acts as a cue from which emotions may

result. In the customer service setting, the salient

situation is the interaction with customers and the

expectations of the organization. This can be

measured as both chronic expectations of the

employee's interactions with customers and acute

events that create an emotional response. Both the

chronic and the acute situational factors may impact

the emotion regulation needed.

Customer Interaction Expectations

As Hochschild (1983) stated, certain job character-

istics may demand higher levels of emotional labor

from employees. One characteristic is the nature of

interaction with customers, in particular, the fre-

quency of face or voice contact. To this, Morris and

Feldman (1996) added the characteristics of the

duration of interactions and variety of emotional

expression. Hochschild's other proposed characteris-

tics of emotional labor jobs are that the organization

expects and controls the emotional expression of the

employee. This characteristic can be seen in percep-

tions of display rules--how much the employees

perceive that certain emotional expressions are part of

the job. These work role characteristics can be

thought of as ongoing situations to which employees

respond with emotion regulation.

Different work roles hold different expectations for

the employee when interacting with customers. Job

roles may differ in the frequency that employees are

expected to interact with customers. A receptionist at

a small legal firm may welcome customers once an

hour, but a cashier at a grocery store may meet 10

customers an hour. Another difference in interactions

is the duration demand placed on employees. A

salesclerk in a clothing store may work with a

customer for hours, whereas a convenience store

clerk may only interact with each customer for 5

minutes. The work role demands of frequency and

duration are situational factors that may increase the

likelihood that an employee must fake expressions or

modify feelings. Thus, such factors are proposed as

antecedents of emotional labor. The relationships

found between customer interaction expectations and

emotional labor have provided mixed support.

Nonsignificant correlations were found for frequency

of interaction and duration with dissonance (Morris

Feldman, 1997), and between frequency of interac-

tions and surface or deep acting (Grandey, 1999). In

another study, frequency had significant positive

relationships with surface acting and deep acting

(Brotheridge Lee, 1998), although duration was not

related to surface or deep acting.

A few researchers have explored the different

emotional displays required by jobs. Three types of

emotional work requirements have been proposed

and tested: integrative, differentiating, and masking

(Jones Best, 1995; Wharton Erickson, 1993).

Front-line service employees are generally expected

to express integrative emotions such as happiness and

sympathy. Other job types, such as bill collectors or

bouncers, are expected to portray differentiating

emotions such as fear or anger (Hochshild, 1979;

Sutton, 1991). The third type is descriptive of jobs in

which controlling emotions are required, such as

therapists or judges. In this article, I focus on those in

the first group, who are expected to express

integrative emotions and suppress differentiating

emotions.

Those expectations are controlled by the display

rules of the organization, which may be informal

norms or formal processes (Hochschild, 1983). As

stated earlier, training and performance appraisal

materials may directly request emotional labor. If

employees report that certain emotions are expected

by the organization, then that individual may engage

in more emotional labor to meet the expectations.

With samples of part- and full- time student workers,

Brotheridge and Lee (1998) found significant correla-

tions for the perception of emotion display rules with

surface acting and deep acting. Others have found a

relationship between display rules and emotional

effort (Kruml Geddes, 1998) and display rules and

deep acting (Grandey, 1999). Thus, it can be proposed

that perceiving that the organization expects certain

emotion displays will lead to more management of

emotion by employees.


9/16

SPE CIAL SE CT ION: E MO T ION RE GUL AT ION IN T HE WO RKPL A CE 103

E m o t i o n a l E v e n t s

A l t h o u g h t h e w o r k s e t t i n g m a y c r e a t e a c h r o n i c

n e e d t o r e g u l a t e e m o t i o n s , t h e a c u t e e v e n t s a t w o r k

h a v e a n i m m e d i a t e i m p a c t o n a n e m p l o y e e ' s e m o -

t io n s . A s s u g g e s t e d b y W e i s s a n d C r o p a n z a n o ( 1 9 9 6 ) ,

e m o t i o n a l e v e n t s at w o r k m a y h e l p e x p l a i n e m p l o y e e

a t t i t u d e s a n d b e h a v i o r . A n e m o t i o n a l e v e n t m a y l e a d

t o m o r e e m o t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n w h e n t h a t e v e n t r e s u l t s

i n e m o t i o n s t h a t a r e d i s c r e p a n t f r o m t h e o r g a n i z a -

t i o n a l d i s p l a y r u l e s . T h e e v e n t i s a p p r a i s e d f o r i t s

p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e i n f l u e n c e o n t h e p e r s o n ' s

w e l l - b e i n g . I n p a r t ic u l a r , i f t h e e v e n t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h

t h e e m p l o y e e s ' g o a l s , o n e o f w h i c h i s t o e x p r e s s a n d

i n d u c e p o s i t i v e e m o t i o n s , t h e e v e n t w i l l b e a p p r a i s e d

neg a t ive ly (Fr i j da , 1986 ; L aza ru s , 1991) . In o the r

w o r d s , t h e e v e n t m a y b e s e e n a s s t re s s f u l. S u c h e v e n t s

