“Stuck in the Middle with You?” Supervisory Level and Anger about Work

Abstract

Although sociologists have long been interested in the stratification of emotions, the occupational stratification of anger has been investigated in only a few general population studies. Through analyses of data representative of workers in Toronto, we evaluate the hypothesis that workplace hierarchical position, defined by supervisory level, has an inverted u-shaped association with the frequency of anger about work. We also evaluate the more specific hypothesis that the difference in work-related anger between front-line supervisors and nonsupervisory workers will be relatively larger among workers in the commodified services sector than other sectors. Results are generally consistent with our hypotheses. We find that both front-line supervisors in the commodified services sector, and secondary supervisors in all employment sectors, report more frequent anger about work than do nonsupervisory workers. In contrast, higher level supervisors report anger about work at about the same frequency as nonsupervisory workers. These associations are only slightly reduced by controls for work stress and stressors. We discuss how supervisory relations might explain differences in anger about work among workers at different levels in organizational hierarchies.

More than just an angry face: A critical review and theoretical expansion of research on leader anger expression

“…For example, Domagalski and Steelman (2007) predicted that male supervisors would outwardly express their anger in the presence of subordinates more frequently than would female supervisors; however, this hypothesis was not supported. In addition, Magee and Upenieks's (2017) sociological study examined workplace hierarchical position as a predictor of the frequency of anger about work. They found that middle-level supervisors reported more frequent anger about work than did nonsupervisory workers and top-level supervisors.…”

Wanting, liking, and the sociology of motivation

“…Nevertheless, this focus on the negative side still needs to be expanded since it excludes some of the core and most sociologically relevant affective forces, like grief and sadness (Panksepp & Watt, 2011). Note, for instance, that while there is extensive work on the “sociology of anger” (Collett & Lizardo, 2010; Doan, 2012; Magee & Upenieks, 2017), there is no comparable work on the “sociology of sadness” or the “sociology of grief,” even though the universal and systematic experience of losing a loved one or a valuable good is the main trigger for both (Freed, 2009; Zellner et al., 2011). As such, the odd omission of one of the most common negative emotions, like those based on sadness and grief, related to the loss of strong social bonds or exclusion from social relationships represents a profound gap in sociological knowledge that needs to be corrected.…”