While

respondents never referred to a rule that you should mask negative emotions, it appears to be a general, understood principle.
MICHAEL W. KRAMER JON A. HESS University of MissouriColumbia
MANAGEMENT AUGUST Kramer, Hess 2002 / EMOTION COMMUNICATION DISPLAYS QUARTERLY /

COMMUNICATION RULES FOR THE DISPLAY OF EMOTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS

AUTHORSNOTE: We wish to thank Brad Reel for his assistance in data collection. A previous version of this article was presented at the National Communication Association Annual Convention in New York, November 1998. Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, August 2002 66-80 2002 Sage Publications 66

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

67

Using a sample of employees from a wide range of occupations, this research examines the general communication rules that govern emotion management in all aspects of organizational involvement with coworkers and not just customers. Through content analysis of examples of both appropriate and inappropriate displays or masking of positive and negative emotions, results showed that (a) maintaining professionalism is central to appropriate emotion management, (b) positive emotions, not just negative emotions, need to be displayed in appropriate ways, and (c) the appropriate display of negative emotions typically means masking those emotions. This leads to a broader view of the role of emotions in organizational communication, one that is frequently overlooked in the rational paradigm that permeates organizational research.

motions are an integral and inseparable part of everyday organizational life, argued Ashforth and Humphrey (1995, p. 98). Due to an increasing awareness of the role that emotional intelligence plays in human social life (Barrett & Gross, 2001), researchers have increasingly investigated emotion management in organizational life (Wharton, 1993). Although most researchers have focused on frontline employees interacting with customers or the general public (Morris & Feldman, 1996), research needs to examine a broad range of occupations, because emotion management most frequently occurs in employee interactions apart from public contact (Waldron, 1994). These interactions may have different display rules, because customer interactions are public, or onstage, whereas employee interactions are private, or backstage (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). In this study we examined communication rules that influence the management and display of emotions across a range of organizational occupations in various emotion-laden interactions in organizational settings.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Emotions are commonly explained in terms of expectancy violations (e.g., Omdahl, 1995). This explanation suggests that organi-

68

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

zational members have expectations for common experiences such as goal achievement and relationship maintenance. Environmental stimuli perceived as discrepant with expectations are a primary cause of emotions. Positive emotions occur when experiences exceed expectations, whereas negative emotions occur when expectations are not met. The resulting felt emotions include physiological and cognitive components with the severity of the discrepancy increasing the level of emotional arousal (Fiebig & Kramer, 1998; Omdahl, 1995). Emotion displays, as the actual communication of emotions, do not always openly express felt emotions. Through emotion management individuals decide to express, mask, or change felt emotions (Kruml & Geddes, 2000). In all cultures the tension between spontaneously expressing and strategically communicating felt emotions is controlled by communication display rules that prescribe the appropriate or inappropriate expression of emotions (Planalp, 1999). Knowing the communication rules for emotion management is important for individuals to understand organizational culture (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989), develop relationships (Waldron, 2000), and to ultimately achieve career success (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). Socialization research suggests that organizations deliberately select employees who conform to certain rules for the display of emotions (e.g., flight attendants in Hochschild, 1983; cruise ship staff in Tracy, 2000; and bill collectors in Sutton, 1991). Once hired, employees are formally taught emotion display rules. For example, convenience store clerks were taught to display positive emotions (Rafaeli, 1989), whereas bill collectors were taught to communicate urgency (Sutton, 1991). Finally, many employees are rewarded with raises and promotions throughout their careers if they comply with organizational display rules (e.g., Sutton, 1991). In addition to such conscious efforts at emotion management, other research suggests that selection and socialization may be subconsciously based in part on following more general rules for appropriate emotion displays. For example, Jablin and Krone (1994) concluded that interviewees whose nonverbal behaviors expressed positive affect were more likely to be rated positively and receive second interviews. Research suggests that indirect and subtle forms of rewards and punishment reinforce more general orga-

