EMOTIONS IN ORGANISATIONS – ARE THEY ACCEPTABLE?
New Zealand Applied Business Education Conference
Christchurch 25-27 September 2002
Roy Smollan
Management and Employment Relations
Auckland University of Technology
Private Bag 92006, Auckland
Telephone (09)917-9999x5390, fax: (09)917-9884
roy.smollan@aut.ac.nz
Abstract
Previous neglect of the study of emotions in organisations has been replaced with vigorous
new interest. The privileged position of rationality in organisations is being undermined by
research into the role played by emotions. While the display of emotions at work is generally
frowned on there are a number of factors that increase their acceptance. This paper will
analyse these factors, comment on the positive nature of emotional expression in
organisations and explore the role of emotional intelligence in understanding and responding
to emotion.
Key words: emotion, intelligence, organisation
A new interest in emotions in organisations
It appears that the widespread view of most managers is that emotions are not acceptable in
organisational settings. There will be exceptions that depend, for example, on whether the
emotion is positive or negative, expressed by a manager or staff member, in proportion to its
causes and limited in its impact.
In the last 10 to 15 years there has been substantial criticism of researchers of their
colleagues, past and present, who have ignored the role of emotion at work (Ashforth and
Humphrey, 1995; Fineman, 1993, 2000; Muchinsky, 2000; Domagalski, 1999; Fisher and
Ashkanasy, 2000; Morris and Feldman, 1996; Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis and Harris,
2000). Paradoxically, the criticism reveals the wealth of research that has recently emerged.
A number of streams have emerged: emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983; Morris and
Feldman, 1996); Affective Events Theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996); emotional
ambivalence (Pratt and Doucet, 2000); emotional dissonance (Zerbe; 2000) and emotional
intelligence (Salovey and Mayer, 1989, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, in press; Goleman, 1995,
1998a, 1998b, 2001). Several volumes exploring emotions in a variety of organisational
contexts have been published (Fineman, 1993, 2000; Ashkanasy, Hartel and Zerbe, 2000;
Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Hartel, 2002). An email list of nearly 400 scholars constitutes the
Emonet group started by Ashkanasy of the University of Queensland (Emonet email 9
September 2002). This group has organised three international conferences on emotions in
organisations, 1998, 2000 and 2002, with books containing selected papers appearing
thereafter. A special issue on emotions in organisations appeared in the Journal of
Organizational Behavior in 2000 (see Fisher and Ashkanasy, 2000).
Linked to the study of emotions is research into motivation (Adams, 1965); organisational
justice (Folger and Skarlicki, 1999; Skarlicki, Folger and Tesluk, 1999); the psychological
contract (Morrison and Robinson, 1997); organisational change (Duck, 1993; Carr, 1999;
Maurer, 1996); redundancies (Worrall, Campbell and Cooper, 2000; Cascio, 1993; Brockner,
1992; O’Neill and Lenn, 1995); stress (Cooper, 1999); perceived organisational support
(Andrews and Kacmar, 2001); Organisational Citizenship Behaviours (Organ, 1988) ;
Organisational Retaliatory Behaviours (Skarlicki, Folger and Tesluk, 1999); performance
management (Stiles, Gratton, Truss, Hope-Bailey and McGovern,1997); teamwork (Shapiro
and Kirkman, 1999; Druskat and Wolff, 2001 and gender (Putman and Mumby, 1993).The
purposes of this paper are to explore why the typical manager has frowned on emotional
displays and why, until recently social and organisational scientists have ignored emotions at
work.
Emotion and reason
The traditional view of managers and writers on management is that emotions in work
settings are generally not acceptable. Hochschild (1993: ix) suggests that when attention is
paid to the role of emotion “the social psychologist imagines it to be in idiosyncratic and not
routine ways, to be disruptive and not constructive in its consequence, and basically to be
marginal, not central to life at work.” According to Putnam and Mumby (1993: 40)
“rationality is revered while emotions are illegitimate or inappropriate.” Rationality has been
associated with the following concepts: reason, logic, orderliness, precision, objectivity,
efficiency, productivity, routinisation and predictability. In contrast emotionality is linked to
illogicality, irrationality, disruptiveness and chaos (Domagalski, (1999). Rational people
make decisions in a cool way whereas emotional people are “hot-headed”. For the correct
decisions to be made, so it believed, people need to ignore emotion which will distract them
from making the “correct” decision. This will be based on a consideration of facts, figures and
other objective measures.