m a y i n v o l v e a c u s t o m e r a n g r i l y b l a m i n g t h e e m -

p l o y e e f o r a p r o d u c t m a l f u n c t i o n , o r l e a r n i n g t h a t a

f a m i l y m e m b e r h a s b e c o m e s i c k . I n s u c h c a s e s , t h e

e m p l o y e e e x p e r i e n c e s a n e v e n t t h a t r e q u i r e s e m o t i o n

r e g u l a t i o n t o m a i n t a i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e a r a n c e a t

w o r k . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f th e e v e n t c re a t e s a

p o s i t i v e e m o t i o n ( s u c h a h e a r i n g a b o u t a r a i s e o r

g e t t i n g a c c e p t e d t o g r a d u a t e s c h o o l ) , t h e n t h a t m a y

h e l p m e e t d i s p l a y r u l e s . I n t h i s c a s e , l e s s e m o t i o n

r e g u l a t i o n w o u l d b e n e c e s s a r y .

B a i l e y ( 1 9 9 6 ) o b t a i n e d d e s c r i p t i o n s f r o m e m p l o y -

e e s a b o u t h o w t h e y c o p e d w i t h d i f f i c u l t c u s t o m e r s ,

a g e n e r a l t y p e o f w o r k e v e n t . T w e n t y - t w o o u t o f 4 9

r e s p o n d e n t s d e s c r i b e d a n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c u s t o m e r s

w h e r e t h e c u s t o m e r w a s t o o d e m a n d i n g o r a n g r y

a b o u t a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r . T h e i r r e s p o n s e s

s u p p o r t e d t h e i d e a th a t s u c h i n t e r a c ti o n s m a y i n c r e a s e

e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n a t w o r k . R e s p o n s e s t o d i f f i c u l t

c u s t o m e r s i n c l u d e d l e a v i n g t h e w o r k f l o o r ( s i t u a t i o n

m o d i f i c a t i o n ) , t h in k i n g o f s o m e t h i n g f u n n y ( a t t e n t io n

d e p l o y m e n t ), r e a l iz i n g s o m e p e o p l e a r e n e v e r h a p p y

n o m a t t e r w h a t ( c o g n i t i v e c h a n g e ) , a n d t r y i n g t o s ta y

c a l m , t a k i n g d e e p b r e a t h s ( r e s p o n s e m o d u l a t i o n ) .

T h e s e q u a l i t a t iv e f in d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t i v e o f h o w w o r k

e v e n t s m a y c r e a t e m o r e e m o t i o n a l l a b o r , a n d h o w

a n t e c e d e n t - f o c u s e d o r r e s p o n s e - f o c u s e d t a c t i cs m a y

b e u s e d b y e m p l o y e e s t o r e g u l a t e e m o t i o n s f o r

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s .

H i g h e r f r e q u e n c y o f n e g a t i v e e v e n t s m a y l e a d t o

m o r e e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n , a n d t h u s m o r e s t r e s s .

A c r o s s t h e 4 9 e m p l o y e e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f j o b s ,

e m p l o y e e s o n a v e r a g e r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y d e a l t w i t h

d i f f i c u l t c u s t o m e r s o n c e o r t w i c e a d a y ( B a i le y ,

1 9 9 6 ). T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t o n e t y p e o f e m o t i o n a l e v e n t

m a y h a p p e n f a i r l y o f t e n . O t h e r e m o t i o n e v e n t s m a y

o c c u r a t w o r k a s w e l l , s u c h a s t h e e q u i p m e n t n o t

w o r k i n g o r a p e r s o n a l i s s u e a r i s in g . T h e s o u r c e o f t h e

a f f e c t i v e e v e n t s m a y b e t h e c u s t o m e r , c o w o r k e r s ,

s u p e r v i s o r , o r p e r s o n a l s i tu a t io n s . A f f e c t i v e e v e n t s

t h a t i n t e r f e r e w i t h e m o t i o n d i s p l a y r u l e s m a y b e a

v e r y s a l i e n t p a r t o f w o r k l i f e a n d s h o u l d b e

c o n s i d e r e d i n e m o t i o n a l l a b o r s t u d i e s . P r o v i d e d t h a t

t h e e v e n t s i n d u c e e m o t i o n s t h a t a r e d i s c r e p a n t f r o m

d i s p l a y r u l e s , m o r e e v e n t s s h o u l d r e s u l t i n m o r e e f f o r t

t o re g u l a t e e m o t i o n s , a n d s o s h o u l d h a v e a c u m u l a t i v e

e f f e c t o n s t r e s s a n d w e l l - b e i n g . T h e s o u r c e o f e v e n t

m a y a l s o i m p a c t h o w m u c h r e g u l a t i o n i s p e r f o r m e d ,

D i s p l a y r u l e s m a y b e m o r e e x p l i c i t f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s

w i t h c u s t o m e r s , r a t h e r t h a n e m p l o y e e s . T h u s , w h e n

t h e s o u r c e o f t h e e v e n t i s a c o w o r k e r , l e s s e m o t i o n

r e g u l a t i o n m a y b e n e e d e d .