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

69

nizational rules for the appropriate display and management of emotions. For example, one study showed that expressing more positive emotions led to higher supervisor evaluations, pay raises, and social support (Staw et al., 1994). In summary, research indicates that communication rules govern emotion displays in organizational settings. Understanding and complying with those rules has important implications for employees. Through selection, socialization, rewards, and punishments, organizations teach and reinforce occupation-specific and more general organizational rules for displaying emotions. Because most research has focused on front-line occupations with clearly specified emotion display rules, there is a need to examine a broader range of emotion rules, that is, the general display rules that hold across a wide range of occupations. Such general display rules may be part of the civility rules that facilitate successful coexistence by guiding employees to show or suppress positive or negative emotions, such as avoiding obscenity or verbal aggressiveness (Eubanks, 1980) and showing appropriate sympathy and respect (Pin & Turndorf, 1985). Thus, we sought to answer the following question:
Research Question: What communication rules for the display of emotions do employees perceive as functioning in organizations?

METHOD
RESPONDENTS Students in a communication class received credit if they had three full-time employees complete the survey, thus providing data from a broad range of occupations and organizations. Of 110 surveys distributed this way, 95 were returned (86% response rate). Respondents listed a phone number, and a random sample of the respondents (20%) were called to verify their participation. Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 68 (M = 34), and 56% were women. The largest groups described their job as management (27.4%), customer service (22.1%), and office or staff work (13.7%) and

70

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

reported they were employed in retail (17.9%), education (17.9%), and health care (13.7%) organizations.

INSTRUMENT This study is based on an interpretive perspective aimed at increasing knowledge of the way things are understood (Putnam, 1982). From this perspective, self-reported perceptions of events are the best indicators of respondents understanding of display rules. Because knowledge of rules is increased by examining instances of their being followed and violated the survey asked for examples of appropriate and inappropriate emotion displays. Because emotion display rules often stipulate masking instead of expressing emotions it was important to gather examples of masking emotions as well. Modeled after previous research (e.g., Waldron & Krone, 1991), the survey included open-ended questions that asked for examples of these situations: (a) appropriate displays of positive emotions, (b) inappropriate displays of positive emotions, (c) appropriate displays of negative emotions, (d) inappropriate displays of negative emotions, or (e) examples of masking. Because masking is not a common term, respondents were asked to recall a situation in which they knew or thought someone was displaying an emotion other than what they were experiencing. To prevent fatigue, each respondent only received questions regarding three situations, two from a random mixture of the first four situations plus the masking situation. All received the masking situation given the frequency with which masking emotions is discussed in the literature. This resulted in 42 examples of appropriate positive displays, 38 of inappropriate positive displays, 53 of appropriate negative displays, 53 of inappropriate negative displays, and 92 examples of masking. For each situation respondents indicated (a) the participants, (b) the event leading to the emotion, (c) the perceived felt emotion, (d) the expressed emotion, (e) the reason for considering it appropriate or inappropriate, and (f) any impact it had on themselves or others. In addition, respondents indicated basic demographic information about themselves.

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

71

ANALYSIS A grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used in which researchers allowed categories to emerge from the data rather than using predetermined categories. We do not claim the rules identified are necessarily orthogonal, or mutually exclusive. Rather, our goal was to identify the primary rules people used and articulated. It seems likely that the rules people use do, in fact, overlap to some degree. First, a random sample (20%) of the surveys was set aside for reliability checks. Then categories were developed through a constant comparison method for each question by examining a series of the remaining surveys. Once categories had been developed and defined, each coder independently coded approximately 60% of the surveys including the randomly selected ones. Finally, to check reliability, coding on the randomly selected surveys was compared. Because some responses involved multiple units defined as unique themes or thoughts, simple agreement was calculated for segmenting units (.94). Then intercoder reliabilities were computed for classification into categories. Simple agreement was 84% and Cohens kappa, which corrects for chance agreement, was .82 (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986). Finally, to assess sample size adequacy we examined the data to determine whether we had reached theory saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Results indicated that the final 20 questionnaires did not reveal new themes, suggesting that the major themes or ideas appear to have been developed.

RESULTS
Respondents provided 304 explanations of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, suggesting several general communication rules for emotion displays. In what follows, we present each of the general rules gleaned from the content analysis, followed by explanations and more specific expressions of the rule (if there were any). We include exemplars from the data to illustrate each rule and/or its more specific expressions.