Many authors have recently queried this artificial distinction. Ashforth and Humphrey (1995:
99) maintain that “emotionality and rationality are inter-penetrated”; Fineman (1993: 217)
says they are “inter-twined; the same term used by Muchinsky (2000: 804). It could be argued
that the basis of many emotions is a cognitive evaluation and conversely that many cognitions
commence with an emotional reaction. Employees who perceive injustice, such as a salary
increase promised but not delivered, have very logical grounds for their anger. Fear of losing
one’s job is a natural reaction to an announcement of organisational restructuring and
downsizing. A rational analysis of an unsubstantiated criticism from one’s boss could lead to
feelings of resentment.
Acceptable displays of emotion
In organisational life people are expected to keep their emotions in check. “Distress at work
has to be disguised, attraction suppressed, annoyance left unspoken (Fineman, 1996a: 2). The
legitimacy of emotions in most organisational contexts depends on a number of factors and as
2
Fineman (1993a:19) points out: “There is an intricate order of permissible emotional display
attached to different categories of jobs and situations.”
Who is showing the emotion: Managers may direct their anger against subordinates who are
subjected to their power and authority. The anger needs justification and would be considered
acceptable in most cases as long as it was not disproportionate. Customers (internal and
external) can express anger at providers of goods and services if they have been let down.
Here too perceptions of both sources of power and appropriateness come into play. A
purchasing clerk who vents his spleen on a senior sales manager of a supplier organisation or
the warehouse manager of his own organisation could expect disciplinary action taken against
him. A human resource officer who expresses her frustration with the production manager for
not releasing staff to attend her training course might expect similar action.
Who is the recipient of the emotional expression: While it might be deemed acceptable by
colleagues to speak emotionally about their supervisor or other managers it probably will not
be acceptable to the supervisor if the staff member spoke emotionally to him or her, especially
if it is the supervisor’s behaviour that has triggered the emotional reaction.
Who is judging the emotion: Appropriateness is both an objective and subjective concept.
There are societal, organisational and group norms of the type and intensity of emotion can be
appropriately displayed. These norms serve as forms of control over employees. Yet
unanimity is seldom found as each individual will make a judgement on the expression of
emotion, in general terms and specific circumstances. Emotional intelligence (which will be
explored later on this paper) includes the ability to understand one’s own emotions, and those
of others, and demonstrate empathy, not necessarily approval (Salovey and Mayer, 1990).
What type of emotion is being shown: Expressions of negative emotions are, within prescribed
boundaries, generally less acceptable than expressions of positive emotion (Ashforth and
Humphrey, 1995). Anger directed by managers to their staff is seemingly appropriate but the
opposite does not apply. Staff members would incur some form of “punishment” for
expressing anger towards their bosses. Expression of emotions such as fear, anxiety and
resentment are considered both signs of weakness and inappropriate. Motivation (which has
the same root word as emotion) requires managers to exhibit passion and conviction.
Goleman (1998a, 1998b) indicates that the ability to motivate oneself and others is a
cornerstone of emotional intelligence. Many employees are expected to show appropriate
emotions in dealing with customers and other organisational contacts. Studies done on airline
attendants, retail employees, nurses, debt collectors and others indicate that employees are
expected to demonstrate emotions such as happiness, concern, anger and do so in appropriate
ways (see Fineman, 2000a for an overview). Hochschild (1983) coined the term emotional
labour to describe a variety of job settings, accompanied by “display rules”, in which the use
of emotion is required. Morris and Feldman (1996: 987) define it as “the effort, planning and
control, needed to express organisationally desired emotion during interpersonal
transactions.” Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) suggest that the effective selling of change
to employees mandates the use of emotion in messages aimed at them.
The cause of the emotion: The person judging the appropriateness of the emotional reaction
will consider whether the reaction is justified. An employee who is angry or anxious about an
issue that is not deemed significant, such as an inoffensive joke or minor change, will not
receive much sympathy, or even empathy.
3
How widespread the emotional reaction is: In similar vein the “validity” of the emotion may
also depend, in the eyes of the observer, on how widespread the emotional reaction is. If
others are experiencing the same emotional reaction it may be considered more acceptable.
The environmental origin of the emotion: While events or situations outside of the work place
may trigger strong emotional reactions, such as issues relating to family, the traffic or politics,
fellow staff may view the expression of these emotions at work as inappropriate.
