Leader–Follower Interpersonal Emotion Management

Abstract

The emotional discrepancy that results from being told to show emotions other than those one is experiencingknown as emotional labor-is difficult for most individuals to reconcile (Hoschild, 1983). Our emotions are a central part of our life, imbued on our daily experiences by their influence on our thoughts, words, and actions. Acting on the belief that strong negative emotional displays disrupt organizational efficiency, contribute to employee burnout, and diminish customer relations, organizations create emotional display policies restricting expression of such emotions (Cropanzano, Weiss, & Elias, 2003). However, these emotional demands are detrimental to employee well-being (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007;Grandey, 2003;Morris & Feldman, 1997), resulting in heightened stress levels (Prati, Liu, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2009). Display rules are one way employees have emotional demands placed on them. More commonly, if not so represented in the emotions literature, emotional demands placed on employees come from their leaders.Leaders are well positioned to interpersonally manage emotions (George, 2000;Humphrey, 2002) and are expected to "intervene effectively and preventively" (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002, p. 80) when employees experience negative emotions. The prevailing research in the emotions and leadership literature suggests that emotion management is an expected component of leadership (e.g., Cóté, Lopes,

Mindful Leader Development: How Leaders Experience the Effects of Mindfulness Training on Leader Capabilities

“…Our findings are in line with studies showing that MWT enhanced positive emotion regulation strategies of employees (Hülsheger et al, 2013) and can decrease bias (Kang et al, 2013). Our results expand on this by showing that participants were better equipped to guide followers through emotional experience by showing empathy and deescalating a tense situation (Thiel et al, 2015). Participants appeared less self-involved, which may signify a greater ability to express humility, “a person’s tendency to approach interpersonal interactions with a strong motive for learning through others” (Owens et al, 2013) or a decreased self-concern (De Dreu and Nauta, 2009).…”

A Female Leadership Trust Advantage in Times of Crisis: Under What Conditions?

“…Drawing on recent developments in this area, namely in the area of interpersonal emotion management (IEM; Little et al, 2016;Thiel et al, 2015;Williams, 2007), we investigated the importance of situationally appropriate relational behaviors.…”

“…In the current study, we theorized that interpersonal emotion management (IEM)-i.e., relational behaviors that anticipate and manage the emotions of others (Little, Gooty, & Williams, 2016;Thiel, Griffith, & Connelly, 2015;Williams, 2007)--would be a mechanism of the female leadership trust advantage argument; we evaluated when and how such an advantage emerges during an organizational crisis. By crisis, we mean a common, albeit often unexpected, time-sensitive, high-impact event that may disrupt organizational functioning and pose relational threats (Chopra & Sodhi, 2004;Hendricks & Singhal, 2008;Kahn et al, 2013;Pearson & Clair, 1998).…”

Emotional Competencies Across Adulthood: State of Knowledge and Implications for the Work Context

“…Effective emotion regulation of own emotions was also found to buffer against the detrimental effects of negative work events on job strain (Niven, Sprigg, & Armitage, 2013;Prati, Liu, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2009). With respect to regulation of others' emotions, there is experimental evidence that leaders can reduce their followers' stress levels in response to a negative event by regulating their own emotions, particularly when using a combination of empathy and suppression (Thiel, Griffith, & Connelly, 2015). In sum, all three emotional competencies enhance positive worker outcomes and reduce negative worker outcomes, including both performance and well-being related outcomes.…”