T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n m a y b e e x p l o r e d v i a d i a r y s tu d i e s

i n w h i c h e m p l o y e e s d e s c r i b e e v e n t s a n d h o w t h e y

r e s p o n d e d t o t h e m i n t h e im m e d i a t e c o n t e x t , a n d t h e n

r e l a t e t h o s e e v e n t s t o o v e r a l l e m o t i o n a l l a b o r a n d

s t r e ss . Obse rva t i ona l s t ud i e s and l ab s t ud i e s m ay a l so

h e l p e x p l o r e t h i s i d e a o f e m o t i o n a l e v e n t s i m p a c t i n g

e m o t i o n a l l a b o r . U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e t y p e s o f e v e n t s

a n d h o w f r e q u e n t l y t h e y o c c u r m a y h e l p o r g a n i z a -

t i o n s t o a d j u s t t h e ir w o r k p r o c e s s e s o r t o d e s i g n b e t t e r

t r a in ing fo r dea l i ng wi th such s i t ua t i ons .

S t r e s s a n d W e l l B e i n g a s O u t c o m e s

o f E m o t io n a l L a b o r

T h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a -

t i ona l expec t a t i ons ac t a s a s i t ua t i ona l cue fo r

e m p l o y e e s . T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s d e m a n d f o r c e r t a in

e m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s s h o u l d r e s u l t i n m o r e e m o t i o n

r e g u l a t i o n b y t h e e m p l o y e e , o r e m o t i o n a l l a b o r . A s

d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r, t h e s e m e t h o d s o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r,

s u r f a c e a n d d e e p a c t in g , r e q u i r e a l e v e l o f e f f o r t b y

t h e i n d iv i d u a l . T h e a m o u n t o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r s h o u l d

r e l a t e t o s t r e s s d u e t o t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e m a n d s o f

em ot ion r egu l a t i on (Gross , 1998a , 1998b ; L aza rus ,

1 9 9 1 ) . H o w e v e r , s u r f a c e a n d d e e p a c t i n g s h o u l d

a f f e c t c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e p e r f o r m a n c e , b e c a u s e t h e y a r e

w a y s o f r e g u l a t in g e m o t i o n s i n o r d e r to i n t e ra c t w i t h

c u s t o m e r s w i t h p o s i t i v e e x p r e s s i o n s . T h e r e a r e o t h e r

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o u t c o m e s , t h o u g h , t h a t m a y b e d e t r i -

m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d b y t h i s l a b o r . T h e f o l l o w i n g

s e c t i o n s r e v i e w t h e t h e o r e t ic a l a n d e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t

f o r r e l a t io n s h i p s b e t w e e n e m o t i o n a l l a b o r a n d v a r i o u s

w e l l - b e i n g o u t c o m e s .

B u r n o u t

B u r n o u t i s a s t r e s s o u t c o m e t y p i c a l l y f o u n d i n

e m p l o y e e s i n t h e h e l p i n g i n d u s t r i e s . B u r n o u t o c c u r s


10/16

104 GRANDEY

when an employee becomes overly emotionally

involved in interactions with customers and has little

way to replenish those emotional resources being

spent (Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986). The signs

of burnout are emotional exhaustion, depersonaliza-

tion, and reduced personal accomplishment (Cordes

& Dougherty, 1993; Maslach, 1982). When a

situation induces repeated emotional responses that

the employee must regulate, the employee may

experience emotional exhaustion, or energy depletion

and fatigue. To cope with this feeling, employees may

detach from the customers by objectifying or

depersonalizing them. This may lead to feeling

negatively about themselves and their work, to the

point where they experience a diminished sense of

personal accomplishment (Cordes & Dougherty,

1993). Other researchers have associated burnout

with important organizational outcomes like perfor-

mance and turnover (Singh, Goolsby, & Rhoads,

1994; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). If emotional

labor is related to burnout, it also may contribute to a

host of other organizat ional outcomes.

The research supports the prediction that emotional

labor will relate to bumout. Gross and Levenson

(1997) discussed the physiological effort demanded

to inhibit emotions from being expressed in a lab

study. Several studies have assessed the relationship

of emotional labor with emotional exhaustion in

employees. Emotional dissonance has been related to

emotional exhaustion (Abraham, 1998; Morris &

Feldman, 1997). Surface acting was related to

emotional exhaustion in another study, beyond deep

acting and dissonance (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998).

Thus, there is support for the relationship of

emotional exhaustion to managing emotions at work.