The nature of the occupation or task: While cold rationality may be required for operational
issues those who work in jobs where greater levels of stress are found, such as experienced by
surgeons, fire fighters and police officers, the expression of emotion away from the
“frontline” is normal and usually a healthy release.
The frequency of the emotion: Managers and other employees may be fairly tolerant of the
occasional display of emotion, both positive and negative, but will tire of it, resent it and may
actively discourage if it is repeated too often.
The duration of the emotion: A short burst of temper or excitement about an incident or
situation will generally be considered to be more acceptable than one that is displayed for an
unnecessarily long period.
The intensity of the emotion: A mild display of anger, sadness or anxiety may be acceptable
whereas an intense display will be considered excessive.
The societal, organisational and group norms: There will be variations from one context to
another and what may be considered a legitimate expression of emotion in one may not be in
another.
Positive consequences of emotional expression
Emotions can have very positive consequences. Anxiety over losing customers from a poorly
conceived strategic change of direction may lead to resistance and review. Expressed anger
over the actions or words of an aggressive supervisor could lead to disciplinary action being
taken with regard to the supervisor rather than violence, sabotage or wholesale exits.
Employees who resist change (Maurer, 1996) often have valid reasons and the organisations
that encourage the expression of emotion and dissent may find that the resistance, while
appearing to be “only” emotional may be based on valid grounds. These grounds may be
personal, such as the anxiety over loss of authority, responsibility, job security, etc. but may
also alert management to sound “commercial” reasons for not proceeding with the change,
such as the potential loss of customers, issues of safety and the breaking of laws.
Cooper (1997: 31) claims that emotions are at the root of intuition and that “emotions,
properly managed, can drive trust, loyalty and commitment – and many of the greatest
productivity gains, innovations and accomplishments, of individuals, teams and
organisations.” Bies and Tripp (2001) studied the causes and consequences of revenge in
organisational affairs and concluded that in many cases the planning and execution of revenge
actions had the benefits of curtailing abusive behaviour, releasing the stress of angered
4
employees and improving their productivity. Not all acts of revenge have a malicious intent or
outcome.
Whether considered “valid” or not emotional expression releases anger, frustration and
anxiety. Bottling up emotions is unhealthy in personal terms and leads to further stress with
consequences for organisational effectiveness. It also creates a negative and over-regulated
atmosphere. Ashforth and Humphrey (1995: 99) maintain that “organisational effectiveness
may at times be improved by celebrating rather than attempting to suppress emotion.”
The need for emotional intelligence
Emotions are an integral part of human nature and to deny their validity, let alone their
expression, is dangerous. Whether emotions are considered appropriate or not managers and
others need to be observant, insightful and empathetic. Employees who are feeling highly
emotional about an issue will become more emotional, that is, the existing emotion could be
heightened or other emotions added, if their reactions are not suitably acknowledged.
Employees who are anxious about job changes may become more anxious, and angry, if their
supervisors and colleagues do not recognise their emotions and respond in appropriate ways.
The emotional health of employees is linked to job satisfaction, motivation, stress, conflict,
loyalty, grievances, turnover, productivity and acceptance of change. Employees who feel at
ease expressing their emotions, and do so appropriately, will respond in ways that will benefit
the organisation. Those whose emotional emotions are deemed unacceptable (in objective
ways) need a firm but empathetic response and encouraged, if necessary, to seek professional
counselling.
Emotional intelligence is a concept developed by Salovey and Mayer (1990: 189) as “the
ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings, to discriminate among them and to use this
information to guide one’s thinking and action”. The term was popularised by Goleman
(1995) and extended to the arena of work (1998a, 199b). While many of Goleman’s concepts
have been explored by other researchers, there are considerable controversies about his
model. Firstly, Goleman’s claim that emotional intelligence accounts for 80% of an
employee’s success at work, has been ridiculed by Fineman (1996b) and Mayer, Salovey and
Caruso (in press). Secondly, there is debate about whether emotional intelligence is a set of
personality traits or abilities, or both. Mayer et al (in press) indicate that mental ability models
of emotional intelligence have been proved to be more valid than mixed models. Other
models have been developed by Bar-On (1997) and Cooper and Sawaf (1997).
While these debates have created great interest in the field of emotions in organisations their
relevance to the acceptability of emotions in organisations needs to be addressed. Managers
(and other organisational contacts) will make their own subjective judgements on both the
legitimacy of the emotional expression of others and on the suitability of their own responses.
