LEAN ON ME:
THE ROLE OF NEGATIVE EMOTION PROCESSOR IN ORGANIZATIONS
Ginka Toegel
London School of Economics
Houghton Street,
London WC2A 2AE
e-mail: g.toegel@lse.ac.uk
Phone: +44 20 7955 7918
Fax: +44 20 7724 7857
N. Anand
London Business School
Regent's Park
London NW1 4SA, UK
e-mail: nanand@london.edu
Phone: +44 20 7706 6932
Fax: +44 20 7724 7857
Martin Kilduff
Pennsylvania State University
424 Beam Business Administration Bldg.
University Park, PA 16802
email: mkilduff@psu.edu
Phone: 814-865-9822
Fax: 814-863-7261
LEAN ON ME:
THE ROLE OF NEGATIVE EMOTION PROCESSORS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Abstract
Using data from a 104-member personnel recruiting firm, this paper examines the extent to
which different personality types occupying different job ranks take on the onerous and
important role of helping others process their negative emotions at work. First, high selfmonitors and individuals high in positive affectivity tended to be more likely to occupy the top
positions in the organization. Second, among top managers, those high in self-monitoring or
high in positive affectivity tended to take on the role of negative emotion processor. Third, the
effects of personality interactions with rank remained significant even controlling for other
important and significant variables such as gender and network position. The results suggest that
individuals may be propelled to top management positions in part because of their selfmonitoring or positive affectivity personality orientations. The very same dispositions may then
be critical in facilitating their enactment of the negative emotion processing role.
2
Human beings bring their emotions with them into all spheres of social life including life in
organizations. But both theory and practice have tended to emphasise the suppression rather than
the expression of emotions in organizational life. The Weberian theory of bureaucracy famously
mandates the elimination of emotion in the service of efficient decision making (Weber, 1946).
In Weber’s idealization, emotional restraint and impersonal bearing are the hallmarks of
bureaucratic behavior (Mumby and Putnam, 1992). In this view, organizations cope with
emotion by suppressing, devaluing, discouraging or regulating its expression (Martin, Knopoff,
and Beckman, 1998). Institutionalized mechanisms like neutralization, buffering, prescribing and
normalizing aim at regulating potentially dysfunctional affective states (Ashforth and Humphrey,
1995). Employees of such bureaucratic organizations have been trained "not to show emotions"
in the words of one female manager of a large information technology firm (Huy, 2002: 49). The
expression of negative emotions has met with particular intolerance in bureaucratic settings. For
example, one chief operating officer issued a memo stating that "expressions of cynicism ... will
not be tolerated" (Huy, 2002: 49). The discussion of emotion and pain in work situations tends to
be seen as “'weak' or 'soft'” (Frost, 2003: 13)
The bureaucratic prohibition of negative emotions in the workplace has come under scrutiny,
however, as the costs of ignoring emotional pain and distress has become apparent. In a book
length treatment of this topic, the costs for organizations and for individual employees have been
presented in vivid detail (Frost, 2003). For organizations, the costs of ignoring negative
emotions include diminished productivity, absenteeism, turnover, increased medical fees,
workplace violence, sabotage and falling profitability (Frost, 2003: 14-16). For individual
employees, negative emotions such as anger, sadness, frustration, and despair, can affect the
3
immune system with potentially serious consequences for health (Frost, 2003: 3). Skilful
emotion management can help alleviate negative emotions such as fear and helplessness and
provide employees with additional energy and renewed commitment to their workplace
environments (Huy, 2002: 53). By contrast, the inept management of negative emotions can
exacerbate problems to the detriment of both organizations and their employees (Huy, 2002: 54).
Thus, the processing of negative emotions in workplace settings is a vital organizational task.
But there is little understanding of precisely why some people rather than others take on this
task. As one study concluded concerning individuals' willingness to engage in emotion
management during traumatic organizational transformation: "Some managers did not change
their behaviors in this regard, while others took the initiative to do so, despite the tacit injunction
against treating employees this way" (Huy, 2002: 62). Another study focused on the dangers to
individuals involved in processing negative emotions: "people who handle the emotional pain of
others might themselves become vulnerable to that very same pain" (Frost, 2003: 4). Among the
risks to those who process others' negative emotions in the workplace are symptoms commonly
associated with stress (Selye, 1956; Selye, 1974): burnout, depression, sleeplessness, and illness
(reviewed in Frost, 2003: 89-106). Handling the negative emotions of others is often not part of
the job description, and may require taking time away from assigned tasks such as "preparing
budgets, writing reports, or getting a product out the door" (Frost, 2003: 91). There have been
calls for more research on both individual and organizational predictors of people's willingness
to take on what appears to be a necessary but potentially thankless and hazardous role (Huy,
2002: 62). In this paper we examine the question: who are the actors that process negative
emotions in organizations?
4
IDENTIFYING THE NEGATIVE EMOTION PROCESSORS
Theory
The workplace can be an interpersonally frustrating context (Fitness, 2000) in which negative
emotions like anger, anxiety, envy, jealousy, guilt, sadness and shame constantly swirl.1
Organizations routinely produce negative emotions. Evidence suggests that it is the
organizational aspects of jobs, such as dealing with administration and supervision, that tend to
produce negative experiences and moods (Hart, Wearing, and Heady, 1995; Zohar, 1999; Brief
and Weiss, 2002). Emotional pain can be said to be "a normal by product of organizational life"
(Frost, 2003: 8) given deadline and performance pressures, and the frequency of disruptive
change: "Companies will merge, bosses will make unrealistic demands, people will lose their
jobs" (Frost, 2003: 12). An example of negative emotions prompted by organizational
downsizing is provided in the following line manager's account (Huy, 2002: 51): "There were a
lot of reactions when the changes were announced. Some people were angry, some wept, some
expressed no reaction at all.... The group mood was very variable. On one day, everything was
harmony, and on the next day, as soon as the work became demanding, people just exploded,
cried, so many reps seemed not being able to come to terms with their feelings." Negative
emotions can be prompted by such routine organizational events as performance evaluation,
interactions with fellow employees, and dealings with clients (Hochschild, 1983; Frost, 2003).
