Anger Expressions at Work:
The Influence of Anger Expressions and Work Unit Norms on Outcomes
Ronda Roberts Callister
Utah State University
3555 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322
(435) 797-1905 FAX (435) 797-1091
e-mail: Ronda.Callister@.usu.edu
Barbara Gray
Pennsylvania State University
404 Business
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-3822
e-mail: b9g@psu.edu
Donald E. Gibson
Fairfield University
Charles F. Dolan School of Business
North Benson Rd.
Fairfield, CT 06430-5195
(203) 254-4000 FAX (203) 254-4105
e-mail: DGibson@mail.fairfield.edu
Maurice E. Schweitzer
University of Pennsylvania
566 JMHH, OPIM
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
(215) 898-4776
e-mail: schweitzer@wharton.upenn.edu
Joo Seng Tan
Nan Yang Technological University
Nanyang Avenue
Singapore 639798
Phone: (65) 790 6233
e-mail: ajstan@ntu.edu.sg
Please do not quote without authors’ permission.
1
Anger at Work:
Anger Expressions, Work Unit Norms and Outcomes
Abstract
We describe how positive and negative outcomes of anger expressions are influenced by the
nature of the anger display rules within organizations. We use a qualitative theory-building approach to
examine a range of organizations. From this work, we identify an anger context continuum (ACC)
showing that anger norms vary among work units. We also develop a framework of anger outcomes. We
find that anger expressions are likely to lead to negative individual outcomes in work settings with anger
suppression norms. We find that anger expressions are likely to lead to positive social outcomes in work
settings with anger legitimating norms, especially when anger expressions are controlled or authentically
expressed. From our results, we develop a theoretical model that suggests the outcome of anger
expressions as a product of professional and organizational socialization, national and organizational
culture, and previous personal experiences. These, together with work unit norms and form of anger
expression, influence outcomes.
Key Words: Anger, Emotion, Norms, Work units, Organizations, Organization Context and Outcomes
2
Anger at Work:
Anger Expressions, Work Unit Norms and Outcomes
Emotions can generate important outcomes for organizations (Barsade and Gibson 2007, Frost
2003, Geddes and Callister 2007). This is particularly true for anger (Allred 1999, Brief and Weiss 2002,
Domagalski 1999, Fitness 2000, Glomb and Hulin 1997, Morris and Keltner 2000, Pillutla and
Murnighan 1997). Anger expressions at work may affect the quality of job satisfaction, team interactions,
trust, and performance (Barsade 2002, Barsade Ward Turner and Sonnenfeld 2000, Boccialetti 1988,
Dunn and Schweitzer 2005, Glomb 2002). Anger can induce perceptions of injustice, deviance,
dissatisfaction, revenge and incivility (Andersson and Pearson 1999, Bies Tripp and Kramer 1997,
Spector 1997). At intense levels, anger may be acted out as aggression or violent behavior within
organizations (Greenberg and Barling 1998, Neuman and Baron 1998, Robinson and Bennett 1997).
Thus, understanding the effects of anger expressions in the workplace has direct relevance to employee
well-being and organizational efficacy.
We define anger as a psychological and biological state that may include: feelings that vary in
intensity from mild irritation to fury and rage; physiological responses such as the arousal of the
neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous systems; cognitive reactions; and behavior tendencies (Glomb
2002, Spielberger 1999). Anger occurs as part of a sequence of events constituting an anger “episode”—a
transaction between the individual and the situation (Lazarus 1991). These events typically also include
antecedents (triggers), forms of expression, contexts and outcomes. While considerable attention has been
directed to the antecedents of anger episodes (c.f., Averill 1982, Fehr Baldwin Collins Patterson and
Benditt 1999, Lazarus 1991, Russell and Fehr 1994), less attention has been given to their outcomes and
to the influence of the social context and the form of expression on these outcomes.
Anger outcomes refer to the changes that occur during and following an anger expression.
Empirical studies have shown that individuals involved in anger episodes experience both negative as
well as positive outcomes (Averill 1982, Glomb and Hulin, 1997), even from the same episode. In terms
of potential positive outcomes, people experiencing anger tend to pay increased attention to their
3
environment and have a heightened physical readiness for action (Frijda 1986), and angry people tend to
have a stronger sense of control and certainty than fearful people (Lerner and Tiedens 2006). Anger
expressions can also alert managers to employee perceptions of inefficiency, inequity and injustice
(Glomb and Hulin 1997) and possibly instigate organizational change. When anger is expressed about
organizational problems it can signal that something systemic is amiss, identify and focus motivation on
critical issues, and create opportunities to increase knowledge and learning (Huy 1999).
Despite acknowledging the positive and negative potential of anger in organizations, researchers
know less about the circumstances which enable either outcome to occur. Researchers have established
that emotions are socially constructed (Fineman 2000, Harre 1986, Hochschild 1983, Mumby and Putnam
1992) and that organizational norms can encourage or discourage emotional expression (Feldman 1984,
Rafaeli and Sutton 1989, Sutton 1991, Van Maanen and Kunda 1989, Kramer and Hess 2002). Still, there
has been almost no systematic effort to demarcate differences in organizational anger contexts or how
these differences affect the impact of anger episodes on individuals and their work units. Toward this end,
our research addresses the following questions:
1. How do work units differ in anger expression norms (e.g., suppressing to legitimating anger
expression) and the strength and clarity of display prescriptions?
2. How does the form in which anger is expressed during an anger episode affect the individual
and work unit outcomes of the episode?
3. What differential outcomes accrue when anger expressions do and do not match the work
unit’s prescriptions regarding anger displays?
To answer these questions we report results from a qualitative study of 158 anger episodes from
employees in seven different work units that differ in their norms regarding display of anger. Our paper
proceeds as follows: After reviewing the theoretical background on anger as a socially constructed
emotion and describing how emotional labor research can be extended by studying different anger
contexts and forms of expression, we introduce our qualitative methodology. Using grounded theory and
multi-dimensional scaling we identify differences in work unit anger contexts, forms of anger expression
4
and types of anger outcomes. Then, we examine the patterns of outcomes that emerge for different forms
of expression in different anger contexts and synthesize our insights into a model for future research.
Our paper makes the following contributions. First, we extend emotional labor research by
examining variations in work unit norms – suppressing or legitimating, and the strength and clarity of
prescriptions regarding anger displays. Second, we extend understanding of emotion expression as both
an individual and meso-level phenomenon by examining anger expressions, work unit anger norms and
their impact on both individual and collective outcomes. Third, we examine whether differential
consequences accrue with different anger expressions and work unit anger norms.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Anger as Social Construction
Recent commentary assessing the body of extant research on emotions has concluded that it
focuses primarily on individuals and their intra-individual processes of emotional registration, regulation
and expression, and how differences in emotion regulation strategies influence outcomes (c.f., Gross
1998, Gross and John 2003). While a few studies of anger at individual and dyadic levels have described
the social psychological dynamics of feeling and expressing anger (Consedine Magai and Bonanno 2002,
Fehr et al. 1999, Fitness 2000, Glomb and Hulin 1997, Tavris 1989), empirical studies of the impact of
the organizational or work unit context on anger expressions and outcomes are rare. The rationale for
emphasizing the work unit context in understanding emotional expressions is derived in part from
theories of emotions as social constructions (Fineman 2000, Hochschild 1983). Emotions and their
expression are embedded in social situations that include relationships of the parties (c.f., Côté 2005,
Mumby and Putnam 1992). These social situations affect how individuals appraise the harms and benefits
of a situation (Lazarus 1991, Ren and Gray, 2008) and ascribe meaning to events, and these meanings
trigger emotional responses (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996). Mismatches between the normative context
within work units and individual propensities may prove problematic.
Several researchers have argued that the extant literature does not adequately account for the
socially constructed nature of anger and suggest that anger is subjected to and defined by cultural norms
5
and sanctions that shape how it is felt and expressed (Averill 1982, Kelly and Barsade 2001, Stearns and
Stearns 1989). Norms are the group’s informal rules that evaluate and regulate behaviors (Feldman 1984).
Numerous studies confirm that norms shape some emotional feelings and influence regulation of
emotional expression. For example, organizational culture research has found that norms dictate the
degree to which emotional expression is sanctioned or legitimized (Sutton 1991, Van Maanen and Kunda
1989). Both organizational and work unit norms have the potential to affect anger expressions and
outcomes (Grandey 2000). In this paper, we focus on work unit anger norms defined as the formal or
informal rules that influence anger expressions within different organizational departments.
Many factors can shape work unit anger norms, including the early history of the organization or
work group, as well as the attraction-selection-attrition process (Schneider 1987, Schneider Goldstein and
Smith 1995) through which individuals whose anger norms match those of the organization are recruited
and those members with contradictory norms are weeded out. Emotional expression norms can develop
during occupational training and socialization (Kramer and Hess 2002, Rafaeli and Sutton 1989, Sutton
1991, Van Maanen and Schein 1979). These norms can be reinforced through rewards (Staw Sutton and
Pelled 1994). Other norms may be imported by individuals when they join a work group. They may come
from societal norms such as differential responses to status (Tiedens Ellsworth Mesquita 2001), or gender
stereotypes (Hutson-Comeaux and Kelly 2002, Domagalski and Steelman 2007). Family history and
previous life experiences may also be influential in shaping behavior (Douglas and Martinko 2001). We
also know from previous research that some people have different individual comfort levels with the
expression of anger; indeed, emotional expressivity is defined as the extent to which people outwardly
display emotions and is typically viewed as an individual trait (Gross and John 1998, Gross and Levenson
1993). Taken together, these suggest that norms may emerge from both the backgrounds and behaviors of
individuals and the organization.
Barker’s (1993) study of self-managed work teams demonstrated the tremendous power of
normative control to influence behavior within work units. Ekman (1972) refers to norms focused on
emotion expression as “display rules.” Display rules are implicit guidelines for which emotions are
6
appropriate to express and how they should be expressed in specific social situations within the work unit.
These display rules are especially strong in organizations where emotional labor is expected (Hochschild
1983, Ashforth and Humphrey 1993). In this paper, we explore and develop theory to link the variation in
the strength of work unit anger norms, anger expressions, and outcomes.