It is not suggested here that emotions should run rampant in organisations. What is important
is that all people learn to manage their own emotions and respond in ways that are likely to
reduce stress and its attendant personal and organisational consequences.
Regardless of whose model of emotional intelligence is used a number of common
characteristics are found. The first is the ability of people to recognise emotion – in
themselves and others. Following this is an assessment of the causes of the emotion. The
emotional expression of one person may trigger emotional expression in others, either in
5
sympathy with the first or as a negative reaction to it. People need to be objective about the
expressions of others. Empathy, whether considered a personality trait or ability, is the
capacity to understand the source of the emotion and its intensity (Huy, 1999; Goleman
1998a). The “management” of the emotion is the skill of one person to respond in ways that
show recognition of the motion of the other without necessarily rejecting it or supporting it.
Studies of organisational justice (Folger and Skarlicki, 1999) show that employees can
become extremely angry if which managers communicate negative outcomes (perceived
distributive injustice) in inappropriate ways (perceived interactional injustice). Employees at
all levels, and consultants, need to be able to recognise and manage their own emotions, while
simultaneously “managing’ the emotions of others. An employee relations manager who
needs to face angry group of strikers who are delivering personal insults will need to control
his own emotions while addressing those of the workers. A departmental manager whose own
job security may be threatened by an organisational restructuring that also results in
redundancies will need considerable emotional intelligence to deal with the emotions of her
staff.
A range of studies has been conducted into the links between emotional intelligence and Bass’
(1985) theory of transformational leadership (see Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000; Sosik and
Megerian, 1999). Effective leaders are able to generate excitement (an emotion) for a new
vision but also need high levels of empathy to recognise the cognitive and affective responses
of others. Emotional intelligence has also been linked to the effective functioning of groups
(Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Group members are very often the recipients or observers of the
emotional expression of others and also need the insight and skills to respond in appropriate
ways. Huy (1999) distinguishes between individual emotional intelligence and an
organisation’s emotional capability. The latter refers to the creation of a culture and pratices
that reinforce the notion that emotional expression is natural and needs appropriate
acknowledgement.
Conclusion
Since emotions are natural phenomena their suppression will be dysfunctional in individual
and organisational terms. Acceptability depends on a range of different factors and although
there are societal, organisational and group norms about emotional expression it is usually the
subjective perceptions of individuals and their responses to the emotions of others that need to
be informed by an understanding of emotions at work. If emotional intelligence is an ability
rather than a personality characteristic (Mayer et al, in press) then it can be acquired through
training, practice and reflection (Huy, 1999, Chernis and Goleman, 2001).
If emotional rules exist (Hochschild, 1983) they need to be aired and their validity needs to be
discussed. Emotional labour, while often portrayed as an unwelcome requirement, can under
certain conditions serve useful purposes, not merely for the organisation but also for its
employees (Morris and Feldman, 1999). These rules may provide guidance to employees and
relieve some of the stress of role ambiguity. Emotional dissonance (Morris and Feldman,
1996), the stress felt by performing emotional labour that conflicts with genuine emotions, is
a substantial cause of emotional burnout and its causes and consequences will need to be
debated in organisations. The range of “acceptable” emotions will need to be addressed as
will the emotional intelligence of individuals and the emotional capability of organisations.
6
References
Adams, J.S. 1965. Inequity in social exchanges, in L. Berkowitz, (ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 267-300. New York: Academic Press.
Andrews, M.C. and Kacmar, K.M. 2001. Discrimination among organizational politics,
justice and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 347-366.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal. Human
Relations, 48(2), 97-125.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J. and Zerbe, W.J. 2000. Emotions in the workplace: research,
theory and practice. In N.M., Ashkanasy, C.E.J. Hartel and W.J. Zerbe (Eds.),
Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice, 3-18. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of emotion:
A conceptual review. In N.M Ashkanasy, C.E.J. Hartel, and W.J. Zerbe (Eds.),
Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice, 221-235. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Ashkanasy, N.M, Zerbe, W.F. and Hartel, C.E.J. 2002. Managing Emotions in the
Workplace. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
Bar-On, R. 1997. The Emotional Quotient Inventory: A Test of Emotional Intelligence.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bies, R.J and Tripp, T.M. 2001. A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of
revenge. In R. Cropanzano (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice.
Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brockner, J. 1992. Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors. California Management
Review, Winter, 9-28.