But people also bring to the workplace negative emotions from problems occurring outside the
workplace. Despite the Weberian mandate that private life and professional life be kept separate,
changes in one arena inevitably affect changes in the other arena. Specifically, unpleasant moods
5
(in contrast to pleasant moods) tend to spill over from family to work (Williams and Alliger,
1994). Thus, family crises can impede the effectiveness of work behaviors. For example, a sick
child may cause an employee to be late for work and face a reprimand from team members, as in
this example from the research literature: "They told her they were very upset that she was late.
They bluntly told her how much they had suffered from having to work short-handed. Stung by
the criticism of her peers, Sharon began to cry" (Barker, 1993: 431). People have to deal with
divorce, handicapped children, sick parents, and other personal issues. They bring negative
emotions to the workplace to be processed there (Huy, 2002: 50-51).
Much of the research interest in negative emotions has focused on their regulation (Ashforth and
Humphrey, 1995) and their impact on a range of important outcomes such as organizational
justice (Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano, 1999), employee withdrawal (Pelled and Xin, 1999),
and adaptation (Lazarus, 1991). Our study looks at the management of negative emotions from a
different angle. We examine the organizational actors who process negative emotions. These
actors listen to others' grievances, and may intervene on others' behalf to alleviate unpleasant
situations. It is these individuals that we wish to identify in this paper.
These stress-relievers, or ‘toxin handlers’ (Frost and Robinson, 1999; Frost, 2003) deal with
‘toxic relationships’ (Berscheid and Reis, 1998), and process ‘social toxins’ such as stress and
anxiety (Schein and Vries, 2000). Evidence suggests that some people handle a disproportionate
share of the negative emotion processing burden in organizations (Frost, 2003), in part because
individuals differ in their ability and potential. In general, pro-social behavior (such as negative
emotion processing) results from a combination of dispositional and status-based characteristics
6
(Batson, 1991). Specifically, we anticipate that people who process negative emotions in
organizations are likely to have both the position power necessary to intervene and solve
problems and the dispositional skills necessary to notice and alleviate suffering.
The Importance of Rank
Despite the Weberian prohibition of emotionality in the workplace, evidence suggests that
managerial responsibility includes attending to and alleviating employees' negative emotions.
This evidence includes the long history of research, dating back to the 1930s, showing a
significant effect of worker emotions on issues of concern to managers such as performance
outcomes (see the summary in Brief and Weiss, 2002: 281). In a more general sense, the
responsibility of managers and executives for the maintenance of organizational stability and
functioning has also been articulated by major organizational theorists. Henri Fayol (1916) wrote
of the responsibility of managers to promote harmony and union among the personnel of an
organization. Chester Barnard (1938) was among the first to emphasize that executives were
responsible for managing the informal aspects of communication and morale in organizations.
Even Frederick Taylor (1911: 74) listed as one of the principles of scientific management the
need for "harmony, not discord."
These classic recognitions of the importance of managers attending to employees' emotional
welfare have been extended by examinations of emotion management in contemporary firms.
The founder and chief executive officer of a cosmetics company was quoted as being "mystified
by the fact that the business world is apparently proud to be seen as hard and uncaring and
detached from human values... the word 'love' was as threatening in business as talking about a
7
loss on the balance sheet" (Martin, Knopoff, and Beckman, 1998: 447). One research report of
how middle managers coped with radical change in a large information technology firm
summarized the findings as follows: "Managers' emotion-attending behaviors reduced a
potentially higher state of anger and fear among the employees driven by emotional contagion"
(Huy, 2002: 60). Managers of many organizations tend to spend considerable time and attention
dealing with the negative emotions prevalent in the workplace (Frost, 2003: 157-158).
The processing of employee emotions is a crucial, if overlooked, organizational task (Frost and
Robinson, 1999). Managers, compared to other employees, are expected to help solve problems
in the workplace. To the extent that negative emotions threaten the proper functioning of the
organization, it is management's duty to help process these emotions, and return the workplace to
a state of emotional balance (Huy, 2002). Further, managers, relative to other employees, have
more discretion to intervene to solve problems, and have more resources available to allocate to
problem resolution. Even if non-managerial employees see a colleague in emotional pain, they
may lack the authority and the ability to do anything to help alleviate this suffering, and may
therefore be disinclined to get involved. Managers have the mandate to solve problems, they
have discretion to intervene in problem situations, and they tend to have resources that they can
reallocate to help alleviate problems that arise within their jurisdiction.
Personality Dispositions of Negative Emotion Processors
The formal positions that people attain in organizations may enable them to be active in helping
process the negative emotions of others. But what about the personality traits that people bring
with them to the workplace? Of the many personality variables that might conceivably affect
8
individuals' tendency to take on the role of negative emotion processor, we focused on two: selfmonitoring and positive affectivity. These two variables emerge from strong theoretical
traditions and have shown their importance in major studies of organizational behavior relevant
to our research topic.
Self-monitoring. The theory of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974; Snyder, 1979) makes predictions
concerning individual differences over a range of behaviors and skills including: interpersonal
skills, the tendency to focus on others, self-disclosure and the ability to mediate conflict. These
individual differences are relevant to the propensity to process the negative emotions of others in
the workplace. According to the theory, people differ in the extent to which they monitor and
control self-expression in public. High self-monitors are skilled at finding the right words and
behaviors appropriate for each social situation. Low self-monitors are more likely to express
their own idiosyncratic attitudes and behaviors irrespective of the requirements of any particular
social situation. In the workplace, low self-monitors attend more to internal cues whereas high
self-monitors attend more to cues from others (Anderson and Tolson, 1989).