Extending Emotional Labor
Emotional labor generally refers to the effort needed to express organizationally desired emotion
during interpersonal transactions (Beal Trougakkos Weiss and Green 2006, Morris and Feldman 1996). A
key part of the definition of emotional labor is that the intimacy of human emotion can be commodified
for the benefit of the organization and is literally part of the labor process (Domagalski 1999, Hochschild
1983, Elfenbein 2007). Employees are most often expected to constrain negative felt emotions and
replace them with expressed positive ones designed to impress clientele (Beal et al. 2006, Gibson 1997).
Emotional labor is particularly prevalent among boundary-spanners, especially those in the service sector
(Ashforth and Humphrey 1993), where quality is vital to customer satisfaction (Elfenbein 2007); thus,
much of emotional labor research has focused on specific types of workers such as: cheerleading
instructors; administrative assistants; flight attendants; bank workers; bill collectors and Disneyland
employees (Beal et al. 2006, Grandey 2003, Hochschild 1983, Pugh 2001, Sutton 1991, VanMaanen and
Kunda 1989). These occupations tend to have strong prescriptive norms about emotional expression.
Recently, emotion theorists have integrated ideas of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998) into their
thinking about emotion labor and identified both individual and organizational consequences of
employees engaging in emotional labor (Grandey 2000). While emotional labor continues to attract
research attention, and at least one study begins to explore norms governing emotional display (Kramer
and Hess, 2002), the research to date does not capture the full range of variance in the norm type (such as
anger suppressing to legitimating settings), or the strength and clarity of organizational prescriptions
regarding emotional expression, particularly anger expression that occurs in organizations. Rather, the
emotional labor literature has primarily focused on display rules calling for suppression of negative
emotions such as anger and the amplification of display rules calling for positive emotions, such as
7
pleasantness (Hochschild 1983, Pugh 2001). However, this approach does not account for the situations
where anger expression is considered appropriate and, indeed, is encouraged to meet organizational goals,
or where emotion expressions are not directly addressed by organizations. We consider how display rules
vary across different organizations with different normative contexts. Many organizations try to constrain
anger expressions, but other organizations value anger expression and some fail to explicitly prescribe
specific emotional displays. Anger expressions may be valued, for example, because of their usefulness in
increasing motivation as illustrated by Izard’s (1993: 635) description: “A unique function of anger is
that of mobilizing and sustaining energy at high levels… No other emotion can equal the consistency and
vigor of anger in increasing and sustaining extremely high levels of motor activity.” In addition to being
aware of organizational anger display rules, individuals also bring their own values and past experiences
of anger expressions to work, which may influence the extent to which they conform to organizational
anger display rules when feeling or expressing anger.
We explore how work units vary both in the extent that display rules constrain anger expression
and the extent to which anger expressions are valued or disparaged as a means of accomplishing
organizational goals.
METHODS
We used a qualitative, interpretive approach, conducting interviews to obtain thick descriptions of
anger episodes within work units and the norms and display rules that affect anger expressions. Our
approach was guided by the four criteria delineated by Pratt (2007) for effective qualitative research: (1)
clarity about the study’s purpose, (2) explanation for the context chosen, (3) explication of sampling
decisions, and (4) documentation and display of analytic approach and findings through the use of tables
and figures. We address each of these at appropriate points in the discussion of our methods.
Purpose
With regard to the first criterion, our purpose is to build and elaborate theory. A qualitative field
study is especially appropriate for this research because we are developing nascent theory about anger
8
contexts in organizations. Nascent theory “proposes tentative answers to novel questions of how and
why” and proposes new constructs and suggestive models (Edmondson 2005: 5, McGrath 1964).
Context
We used anger episodes experienced by organizational members as the context for this study.
Prior research has found that respondents can identify distinct emotion episodes with a beginning and an
end (Frijda 1993). We asked each respondent to recall at least two anger episodes, one in which they were
the target of anger and one in which they expressed anger. A number of respondents also provided
examples of anger episodes in which they observed an angry interchange between others. We focused on
the respondents’ perceptions of the episode, recognizing that each party in an anger episode may have
different perceptions of what happened. Interviews allowed us to expand and clarify respondents’ answers
via follow-up questions. Since our focus was to identify work unit norms, it was imperative that our study
be conducted in a field rather than a lab setting. Toward that end, we also drew on informants in each
organization who could provide background on the normative prescriptions within each setting and who
could clarify questions that arose during data analysis.
Sample Selection
We used theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss 1967) to select several different types of work
units which vary both in the extent to which anger display rules are prescribed by the organization and the
extent to which anger expressions are valued or discouraged. Theoretical or purposive sampling (Strauss
and Corbin 1990) is a theory-building technique that uses reasoning to anticipate distinctions among sites,
respondents and samples in order to maximize these distinctions for the purposes of theorizing about
them. Pratt (2007) refers to these as extreme cases selected to enhance the likelihood of observing the
dynamics in question. Drawing on the emotional labor literature (c.f. Ashforth and Humphrey 1993,
Grandey 2003, Hochschild 1983, Pugh 2001, Rafaeli and Sutton, 1989), we reasoned that work units
characterized by high levels of boundary spanning, such as service workers, would view anger negatively
and would have display rules that tried to constrain anger expressions. We expected that for these
organizations, displaying anger in front of clients or customers would be viewed as potentially damaging.
9
We selected a nursing home, a women’s health unit and a department of social workers in the U.S. as
examples of work units where we expected to find display rules that constrained anger expressions. We
label these types of work units “suppressing” work contexts. In addition, we selected a comparable
department of social workers in Asia (specifically in Singapore) to compare the two units for cultural
differences in anger norms.
In contrast, we also selected settings we believed would value anger expressions. For example,
Izard (1993) argued that coaches use anger to motivate their athletes and foster contempt for opposing
teams and coaches. We reasoned that coaches might express anger at their athletes’ current performance
to motivate increased levels of performance. We also expected that labor unions would value and
legitimate anger expressions because, as social movement theorists argue, union organizers express anger
over perceived systematic injustice to recruit new members and motivate them to take action (Benford
and Snow 2000). Finally, we reasoned that work units characterized by high pressure or intermittent
crises (e.g., life or death situations) might be more likely to generate and allow spontaneous anger
expression without penalty. We selected a hospital operating room as one possible unit. We label these
types of work units “legitimating” work contexts.
Data Collection
We asked respondents from each work unit a common set of questions. They were each asked to
describe recent anger episodes in their work unit, to describe the participants, the circumstances, how the
anger was expressed and the outcomes of each episode. We garnered a total of 156 anger episodes from
64 interviewees. Interviews lasted 40 to 90 minutes. Women comprised 78% of the interviewees (50),
87.5% were White (56), 3.1% were Black (2) and 9.1% were Asian (6). For emotional labor research this
ratio of men and women is typical or slightly more balanced than other studies (c.f. Diefendorff and
Richard 2003—90%, Glomb and Liao 2003, Grandey 2003—95%, Pugh 2001—99%). Respondents also
included both professional and non-professional workers. The work unit occupations of the respondents
included: five labor organizers (three men and two women); eight coaches (four men and four women);
seven social workers (six women and one man) from the U.S.; seven additional social workers (6
10
respondents – 1 man, 5 women) from Singapore, ten nursing home employees (two men and eight
women); 16 surgical center employees (three men and 13 women), and 10 employees in a women’s health
unit of a medical center.
To determine the clarity of the display rules and the influence of other social norms in each work
unit we asked the following questions: “How appropriate is it to express anger here?” and “What would
you say are the spoken or unspoken rules about openly expressing anger?” We then looked at the extent
of agreement among these respondents as an indication of the anger norms within each unit.
Data Analysis
Coding Anger Norms. We coded the data from each set of respondents about the
appropriateness of anger within the work unit to look for evidence of whether anger expressions were
viewed as useful and valued or whether they were viewed as potentially damaging and discouraged. We
also compared the assessments of the interviewees from each work unit to assess the extent to which
display rules or other social norms influenced anger expression. We used an iterative process of
comparing the data on anger norms (Eisenhardt 1989) from each of the work units to each other and to the
literature while examining the similarities and differences.
Forms of Anger Expression. The presence of work unit anger norms suggests that individuals’
expressions of anger are not always consonant with their felt anger; that is, individuals do not express
precisely what they feel, particularly in organizations (Hochschild 1983, Morris and Feldman 1996,
Rafaeli and Sutton 1989). As Frijda (1986: 401, 405) suggests, “People not only have emotions, they also
handle them…Regulation is an essential component of the emotion process.” The form of anger
expression reflects the degree to which individuals manage their anger in their organizational setting, a
regulation process that has been shown to influence outcomes (Gross 1998). Thus, we define “form of
anger expression” as the relative discrepancy between individuals’ felt and expressed emotion. We
expected to find anger at both extremes—angry feelings with no control or regulation attempted—
contrasted with anger that is controlled to the point there is no direct verbal expression: that is silent
11
toward the target of the anger. In-between these two poles is anger that is regulated or controlled, but still
expressed. We refer to these three forms of anger expression as authentic, controlled, and silent.
Authentic. Authentic expression occurs when anger is fully expressed. The individual expresses
his or her anger without trying to reduce, restrain, delay or otherwise control the emotion. Authentic anger
is directed toward those involved. It involves fully voicing the anger and may include using a stern voice,
yelling, swearing or other animated behavior (Scherer 1981).
Controlled. Controlling emotions, especially anger, has been well-researched (Gross 1998) and is
often the recommended advice for positive anger management (Dewe and Guest 1990). Individuals feel
anger, but control their anger expression by expressing less than the full extent of the felt anger.
Respondents reported doing this by raising the issue while restraining the emotion in their voice and
modulating their behavior. They also reported trying to control their anger by delaying its expression, or
intentionally “cooling off” before addressing the situation (Tavris 1989). Finally, another form of
controlled expression involves directing anger to someone who has the authority to do something about
the issue (e.g., a supervisor) rather than to the person who triggered the anger. People choose controlled
anger expression because they believe it will prevent or reduce the adverse effects of anger episodes or
will yield positive outcomes such as resolving the problem.