72

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

The most common rule given was to express emotions professionally (n = 98, 32%). Although there were many nuances to what professionalism entailed, its most essential elements were having control over ones emotion displays and maintaining a businesslike atmosphere. For example, a buyer was described as professional when she tried to smile pleasantly while meeting with a specialist she disliked, and a computer analyst was described as acting professionally when he suffered a personal problem but did not display his negative feelings while at work. In contrast, a supervisor was described as unprofessional when he yelled at a salesperson for a poorly done job when it could have been handled in a calmer manner. As these examples illustrate, expressing negative emotions professionally most often involved presenting a neutral or positive emotion display by masking the negative felt emotions. However, professionalism also encompassed the management of positive emotions. An employee who apparently thought he was expressing positive emotion was described as unprofessional when he continued to tease a bookkeeper who was having a bad day. A head of a nonprofit agency expressed positive emotions inappropriately when he loudly congratulated his subordinate for winning a bid in front of the losing party. In these cases, positive emotions were expressed unprofessionally because they were excessive and poorly timed given the circumstances. In some instances the respondents provided an explanation of why the emotion display demonstrated professionalism, such as the respondent who learned that to be professional sometimes you just have to control your feelings and do what you are told. In other instances respondents did not articulate what professionalism meant and used the term as if its meaning was understood. Another frequently invoked rule was to express emotions to improve situations (n = 64, 21%). This rule suggests emotion displays should be managed so that they result in positive rather than negative outcomes. Whereas many of the display rules focused on enacting the proper behaviors, this rule focused on outcomes. That is, this rule regulates the ends people seek to achieve rather than the means they use to attain them. Results suggest that positive outcomes can be accomplished in three different ways. First, according to the findings, people should use emotion displays to prevent or correct a problem. For example, a cook reported that by masking

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

73

his negative felt emotions and expressing a neutral or positive emotion displayacting politely toward his general manager with whom he was iratehe was able to diffuse the problem and keep his job. Second, employees should use emotion displays to create a good climate in the workplace. An example of this was a salesperson showing joy at his promotion to manager. By expressing his positive emotion appropriately, he affirmed to other coworkers that hard work would be rewarded. Finally, workers must avoid emotion displays that lead to negative outcomes. When a store manager expressed his anger at a subordinate over how the store looked by fabricating customer complaints he only made the situation worse. If he had masked his anger the additional problems might have been avoided. Thus, this emotion display was considered inappropriate. A third general rule was to express emotions to the right people (n = 32, 11%). For this rule it was not whether the emotion display was positive or negative but whether it was directed at the appropriate individuals. Two specific rules for expressing emotions to the right people were suggested. For example, a supervisor praised an individual in front of the group after a group effort and a builder yelled at a temporary employee who was not responsible for a missing tool instead of at the responsible party. In both of these cases, the individual failed to praise or reprimand the correct party. In another example, a group of children and a sergeant in a Guatemalan village expressed their thanks to the American soldiers who built a school and playground for them. Even though the children could not speak English they were able to express appropriate gratitude to the correct party, in this case through nonverbal communication. A fourth display rule was to express emotions to help individuals (n = 32, 11%). The focus of this rule is on assisting individuals rather than improving situations more generally. For example, a doctors office manager was praised by the doctor for expressing emotion to support others even when she felt depressed. She both masked her negative emotions and showed warmth and compassion that assisted others. Other responses suggested a fifth general rule: Do not manage emotions for personal benefit to the detriment of others (n = 23, 8%). Expressing artificial emotions by displaying positive or neutral emotions was acceptable to show professionalism or help the situation or others but inappropriate when used for personal gain at