In order to take on the role of negative emotion processor, the individual must first be able to
recognize that another person is in distress. High self-monitors tend to outperform low selfmonitors on tasks that include accurate person perception (Hosch et al., 1984; Hosch and Platz,
1984). High self-monitors are particularly skilful at "reading" the emotional state of others
(Geizer, Rarick, and Soldow, 1977; Brandt, Miller, and Hocking, 1980) perhaps because high
self-monitors (relative to low self-monitors) tend to invest effort in trying to understand other
people (Berscheid et al., 1976). High self-monitors tend to look below the surface of people's
9
behavior to discover accurate information about motivation (Jones and Baumeister, 1976) and
high self-monitors, compared to low self-monitors, can interpret the non-verbal behavior of other
people more accurately (Mill, 1984).
In order to help those in distress in the workplace, negative emotion processors must be able to
see the world as the other person does. High self-monitors tend to judge people's emotional
reactions accurately, and are able intellectually to take the perspective of the other person
whereas low self-monitors tend to react to others' distress by experiencing the same emotions
themselves (Mill, 1984). High self-monitors, compared to low self-monitors, tend to be in
control of their own mood states and emotional expressions (Snyder, 1974; Ickes, Layden, and
Barnes, 1978). Indeed, some high self-monitors may be able to communicate appropriate
emotions of sympathy and concern for others on demand (Snyder, 1987: 125).
Thus, compared to low self-monitors, high self-monitors are more likely to spot when someone
is in distress in the workplace and are better able to understand the individual's emotional
situation. But the high self-monitors have other advantages when it comes to processing
negative emotions of others. The high self-monitors are more likely than the low self-monitors
to appear more approachable and friendly (Snyder, 1987: 38) and are less likely to escalate
conflict situations (Baron, 1989). High self-monitors tend to initiate conversations (Ickes and
Barnes, 1977), to talk about the other person rather than about themselves (Ickes, Reidhead, and
Patterson, 1986), to pace conversations appropriately (Dabbs et al., 1980), to introduce humor in
the conversation (Turner, 1980), to reciprocate self-disclosure (Shaffer, Smith, and Tomarelli,
1982), and to use social skills to "lubricate" social interaction (see the discussion in Snyder,
10
1987: 41-43). Taking into account the full range of skills and behaviors that high self-monitors
bring to workplace interactions, there is likely to be a significant tendency for high self-monitors
to assume the role of negative emotion processor in organizations.
Positive affectivity. Those who process the negative emotions of others on a regular basis are
exposed to considerable pain and suffering that has the potential to lead to burnout and stress (cf.
Frost, 2003). There is evidence, however, that some individuals relative to others may enjoy the
experience of helping others deal with their problems, and may be protected from the contagious
effects of negative emotions. The positive affectivity personality trait differentiates between
individuals high in positive affectivity, who exhibit a general level of enthusiasm, energy,
alertness, and determination; and individuals low in positive affectivity, who exhibit a general
level of sluggishness, dullness, and down-heartedness (see Barsade et al., 2000, for a recent
review). An individual's positive affectivity disposition tends to "permeate all of an individual's
experiences" (Barsade et al., 2000: 803). Positive affectivity is a classic personality trait in the
sense of being a consistent disposition over time (Staw, Bell, and Clausen, 1986; Watson,
Clark, and Tellegen, 1988).
People high in positive affectivity, relative to those low in positive affectivity, tend to experience
a "pleasurable engagement with the environment" (Watson, 1988: 128). One of the most robust
findings in this research literature is that people high in positive affectivity tend to "enjoy, feel
more confident in, and even attract social contact" (Lucas and Diener, 2003: 48). High positive
affectivity people are more sensitive and attentive to those with whom they interact (Isen, 1970;
Cunningham, 1988). Their friendliness invites others to engage in interaction. Extensive
11
evidence suggests that those high in positive affectivity (relative to those low in positive
affectivity) tend to be more willing to help others and more willing to engage in altruistic
behaviors (Diener, Lyubomirsky, and King, 2001). High positive affect may well be reinforced
by the positive feelings people experience when they perform altruistic and helpful behaviors
(Carlson, Charlin, and Miller, 1988). Because of the energy, enthusiasm and generally upbeat
personality that high positive affectivity people bring to the workplace, they are likely to be more
active than those low in positive affectivity in processing the negative emotions of others.
Three Models
In predicting that negative emotion processors in organizations will tend to be people of high
rank, and people high in self-monitoring and positive affectivity, we have yet to indicate how
formal status and personality might combine to affect the likelihood of individuals taking on the
onerous and important responsibility of dealing with others' troubles. There are at least three
different ways personality can combine with formal status to predict the extent to which people
are actively processing others' negative emotions -- mediation, interaction, and addition.
Mediation model. Differences in the extent to which individuals perform the role of negative
emotion processor in organizations may be due to the tendency for particular personality types to
occupy high-ranking positions in organizations. These high-ranking positions may provide the
authority and resources necessary to solve others' problems. From this perspective, any
relationship between personality and the processing of negative emotions would be mediated by
rank. Evidence suggests that high self-monitors, relative to low self-monitors, tend to emerge as
group leaders (e.g., Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny, 1991), tend to be higher performers in
12
organizations (Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass, 2001), and tend to gain early promotions (Kilduff and
Day, 1994). Thus, it is likely that high self-monitors are differentially represented in the
managerial ranks. People high in positive affectivity may also tend to be over-represented in the
managerial ranks relative to those low in positive affectivity, especially for organizations in the
service sector (such as the recruitment agency we studied) where energy and enthusiasm may be
particularly valued (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987). There is strong evidence that the positive
affectivity trait predicts organizational citizenship behavior intentions including altruism
(Williams and Shiaw, 1999) but there has been no test as to whether the effect of positive
affectivity on helping behaviors is mediated by rank.
Interaction model. It is also possible that different personality types may differentially utilize
their occupancy of high-ranking positions in the organization to solve the emotional problems of
others. Even though low-ranking employees who are either high self-monitors or high in
positive affectivity may have the motivation and the skills to process negative emotions, they
may be stymied from doing so because they lack the authority and the capacity to intervene when
they see others suffering. For example, high self-monitors are acutely conscious of the role
expectations that accompany formal positions (Snyder and Gangestad, 1982) and are, therefore,
unlikely to assume responsibility that is incongruent with their rank. According to the
interaction model, therefore, irrespective of who happens to be in high-ranking positions in
organizations, those high in self-monitoring or those high in positive affectivity will more likely
to take advantage of high rank to help others process their negative emotions.