There seemed to be less empirical support for

emotional labor's relationship to the other burnout

dimensions. It is expected that emotional labor will

have a similarly detrimental relationship with deper-

sonalization and personal accomplishment. The more

employees need to effortfully express and suppress

emotional responses at work, the more they may

choose to depersonalize customers. This may be a

way of dis tancing themselves from the stress of the

emotional expenditure; if they are detached when

interacting with customers, their potentially emotion-

producing reactions will matter less (Hochschild,

1983). One study of police officers found that when

officers are expected to suppress their reactions to

tragic events, this suppression may result in less

empathy and connection with citizens (Pogrebin &

Poole, 1995). If an employee feels that meeting

emotion demands at work requires a lot of effort and

feels detached from customers, then that employee may

also feel a lowered sense of personal accomplishment.

J ob Sa t i s f ac t i on

Job satisfaction is a measure of the employee's

evaluation of the job and has often been used as a

proxy for employee well-being at work. Some

researchers propose that being required to be friendly

to customers may make a monotonous job more fun,

or may allow self-expression that is enjoyable to

employees (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Tolich,

1993). Others have suggested that emotional labor

stifles personal expression and as such is unpleasant

(Hochschild, 1983; VanMaanen & Kunda, 1989). The

empirical research on the relationship between

managing emotions at work and job satisfaction has

been contradictory. This contradiction may be due to

the use of different definitions of emotional labor.

Expressions of emotions may be positively related to

job satisfaction, as suggested by the facial feedback

hypothesis (Adelmann & Zajonc, 1989), but the

regulation to achieve that expression may be nega-

tively related to satisfaction.

The available data support this difference, although

not with surface acting directly. Two studies sup-

ported that the experience of emotional dissonance

(which is conceptually similar to surface acting) was

negatively related to job satisfaction (Abraham, 1998;

Morris & Feldman, 1997). Rutter and Fielding (1988)

reported that suppressing true emotions (surface

acting) was a source of stress for prison officers, and

that such suppression related to lowered job satisfac-

tion. Adelmann (1995) reported that the table servers

who expressed real smiles at work, and didn't feel

false, had more job satisfaction than those who

reported faking emotions. There seems to be less

empirical support for the relationship of deep acting

with job satisfaction. Based on Hochschild 's (1983)

work, there should be a negative relationship. Her

argument was that working to manage something as

personal as emotions for organizational purposes

would he inherently unsatisfying. In general, those

who report high levels of emotion regulation with

customers may be less satisfied with their jobs.

W o r k e h a v i o r s a s O u t c o m e s

o f E m o t io n a l L a b o r

C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P e r f o r m a n c e

In the service industry, managing emotions (show-

ing happiness and empathy, not fear or anger) is an


11/16


important facet of maintaining loyal customers and

repeat business (Albrecht & Zemke, 1985; Hochs-

child, 1983; Schneider & Bowen, 1985). Because

emotion regulation may be performed in different

ways, it is possible that some methods are more

effective than others and may thus impact perfor-

mance on the job. As a means of presenting a positive

image of the organization and inducing the appropri-

ate feelings in customers, managing emotions may

result in good customer service performance (Ash-

forth & Humphrey, 1993). Emotional expression such

as smiles and friendly comments can lead to good

work performance as measured by tips for table

servers (Adelmann, 1995; Tidd & Lockhard, 1978).

Pugh (1998) found a positive relationship between

emotional displays of bank tellers and customer

satisfaction. These studies suggest that positive

emotional expressions will result in higher customer

service performance.

However, the personal effort of producing those

expressions may tell a different story. Emotion

regulat ion researchers find that emotion suppression

and exaggeration may impair cognitive performance

(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998;

Richards & Gross, 1999). Little is known about how

an employees' method of regulating emotions is

related to customer service performance. Several

authors have mentioned the importance of emotional

displays being seen as genuine in service settings

(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Hochschild, 1983;

Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Emotional expressions that

are perceived as insincere may negatively impact

customer service (Grove & Fisk, 1989; Rafaeli &

Sutton, 1987). Emotion research has found that when

people fake emotions, or are surface acting, there

seems to be leakage so that observers can detect

the deception (Ekman & Friesen, 196 9). This

suggests that surface acting should be negatively

related to service performance. However, deep acting,

or antecedent-focused emotion regulation, convinces

employees that they really feel the way they are trying

to express (Gross, 1998a). Although this process is

still effortful, it may lead to an expression that is

perceived as more genuine than when an employee

surface acts. Thus, deep acting may be positively

related to customer service.

W i t h d r a w a l B e h a v i o r s

it is vital to understand the impact of emotional labor.

In customer service jobs, it is essential that employees

be available to customers (Parasuraman et al., 1985).

If employees leave the work floor to cope with their

emotions, this may diminish the impression the

customer has of the organization. Leaving the work

floor or talking to coworkers were stated ways of

coping with difficult customers for 36 out of 49

respondents in a variety of jobs (Bailey, 1996).