Silent. Although the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled (or authentic) anger is noted
in the psychological literature (c.f., Gross 1998, Gross and John 2003), our interviews revealed a further
distinction. We refer to this third type as silent anger. We conceptualize silent anger expression as
expressions that are not verbally expressed to those involved who could address the issue (Pinder and
Harlos 2001) or vented only to uninvolved others outside the work unit who cannot influence the
situation. Some employees remain silent because they fear negative repercussions of speaking out; others
believe that voicing their complaints will make no difference (Morrison and Milliken 2000, Pinder and
Harlos 2001). Nonetheless, we contend that silent anger still represents an expression because anger is
12
typically visible in individuals’ nonverbal behavior (e.g., a shift to a more serious or stoic demeanor or
quieter presence than usual, or a tense facial expression).
Coding For Form of Expression. We coded form of expression using the three categories: authentic,
controlled, and silent. Authentic anger was coded when each of the following characteristics was present:
1) Anger expression intensity reportedly matched felt anger intensity; 2) anger was expressed
immediately; and 3) anger was directed at the person involved. Controlled anger was coded when any one
or more of the following were found: 1) Anger was reported to have been expressed to the target at a
level less intense than the level at which anger was felt; 2) anger was reduced or delayed to some degree
prior to expression; or 3) anger was not directly expressed to the person involved, but to someone with the
power to make a difference, such as a supervisor. Silent anger was coded when either: 1) No attempt was
made to express the anger verbally; or 2) anger was not expressed to the target but was vented outside of
work or to uninvolved coworkers, provided that these recipients were not in a position to fix or address
the problem. In most cases anger is still subtly visible to observers through demeanor and behavior, but
not verbalized.
Once we established these categories, we had two raters each code a ten percent sample of anger
episodes for the three levels of anger expression. Their percent agreement was 82.4% with a significant
Cohen’s Kappa (Tb = 3.45, sig.< .001) (Cohen 1968). After the coding discrepancies were resolved, one
of the raters coded the remaining data. Examples of episodes coded as authentic anger are exemplified by
these two quotes:
“I had two or three [times] with absolute loss of control, so mad I kicked a hole in the wall.”
“We had a big blow out over vacation time….I was very verbal.”
Controlled anger is illustrated by the quote:
“If I get angry, I don’t usually lose my control. I get very controlled…like I’m uptight, talking very
slowly, very direct, little animation.”
Examples of silent anger are illustrated by these two quotes:
“I go downstairs, find a stone to throw in the field.”
“It was more non-verbal anger.”
13
Classifying Outcomes of Anger Expression. Since there is little theoretical synthesis in the
literature on anger outcomes (see similar argument in Averill 1982, Glomb and Hulin 1997, Fitness
2000), we initially utilized a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Charmaz 2006) to
create categories for perceived outcomes of anger episodes. We started with no a priori categories and
used the data to generate our categories inductively. Using a subset of the 158 episodes, two of the
authors developed and refined a coding guide of 68 categories using many “in vivo” codes from
respondents’ own words (Strauss and Corbin 1990: 69). Rater’s reliability on coding the 554 reported
outcomes into 68 outcome categories was 92% for unitized (Guetzkow 1950) and 74% for non-unitized
reliability with a significant Cohen’s kappa (Tb=11.217, sig. < .001), indicating an acceptable level of
agreement.
To reduce this large number of categories to theoretically meaningful groupings, we next used
multidimensional scaling (MDS) to confirm whether a smaller number of categories could be used to
organize our data. Multidimensional scaling is the set of mathematical techniques that enables researchers
to uncover the structure of their data (Kruskal and Wish, 1978:5). Hence it is an ideal technique for
creating classifications and determining how many dimensions best fit the data. Our preliminary coding
of the data suggested two dimensions for classifying anger outcomes. These independent dimensions are
found in the extant literature. First, anger outcomes can be divided by a valence dimension: positive and
negative (Averill 1982, Glomb and Hulin 1997, Lang 1995, Watson and Clark 1984). This distinction
relies on a functional approach to emotions (see Keltner and Gross 1999), suggesting that we can
characterize the outcome of an anger episode by assessing whether respondents perceive that the episode
served adaptive or beneficial purposes (e.g., helped them achieve goals or solve problems) versus
maladaptive or harmful purposes for the individual, group, or organization. For example, following anger
expressions, in one study 69% of respondents reported no subsequent impact on the relationship, 10%
said it was worse, and 21% said it was better (Glomb and Hulin, 1997). It is also possible for anger
episodes to simultaneously produce both positive and negative outcomes such as solving a problem while
also damaging a relationship (Geddes and Callister, 2007, Glomb and Hulin, 1997).
14
Second, our data suggested that anger episodes generated two levels of outcomes: individual
outcomes (e.g., physiological reactions such as elevated stress, harbored grudges, or desires for revenge)
and interpersonal, group or work unit level outcomes (e.g., lowered morale, reduced productivity,
solutions to problems or new policies, improved attitudes, and increased mutual understanding). We refer
to these as social outcomes. These were also consistent with descriptions of outcomes in the extant
literature (e.g., Averill 1982, Frost 2003, Glomb and Hulin 1997, Tavris 1989). For example, in
negotiations, anger can both increase the expresser’s bargaining power and elevate the importance of
critical issues (Schoomaker 1989, Thompson, Nadler and Kim 1999).
With these two dimensions (valence and level) in mind, we used MDS to see if these factors or
others we had not anticipated could be distinguished in our data. This process involved the following
steps: (1) The 68 categories identified earlier were typed on cards; (2) 58 senior undergraduate and
graduate students (mean age = 24.7 years and blind to the purpose of the study) sorted the cards into
categories of similar items using as many categories as they believed were relevant; (3) we analyzed these
categories with multidimensional scaling (MDS). We determined how similar two items were by
calculating the proportion of students who placed the two items in the same group. We used nonmetric
MDS to find a low-dimensional derived space; that is, two items that are nearby in the derived space are
grouped together more often than items that are far apart in the derived space. The findings of the MDS
analysis are reported in the results section.
Documentation of Results
In the results section that follows, we first identify and then compare and contrast the display
rules and anger norms for five of the work units—nursing home, social work department, labor
organization, college coaching unit, and hospital surgical center. Since two other units (the women’s
health clinic and the social work unit in Singapore) have norms that closely parallel those of the nursing
home, we do not describe them in as much detail, but include exemplary quotes along with those provided
for the nursing home. Next, we report MDS results of anger outcomes. Then we examine the relationships
between anger expressions, work unit anger norms and outcomes. We provide extensive description of
15
our results for each work unit in the text. Additional quotes and descriptive statistics are displayed in
tabular form. Our results are then summarized in a model suggesting relationships among the key
constructs.
RESULTS
Work Unit Anger Norms
While we initially selected work units to represent two polarities of anger norms (suppressing vs.
legitimating), as we analyzed the data, we found that there was more variation between organizations than
we expected. We found that two of our work units (U.S. social workers and the hospital surgical center)
fell between these extremes, suggesting a continuum rather than a dichotomy of anger contexts. As
explained below, these work units in the middle viewed anger expressions differently depending upon the
specifics of the situation (a tendency we label as “contingent” norms). To analyze norms we evaluated
each work unit on three criteria. The first is the type of anger norms in each work unit: suppressing,
legitimating or contingent norms. The second criterion is strength and clarity of anger norms. We relied
primarily on these first two criteria to categorize the work units by anger norms. The third criterion,
source of anger norms, is more variable across the work units.
Nursing Home. The nursing home exhibited clear and strong anger suppressing norms. The two
display rules were: 1) do not show anger in front of patients or their families; and 2) when you feel angry
discuss the issue with your supervisor. In this setting 90% of respondents explicitly described at least one
and usually both rules, indicating strong and pervasive recognition of the rules.
The norms were generated by the organization and taught during orientation and training.
These two display rules appeared to emanate from organizational training rather than from professional
occupational norms because respondents represented a variety of occupations and reported that these rules
were communicated shortly after they were hired during initial training. The display rules were voiced
consistently by respondents, even by those respondents with little or no professional socialization. They
16
are exemplified by the following quote: “You are supposed to try and watch what you say around the
[residents/patients]... If you are mad at someone …you go to your supervisor…” RB#91
The women’s health clinic and Singapore social work department also had clear and strong anger
suppressing norms similar to the nursing home. For example, a women’s health worker reported, “It is not
okay to knock down and drag out in this setting because we have patients sitting in the hall. It debases
confidence in you—it’s not professional” BB#1. In the Singapore department workers reported
suppressing anger expressions in front of clients/patients: “We have to learn [that it is] not so advisable to
show anger… not in front of a patient or client” JS#8.
In some situations, the second display rule was not followed. This occurred primarily when the
supervisor was the source of anger or occasionally when non-patient-related anger was directed toward a
coworker. Several people mentioned a supervisor that was triggering anger among the staff. A respondent
describes this: “There is a lot of frustration…with the supervisor…. It decreases morale” (RB#7). In the
women’s health clinic, raising the conflict with the supervisor was also problematic because she was seen
as unapproachable and punitive. As one staff member explained, “The problem is with [the supervisor]
and the support staff….You would hope you could go and tell them, but we don’t.” In addition, when
anger toward a coworker was not related to patient care, employees also appeared to abandon the rule of
going to one’s supervisor. Respondents reported using other alternative responses to anger including:
talking directly to the individual involved; discussing the issue with someone else; or walking away. A
women’s health nurse reported, “I would go to others with the problem and propose an alternative to the
situation that didn’t work… ” (BB#2).
In summary, with almost all respondents describing the display rules, the clarity and breadth of
recognition suggests that these units had strong behavioral norms. The display rule to not show anger in
front of clients, patients or their families appeared to be especially influential, while the rule to go to your
1
Letters and numbers following quotes indicate work unit and respondent number of each quote.
17
supervisor when angry appeared to be more effective with issues that touched on organizational values,
such as patient care, rather than issues between coworkers.