13
Additive model. We have argued that personality differences may differentially affect the
extent to which people process others' negative emotions because personality may help
determine who occupies high-ranking positions (the mediation argument) or because personality
differences may enable some people to differentially exploit the authority and resources that
accompany high rank (the interaction argument). A third possibility is that formal rank and
personality have independent and additive effects on the extent to which individuals are active in
processing others' negative emotions. From the additive perspective, there are two independent
but not mutually exclusive ways for individuals to undertake the role of negative emotion
processor: (a) occupy a high-ranking position in the organization; (b) possess a high selfmonitoring or high positive affectivity orientation.
To investigate how formal status and personality combine to predict negative emotion processing
in organizations, we collected data from a personnel recruitment agency. In our analyses we
controlled for three alternative explanations: gender, tenure, and network position. With respect
to gender, extensive evidence suggests that women relative to men are more likely to respond
empathetically to the distress of others, show greater concern, and provide more comfort (see the
review in Baron-Cohen, 2003). With respect to tenure, it seems likely that longer-serving
employees might be relied upon more than shorter-serving employees for the processing of
negative emotions. With respect to network position, evidence suggests that individuals who
occupy structurally advantageous positions in workplace networks, connecting otherwise
unconnected others, exert considerable social influence (e.g., Brass, 1984) and gain control of
resources (e.g., Cook and Emerson, 1978). Such individuals may, therefore, possess the informal
power and resources to assist diverse others process negative emotions.
14
METHOD
Site
Retail Personnel Flow (RPF; a pseudonym) was a recruiting agency specializing in providing
managerial staff for retail outlets such as grocery stores. RPF was founded in 1988 by an
entrepreneur who left his job at an executive placement agency. RPF emphasized both
efficiency of database management and effectiveness of relationship building with prospective
jobseekers and the companies that hired them. Firm revenues had tripled during the most recent
four-year period while the number of full-time employees had doubled to 104. The company
received about 500 original résumés each week and was the largest classified advertiser in the
urban area in which it was located.
RPF was the largest specialist retail recruitment agency in its market, and had developed a
reputation for professionalism in the education and training of its employees. Typical turnover
in the recruitment industry was close to 40 percent, but at RPF it was less than 5 percent.
Data
We collected personality, negative emotion processing, and network data by means of a
questionnaire sent by e-mail to all 104 employees (62 women and 42 men). Information
concerning rank, gender, and tenure were derived from company records.
15
The response rate was 92% for the questionnaire. Non-respondents did not differ significantly
from respondents with regard to rank, tenure, gender, or age. Missing data on self-monitoring
reduced the usable sample from 96 to 94 respondents.
Measures
We were able to test our models with one independent variable (rank) derived from company
records whereas the other independent variables (self-monitoring and positive affectivity) were
derived from self-reports. The dependent variable (extent of negative emotion processing) was
derived not from the self-reports of the focal individual, but from the reports of others
concerning the tendency to go to the focal individual for help in processing negative emotions at
work. Thus, we avoided potential common method variance problems by using different sources
for our independent and dependent variables, consistent with the conceptual framework of our
study (cf. Sackett and Larson, 1990: 474).
Rank. We measured the formal rank of each employee using an ordinal scale (cf. Ibarra, 1992).
From company records, we coded rank as 1 for support staff and trainees, 2 for recruitment
consultants, and 3 for the members of the top management team.
Self-monitoring. This was measured using the 18-item true-false Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder
and Gangestad, 1986). As a continuous variable, the self-monitoring score indicates the
probability that an individual is a high or low self-monitor (Gangestad and Snyder, 1985): the
higher the score, the higher the probability of a high self-monitoring orientation. Representative
items include "I would probably make a good actor," and "In different situations and with
16
different people, I often act like very different persons." Cronbach's (1951) alpha for the 18-item
scale in the present research was .67. For a recent review of the scale's predictive and construct
validity see Gangestad and Snyder (2000).
Self-monitoring has been established as a stable personality trait. Studies on monozygotic and
dizygotic twins indicate that the latent causal variable corresponding to self-monitoring is likely
to have a biological basis (see the reviews in Gangestad and Snyder, 1985 and Snyder and
Gangestad, 1986). Further, test-retest reliabilities for the self-monitoring scale have been
established over periods from one month to 3.5 months (see the studies summarized in Snyder,
1987: 17). Research suggests that "self-monitoring is a stable personality trait throughout one's
lifespan" (Jenkins, 1993: 84).
Positive affectivity. Respondents rated on a 5-point scale the extent to which they experienced
each of the ten relevant adjectives (active, alert, attentive, determined, enthusiastic, excited,
inspired, interested, proud, and strong) that comprise the positive affectivity portion of the
Positive Affectivity-Negative Affectivity Scale (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen, 1988). The exact
instructions were as follows: "Listed below are a number of words that describe different feelings
and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that
word. Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on the average.
Use the following scale to record your answers." For a review of the scale's predictive and
construct validity see Watson, Clark, and Tellegen, 1988). Cronbach's (1951) alpha for the 10item scale was .80. Positive affectivity is an enduring personality disposition. Its long-term
stability was found to be significant over a period of 6 years (Watson and Walker, 1996).
17
Dependent variable: Extent of negative emotion processing. We asked respondents to look
down an alphabetical list of employees and place checks next to the names of those to whom
they went for help and assistance dealing with negative emotions at work. The exact instructions
were as follows. “Whom do you go to when you experience stress, anxiety, tension or emotional
pain? Please look down the alphabetical list of your fellow employees and place a check mark to
indicate all the names of those people who you think help you when you need support in times of
trouble to cope with your personal problems and your negative emotions. Some people may go to
several people for help and support. Some may only go to one person. Some may not go to
anyone within the organization, in which case do not check anyone’s name under that question.”