74

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

others expense. When a bored secretary acted sick to leave work early her emotion management was seen as inappropriate lying or insincerity. She managed her emotions to gain time off, but others had to do additional work to cover for her. A sixth general rule respondents offered was that the expression of certain emotions is always inappropriate (n = 10, 3%). In these cases, it was not whether the emotion was positive or negative that mattered; it was the inappropriateness of expressing the emotion at all that was problematic. Results suggested two types of emotion displays that were inappropriate. With positive emotions it was noted that workers should maintain role-appropriate distance in emotion expressions. When a purchasing manager at a manufacturing firm expressed his positive emotions to a senior buyer by giving her gifts, he created too personal a relationship with his buyer. For negative emotion displays this rule was not to abuse others with emotion displays. A foreman violated this rule when he yelled at a worker in a way that suggested that the worker had to be at his beck and call. In both of these cases, the respondents felt that the emotion displays created inappropriate work relationships that should always be avoided. In some cases, respondents did not specify a rule and instead relied upon an implicit understanding of what is appropriate or inappropriate. These participants relied on unstated rules (n = 45, 15%) to explain appropriate and inappropriate emotion displays. In supporting one of the few negative emotion displays deemed appropriate, one respondent approved of another persons negative reaction because I would have reacted in a similar manner. In another example, a respondent explained that it was inappropriate for a dental hygienist to show displeasure over a new procedure because There should not have been any display of negative emotion. The respondent apparently felt that either there should not have been any negative reactions or those negative emotions should have been masked. Overall, these results suggest that respondents were aware of general rules that prescribe what is obligated, preferred, or prohibited for emotion displays (Shimanoff, 1980). Respondents indicated that there were appropriate contexts for expressing positive emotions, such as when some positive outcome occurred, as well as inappropriate ones, such as when it embarrassed or bothered some-

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

75

one. Expressing negative emotions openly was frequently considered inappropriate across rules. In many instances, respondents considered reducing the intensity of the negative emotion or masking it in a calm, neutral demeanor to be the appropriate emotion display. The expression of both positive and negative emotions was considered inappropriate if it was directed at the wrong party. At times, respondents relied on an implicit understanding of professionalism or some unstated rule rather than articulating an emotion display rule to explain the appropriateness or inappropriateness of particular emotion displays.

DISCUSSION
This research advanced our understanding of the dynamics of emotion management in organizational settings by exploring both appropriate and inappropriate displays of positive and negative emotions. In addition to identifying the rules for emotion display discussed above, the results suggest some general principles of emotion management in organizational settings for interactions with coworkers and the public. The most common rule for emotion displays was to express emotions professionally. Those who provided explanations of professionalism emphasized maintaining a neutral or pleasant demeanor regardless of the circumstances. Respondents often relied on the terms professional or unprofessional to define appropriate and inappropriate control of emotions without providing specific explanation. This suggests that the understanding of professionalism is often tacit knowledge learned through observation and experience. Through a gradual learning process, employees construct an understanding of what professionalism means in their occupations. Because the definition most likely varies across occupations, future research should attempt to more precisely define the communicative behaviors considered professional and unprofessional emotion displays in general and for specific occupations so that information can be provided to employees. Previous research has emphasized masking negative emotions or faking positive ones. The results of this study suggest that there

76

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

are also important rules for the appropriate display of positive emotions. Together, the rules suggest that a positive emotion display can be considered inappropriate primarily for three main reasons: (a) It is excessive or poorly timed, such as gloating in front of people who did not receive a positive outcome; (b) it involves misdirected praise, for example, praising an individual for a group effort or a group for an individual effort; or (c) it involves unsanctioned workplace behavior, such as showing too much personal affection in a work relationship. This suggests that managing positive emotions and not just negative emotions is an important matter to examine in future research. Taken together, the rules concerning the appropriate communication of negative emotions suggest a more general principle of emotion management in the workplace. Only a few examples provided by respondents involved what was considered an appropriate display of negative emotions, such as displaying anger at a deserving individual. Most were examples of masking negative emotions, such as people acting calm when they were apparently upset. So although respondents never referred to a rule that one should mask negative emotions, it appears to be a more general, understood principle for displaying negative emotions that applies to interactions with coworkers as well as customers. Masking negative emotions appears to be part of the general rules of civility that are learned as part of the socialization process into occupations. This knowledge may be part of the emotional intelligence needed for developing a positive social life at work (Barrett & Gross, 2001). More research on the appropriate expression of negative emotions is warranted. A number of the display rules also suggest a general principle that appropriate emotion management focuses on others rather than on oneself. Whether it is to improve the situation, help other individuals, or avoid personal gain at others expense, the rules frequently focused on the impact of the emotion displays on others rather than on the felt emotions of the individual. Although scholars have criticized emotion management because it is disempowering (e.g., Krone, Waldron, & Cavanaugh, 1992) and primarily benefits the organization (Putnam & Mumby, 1993), these results suggest that people managing emotions in organizations often do so primarily for the purpose of maintaining relationships and treating others respectfully. These rules suggest that by balancing the ten-