Social Work Department. The U.S. social work department, located within a hospital, had
contingent anger norms where sometimes anger expressions were acceptable. As in the nursing home, the
anger norms were strong and clear when they involved interactions with patients/clients. The supervisor
reported this display rule: “…It’s not okay to be …with a patient and with a family and to be angry with
them”(S#1). Even though the social workers reported occasionally feeling anger or frustration with
clients, they expressed the desire to withhold it from clients or minimize their concerns. For example:
“I’ve gotten frustrated with patients before and their families, but I try with everything in me to
never express that, or, if I do, I will say something like, you know, I really believe that I’m
working with you with this plan and I’m getting a little frustrated with you and I’m hoping that
you can try and work with me.” S#3
Although these norms were supported by the organization, they originated during occupational
training and socialization (Van Maanen and Schein 1979), as one respondent indicated: “I guess in social
work school, you know, I learned how to handle anger, how to manage it when others get angry at me”
S#3. Additional support comes from the respondents’ tendency to report this display rule in the first
person, implying that refraining from expressing anger to patients is a value that has become
internalized—probably prior to being hired. The supervisor, also a social worker, reported encouraging
conformity to this norm by reminding her staff members of these norms when they were in difficult
situations. This suggests that the organization supports and derives benefit from this display rule, which is
why it is instilled during professional training.
But some social workers also described a different set of circumstances in which they felt
justified expressing anger directly, and that was when they served as the clients’ advocates, assisting them
in working through the system (e.g., with insurance companies, doctors, and other service providers) to
get their needs met. Anger expression appeared justified when the anger was directed toward protecting
the clients’ interests. For example, one social worker described her anger expressed toward a doctor:
“The doctor was extremely rough with [the patient] on the examination…She started bleeding.
The patient was afraid that the doctor would retaliate [if she complained]…so I expressed to [the
18
doctor] very angrily, I do not appreciate the treatment that you just gave this patient…You cannot
take out …your frustration at her and cause her more pain… And I told [the doctor]… as a social
worker who’s an advocate for patients, I would not tolerate that behavior from her or any others. I
did tell her that I had recommended that the client write a letter of complaint… She went in with
me and apologized to the patient, and then everything was all right after that.” S#7-157
This social worker adheres to the anger norm of not expressing anger in front of patients, but uses anger
to advocate for the patients’ interests.
Hospital Surgical Center. The surgical center also exhibited contingent anger norms.
Respondents were generally critical of anger expressions, reporting that most anger was not appropriate
although expressions in urgent situations were more acceptable. These respondents reported rare
organizational response to anger expressions. Most—62% (10/16) of respondents—stated that anger
expressions were not appropriate, although expressions were often tolerated. Respondents reported,
“[Anger is] not appropriate. It’s tolerated pretty well. It’s put up with, maybe more than it should
be.” RA#11
“It’s not appropriate at all. It’s not professional…It’s a stressful area. We overlook a lot of
things… Even our bosses will hear it and not do anything about it.” RA#10
Anger expressions that appeared self-serving (e.g., complaints about schedules) garnered the most
criticism. Concern about others seeing or hearing anger expressions was somewhat lower than at either
the nursing home or the social work departments, possibly because often patients were not present or
were anesthetized and not in a position to overhear anger expressions. This may account for why only
19% (three out of 16) of respondents mentioned a rule that anger should not be expressed in front of
patients. Thus, unlike the clear display rules of the nursing home or the social work department, in the
surgical unit anger suppression display rules were weak and not uniformly held.
Another interesting difference that emerged in this setting is that in ten out of sixteen of the
interviews (63%), respondents mentioned their childhood anger socialization norms. There were no other
work units in this study where childhood experiences were mentioned. For example, when asked “Were
you ever explicitly told when or where anger was acceptable or unacceptable?” respondents stated:
“I guess maybe growing up I have been. I’ve been told that …you shouldn’t ever [physically]
hurt anybody…” RA #9
“I guess I learned growing up; you control emotions as well as possible and express them
appropriately.” RA #7
19
“When you’re growing up you didn’t show anger to your mom. You respected her. You didn’t
show anger to your dad or mom. You could voice your opinion and show that you are unhappy,
but anger is not acceptable.” RA #10
These responses suggest that in the absence of clear display rules or a strong organizational culture to
clarify the appropriateness of anger expressions, employees may import such rules from previous
experiences including occupational socialization (which we find in the social work departments) or
previous life experiences such as those from their family. An abundance of evidence also shows that
aggression is related to previous exposure to aggressive environments (Bandura, 1973, Berkowitz, 1993,
Douglas and Martinko, 2001, Geen, 1990).
Labor Organization. The labor organization revealed anger legitimating norms. In contrast to
the nursing home and the social work department, formal organizational display rules were not readily
apparent. Instead, a strong culture that supported the use of anger was evidenced in the stories employees
told, rather than in explicit rules they identified. Throughout these interviews anger expressions were
evaluated in terms of whether they were useful for promoting the mission of the organization. The
following quote illustrates the utility of anger expression in this work unit:
“The goal of the union is to help workers make their lives better on the job. And anger is a strong
emotion—often, a negative emotion—but it unleashes a passion that often doesn’t get unleashed
in the workplace. And there are times when that passion is useful. The greatest fear of the union
organizer, or the greatest obstacle, is people feeling demoralized, like things can’t change, like
it’s not worth it…flat emotionally.” D#5
Within the union organization confrontation is viewed as valuable and an expected mode of operating. A
labor organizer discussed the central role of anger in accomplishing work unit goals:
“But there are times when you’ve got to go in and say, ‘Time to fight!’ And not just pissed off,
but also inspiring. You have to have the confidence that you are going to win… Anger is part of
the essence of the work in a very real way…” D#2-58
“You don’t, day to day, see a lot of people yelling at each other and pushing and shoving each
other or whatever because we do have an expectation about how we treat each other—we’re all
like brothers and sisters in the movement. But there is a cultural confrontation … where there is
an expectation that, if you have an issue with someone, you need to do it. Like everybody pushes
everybody else to try and do this. [This is] when the organization works at its best.… And it’s a
culture of openness also. Both of those things go together—honesty and respect. And that
includes meeting tough issues head on.” D#2
20
Evaluation of anger expressions rested on their utility in promoting the goals of the labor organization as
in this example of admiration for how another organizer used anger to further the union’s mission.
“…they were stuck in negotiations and they couldn’t get a resolution on the contract issue...The
workers were scared…this new organizer, who was doing the negotiations, can’t figure out what
to do to get anything to move forward. And then a lawyer…is taking notes and they’re not
discussing anything, but the lawyer is taking notes on it… The person is just sitting there writing
and she’s looking around the room and she’s thinking, ‘I’ve got to get these workers angry so that
we can win this thing. I know what to do.’ She reaches across the table and grabs the pad and
whips [it away]…‘What the f--- are you writing? We’re not even talking about anything?’ And
the worker[s]…goes, ‘Yeah!’ And that was it. They negotiated the contract in about a day
because just her showing her anger and getting the workers to shift. Because she invaded the
guy’s personal space, she broke all the rules of negotiating.” D#1-54
In this setting “useful” anger did not necessarily involve completely unregulated expression of
anger, however. Moving the cause forward was the ultimate priority for anger expression, but might
require some anger modulation as these examples illustrate:
“And there have been so many times when he’s just furious. And he figures out how to check it
enough that he can go in and have this very ardent conversation with people about what it is that
we need to do to be successful in a campaign…It’s remarkable how successful he’s been—just
absolutely amazing.” D#2
When working directly with the workers, one union steward stated: “Remaining calm and nonconfrontational… is important.” D#3-60
Anger that damages the cause may be judged negatively, For example:
“One time, when [a superior] thought we’d really messed up, he came in and yelled at everybody
-- which took me about two weeks to repair—getting people back on track… This was not cool.”
D#2-55
“I think it wouldn’t be useful if we sort of went off half cocked and … went in and screamed at
the boss or something along those lines. [That] can be effective in certain cases … Generally
speaking, what we do with that [is] figure out a plan for how we are going to deal with this. The
contract says this, let’s pull this together, let’s get our facts on paper.” D #3-59
The source of these anger norms appears to have developed through the process of attractionselection-attrition (Schneider, 1987, Schneider et al., 1995), in which people gravitate to this work
because they are inspired by its purposes. Respondents reported that the organization selects those who
appear to have a passion for this work. One respondent described two primary pathways for becoming a
labor organizer. First, some came up through the system, demonstrating their commitment by working on
a major organizing drive and subsequent contract issues. The second source of organizers is:
21
“…those who come to the work for ideological reasons, who may then have a very different class
background. They’re more upper middle class or even upper class whites, who go through
college, are idealistic and want to make a difference in our society.” D#2
The attraction-selection process appears to help create strong cultural norms within the organization
explicitly by channeling employees’ anger toward labor’s cause.
“I used to be angry at everything that I couldn’t do anything about; whereas, now, having this job;
it allows me to use it in a good way. And when I look for workers to hire as organizers, I look for
people who are upset. I look for people who are angry and, hopefully, I can figure out a way to
focus them.” D#1
“…people who come to this work, both by organizational selection and by self-selection, come
with anger inside of them because it’s a major piece of the motivating force for doing the work …
It is a work that you bring a political and social commitment to. The hours are very long. The
work is very challenging. And if there isn’t something lighting a fire in your belly you can’t do it
… You’ve really got to have a profound emotional motivation to do [the work] – and anger is a
piece of that.” D#2
Not surprisingly, the work also generates some attrition. Not everyone can stay with this work because it
is intense, expectations are high, and experience burnout:
“You put a tremendous amount of yourself into the work. And that can have great personal
benefits for you, but it’s also very risky. And there’s a significant amount of divorce and
alcoholism, substance abuse problems, within our movement, that is closely related to …burn
out.” D#2
In summary, while expectations about anger expression are apparent in the labor organization,
they were not manifest in explicit “Thou shalt…” display rules about when anger is acceptable. Instead,
the norms appear to be embedded in a strong culture, developed through an attraction-selection-attrition
process (Schneider, 1987), in which anger expressions are evaluated based on whether they help or hinder
the goals of the organization. The culture is sustained with stories of successes and failures.
Coaching Unit. The college coaching unit also demonstrated anger legitimating norms. Focusing
on their dealings with athletes, coaches reported that expressing anger was useful for gaining attention
and increasing players’ motivation. Two coaches described the purpose of their anger and how it worked:
“[By expressing anger] I just got their attention better and so usually it contributes to an increased
performance…which probably wears off over time, but at the moment it happens I got their
undivided attention anyway.” M#2-160
22
“Practice should be harder than every game. Be a bear for two hours. Just rip her to shreds. Make
her do it again and again. Practice is the only place we do that. So you really try to deflate their
heads and make ‘em come back and focus on other things.” BA#5-88
Our interviews with coaches generally also did not reveal explicit anger display rules. Rather,
display rules were implicit in coaches’ descriptions about how anger could be expressed. For example,
when asked about rules on anger expression, one coach described an absence of organizational display
rules, but then added his personal views about “civility”:
“I don’t think there is anything spoken. You know there is nothing in writing… [or a] set of rules.