For each individual in our sample we calculated the extent of negative emotion processing as the
normalised number of nominations received from others (a measure also known as normalised
indegree – Freeman, 1979). Individuals who received many nominations were considered to be
relatively active in helping process the negative emotions of other people in the workplace,
whereas individuals who received few or no nominations were considered to be relatively
inactive in helping process the negative emotions of other people in the workplace.
Control variables: Gender, tenure, and network betweenness. We coded gender as 0 for
men and 1 for women. Tenure was measured as the number of years an individual had been
employed by the company. Data for gender and tenure were obtained from company records.
The network variables were calculated as follows. Respondents were asked to look down an
alphabetical list of employees and check the names of those they considered to be friends and/or
18
work partners. The exact instructions for the friendship portion of the questionnaire were as
follows. “Whom would you consider to be your especially good friends? Friends are people with
whom you like to spend your free time, people you have been with most often for informal social
activities, such as visiting each others’ homes, having lunch together often, attending concerts or
other public performances, going out to pubs and clubs, etc.”
The measurement of advice relations followed the same format, with the stimulus question
modeled on previous research (Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass, 2001) as follows. “Whom would you
consider to be your most important work partners? Workflow contacts are a set of people who
provide you with your workflow inputs, as well as the set of people to whom you provide your
workflow output. Workflow inputs are any materials, information, clients, etc., that you might
acquire in order to do your job. Workflow output is the work that you send to someone else when
your job is complete.”
From these data, for each network we constructed a (94 x 94) matrix with (ij) cell entries equal to
1 if i indicated a relationship to j and equal to 0 otherwise. The (94 x 94) friendship matrix and
the (94 x 94) workflow matrix were submitted to the betweenness procedure in the network
program UCINET VI (Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman, 2002; see Freeman, 1979, for the
formula). The higher the betweenness score, the greater the extent to which the individual serves
as a potential go-between for other pairs of actors in the network by occupying an intermediary
position on the shortest path connecting other actors.
19
It is difficult to interpret betweenness measures for non-symmetric data. Therefore, we
symmetrized the friendship and workflow matrices using the rule that if either member of a pair
nominated the other, then the pair was considered to have a friendship tie or a workflow tie (cf.
Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass, 2001).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the variables.
The typical employee had been with the company about two-and-a-half years. Sixty percent of
the employees were women. Self-monitoring and positive affectivity scores tended to be high in
this company, but the two variables were not significantly correlated (r = .11). The extent of
negative emotion processing was significantly correlated with the control variables of workflow
betweenness (r = .70) and tenure (r = .47), as well as with the independent variables rank (r =
.49) and positive affectivity (r = .25). To answer the question of whether these significant
correlations would remain significant when other variables were controlled for, we conducted a
multiple regression analysis.
----------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-----------------------------------
The first model in Table 2 shows that the four control variables together (gender, tenure,
friendship betweenness, and workflow betweenness) explained 59 percent of the variance in the
extent to which individuals tended to process others' negative emotions. The question of interest,
20
then, is whether the measures of the independent variables significantly increased explained
variance above the already high-level explained by the control variables. Did the individual's job
rank and the individual's personality contribute to the extent to which the individual helped
others' deal with their emotional difficulties? We tested three different models of how job rank
and personality might combine to predict the dependent variable.
The mediation model. According to the logic of this model, people with certain personality
orientations tend to process the negative emotions of others because their personalities facilitate
their occupancy of high-ranking positions in the organization. To test this model, we first
examined the relationship between personality and the processing of negative emotions. The
regression results presented in model 2, Table 2, show no support for the idea that individuals
higher in either self-monitoring or positive affectivity tended to be particularly active in the
processing of negative emotions of others. Controlling for gender, tenure, and network
betweenness variables, there were no significant effects for either self-monitoring or positive
affectivity in predicting negative emotion processing. Interestingly, there is evidence that
personality plays a role in helping people attain higher rank in the organization. Both selfmonitoring orientation (beta = .05, p < .005) and positive affectivity (beta = .02, p < .05)
predicted formal rank, controlling for gender, tenure and the network betweenness variables.
However, the mediation argument is not supported overall, because there is no direct effect of
personality on negative emotion processing to be mediated by rank.
Thus, it appears that, despite their tendency to gain higher rank in the organization, high selfmonitors or people with high positive affectivity, have no overall tendency to be more active in
21
the processing of negative emotions than low self-monitors or people with low positive
affectivity.
----------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
-----------------------------------
The interaction model. An alternative argument is that, irrespective of who happens to gain
high-ranking position in the organization, it is people with the appropriate dispositions who will
tend to use high-ranking positions to facilitate the processing of others' negative emotions.
Model 5 in Table 2 shows support for this argument. The addition of the interaction terms, that
combine rank and personality measures, boosts explained variance by ten percent over the maineffects displayed in Table 2, model 4. Compared to people of lower rank, people of higher rank
are significantly more likely to be active processors of others' negative emotions if they are also
either high self-monitors or high in positive affectivity. The full interaction model explains 70
percent of the variance.
----------------------------------Insert Figures 1 & 2 about here
-----------------------------------
The significant interaction effects are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. To chart the significant
interaction between rank and self-monitoring, we partitioned the sample so that individuals with
scores of 11 or greater were classified as high self-monitors (cf., Gangestad and Snyder, 1985;
Kilduff, 1992). Figure 1 shows that, although there were no differences between low and high
22
self-monitors at the lower ranks with respect to the extent of negative emotion processing, for
people of the highest rank, high self-monitors engaged in helping more people with their
problems then did low self-monitors. A similar picture emerges when we look at Figure 2 that
diagrams the rank and positive affectivity interaction. Using the rule of ± 1 standard deviation
from the mean (e.g. Turban and Keon, 1993) to dichotomize the sample on positive affectivity,
we find that a sharp difference emerges between those low and high on positive affectivity who
occupy the highest rank in the company: top managers who are high on positive affectivity,
relative to top managers who are low on positive affectivity, tend to engage in more processing
of others' negative emotions. People low on positive affectivity show remarkably little evidence
of engaging in the processing of others' negative emotions irrespective of their rank in the
company, as shown by the flat dotted horizontal line near the bottom of Figure 2 .