Carr, A. 1999. The psychodynamics of organization change: identity and the “reading”
of emotion and emotionality in a process of change. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
14(7/8), 573-585.
Cascio, W.F. 1993. Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learnt? Academy of
Management Executive, 7(1), 95-104.
Chernis, C. and Goleman, D. 2001. Training for emotional intelligence: a model. In C.
Chernis, and D. Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select
for, Measure
and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups and
Organizations, 209-233. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, C.L. 1999. Can we live with the changing nature of work? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 14(7/8), 560-572.
7
Cooper, R.K. 1997. Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training and
Development, December, 31-36.
Cooper, R.K. and Sawaf, A.1997. Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Business. London:
Orion Business Books.
Domaglaski, T.A. 1999. Emotion in organizations. Human Relations. 52(6), 833-852.
Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. 2001. Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard
Business Review, March, 81-90.
Duck, J.D. 1993. Managing change: the art of balancing. Harvard Business Review,
November -December, 109-118.
Fineman, S. 1993a. Organizations as emotional arenas. In S. Fineman (ed.) Emotion in
Organizations. London: Sage Publications, 9-35.
Fineman, S. 1993b. An emotion agenda. In S. Fineman (ed.) Emotion in Organizations.
London: Sage Publications, 216-224.
Fineman, S. 2000a. Emotional arenas revisited. In S. Fineman (ed.) Emotions in
Organisations, Volume 2. London: Sage Publications, 1-24.
Fineman, S. 2000b Commodifying the emotionally intelligent. In S. Fineman (ed.) Emotions
in Organisations, Volume 2. London: Sage Publications, 101-114.
Fisher, C.D. and Ashkanasy, N.M. 2000. The emerging role of emotions in work life; an
introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123-129.
Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P.1999. Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as
mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), 35-50.
Fox, S. and Amichai-Hamburger ,Y. 2001. The power of emotional appeals in promoting
organizational change programs. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 84-93.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goleman, D. 1998a. What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November-December,
93-102.
Goleman, D. 1998b. Working with Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goleman, D. 2001. An EI-based theory of performance. In C.Chernis and D. Goleman (Eds.),
The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure and Improve
Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups and Organizations, 27-34. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hochschild, A.R. 1983. The Managed Heart. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Hochschild, A.R. 1993. preface to S.Fineman (ed.) Emotion in Organizations. London: Sage
8
Publications.
Huy, Q.N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelligence and radical change. Academy of
Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.
Maurer, R. 1996. Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Unconventional Strategies that Build
Support for Change. Austin, TX: Bard Books.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (in press). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J.
Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Human Intelligence (2nd ed.) New York: Cambridge.
Morris, J.A. and Feldman, D.C. 1996. The dimensions, antecedents and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 986-1010.
Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: how psychological
contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
Mossholder, K.W., Settoon, R.P., Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. 2000. Emotion during
organizational transformation. Group and Organization Management, 25(3), 220-243.
Muchinsky, P.M. 2000. Emotions in the workplace: the neglect of organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 801-805.
O’Neill H.M. and Lenn, D.J. 1995. Voices of survivors: Words that downsizing CEOs
should hear. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4): 23-34.
Organ, D.W. 1988. Organization Citizenship Behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pratt, M.G. and Doucet, L. (2000). Ambivalent feelings in organizational relationships. In
S.Fineman (ed). Emotions in Organisations: London, Sage Publications: 64-82.
Putnam, D.K. and Mumby, D.K. 1993. Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In
S.Fineman (ed). Emotions in Organizations: London, Sage Publications, 36-57.
Salovey, P and Mayer, J.D. 1990. Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Shapiro, D.L. and Kirkman, B.L. 1999. Employees’ reactions to the change to work teams:
the
influence of “anticipatory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
12(1) 51-67.
Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R. and Tesluk, P. 1999. Personality as a moderator in the relationship
between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 100-108.
Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.E. 1999. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), 367-390.
Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope-Bailey, V. and McGovern, P. 1997. Performance
9
management and the psychological contract. Journal of Human Resource Management,
7(1), 57-66.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion on
the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Worrall, L., Campbell, F. and Cooper, C. 2000. Surviving redundancy: the perceptions of UK
managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(5), 460-476.
Zerbe, W.J. 2000. Emotional dissonance and employee well-being. In N.M. Ashkanasy,
C.E.J. Hartel and W.J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory and
Practice,. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 189-214.
10