I think it’s just civility and you can express anger civilly you know.” M#4
This lack of explicit display rules may stem from the fact that coaches experience a fair degree of
autonomy in their work. One coach explained: “I don’t really have anybody looking over my shoulder. I
mean I have a boss, but my boss doesn’t really look over my shoulder much.” M#5 As long as coaches
are winning their competitions, they may be largely left alone to do their jobs and to utilize more implicit
anger norms developed through their personal and occupational experiences in sports.
But coaches also reported efforts to control anger and to chose the appropriate time and place for
its expression. For example, some coaches acknowledged differences among their athletes in terms of
how they respond to the coach’s anger.
“You know out on the field I think different kids respond to different things, and some kids
respond very well to…being a little bit loud or…expressing, hey look you are not getting the job
done, come on let’s pick it up. And so there are definitely with those types of kids that I will
express it more often than with others. Others I feel don’t respond to it at all.” M#3
Others noted appropriate venues or means for expressing anger toward their student athletes or officials.
“I don't think it's a place for anger, to be honest with you I don't think that there's a place to
challenge somebody else on a field. I think that things like that should happen off the
field....[E]motions can run pretty high on a field when you're real competitive so I think you have
to be careful of bringing that into a conversation.” M#2
“Probably the people that I express the most anger against is officials… basically you have [to]
learn to control that also because a lot of times no matter how angry you get you can’t change
what they call or anything like that. It’s a variable that is just out there that you can’t control. And
it’s very frustrating as a coach.” M#6
Within the sports departments, coaches did mention some anger episodes with their superiors,
primarily on issues of budget (which provoked significant anger from some coaches) and occasionally
23
about maintenance or scheduling issues for facilities. For example, a coach who described his sport as
“second tier” at his university commented,
“Well, I mean the Athletic director, I wouldn’t get like real angry with because he can fire me at
the drop of the hat, you know. So I would be more careful with what I say and how I say it with
him than I would with anyone else.” M#4-69.
We see that even in those organizations where anger is viewed as valuable and useful, and where
there are few explicit display rules (such as college coaching or labor organizations), there are still efforts
to control anger through choosing a preferred time or place for anger, using anger strategically to
accomplish goals, or not expressing it to those people who might inflict adverse results on the expresser.
College coaches operate rather independently, without a lot of interaction with or dependence on coaches
of other sports in the athletic department. The source of anger norms in coaching comes less through
organizational socialization or formal education (such as with social workers), but primarily from
occupational socialization from years of experience, coaches are typically first athletes, then take lower
level coaching positions prior to becoming a head coach. During this time they have opportunities to
observe strategies that work well. Across the interviews with coaches anger expressions were reported as
one of the useful tools of coaching.
Summary of Work Unit Norms. The nursing home, women’s health center and social workers
in Singapore each demonstrated anger suppressing norms, viewing anger as potentially damaging. They
had strong, clear prescriptive norms that minimized anger expressions. Also, as we anticipated, the labor
union and coaching staff had anger legitimating norms, finding it useful in most situations. The norms in
these organizations were less precise than those in suppressed settings, but were maintained through
cultures that valued advancing the mission of the organization and viewed anger as one of the tools to do
this. In two settings, however, anger norms differed from our original expectations and did not reflect
either extreme. Consequently, these two work units suggested a third theoretical grouping in which anger
is expressed contingently. These work units generally viewed anger as inappropriate or damaging but
allowed exceptions. Anger expressed in front of those that the work unit serves (e.g., patients, clients,
24
customers) was viewed as inappropriate, whereas anger expressed in an effort to promote the goals of the
organization was more likely to be viewed as appropriate.
The sources of anger norms were varied. Both social work units and the coaches reported
elements of occupational socialization. This occurred because each member of the work unit had the same
occupation so previous training was easily carried into the current work place. The differences between
the two hospital social work departments indicated this variance had come from national culture. The
nursing home and the labor union both had strong organizational socialization processes. The nursing
home transmitted clear rules in formal training of new hires. The labor union used an acculturation
process of sharing stories of past successes. Finally, in the hospital surgical center a variety of
occupations were represented and the organization did not communicate anger norms to employees. As a
result, employees in the hospital surgical center drew upon norms from their previous experiences
including those from their childhood, to guide their anger expression.
Anger Episode Outcomes. -- MDS Results.
Our respondents provided copious information about the outcomes of the anger episodes they
witnessed or participated in. As noted in the methods section, we used open coding (Strauss and Corbin,
1990) to code their descriptions of the various outcomes and then used MDS to see if there were patterns
in the data. For the MDS, the solution with the smallest STRESS criterion (Kruskal 1964) was a twodimensional solution with STRESS of 0.2. This solution revealed four distinct groups of outcomes. (See
Figure 1.) The horizontal dimension in Figure 1 conveys the valence of the outcomes and corresponds to
past research on anger outcomes that distinguishes positive and negative outcomes (Averill, 1982, Glomb
and Hulin, 1997). The vertical axis reflects the level (micro to macro) of the outcome. Previous studies
have generally focused on a particular level of analysis such as interpersonal (Averill, 1982) or
group/team (Jehn, 1995), while this schema provides a more inclusive coverage of the domain and
recognizes that anger episode outcomes may span individual, interpersonal and work unit levels
simultaneously. This conception fits the data better than using a focused approach on one dimension.
Although these levels of outcomes, from individual to interpersonal to group and organizational, have not
25
been used theoretically to describe anger outcomes, they are common classifications in the organizational
literature. It seems logical that the anger episodes would also manifest their effects on these levels. Thus,
using these two dimensions to classify the anger outcomes allowed us to develop four categories of
outcomes that are qualitatively distinct, best fit the data, and have not previously been identified in anger
research: negative individual, positive individual, negative social and positive social.
Notably, most anger episodes generated outcomes in multiple categories, such as both stress—a
negative individual outcome—and solving the problem—a positive social outcome—with a total of 542
outcomes out of 558 reported. Negative and positive outcomes were each reported exactly half the time or
271 times each. Negative individual outcomes (including stress, guilt, physical illness, humiliation, hurt,
withdrawal, and avoidance) were reported 161 times (30%). Negative social outcomes (including
damaged relationships, decreased morale, and retaliation) were reported 110 times (20%). Positive
individual outcomes (including let go, stood firm, changed my behavior, felt satisfaction and upheld
principle) were the least common outcomes, reported 82 times (15%). Positive social outcomes (including
improved relationships, increased group motivation, and problem solved) were the most common
outcomes, reported 189 times (35%). This analysis shows that it is important to consider multiple levels
of analysis when studying anger outcomes. While sometimes the outcomes reported were all negative or
all positive, many respondents reported a combination of both positive and negative outcomes from the
same episode. It appears individuals easily recall and report negative individual outcomes because of their
salience. Often as they continue to identify additional outcomes, more positive outcomes are recalled.
These positive outcomes are most likely to be those affecting the interpersonal relationship or work
group. This pattern suggests that while individuals may not personally like the anger experience, they
often see some good coming from it.
Relationships between Anger Expressions, Work Unit Norms and Anger Outcomes.
Next, we investigate whether type of anger expression and work unit anger norms are related to
the outcomes of anger episodes. First, we examine connections between the three forms of anger
expression—authentic, controlled and silent (non-verbal)—and the four types of outcomes identified
26
earlier—negative individual, negative social, positive individual and positive social (See Table 1).
Following this we investigate the three-way relationship between the three types of work unit anger
norms (suppressing, contingent and legitimating), the forms of expression and the four types of outcomes
(See Table 2). We use the resultant patterns together with the qualitative data discussed previously to
develop a theoretical model of these relationships (Figure 2) presented in the discussion section.
Form of Expression and Outcomes. Table 1 arrays the total counts of the anger episodes by
three rows of form of expression and four columns of outcomes. This shows that overall the most
common outcomes are positive social outcomes and these occur when authentic and controlled forms of
expression are used. These two forms of anger expression also triggered some, but lower percentages of,
negative individual outcomes. Silent anger was reported less frequently than either authentic or controlled
expressions, but when it is reported the most common outcomes were negative.
Work Unit Norms and Anger Outcomes. Table 2 summarizes all of the anger episodes by type
of work unit norms (suppressing, contingent and legitimating) and forms of expression (authentic,
controlled and silent) to show the percentages of anger outcomes that occur most frequently. From this
chart, we can see the power of work unit norms in prescribing and proscribing forms of anger expression.
Most clearly, the categories of anger outcomes reported vary by work unit norms. In settings with
suppressing norms, negative individual outcomes are most frequent (38%). In settings with contingent
norms, negative individual and positive social outcomes are almost equally common -- 30.5% and 32%.
In settings with legitimating norms, positive social outcomes are reported most frequently – 50.5% of
outcomes. Thus, our results show that different types of outcomes accrue from anger expression when
work unit anger norms differ.
The patterns in the data also show that work unit anger norms and form of expression together
shape the pattern of outcomes. Table 3 provides qualitative examples of the outcomes associated with
each type of work unit anger norm with different form of expression. When suppressing norms
characterize a work unit both authentic and silent forms of expression generate primarily negative
outcomes. Controlled forms of expression in this context generate a mix of primarily positive social and
27
negative individual outcomes. This is consistent with emotion labor research suggesting that controlling
one’s emotional expression is functional for the organization, but may cause stress for the individual
(Cote 2005, Hochschild, 1983). Controlled expressions may generate more positive outcomes than others
because it both addresses the problem and is more compatible with the normative context than authentic
expressions. In settings with contingent anger norms, both authentic and controlled forms of expression
showed slightly more positive social outcomes than negative individual outcomes, indicating that
authentic expressions had more positive outcomes in this setting than in suppressed settings. In settings
with legitimating norms, the most commonly reported outcomes were positive social following controlled
and authentic expressions of anger. Negative outcomes were less common in these settings.