The additive model. Given the significant interaction effects involving rank and personality it
appears that the additive model offers a less convincing explanation. As model 4, Table 2
shows, none of the personality variables are significant in the absence of the interaction terms.
The significant effects of control variables shown in Table 2, model 5, indicate that, as expected,
negative emotion processing is also more likely to be undertaken by women (rather than men),
and by those who occupy go-between positions in friendship or workflow networks (rather than
by those whose network ties tend to connect people who are connected to each other in other
ways). One puzzling question, though, is why the significant effect for gender only showed up
when the job rank and personality interaction terms were introduced into the regression. The
answer seems to be that without the interaction terms the effects of gender are suppressed. For
23
example, all high-ranking men are high self-monitors and are also highly active in processing
others' negative emotions, whereas, among women, both low and high self-monitors attained
high rank and these high-ranking women were also active in processing negative emotions. The
overall means for men and women on the dependent variable are not significantly different. The
combined effects of job rank and personality tend to swamp the more modest effects of gender.
In summary, the results support an interaction explanation. High-ranking individuals tend to be
the ones who process negative emotions in organizations, but they are even more likely to do so
if they are either high self-monitors or high in positive affectivity.
DISCUSSION
Responding to widespread calls for personality research that goes beyond the examination of
main effects (see the review in Mount, Barrick, and Ryan, 2003), we explored three theoretical
models of how personality and situation can potentially combine to affect important outcomes.
Situational factors, such as the type of job the individual occupies, have been suggested as likely
mediators and moderators of the effects of personality on dependent variables related to
individual performance in organizations (see the suggestions in Barrick and Ryan, 2003).
Building on these ideas, we investigated whether the situation of the employee with respect to
the formal rank attained in the organization helps explain the ways in which personality
differences affect the tendency to help others with their emotional distress.
We draw three important conclusions from our study. First, personality predicts attainment of
top management positions: high self-monitors and individuals high in positive affectivity tended
24
to be more likely to occupy the top positions in the organization. Second, among top managers,
personality predicts individuals likely to take on the role of negative emotion processor: those
high in self-monitoring and high in positive affectivity. Third, the effects of personality
interactions with rank are significant even controlling for other important and significant
variables such as gender and network position. These results suggest that individuals may be
propelled to top management positions in part because of their self-monitoring or positive
affectivity personality orientations (cf. Kilduff and Day, 1994). The very same dispositions may
then be critical in facilitating their enactment of the critically important role of negative emotion
processor.
Self-monitoring orientation and positive affectivity are stable components of individuals'
personalities, but these stable traits can be expressed through a range of possible behaviors.
Individuals in high-ranking jobs relative to those in low-ranking jobs tend to have more
autonomy, and greater responsibility for the overall welfare of the organization. Thus, the
opportunity for top managers (relative to subordinates) to utilize appropriate dispositional
orientations in pursuit of organizational goals is likely to be greater. Differences in situational
constraints can prompt differences in the ways in which personality dispositions "channel" the
expression of motives (Winter et al., 1998). In our study we found that attaining high rank within
an organization tended to unlock the negative emotion processing role among those with suitable
dispositions.
We found that women, relative to men, tended to be more likely to enact the role of negative
emotion processor. This is compatible with research showing that women, relative to men, tend
25
to be more empathetic, more loving, and more able to perceive as well as express negative
emotions (see the review in Baron-Cohen, 2003). We also found that individuals situated in high
betweenness positions in workflow or friendship networks tended to be called upon to help
others deal with their negative emotions. This result adds an interesting dimension to the robust
finding from the research literature that individuals with diverse ties tend to be healthier in terms
of mortality (Berkman and Syme, 1979) and resistance to infection (Cohen et al., 1997). The
other side of the coin, as shown in our research, is that individuals with diverse ties in the
workplace may have a greater responsibility for maintaining others' emotional health.
The present study is exploratory and has its shortcomings. We did not investigate the motives of
those engaging in or failing to engage in the processing of others' negative emotions. Prior work
suggests that for many managers the task of dealing with emotional problems of colleagues and
subordinates is an onerous and thankless one (Frost, 2003). But the dispositional approach we
have highlighted here suggests that those managers most likely to undertake responsibility for
negative emotion processing are likely to find their role performance rewarding. Further, such
individuals may have some dispositional immunity from negative emotional contagion given the
high self-monitors' strikingly intellectual approach to problem solving and the high positive
affectivity tendency toward altruism and enjoyable engagement with others.
A second constraint that might related to the sample used for the study. As can be expected in a
somewhat young, entrepreneurial organization, the age and tenure of participants in the sample
are within a somewhat narrow range, which means that we have to be cautious in generalizing
beyond this organization. Another limitation is that our design does not capture the longitudinal
26
aspect of negative emotion processing. Future research could focus on the long-term dynamics of
negative emotion processing in larger, more traditional corporate bureaucracies. It will be also
interesting to know how the turnover of negative emotion processors affects behavior and
performance in organizations.
The study of emotional processing in organizations is relatively new, and opens up a whole field
of enquiry. For too long managers have been seen as coldly efficient decision makers, trapped in
a Weberian iron cage that excludes discussion of the emotional tensions and heartaches that
inevitably accompany the changes experienced in organizational settings. In directing attention
to those who alleviate the anxieties and the stresses of colleagues in organizations, this research
fosters the hope that organizations can contribute to individuals’ emotional as well as their
financial well-being.
27
Footnotes
1
There is no consensus among researchers concerning the extent to which the concepts of affect,
mood, and emotion overlap or differ. We use research on all three of them to develop our ideas.
In the view of some scholars, affect includes both emotions and moods, and is a disposition to
experience certain emotions or feelings (Watson and Clark, 1984; Watson and Clark, 1994).