In the long run, employees may also decide to leave

the organization. Emotional labor levels may predict

those who desire to leave the organization. Those who

need to engage in high levels of surface acting may be

more inclined to desire a different job. In fact, the

need to regulate emotions regularly at work may act

as a signal to the employee that this environment is

not a good match for the individual (Edwards, 1991;

Schwarz & Clore, 1983). The employee may engage

in the antecedent-focused emotion regulation tech-

nique of situation selection (Gross, 1998b) and select

a different organizational setting for employment. On

the basis of the burnout literature, it is likely that

working in jobs that demand high levels of emotional

regulation may result in withdrawal behaviors (Cordes

& Dougherty, 1993; Maslach & Pines, 1977; Singh et

al., 1994).

P e r s o n a l a n d O r g a n i z a ti o n a l F a c t o r s

f fe c t in g E m o t i o n a l L a b o r

In this article, I have proposed a linear process

between organizational antecedents, emotional labor,

and the well-being of the employee and the

organization. Looking at previous emotion research,

it is clear that this is a simplified process. As

suggested by Ashforth and Humphrey (1993), there

are many other variables that may impact customer

service besides the employee's emotional labor

process. The emotion regulation works have sug-

gested some factors but not specifically work-

oriented variables. For comprehensive understanding

of emotional labor, individual differences and organi-

zational factors should be taken into account in future

research.

P e r s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s R e l a t e d

t o E m o t i o n a l L a b o r

Emotion regulation results in physiological arousal

that, over the long run, may affect withdrawal

behaviors such as leaving the work floor, absentee-

ism, and turnover. These are outcomes that are of

particular concern to customer service jobs, and thus

There are many individual differences that may be

related to emotional labor. Emotional labor research-

ers need to integrate the personality variables into the

emotional labor framework, in order to understand

the concept of emotional labor more clearly. Are


12/16

106 GRANDEY

c e r t a i n t y p e s o f p e o p l e b e t t e r a t r e g u l a t i n g t h e i r

e m o t i o n s ? A r e o t h e r t y p e s o f p e o p l e b e t t e r a t h a n d l i n g

d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s w i t h o u t b e c o m i n g s t r e s s e d ? I s

e m o t i o n a l l a b o r i n g t h r o u g h s u r f a c e a n d d e e p a c t in g a

t r a i n a b l e p r o c e s s ? A f e w r e l a t e d c o n c e p t s a r e b r i e f l y

m e n t i o n e d i n o r d e r t o s u g g e s t d i r e c ti o n s f o r f u t u re

resea rch .

Gender . G e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s a r e o f t e n a t o p i c o f

i n t e r e s t , a n d t h e a r e a o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r i s n o

e x c e p t i o n . H o c h s c h i l d ( 1 9 8 3 ) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e

m a j o r i t y o f s er v ic e j o b s a r e p e r f o r m e d b y w o m e n , a n d

a s s u c h g e n d e r b e c o m e s a n i s s u e f o r e m o t i o n a l l a bo r .

W h a r t o n a n d E r i c k s o n ( 1 9 9 3 ) a l s o d i s c u s s e d h o w

w o m e n a r e m o r e l i k e ly to m a n a g e e m o t i o n s a t w o r k

a s w e l l as a t h o m e . I f w o m e n e n g a g e i n m o r e e m o t i o n

m a n a g e m e n t s i tu a t i o n s , p e r h a p s t h e y a r e b e t t e r a t

m a n a g i n g e m o t i o n s ( s o p e r f o rm a n c e w o u l d b e

b e t t e r ) , b u t t h e y w o u l d b e e n g a g i n g i n m o r e

s u p p r e s s i o n o f t r u e f e e l i n g s ( s o s t r e s s w o u l d b e

h i g h e r) . K r u m l a n d G e d d e s ( 1 9 9 8 ) f o u n d a r e l a ti o n -

s h i p b e t w e e n g e n d e r a n d e m o t i o n a l d i s s o n a n c e , i n

t h a t w o m e n w e r e m o r e l i k e ly to r e p o r t f e e li n g

d i f f e r e n t l y th a n t h e y e x p r e s s e d . I t i s u n c l e a r i f t h i s

m e a n s t h a t m e n a r e s h o w i n g e m o t i o n s t h a t a r e

i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e j o b o r s i m p l y n o t f e e l i n g

d i s c r e p a n t e m o t i o n s . I n l i n e w i t h t h e f i r s t p o i n t , o n e

s t u d y s u g g e s te d t h a t m e n a n d w o m e n h a v e d i f f e re n t

m o t i v e s f o r r e g u l a t i n g e m o t i o n s , i n t h a t w o m e n a r e

m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h g e t t in g a l o n g , w h e r e a s m e n a r e

m o r e m o t i v a t e d t o s t a y i n c o n t r o l a n d e x p r e s s

p o w e r f u l e m o t i o n s s u c h a s a n g e r o r p r id e ( T i m m e r s ,

F i s c h e r , & M a n s t e a d , 1 9 9 8 ) . H o w e v e r , i n t h e

c u s t o m e r s e r v ic e s e t ti n g , th i s m o t i v e m a y n o t w o r k i n

m e n ' s f a v o r . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t i n s e r v i c e s e t ti n g s , m e n

m a y n e e d m o r e t r a i n in g to m a n a g e e m o t i o n s w h e n

d e a l i n g w i t h c u s t o m e r s .