DISCUSSION:
TOWARD A MODEL OF THE OUTCOMES OF ANGER EXPRESSION IN WORK UNITS
This study makes several important contributions to understanding anger at work. We identify an
anger context continuum (ACC) wherein work units with anger suppressing norms fall on one end of the
continuum, anger legitimating norms are on the other end and work units with contingent anger norms are
between the two extremes. We also identify important relationships among work unit norms, the nature
of anger expressions and outcomes. In our work, we conceptualize a framework to classify anger
outcomes along two separate dimensions -- valence and level. This allows us to identify four categories
of anger outcomes that are qualitatively distinct from each other. In addition, we identify sources of anger
norms that include: organizational and national cultures, occupational and organizational socialization,
and previous life experiences. After we discuss the study in more detail, we use the data from this study to
propose a model of anger expressions in work units.
We next identify contributions to theory by summarizing the findings related to each of the initial
research questions that framed this study. Our first research question asks whether work units can be
characterized by examining variations in the prescriptions regarding anger displays. Our results definitely
reveal variations in type, strength, and clarity of display rules regarding anger expression as manifested in
different work units. Three organizational anger contexts were distinguished based on whether norms
28
were clearly articulated in the work unit through socialization or other means and the degree to which
these norms encourage, permit or proscribe anger expression. Anger suppressing norms characterized
settings in which anger expression was clearly deemed hurtful and, consequently, was explicitly
proscribed. In these contexts, anger norms were generally clear, strong and directly connected to
execution of the work unit’s tasks. In contrast, in contingent contexts, anger expression was generally
discouraged, although in certain circumstances anger was considered beneficial. In legitimating contexts,
anger norms were embedded in the culture and anger expressions were viewed as useful, particularly
when they furthered the organization’s goals. These findings should stimulate additional research to
explore extensions of this classification scheme to other work units, including their emotionology – the
extent to which they are introduced through socialization into the work unit or organization (Stearns and
Stearns, 1989). Our results provide insight into at least some reasons why such norms evolve differently
in work units. Norms often crystallize from past experience. For example, there is clear evidence that
aggression is related to previous exposure to aggressive environments (Bandura, 1973, Berkowitz, 1993,
Douglas and Martinko, 2001, Geen, 1990). Similarly, being in environments where aggression or anger
expressions are discouraged may condition subsequent suppression of anger. Additionally, these results
suggest that the extent to which anger serves the purposes of the work unit contributes to both type and
the strength of the norms adopted, consistent with functional accounts of emotions in organizational
processes (Keltner and Gross 1999, Morris and Keltner 2000). The strength of a unit’s anger culture also
appears to be reinforced over time through the process of attraction-selection-attrition (Schneider, 1987,
Schneider et al., 1995), in which people gravitate to the work because they are inspired by its purposes
and comfortable with the role of anger expression or suppression in the context.
Finally, our findings also suggest that cultural differences will influence how an employee
responds to display rules and what work units’ display rules will be. Other studies have already linked
culture and anger expression (Kitayama Mesquita and Karasawa 2006, Kumar 2004). Cultural differences
emerged in our study when we examined social work departments located within large urban hospitals in
two different countries that had different anger norms. The unit in Singapore was identified as suppressed,
29
while the unit in the US was contingent. Both groups found it unacceptable to express anger towards
clients, but the US group found it acceptable to express anger when they were working on behalf of their
clients. In Singapore, we did not have reports of social workers expressing anger to others on behalf of
their clients the way the US social workers did. We believe the Singapore social workers may have
reported more suppressed anger norms in their work unit than the social work department in the U.S.
because of the cultural differences. That is, anger expression is typically suppressed in Asian cultures to
save the face of both the expresser and the target (Ting-Toomey and Oetzel 2002).
Our findings also extend the emotion labor literature. Rather than focusing primarily on emotion
regulation processes and their consequences for organizations (see Grandey 2000), we demonstrate the
importance of expanding research to consider a broader spectrum of emotional expressions. While the
emotion labor literature has revealed the utility of regulating anger expression for certain classifications of
employees (Rafaeli and Sutton 1989, Sutton 1991) and has considered the impact of such regulation on
those engaged in it at the individual level (Beal et al. 2006, Cote 2005, Hochschild 1983, Morris and
Feldman 1996), until now there has been little attention to or differentiation between the individual- and
meso-level outcomes of anger expressions. Our research develops these distinctions by showing that
different forms of anger expression can yield both positive and negative outcomes at the individual and
meso level in work units. Focusing on the full range of anger expressions rather than solely on intraindividual anger regulation will enable exploration of the relative balance among different levels and
valences of anger outcomes.
Unlike prior work, we consider outcomes of anger expressions as a product of both the nature of
the anger expressions and nature of the work unit anger norms. This systematic analysis of result patterns
may be a useful tool in future research that examines anger and its outcomes. Using the valence by level
anger outcome framework, we explored correspondence or mismatch between work unit norms and forms
of anger expression. While one would expect norms to constrain forms of expression (authentic,
controlled, or silent), we suggest that a fit between norms and form of expression results in more positive
outcomes. Our findings in Table 2 show, for example, that 33% of positive outcomes occurred in
30
legitimating settings with authentic expressions and 34% with controlled expressions. When a mismatch
occurred, such as authentic anger expressions in suppressed settings, only 11% of outcomes were
positive. Our analysis thus shows important relationships between anger norms, type of anger expression,
and outcomes. Taken together our results both extend and challenge emotional labor theory and research
and suggest that we may need a broader theoretical lens on how emotion is manifest in organizations and
how its expression is related to organizational performance. While emotion regulation was clearly
evidenced in some of the work units we investigated, the specific suppression of negative emotion that is
often associated with the idea of emotional labor (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987) was neither observed nor was
it even characterized as desirable in all of our contexts. Settings characterized by contingent norms, while
recognizing that it was beneficial to regulate employee anger in front of those the organization served,
also made allowances for employees to express anger in crisis circumstances or where the expression
furthered the goals and values of the organization. And in contexts with norms legitimating anger
expression, anger was viewed as utilitarian and an essential part of the work.
Additionally, our data suggest that in settings with strong anger regulation (to serve client needs),
there may also be a tendency for spillover of these norms to other aspects of the work, such as in
interactions among employees or between employees and supervisors. Unfortunately, this spillover effect
produces dysfunctional consequences for the organization. As our data show in Table 2, suppressing
norms tend to generate more negative individual outcomes from all forms of anger expression (38%) than
settings with either contingent (30.5%) or legitimating norms (20.5%—see Table 2). If anger norms in
these settings tend to encourage only silent expression of anger among coworkers, positive organizational
benefits of authentic anger will be attenuated. If employees are socialized (in their professions and/or
within the work unit) to curtail anger expression, they may be deprived of the requisite skills to handle
anger-provoking situations that may occur in the context of their interactions with other employees in the
work unit or the larger organization—leading to poor work unit performance.
To differentiate the various combinations of work unit norms, forms of expression and patterns of
outcomes associated with anger in work units, we need a more encompassing theory that recognizes the
31
value of both anger regulation and anger utilization in the service of organizational objectives. Focusing
on a range of display rules offers a more comprehensive model to enable sufficient differentiation of work
unit contexts. Further, within work units, theory needs to recognize that display rules may need to vary
according to the nature of the task being undertaken. For tasks such as patient care and employee
relations, cultivation of the ability to regulate anger is clearly desirable. Organizational decision making
and problem-solving tasks may require a controlled form of anger to ensure that relevant data about
organizations is not stifled to prevent individual hurt feelings at the expense of favorable work unit
outcomes (see Edmondson, 1999; Maitlis & Ozcelik, 2004). And tasks requiring advocacy or rapid,
honest, motivational feedback may warrant the use of legitimate anger expression targeted at the task, not
individuals.
In Figure 2, we draw our various findings together into a model of the factors predicting the
outcomes of anger expression in organizations. We identify four factors that influence whether and how
individuals will express their anger at work: culture, socialization, personal experience and work unit
anger norms. The model also reflects our findings concerning the interaction effects of work unit anger
norms (suppressing, contingent and legitimating) and form of expression (authentic, controlled and silent)
on anger outcomes. Since our qualitative methodology does not enable us to determine whether these
effects are separate or interactive, we can only offer provisional conclusions about these effects. For
example, there may be a direct effect of work unit anger norms on outcomes, or norms may moderate the
relationship of anger expression on outcomes, and/or form of expression may exert a separate direct effect
on outcomes. We indicate these possibilities with dotted lines in the model. Our data strongly suggest the
possibility of an interaction effect. In any case, it is important for both work unit anger norms and form of
expressions to be taken into account, in order to understand the outcomes of anger episodes in work units.
We also suggest that feedback from anger outcomes influences subsequent anger episodes through both
work unit norms and form of anger expressions (Barley and Tolbert 1997, Giddens 1979, Stern and
Barley 1996) as indicated by the dashed arrows from anger outcomes.
Limitations and Future Research
32
Our work is limited by our methodological approach. Our approach afforded us a rich dataset that
spanned several organizations and over 150 anger episodes. However, by using qualitative tools and recall
rather than observational methods, our ability to draw causal inferences is limited. Our methods are
appropriate for theory building, but future work should extend our findings using other methodological
approaches to test our theory and extend our findings.
Another limitation of this study is that with our data we were not able to disentangle status and
occupation. For example, it was the doctors in the surgical unit to whom anger discretion was granted
despite generally negative views of anger expression in the unit. It may be that high status members in
work units are permitted to violate the norms without repercussions (see Keltner Gruenfeld and Anderson
2003). In cases where anger norms were legitimating, the anger expression had a clear “collective purpose
that either accompanied status (as in the case of coaches, who expressed anger for motivational purposes)
or conferred it through its expression (Tiedens et al. 2001) (as in the case of the union organizers and
social workers whose expressed anger in order to take an advocacy position on behalf of others). Indeed,
Domagalski and Steelman (2007) found that anger was valued when it was directed toward improvements. This suggests a question for future research: Are those with higher status allowed to violate work
unit anger norms in a way that will result in more positive outcomes than those with lower status? A study
of managers’ or CEOs’ anger expressions and the implications for subordinates could also help us better
understand the impact of status on anger outcomes (see Lewis, 2000).