Although mood is an affective background state, which is relatively enduring and is not objectfocused (Frijda, 1993), emotion is a brief reaction with a positive or negative valence, and is
directed towards people, objects, or events (Frijda, 1993; Clore, 1994). Because of their
intensity, emotions are more likely to demand attention and consequently to interrupt behavior
(Simon, 1982).
28
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. R., and J. Tolson
1989 "Group member' self-monitoring as a possible neutralizer of leadership." Small Group Behavior, 20: 24-36.
Ashforth, B. E., and R. H. Humphrey
1995 "Emotions in the workplace: A reappraisal." Human Relations, 48: 97-125.
Barker, J. R.
1993 "Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams." Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408-437 .
Barnard, C.
1938 The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baron, R. A.
1989 "Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the Type A behavior pattern and selfmonitoring." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44: 281-296.
Baron-Cohen, S.
2003 The essential difference. Men, women and the extreme male brain. London: The Penguin
Press.
Barrick, M. R., and A. M. Ryan
2003 "Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barsade, S., A. Ward, J. Turner, and J. Sonnenfeld
2000 "To your heart's content: The influence of affective diversity in top management teams."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802-836.
Batson, C. D.
1991 The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Nillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berkman, L. F., and S. L. Syme
1979 "Social networks, host resistance and mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda
County residents." American Journal of Epidemiology, 109: 186–204.
Berscheid, E., W. Graziano, T. Monson, and M. Dermer
1976 "Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution, and attraction." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34: 978-989.
Berscheid, E., and H. T. Reis
29
1998 "Attraction and close relationships." In D. T. Gilbert, et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Social
Psychology, vol. II: 193-281. Boston et al.: McGraw-Hill.
Borgatti, S., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman
2002 UCINET 6 for Windows. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Brandt, D. R., G. Miller, and J. Hocking
1980 "The truth-deception attribution: Effects of familiarity on the ability of observers to detect
deception." Human Communication Research, 6: 99-110.
Brass, D. J.
1984 "Being in the right place: A structursal analysis of individual influence in an organization."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 518-539.
Brief, A. P., and H. M. Weiss
2002 "Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace." Annual Review of Psychology, 53:
279-307.
Carlson, M., V. Charlin, and N. Miller
1988 "Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55: 211–229.
Clore, G. L.
1994 "Why emotions require cognition." In P. Ekman, and R. J. Davidson (eds.), The nature of
emotion: Fundamental questions: 181-191. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, S., W. J. Doyle, D. P. Skoner, B. S. Rabin, and J. M. Gwaltney
1997 "Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold." Journal of the American Medical Association, 277: 1940-1944.
Cook, K. S., and R. M. Emerson
1978 "Power, equity, and commitment in exchange networks." American Sociological Review,
43: 712-739.
Cronbach, L. J.
1951 "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests." Psychometrika, 16: 297-334.
Cunningham, M. R.
1988 "Does happiness mean friendliness? Induced mood and heterosexual self-disclosure." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14: 283-297.
Dabbs, J. M., M. S. Evans, C. H. Hooper, and J. A. Purvis
1980 "Self monitors in conversation: Patterns of speech and gaze." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39: 278-284.
Diener, E., S. Lyubomirsky, and L. A. King
30
2001 "Is happiness a good thing? The benefits of long-term positive affect." Manuscript in
preparation, University of Illinois.
Fayol, H.
1916 Administration Industrielle et Generale. Paris: Dunod.
Fitness, J.
2000 "Anger in the workplace: an emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers
and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates." Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 147162.
Freeman, L. C.
1979 "Centrality in Social Networks I: Conceptual Clarification." Social Networks, 1: 215-239.
Frijda, N.
1993 "Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions." In J. Haviland (ed.), Handbook of Emotions:
381-403. New York: Guilford.
Frost, P.
2003 Toxic emotions at work: how compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Frost, P., and S. Robinson
1999 "The toxic handler. Organizational hero and casualty." Harvard Business Review: 96-106.
Gangestad, S. W., and M. Snyder
1985 ""To carve nature at its joints": On the existence of discrete classes in personality." Psychological Review, 92: 317-340.
2000 "Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal." Psychological Bulletin, 126: 530-555.
Geizer, R. S., D. L. Rarick, and G. F. Soldow
1977 "Deception and judgmental accuracy: A study in person perception." Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 3: 446-449.
Hart, P. M., A. J. Wearing, and B. Heady
1995 "Police stress and well-being: integrating personality. coping and daily work experiences."
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 68: 133-156.
Hochschild, A. R.
1983 The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hosch, H. M., M. R. Leippe, P. M. Marchioni, and D. S. Cooper
1984 "The structural implications of measurement error in sociometry." Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 3: 85-111.
31
Hosch, H. M., and S. J. Platz
1984 "Self-Monitoring and eyewitness identification." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10: 289-292.
Huy, Q. N.
2002 "Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of
middle managers." Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 31-69.
Ibarra, H.
1992 "Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an
adevrtising firm." Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 422-426.
Ickes, W. J., and R. D. Barnes
1977 "The role of sex and self monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 315-330.
Ickes, W. J., M. A. Layden, and R. D. Barnes
1978 "Objective self-awareness and individuation: An empirical link." Journal of Personality, 46:
146-161.
Ickes, W. J., S. Reidhead, and M. Patterson
1986 "Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As different as 'me' and 'you'." Social Cognition, 4:
58-74.
Isen, A. M.
1970 "Success, failure, attention, and reaction to others: The warm glow of success." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 15: 294-301.
Jenkins, J. M.
1993 "Self-monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on intentions to leave." Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36: 364-396.
Jones, E. E., and R. F. Baumeister
1976 "The self-monitor looks at the ingratiator." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44: 654-674.
Kilduff, M.
1992 "The friendship network as a decision-making resource: Dispositional moderators of social
influences on organization choice." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62.
Kilduff, M., and D. V. Day
1994 "Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers." Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1047-1060.
Lazarus, R.