E m ot i ona l e x pr e s s i v i t y . B e y o n d d e m o g r a p h i c

v a r i a b l e s , t h e r e a r e a w i d e v a r i e t y o f r e l a t e d

e m o t i o n v a r i a b le s t h a t h a v e b e e n e x p l o r e d in

c l i n i c a l , d e v e l o p m e n t a l , o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h .

E m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i v i ty a s a p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c te r i s ti c

h a s b e e n r e c e i v i n g a t t e n t i o n l a te l y a s a p r e d i c t o r o f

h e a l th a n d j o b p e r f o r m a n c e ( A r v e y e t a l. , 1 9 9 8 ; K i n g

& E m m o n s , 1 9 9 0 ; K r i n g , S m i t h , & N e a l e , 1 9 9 4 ) .

R e c e n t l y , s c a l e s o f e m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i v i t y h a v e b e e n

t e s te d b y G r o s s a n d J o h n ( 1 9 9 8 ) a n d S t e e l, A r v e y , a n d

K y l l o n e n (1 9 9 9 ) . T h e s e s c a l es , s u c h a s P o s i ti v e

E x p r e s s iv i t y , I m p u l s e I n t e n s i ty , a n d M a s k i n g , s e e m

v e r y r e l a t e d t o t h e i d e a s o f s u r f a c e a c t i n g a n d d e e p

a c t i n g p r e s e n t e d e a r l i e r . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t p e r s o n s

h i g h i n p o s i t iv e e x p r e s si v i ty , f o r e x a m p l e , w o u l d b e

s k i l l e d a t m e e t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i s p l a y r u l e s . T h u s ,

s u c h a n i n d i v i d u a l sh o u l d r e p o r t l o w e r l e v e ls o f

e m o t i o n a l l a b o r a n d p e r f o r m b e t t e r i n s e r v ic e jo b s .

E x p r e s s i v i t y i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o g e n d e r , w i t h w o m e n

r e p o r t i n g h i g h e r l e v e l s o f e m o t i o n a l e x p r e s s i v i t y

( K i n g & E m m o n s , 1 9 9 0 ; R a f a e l i & S u t t o n , 1 9 8 9 ).

Emotional intel l igence.

A n o t h e r r e l a t e d c o n c e p t

t h a t h a s b e e n r e c e i v i n g a l o t o f a t t e n t i o n r e c e n t l y i s

e m o t i o n a l in t e l l ig e n c e ( G o l e m a n , 1 9 9 5 ; M a y e r &

S a l o v e y , 1 9 9 5 ) . E m o t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e i s r e fe r r e d t o

a s t h e a b i l i ty t o r e c o g n i z e a n d u s e e m o t i o n a l

i n f o r m a t i o n i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . E f f e c t i v e a f f e c t

r e g u l a t i o n i s o n e o f t h e s i g n s o f s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l

i n t e l l i g e n c e ( S a l o v e y , H s e e , & M a y e r , 1 9 9 3 ) . T h o s e

w i t h h i g h e m o t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e a r e s k i l l e d a t

h a n d l i n g s o c i a l e n c o u n t e r s , a n d i n f a c t m a y m a k e

o t h e r p e o p l e f e e l g o o d a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s a s w e l l

( G o l e m a n , 1 9 9 5 ) . T h i s i s a d e s i r e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n

s e r v i c e e n c o u n t e r s . T h e T r a i t M e t a - M o o d S c a l e

( S a l o v e y e t a l . , 1 9 9 5 ) w a s d e s i g n e d t o c o n s i d e r th e

a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n th a t p e o p l e p a y t o t h e i r e m o t i o n s

a n d t h e m o d i f i c at i o n o f e m o t i o n s . U n f o r t u n a t e ly , th e

m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h i s c o n s t r u c t h a s h a d d i f f i c u l t y . I n

p a r t i c u l a r , o n e s t u d y f o u n d t h a t t h i s f a c t o r o f

e m o t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e w a s e x t r e m e l y u n r e l i a b l e

( D a v i e s , S t a n k o v , & R o b e r t s , 1 9 9 8 ) . N e w m o d i f i c a -

t i o n s o f t h is s c a l e a r e b e g i n n i n g to e m e r g e ( M a y e r ,

C a r u s o , & S a l o v ey , i n p re s s ) a n d s h o u l d b e u s e d i n

a n y f u t u r e s t u d i e s t h a t t e s t h o w e m o t i o n a l l a b o r a n d

e m o t i o n a l i n t e ll i g e n c e c a n i n f o r m e a c h o t he r .

Self monitoring. S e l f - m o n i t o r i n g r e f e r s t o t h e

e x t e n t t h a t p e o p l e m o n i t o r th e i r s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d

c o n t r o l t h e i r e x p r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r ( S n y d e r , 1 9 7 4 ) .