The majority of the respondents were women, and while this is typical of emotional labor studies
(c.f. Diefendorff and Richard 2003, Glomb and Liao 2003, Pugh 2001), it may have influenced our results
because anger is often viewed as more acceptable for men than for women (Lewis 2000, Simpson and
Stroh 2004). We were unable to examine carefully the impact of gender differences in this study because
in almost all of the work units (except coaching) the work was gender segregated by job titles. However,
our respondents rarely mentioned gender, and the differences in our data appeared minimal – except when
the gender differences were also confounded by status differences -- such as in the surgical center where
the doctors were mostly men and the nurses and others were almost all women. This generates questions
33
for further research such the extent to which gender stereotypes influence anger expressions and
outcomes.
The combined effects of gender, status and emotion also pose fruitful areas for further research.
Like us, Tiedens and her colleagues (2001) were not able to tease out gender effects, but speculate that
such conferral of increased status may occur for men but not women. For example, one possible line of
investigation could be exploring whether men and women express anger with similar frequency and
intensity when controlling for power and status, but whether the outcomes following anger expression are
more negative for women than men because these expressions violate gender stereotypes. Recently, Sloan
(2004) and Domagalski and Steelman (2007) have demonstrated such an interaction effect between
gender and status, albeit in opposite directions. Normative context may also interact with status to
influence anger expression (Tiedens 2000a). Consequently, future research should examine the interaction
effects of status, gender and context on the outcomes of anger expression.
Another limitation that we could not take into account in this study was individual personality
differences, yet trait effects of both the expresser and the receiver may interact with work unit norms to
influence whether and how anger is expressed and its attendant results. For example, people with high
trait anger are more likely to express angry feelings (Tiedens, 2000b) and may do so regardless of work
prohibitions, especially if such expressions provide them with positive experiences (Harmon-Jones, 2004,
Lerner and Tiedens, 2006). Traits of the anger target may also influence outcomes of anger expression
because more aggressive targets are likely to make more hostile inferences (Carver, Ganellen, Froming
and Chambers, 1983) and then to take more aggressive action when anger is directed toward them
(Tiedens, 2000b). Whether outcomes are judged beneficial or detrimental may also vary with personality
traits.
Finally, provocative research questions remain to be explored including: Where and how can
anger expressions be most productive? Where are they most harmful? This study suggests a fit between
form of expression (authentic, controlled or silent) with normative context (suppressing, contingent or
34
legitimating) is advantageous. Further research is needed to explore these and the impact of status and
gender to be able to answer managers’ questions about how to harness the beneficial effects of anger.
Conclusion
We demonstrate that the impact of anger expressions is not uniform across organizations. Our
study substantiates Isen’s (1990) contention that anger and its effects on work units produce complex and
differentiated outcomes. We demonstrated that both work unit norms and form of anger expression
contributed to very different patterns of outcomes for anger episodes; anger expression generated
combinations of both negative and positive effects depending on where and how it was expressed. For
example, anger can focus attention on critical problems and motivate effort. The role of anger for
advocacy within organizations also suggests it is a critical ingredient in employee voice. Similarly,
suppression of angry feelings, while improving relationships with clients and preventing short-term
individual harm, may prove dysfunctional for work unit morale in the long run unless mechanisms for
problem identification and voice (Pinder and Harlos, 2001) are also provided.
In this paper, we describe the influence of anger expressions across seven different organizations.
Our results link organizational norms and form of anger expression with different types of anger
outcomes. We describe both beneficial and harmful outcomes that result from anger expressions, and our
work offers important insight into the mechanics that influence these outcomes. Anger is a powerful and
pervasive emotion in organizations, and insight into the mechanics of anger in organizational life is both
important and relatively understudied.
35
REFERENCES
Allred, K. G. 1999. Anger and retaliation: Toward an understanding of impassioned conflict in
organizations in R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard eds. Research on Negotiations in
Organizations, 7 331-358. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Andersson, L. M., C. M. Pearson. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review 24 452-471.
Ashforth, B. E., R. H. Humphrey.1993. Emotional labor in service roles – the influence of identity.
Academy of Management Review 18 88-115.
Averill, J. R. 1982. Anger and Aggression. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Bandura, A. 1973. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly 38 408-437.
Barley, S. R. and P. S. Tolbert. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between
action and institution. Organization Studies 18 (1) 93-117.
Barsade, S.G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly 47 644-675.
Barsade, S. G., D. E. Gibson, D. E. 2007. Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of
Management Perspectives 21 36-59.
Barsade, S. G., A. J. Ward, J. D. F. Turner, J. A. Sonnenfeld. 2000. To your heart’s content: A model of
affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 802-836.
Beal, D. J., J. P. Trougakkos, H. M. Weiss, S. G. Green, 2006. Episodic processes in emotional labor:
Perceptions of affective delivery and regulation strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 10531065.
Benford, R.D., D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and
assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26 611-639.
Berkowitz, L. 1993. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Temple University, Philadelphia.
Bies, R. J., T. M. Tripp, R. M. Kramer. 1997. At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of
revenge in organizations. R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg, eds. Antisocial Behavior in Organizations.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 18-36.
Boccialetti, G. 1988. Teambuilding: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction. Teams and the
Management of Emotion. NTL Institute Alexandria, VA and Pfeiffer, San Diego, 62-67.
Brief, A. P., H. M. Weiss, 2002. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of
Psychology 53 279-308.
36
Carver, C. S., R. J. Ganellen, W. J. Froming,, W. Chambers,1983. Modeling: An analysis in terms of
category accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19 410–421.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage,
London.
Cohen, J. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or
partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70 213-220.
Consedine, N.S., C. Magai, G. A. Bonanno. 2002. Moderators of the emotion inhibition-health
relationship: A review and research agenda. Review of General Psychology 6 (2) 204-228.
Côté, S. 2005. A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of
Management Review 30 509-530.
Dewe, P.J., D. E. Guest. 1990. Methods of coping with stress at work: A conceptual analysis and
empirical study of measurement issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior 11 135-150.
Diefendorff, J. M., E. M. Richard, 2003. Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 284-294.
Domagalski, T. A. 1999. Emotions in organizations: Main currents. Human Relations 52 833-852.
Domagalski, T.A., L. A. Steelman, 2007. The impact of gender and organizational status on workplace
anger expression. Management Communication Quarterly 20 297-315.
Douglas, S. C., M. J. Martinko, 2001. Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of
workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 547-559.
Dunn, J. R., M. E. Schweizer, 2005. Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 88 (5) 736-748.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly 44(2) 350-383.
Edmondson, A. 2005. Methodological fit in management field research. Working paper, Harvard
Business School.
Ekman, P. 1972. Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions: Current theory and
research on motivation. Nebraska symposium on motivation 19 207-283.
Elfenbein, H. A. 2007. Emotion in organizations: A review in stages. Annals of the Academy of
Management.
Eisenhart, K, M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review
14 (4) 532-551.
Fehr, B., M. Baldwin, L. Collins, S. Patterson, R. Benditt. 1999. Anger in close relationships: An
interpersonal script analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 299-312.
Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management
37
Review 9 47-53.
Fineman, S. 2000. Emotion in organizations, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
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 21 147-162.
Frijda, N. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Frijda, N. 1993. Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. M. Lewis, J. M Haviland eds. Handbook of
Emotion. Guilford Press, New York, 381-403.
Frost, P. 2003. Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Geddes, D., R. R. Callister, 2007. Crossing the line: A dual threshold model of anger in organizations.
Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 721-746.
Geen, R. G. 1990. Human Aggression. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove.
Gibson, D. E. 1997. The struggle for reason: The sociology of emotions in organizations. R. Erickson , B.
Cuthbertson-Johnson, eds. Social Perspectives on Emotion. JAI, Greenwich, CT, 211-256.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory University of California Press, Berkeley.
Glaser, B., A. Strauss, 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago.
Glomb, T. M. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from
specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7 20-36.
Glomb, T. M., C. L. Hulin, 1997. Anger and gender effects in observed supervisor subordinate dyadic
interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72 281-307.
Glomb, T. M., H. Liao, 2003. Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and
individual effects. Academy of Management Journal 46 486-496.
Grandey, A. A. 2000 Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional
labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(1) 95-110.
Grandey, A. A. 2003. When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of
emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal 46 (1) 86-96.
Greenberg, L., J. Barling. 1998. Pricing employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates, and
supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 20 897-913.
Gross, J. J. 1998. Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for
experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 224-237.
Gross, J. J., O. P. John, 1998. Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a
hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(1) 170-191.
Gross, J. J., O. P John. 2003. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for
38
affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 348-362.
Gross, J. J., R. W. Levenson, 1993. Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 970-986.
Guetzkow, H. 1950. Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical
Psychology 6 47-58.
Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). On the relationship of frontal brain activity and anger: examining the role of
attitude toward anger. Cognition and Emotion 18 337–361.
Harré, R. 1986. An outline of the social constructionist viewpoint. R. Harré, ed. The Social Construction
of Emotions. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 2-14.
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of
California Press, Los Angeles.
Hutson-Comeaux, S. L., J. R. Kelly. 2002. Gender stereotypes and emotional reactions: How we judge an
emotion as valid. Sex Roles 47(1/2) 1-10.
Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of
Management Review 24 325-345.
Isen, A.M. 1990. The influence of positive and negative affect on cognitive organization: Some
implications for development in N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, T. Trabasso, eds., Psychological and
Biological Approaches to Emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ., 75-94.
Izard, C. E. 1993. Organizational and motivational functions of discrete emotions. M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland, eds., Handbook of Emotion. Guilford Press, New York, 631-641.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (2) 256-282,
Keltner, D., J. J. Gross, 1999. Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion 13(5) Special issue:
Functional accounts of emotion 467-480.
Keltner, D., D. H. Gruenfeld, C. Anderson, 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition Psychological Review
110(2) 265-284.
Kelly, J. R., S. G. Barsade 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes 86 99-130.
Kitayama, S., B. Mesquita, M. Karasawa, 2006. Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially
engaging and disengaging emotional in Japan and the U.S. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 91 890-903.
Kramer, M. W., J. A. Hess, 2002. Communication rules for the display of emotions in
organizational settings. Management Communication Quarterly, 16 66-80.
Kruskal, J.B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.
39
Psychometrika 29 1-27.
Kruskal J. B., M. Wish. 1978. Multidimensional scaling. Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J.
Kumar, R. 2004. Culture and emotions in international negotiations: An overview in M. J., Gelfand, J.
