Emotional roulette? Symmetrical and asymmetrical emotion regulation outcomes from coworker interactions about positive and negative work events

Abstract

Prior research suggests that, in general, the disclosure of positive emotions at work results in positive consequences for individuals while the disclosure of negative emotions results in negative ones. The current study examines the possibility of asymmetrical emotional outcomes to such disclosures, including those associated with the sharing of positive emotions. Interviews with human service workers elicited 71 detailed descriptions of emotional work events, the majority of which (77%) had been discussed in some manner with coworkers. Qualitative analysis of the incident data shows that both symmetrical and asymmetrical emotion regulation outcomes resulted from these coworker interactions. In regard to the disclosure of negative emotions, an asymmetrical outcome (mitigation) was welcomed, whereas for positive emotions, a symmetrical outcome (capitalization) was desired. Group norms, leader behaviors and coworker responsiveness influenced whether and which emotional events were shared, as well as the net impact on the participant’s emotional state. Overall, participants conveyed less motivation to share their positive emotional experiences with colleagues than their negative ones, largely owing to concerns that an asymmetrical outcome (dampening) would occur. Implications for organizational theories of emotional labor and social support, as well as the practice of effective emotion regulation in the workplace, are presented.

Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange.

“…Thus, when interacting with supervisors, employees have a stronger tendency to suppress negative emotions, such as anxiety, while when interacting with coworkers, employees only partially suppress negative emotion (Diefendorff & Greguras, 2009). Similarly, employees have been found to share emotional experiences with coworkers in almost 80% of emotional workplace events (Hadley, 2014). Thus, employees are more likely to be relaxed and share internal affective states when interacting with coworkers than with supervisors (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987).…”

A study of organizational cynicism and how it is affected by social exchange relationships at work

“…Contrary to LMX, CWX is a horizontal relationship with lower or absent power and status differences (Chiaburu & Organizational Cynicism and Social Exchange 13 Harrison, 2008;Diefendorff & Greguars, 2009), implying that employees in high CWX are unlikely to perceive the same kind of inconsistency under a PC breach as previously described for LMX. Instead, due to the more frequent and informal interactions (Diefendorff & Greguars, 2009;Hadley, 2014), coworkers are assumed to have a more accurate picture of each other's current wellbeing (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011). This bolsters coworkers' ability to provide social support that may help employees in high CWX to effectively cope with the negative consequences of a PC breach (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008;McCarthy, Trougakos, & Cheng, 2016).…”

“…On the affective level, strong CWX relationships facilitate empathic concern and compassion (Van Kleef et al, 2008;Woltin, Corneille, Yzerbyt, & Förster, 2011). Employees are likely to share all kinds of emotional events at work with coworkers (Hadley, 2014), and the frequent and also informal interactions among coworkers provide employees with timely socioemotional support in high CWX (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011;Karasek, Triantis, & Chaudhry, 1982;Ng & Sorensen, 2008;Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Thus, high CWX employees may feel comfortable among their coworkers and can let go of their disappointment conveyed by the PC breach.…”

Surface Acting, Emotional Exhaustion, and Employee Sabotage to Customers: Moderating Roles of Quality of Social Exchanges

“…As coworkers own equal power and interpersonal relationship with employees, employees are more likely to share emotional events at work with coworkers ( Hadley, 2014 ). The more frequent interaction between employees and coworkers than leaders provides social support with behavioral and emotional resources ( Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008 ) and employees can receive more social resources to cope work demands and strains ( Thoits, 2011 ).…”