H i g h s e l f -m o n i t o r s ar e m o r e a w a r e o f t h e e m o t i o n a l

c u e s o f o t h e r s a n d a r e m o r e w i l l i n g a n d a b l e t o c h a n g e

the i r own emo t iona l expres sion to f i t t he s i tua t ion than

l o w s e l f- m o n i t o r s . L o w s e l f- m o n i t o r s t e n d t o r e m a i n

t r u e t o t h e i r i n t e r n a l f e e l i n g s . S e l f - m o n i t o r i n g

m a k e s t h e o r e t ic a l s e n s e a s a n i n f l u e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s ti c

o n e m o t i o n a l l a b o r. I n j o b s w h e r e e m o t i o n a l l a b o r i s

r e q u i r e d , l o w s e l f - m o n i t o r s s h o u l d h a v e a m o r e

d i f f i c u lt t i m e f o l l o w i n g d i s p l a y r u l e s . I f t h e y w a n t t o

k e e p t h e i r j o b s , t h e y n e e d t o a d h e r e t o e m o t i o n a l

d i s p l a y r u l e s , b u t t h e y m a y b e l e s s a t e a s e s u p p r e s s i n g

t h e i r tr u e f e e l i n g s t h a n a h i g h s e l f - m o n i t o r . T h u s , l o w

s e l f -m o n i t o r s m a y r e p o r t h i g h e r l e v e ls o f e m o t i o n a l

l a b o r a n d h i g h e r l e v e l s o f s t r e s s i n c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e

j o b s . S t u d i e s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t h i g h s e l f - m o n i t o r s

w o u l d b e l e s s re a c t iv e t o d i s s o n a n c e ( A b r a h a m , 1 9 9 8)

a n d b e t t e r a t c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e j o b s ( C a l d w e l l &

O ' R e i l l y , 1 9 8 2 ; F r i e d m a n & M i l l e r - H e r r i n g e r , 1 9 9 1 ).

W h a r t o n ( 1 9 9 3 ) f o u n d t h a t h i g h s e l f - m o n i t o r s i n

e m o t i o n a l la b o r jo b s , a s d e f i n e d b y H o c h s c h i l d ' s

( 1 9 8 3 ) t a x o n o m y , w e r e l e s s l i k e l y t o r e p o r t b u r n o u t

t h a n l o w s e l f - m o n i t o r s . R e s e a r c h n e e d s t o e x p l o r e


13/16

SPECIAL SECTION: EMOTION REGULATIONIN THE WORKPLACE 107

how self-monitoring relates to methods of emotion

regulation at work.

Affectivity Positive affectivity is related to enthu-

siasm and optimism, whereas negative affectivity is

related to pessimism and aversive mood states. As

stated by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), affective

traits act as predispositions toward more or less

intense emotional responses. Thus, someone high in

negative affectivity (NA) may respond more strongly

to negative events if they occur. This means a high

NA person exerts more emotional labor to maintain

the emotional display in the face of a difficult

encounter. Affectivity has been proposed in theoreti-

cal models as a predictor of emotional labor. Morris

and Feldman (1996) suggested that positive and

negative affectivity would relate to emotional labor.

In particular, these researchers hypothesized that

when the emotion work requirements (express

positive or negative emotions) conflicted with affec-

tivity (positive or negative affect), dissonance would

occur. Some have found that positive affectivity is

generally effective in the workplace (Staw, Sutton, &

Pelled, 1994), but this research does not consider

emotional labor explicitly. Research is needed to test

these propositions and to see if high NA persons can

learn to regulate their emotions in effective ways.

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l F a c t o r s

As suggested by Ashforth and Humphrey (1993)

and Morris and Feldman (1996), and supported by the

emotion regulation literature, the environment is a

very important factor in understanding emotion

management. It is very possible that the situation in

which employees work may affect the level and type

of emotional labor in which they engage.

Autonomy Feeling a lack of control over events

has been identified as a source of life stress (Rodin,

1986) as well as job stress. Hochschild (1983)

discussed the unpleasantness of having the organiza-

tion control one's personal feeling state. A few studies

have tested the idea that job autonomy minimizes the

stress of the emotion regulation process. Wharton

(1993) found that those who reported high autonomy

had lower emotional exhaustion in both high and low

emotional labor-typed jobs. Morris and Feldman

(1996) reported that job autonomy was negatively

related to emotional dissonance and emotional

exhaustion and positively related to job satisfaction. A

recent court case with a major grocery store chain

involves emotional autonomy in particular: Customer

service employees are suing the company because

they must smile at customers even though that has led

to sexual harassment by customers. Organizat ions

who take away emotional autonomy may find

negative outcomes emerge.