M. Brett eds., The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture. Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA:
95-113.
Lang, P. J. 1995. The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American Psychologist 50 372385.
Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American
Psychologist 46 819-834.
Lerner, J.S., L. Z. Tiedens, 2006. Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape
anger's influence on cognition. J. Behavioral Decision Making 19 115-137.
Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional
expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21 221-234.
Maitlis, S., H. Ozcelik, 2004. Toxic Decision Processes: A Study of Emotion and Organizational
Decision Making. Organization Science 15 (4) 373-393.
McGrath, J. E. 1964. Toward a “theory of method” for research on organizations. in W. W. Cooper, H. J.
Leavitt, M. W. Shelly II, eds., New Perspectives in Organization Research. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Morris, J. A., D. C. Feldman. 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor.
Academy of Management Review 21 986-1010.
Morris, M. W., D. Keltner, 2000. How emotions work: The social functions of emotional expression in
negotiations. Research in Organizational Behavior 22 1-50.
Morrison, E. W., F.J. Milliken. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a
pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25 706-725.
Mumby, D., L. L. Putnam, 1992. The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality.
Academy of Management Review 17 465-486.
Neuman, J. H., R. A. Baron, 1998. Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning
specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management 24 391-419.
Pillutla, M. M., J. K. Murnighan, 1997. Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum
offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 208-224.
Pinder, C.C., K. Harlos. 2001. Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as response to perceived
injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 20 331-369.
Pratt, M. 2007. Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative
research in North American top journals. Organizational Research Methods, forthcoming.
40
Pugh, S. Douglas 2001. Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy of
Management Journal 44(5) 1018-1027.
Rafaeli, A., R., R. I. Sutton. 1987. Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of
Management Review, 12 (1) 23-38.
Rafaeli, A., R. I. Sutton, 1989. The expression of emotion in organizational life. L. L. Cummings, B. M.
Staw, eds. Research in organizational behavior 11 1-42. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ren, H., B. Gray. 2008. Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the
effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, forthcoming.
Robinson, S.L., R. J. Bennett. 1997. Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations and its causes.
R. Lewicki, R. Bies, B. Sheppard, eds. Research on Negotiation in Organizations. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, 3-27.
Russell, J. A., B. Fehr. 1994. Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: Varieties of anger. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 67 186-205.
Scherer, K.R. 1981. Speech and emotional states. J.K. Darby, ed. Speech Evaluation in Psychiatry. Grune
and Stratton, New York, 189-220.
Schmitt, N., R. Klimoski. 1991. Research Methods in Human Resource Management. Southwestern,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 40 437-453.
Schneider, B., H. W. Goldstein, D. B. Smith, 1995. The ASA Framework: An update. Personnel
Psychology 48 747-773.
Schoomaker, A. N. 1989. Negotiate to win: Gaining the psychological edge. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Simpson, P. A., L. K. Stroh, 2004. Gender differences: Emotional Expression and feelings of personal
inauthenticity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (4) 715-721.
Sloan, M. 2004. The effects of occupational characteristics on the experience and expression of anger in
the workplace. Work and Occupations 31 38-72.
Smith, A. C., III, S. Kleinman, 1989. Managing emotions in medical school: Students’ contacts with the
living and the dead. Social Psychology Quarterly 52 56-69.
Spector, P. E. 1997. The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work in R. A. Giacalone, J.
Greenberg, eds. Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1-17.
Spielberger, C. D. 1999. Staxi-2: State-trait anger expression inventory-2. Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
Staw, B. M., R. I Sutton, L. H. Pelled. 1994. Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the
workplace. Organization Science 5 51-71.
41
Stearns, C. Z., P.N. Stearns. 1989. Anger: The struggle for emotional control in America’s history.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Stern, R.N., S. R. Barley, 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization theory's neglected
mandate. Adminstrative Science Quarterly 41 146-162.
Strauss, A., J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sutton, R. I. 1991. Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors.
Administrative Science Quarterly 36 245-268.
Tavris, C. 1989. Anger: The misunderstood emotion. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Thompson, L, J. Nadler, P. Kim. 1999. Some like it hot: The case for the emotional negotiator. L.
Thompson, J. Levine, D. Messick, eds., Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of
Knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 139-161.
Tiedens, L.Z. 2000a. Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative
emotion expressions on social status conferral. J. Personality and Social Psychology 80 86-94.
Tiedens, L.Z. 2000b. The effect of anger on the hostile inferences of aggressive and nonaggressive
people: Specific emotions, cognitive processing, and chronic accessibility. Motivation and Emotion
25 233-251.
Tiedens, L. Z., P.C. Ellsworth, B. Mesquita. 2001. Stereotypes about sentiments and status: Emotional
expectations for high- and low-status group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26
560-574.
Ting-Toomey, S., J. G. Oetzel, 2002. Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Van Maanen, J., G. Kunda, 1989. Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational culture. L. L.
Cummings, B. Staw, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 43-104.
Van Maanen, J., E. H. Schein, (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. B. Staw, ed.
Research in Organizational Behavior 1 209-264. JAI Press, Greenwich, Ct.
Watson, D., L. A. Clark, 1984. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional
states. Psychological Bulletin 96 465-490.
Weiss, H.M., R. Cropanzano, 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,
causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 18
1-74.
42
Table 1
Anger Outcomes by Form of Expression
Number of
Episodes
Percentage of Anger Outcomes
Negative Negative Positive
Positive
Individual Social
Individual
Social
% Total Outcomes by
Form of Expression
Authentic
75
14
12
8
17
51%
Controlled
56
11
4
6
17
38%
Silent
25
5
4
1
1
11%
Total # of Episodes
156
30%
20%
15%
35%
100%
Total Outcome %
43
Table 2
Cross-Tabulation of Form of Expression and Anger Outcomes for Each Anger Context
Number of
Episodes
Percentage of Anger Outcomes
Negative
Negative Positive
Individual Social
Individual
Positive
Social
% Total Outcomes by
Form of Expression
Anger Context: Suppressed
Authentic
19
14
15
3
8
39%
Controlled
14
13
4
7
13
37%
Silent
17
11
9
1
3
24%
No. of Episodes
50
38%
28%
11%
23%
100%
Anger Context: Contingent
Authentic
28
17
12
11
18
58%
Controlled
17
10
5
5
13
33%
Silent
6
3.5
3.5
1
1
9%
30.5%
20.5%
17%
32%
Anger Context: Legitimating
Authentic
28
10
8
9
24
52%
Controlled
26
10
4
8
26
47%
Silent
1
.5
0
0
.5
1%
20.5%
12%
17%
50.5%
100%
Total Outcome %
No. of Episodes
51
Total Outcome %
No. of Episodes
Total Outcome %
100%
55
44
Table 3
Example of Most Common Outcomes for Form of Expression (Authentic, Controlled or Silent) and Work Unit
Suppressed Contexts
Nursing Home, Women’s Health & Singapore
Social Work Unit
Expression
Outcome
Contingent Contexts
Surgical Center and US Social Work Dept
Expression
Outcome
Legitimating Contexts
Coaching Unit and Labor Organization
Expression
Outcome
Pos. soc. Blood was
Authentic. “Another
Neg. & Pos. Soc. Only ½
went to talk to coworker, system wasn’t
delivered. They finally
organizer cancelled my
the people showed up at the
lack of community.
wants to look for new
working. Blood bank
recognized the problem.
meeting without telling
conference. The first
Nursing supervisor: “I
job. Division is worse,
left the unit without
People were there the
me.” Two “huge fights”
organizer apologized -- “I
blew up, I guess.”
lack of teamwork is
blood for a critically
next day, planning how
followed. D#29-47
blew it.” “[It] actually
RB#21-37
worse. RA#16-28
ill patient. Doctor: “I
to completely modify
worked out OK. He
went into a raging
the system.
learned… now we are back
Authentic. An aide
Neg. Ind. & Soc. Aide
wanted to talk about the
Authentic. Computer
screaming fit.”
on track and working hard.”
Controlled. “I tried to
Neg. Ind. & Pos. Soc.
Controlled. Dr.
Pos. Soc. Dr. agreed to
Controlled. Coach on
Pos. Social “He emailed
get patient’s family to
“I got very angry about
refused to add on an
do it and then
budget: “The email that
back, well o.k. give me a
come many times. I was
it.” But they won’t
emergency case.
apologized. They later
I do…gives a chance to
plan. So I worked a long
irritated but calmed
come. “I worked with
Scheduling nurse told
teased each other about
think about it and figure
time on a plan… [now]
myself. They were too
patient’s girlfriend
him directly that “was
it and their relationship
better responses.”
there are going to be some
busy.” JA#45-101
instead.” RA#1-2
unacceptable.”
was fine.
BB#63-170
upgrades.”
Silent. Supervisor
Neg. Ind. & Soc “It
Silent. After receiving
Neg Ind. (A letter was
Silent. Part time coach
Neg. Ind. & Pos Soc. Part
refused staff member’s
was belittling,
scathing email from
sent to a patient that had
was working 60 hrs/wk
time coach felt taken
request. She was angry
embarrassing -- I’ll
wife of patient, social
died.) She feels badly,
without benefits. Didn’t
advantage of and angry. The
but said nothing to the
never ask to go to a
worker felt angry, but
but thinks the wife
talk to boss, but with
advice helped him know
supervisor. BA#12-98
conference again.”
did not respond.
should realize that
another coach who gave
what options he could
mistakes happen.
advice. M#69-172
explore with his employer.
S#61-143
45
FIGURE 1
2
-2
-2
Social
-1
0
LEVEL
1
Individual
Multidimensional Scaling of Anger Outcomes
-2
Negative
-1
0
VALENCE
2
1
Positive
Negative Individual Outcomes - e.g. headache, stress, guilt, hurt feelings, humiliation
Negative Social Outcomes - e.g. damaged relationships, decreased morale, retaliation
Positive Individual Outcomes - e.g. satisfaction, let go, upheld principle, changed behavior
Positive Social Outcomes - e.g. relationships improved, change in policy, problem solved
46
Figure 2
A Provisional Model of Anger Outcomes in Work Units
Occupational &
Organizational
Socialization
Work Unit
Anger Norms
National &
Organizational
Culture
Previous
Personal
Experiences
Anger
Outcomes
Form of
Anger
Expression
47