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

77

sion between spontaneously expressing emotions and strategically expressing them (Planalp, 1999), individuals can create more positive and civil work relationships. Because the focus of this research is on individuals understanding of rules for displaying emotions, it was appropriate to rely on respondents explanations. However, self-report data do have limitations. For example, individuals may have overstated or incorrectly identified felt emotions and simply have projected their emotions on others. These concerns suggest that combining self-report data with observation, peer interviews, or other methods could offer additional insights into workplace emotion display. The results of this study suggest practical applications for both employees and trainers. The study may help individuals realize the importance emotion management may play in their career success. Abiding by display rules, particularly displaying neutral and positive emotions and masking negative emotions, may affect work relationships and advancement opportunities. Learning which rules are general and which are workplace specific could help people understand the interpersonal skills expected in their careers. For example, swearing may be less appropriate in some professions than others (e.g., pharmaceuticals vs. construction) and may vary within professions. Pacanowsky and ODonnell-Trujillo (1983), for instance, related how one executive knew how to swear appropriately but another swore only when he was angry, in a very unbecoming manner. Organizations typically focus the majority of their socialization and training on task-related activities. Although an extensive focus on emotion display might be unnecessary for some professions, given the evidence of an implicit understanding of professionalism and the presence of unstated rules, organizations may want to spend more time actively socializing employees by providing instruction concerning appropriate emotion displays for interactions with other employees and not just with the public. This study specifies a set of general emotion display rules that could be incorporated into training sessions, such as expressing emotions to the proper people or exercising restraint in positive emotion display when the situation is negative for others present. However, some rules, such as showing professionalism, need interpretation within the specific organization. By making it clear what behaviors are professional and

78

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

unprofessional in their company, employers can more easily educate employees about how to manage their emotions in the workplace. This study has indicated the presence of many widely held rules for appropriate and inappropriate display of emotion in organizational settings. In particular, professional behavior seems to involve masking negative emotions as neutral and appropriate control of positive emotions. Through further examination of rules for displaying emotions, we may gain a better understanding of the role that communicating emotions plays in organizational settings.

REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Barrett, L. F., & Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A process model of emotion representation and regulation. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 286-310). New York: Guilford. Eubanks, R. T. (1980). Reflections on the moral dimension of communication. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 45, 297-312. Fiebig, G. V., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). A framework for the study of emotions in organizational contexts. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 536-572. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. J. (1994). Task/work relationships: A life-span perspective. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 621-675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krone, K. J., Waldron, V. R., & Cavanaugh, S. K. (1992, November). General issues in emotional experience in a corrections organization. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor: The heart of Hochschilds work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 8-49. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010. Omdahl, B. L. (1995). Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

79

Pacanowsky, M. E., & ODonnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126-147. Pin, E. J., & Turndorf, J. (1985). The pleasure of your company: A sociopsychological analysis of modern sociability. New York: Praeger. Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and cultural processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigms for organizational communication research: An overview and synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 192-206. Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 36-57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rafaeli, A. (1989). When clerks meet customers: A test of variables related to emotional expressions on the job. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 385-393. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1-42. Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51-71. Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245-268. Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, selfsubordination, and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90-128. Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103. Waldron, V. R. (1994). Once more, with feeling: Reconsidering the role of emotion in work. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 17, pp. 388416). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Waldron, V. R. (2000). Relational experiences and emotion at work. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 64-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Waldron, V. R., & Krone, K. J. (1991). The experience and expression of emotion in the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 287-309. Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232.

Michael W. Kramer (Ph.D., 1991, University of Texas at Austin) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of MissouriColumbia. His other research interests include organizational transitions and group communication. His recent research has appeared in Communication Monographs, Southern Communication Journal, and Communication Studies.

80

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

Jon A. Hess (Ph.D., 1996, University of Minnesota) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri Columbia. His other research interests include closeness and distance in personal relationships, maintaining difficult or unwanted relationships, and communication ethics. His research has appeared in Human Communication Research, Communication Studies, and the Journal of Applied Communication Research.