Supervisor and coworker support The emotion

regulation theory proposed by Gross (1998h) dis-

cussed the envi ronment as a cue to the emotional

response that follows. Support from coworkers and

supervisors should create a positive working environ-

ment (Schneider & Bowen, 1985). An employee's

perception that he or she works in a supportive

climate has been found to relate to job satisfaction,

lowered stress, and turnover intentions, and even

higher team performance (Cropanzano, Howes,

Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Eisenberger, Cummings,

Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Howes, Cropanzano, Grandey,

& Mohler, 1999). In customer service settings, where

positive expressions are expected, feeling positive

about the social environment may mean that less

emotional labor is necessary. One may genuinely feel

the emotions that are expected in a service environ-

ment if the interpersonal relationships are positive

and supportive. Indirectly, support may help employ-

ees cope with the stress of service jobs. Bailey (1996)

suggested that talking to other people was a method of

coping with difficult customers. The stress literature

shows fairly clearly that disclosure of emotional

events helps individuals cope with stress and buffer

against health risks (Carver, Schein, & Weintraub,

1993; Pennebaker, 1990). Social support in service

settings seems to help protect individuals from stress

(Goolsby, 1992; Pines & Aronson, 1988). Only one

known study has tested support as a moderator of

emotional labor and outcomes. Abraham (1998)

found that social support interacted with emotional

dissonance to buffer against ob dissatisfaction.

Conclus ions and Future Directions

Emotions have been a difficult topic of study for

decades: Even the definition and operationalizationof

emotion remains murky. The much newer field of

emotional labor can miss some of these growing pains

if researchers learn from these more established

emotion theories, as this article has attempted to

show. In general, several propositions could be made

based on the emotion regulation theory and the

previous emotional labor research. One, situational

settings contribute to the emotional labor engaged in

by the employees. Those who interact with customers

or clients for extended periods and who experience

emotional events in those situations are more likely to

emotionally regulate. Two, emotional labor may

result in good organizational performance, but may

have consequences for the employees' health. Specifi-


14/16

108 GRANDE Y

c a l ly , d e e p a c t i n g s h o u l d b e m o r e p o s i t i v e l y r e la t e d t o

s e r v i c e p e r f o r m a n c e t h a n s u r f a c e a c t i n g , b u t b o t h

s h o u l d b e r e l a t e d t o b u r n o u t , w i t h d r a w a l , a n d

n e g a t i v e w o r k a t ti tu d e s . F i n a l l y , p e r s o n a l a n d o r g a n i -

z a t i o n a l c h a ra c t e r is t i c s m a y a c t a s m a i n e f f e c t s o n t h e

l e v e l o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r p e r f o r m e d ; f o r e x a m p l e ,

w o m e n o r t h o s e w h o a r e e m o t i o n a l l y e x p r es s i v e m a y

b e m o r e l i k e l y t o e n g a g e i n e m o t i o n a l l a b o r . T h e s e

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s m a y a l s o

a c t a s m o d e r a t o r s b y a f f e c t in g r e l a t io n s h i p s w i t h t h e

c o n s e q u e n c e s o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r . F o r e x a m p l e , t h o s e

w h o p e r c e i v e h i g h l e v e ls o f s u p e r v i s o r s u p po r t m a y

r e p o r t h i g h l e v e l s o f e m o t i o n a l l a b o r b u t n o t b u r n o u t

because suppor t a c t s a s a bu f fe r aga ins t t he s t r e sso r s .

A s c a n b e s e e n , t h e re a r e m a n y u n k n o w n s , a n d b o t h

l ab and f i e ld r e sea rch a re needed t o t e s t t he

r e l a t io n s h i p s o u t l i n e d i n F i g u r e 1 . F o r e x a m p l e , d i a r y

s t u d i e s o f e m o t i o n a l e v e n t s w o u l d i l l u s t r a t e t h e t y p e

o f e v e n t s e m p l o y e e s r e s p o n d t o a t w o r k , a s w e l l a s a c t

a s a c o p i n g t e c h n i q u e s u g g e s t e d b y t h e e m o t i o n

regu la t i on r e sea rche r s ( i . e ., Penn ebake r , 1985 , 1990) .

L a b s t u d i e s , n o t t y p i c a l l y d o n e b y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

r e s e a r c h e rs , c o u l d e x a m i n e t h e i m p a c t o f s u r f ac e a n d

d e e p a c t i n g p r o c e s s e s o n c u s t o m e r s . B o t h o f th e s e

t y p e s o f s t u d i e s w o u l d h a v e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r w o r k -

p l a c e t r a i n i n g f o r e m p l o y e e s . F i e l d s t u d ie s , t y p i c a l l y

n o t u s e d b y t h e e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n r e s e a r c h e rs , c o u l d

i n c l u d e p e n - a n d - p a p e r s t u d ie s o f p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c -

t e r i s t i c s a n d e m o t i o n r e g u l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s t o i n f o r m

s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s . T h o s e p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s w h o a r e

m o r e l i k e l y t o r e a p p r a i s e s i t u a t i o n s a n d c h a n g e

f e e l i n g s t a t e s m a y b e b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r c e r t a i n j o b s

t h a n t h o s e w h o p r e f e r t o i n h i b i t t h e i r fe e l i n g s . F i n a l ly ,

r e s e

Emotion Regulation in the Workplace.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Emotion Regulation in the Workplace.pdf