1991 Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
32
Lucas, R. E., and E. Diener
2003 "The happy worker: Hypotheses about the role of positive affect in worker productivity." In
A. M. Ryan, and M. Barrick (eds.), Personality and work: 30-59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, J., K. Knopoff, and C. Beckman
1998 "An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at
The Body Shop." Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 429-469.
Mehra, A., M. Kilduff, and D. J. Brass
2001 "The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performace." Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 121-146.
Mill, J.
1984 "High and low self-monitoring individuals: Their decoding skills and empathic expression." Jpurnal of Personality, 52: 372-388.
Mount, M. K., M. R. Barrick, and A. M. Ryan
2003 "Research themes for the future." In M. R. Barrick, and A. M. Ryan (eds.), Personality and
work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations: 326-344. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Mumby, D. K., and L. L. Putnam
1992 "The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality." Academy of Management Review, 17: 465-486.
Pelled, L. H., and K. R. Xin
1999 "Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior." Journal of Management, 25: 875-895.
Rafaeli, A., and R. I. Sutton
1987 "Expression of emotion as part of the work role." Academy of Management Review, 12:
23-37.
Sackett, P. R., and J. R. Larson
1990 "Research strategies and tactics in Industrial and Organizational Psychology." In M. D.
Dunette, and L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1
(2nd ed.): 419-489. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Schein, E., and M. K. d. Vries
2000 "Crosstalk: Transatlantic exchanges." The Academy of Management Executive, 14: 30-51.
Selye, H.
1956 The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1974 Stress without distress. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
33
Shaffer, D. R., J. E. Smith, and M. Tomarelli
1982 "Self-monitoring as a determinant of self-disclosure reciprocity during the acquaintance
process." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 163-175.
Simon, H. A.
1982 "Comments." In S. T. Fiske, and M. S. Clark (eds.), Affect and cognition: The Seventeenth
Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition: 333-342. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Snyder, M.
1974 "Self-monitoring of expressive behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
30: 526-537.
1979 "Self-monitoring processes." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12: 85-128.
1987 Public appearances/public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Snyder, M., and S. Gangestad
1982 "Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self-monitoring processes." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 123-135.
1986 "On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 125-139.
Staw, B. M., N. E. Bell, and J. A. Clausen
1986 "The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77.
Taylor, F.
1911 Principles of scientific management. New York: W W Norton.
Turban, D., and T. Keon
1993 "Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective." Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 184-193.
Turner, R. G.
1980 "Self-monitoring and humor production." Journal of Personality, 48: 163-172.
Watson, D.
1988 "The vicissitudes of mood measurement: The effects of varying descriptors, time frames,
and response formats on measures of Positive and Negative Affect." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55: 128-141.
Watson, D., and L. Clark
1984 "Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience negative emotional states." Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465-490.
Watson, D., L. Clark, and A. Tellegen
34
1988 "Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS
scales." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.
Watson, D., and L. A. Clark
1994 "Emotions, mood, traits and temperaments: Conceptual distinctions and empirical findings." In P. Ekman, and R. J. Davidosn (eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions:
89-93. New York: Oxford University Press.
Watson, D., and L. M. Walker
1996 "The long-term stability and predictive validity of trait measures of affect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 567.
Weber, M.
1946 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, H. M., K. Suckow, and R. Cropanzano
1999 "Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions." Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:
786-794.
Williams, K., and G. M. Alliger
1994 "Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents." Academy of Management Journal, 37: 837-868.
Williams, S., and W. T. Shiaw
1999 "Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of postive affect on employee
organizational citizenship behavior intentions." The Journal of Psychology, 133: 656-668.
Winter, D. G., A. J. Stewart, O. P. John, E. C. Klohnen, and L. E. Duncan
1998 "Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research." Psychological Review, 105: 230-250.
Zaccaro, S. J., R. J. Foti, and D. A. Kenny
1991 "Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations." Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 308-315.
Zohar, D.
1999 "When things go wrong: The effect of daily work hassles on effort, exertion and negative
mood." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 265-283.
.
35
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable
Mean
S.D.
1. Rank
1.858
.542
2. Self-monitoring
11.309
3.206
.312 **
3. Positive affectivity
36.802
5.034
.251 *
4. Gender
.604
.492
5. Tenure
2.569
2.971
6. Friendship betweenness
2.090
7. Workflow betweenness
8. Negative emotion processing
1
3
4
5
6
7
.108
-.243 *
-.075
.447 **
.071
.039
-.117
2.684
.036
.169
.120
-.179
.204 *
.907
1.719
.349 **
.150
.254 *
-.079
.251 *
-.035
3.661
3.931
.492 ** .181
.248 *
-.014
.472 **
.136
p < 0.05 ; ** p < 0.01
N = 96, except self-monitoring (N = 94)
.002
2
.702 **
8
Table 2
Regression Analyses Predicting Negative Emotion Processing (N = 94)
Model
Independent variable
1
2
3
4
Gender = 0
-.66
-.78
-.63
-.70
-1.33*
Tenure
.39***
.40***
.25*
.26*
.07
Friendship betweenness
.18+
.15
.20+
.18+
.19*
Workflow betweenness
1.46***
1.39***
1.30***
1.26***
.71***
-3.40*
-2.40+
-3.12*
-2.34+
51.17***
51.12***
Rank = 1
Rank = 2
5
Self-monitoring (SM)
.08
.04
1.05**
Positive affectivity (PA)
.06
.04
1.13***
Rank = 1 * SM
-.98**
Rank = 2 * SM
-1.03**
Rank = 1 * PA
-1.16***
Rank = 2 * PA
-1.12***
Model F
34.42***
23.42***
25.18***
18.72***
19.35***
Model R2
.61
.62
.64
.64
.74
.00
.02
.00
.10
.59
.61
.60
.70
Change in R2
Adjusted R2
+
.59
p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
38
Figure 1: Relationship between rank and negative emotion processing for low and high
self-monitors.
39
Figure 2: Relationship between rank and negative emotion processing for low and high
positive affectivity.