Journal of Leadership &

Uncovering a New Guilty Pleasure: Organizational Studies

17(4) 392410
Baker College 2010
A Qualitative Study of the Emotions of Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Personal Web Usage at Work DOI: 10.1177/1548051809350893

http://jlos.sagepub.com

Micheal T. Stratton, PhD1

Abstract
This longitudinal field study uncovers the emotional meaning that defines personal Web usage (PWU) at work. To explore
this emergent workplace phenomenon, the author conducted 67 semistructured interviews and collected archival
documents at a local government municipality in the United States. After a phenomenological analysis of the informants
emotion-laden narratives, the findings suggest that users defined their PWU as a guilty pleasure. For some informants, this
type of emotional ambivalence was resolved and manifested into continued PWU devoid of guilt. For others, however,
they continued to define their PWU behaviors as a push-and-pull battle between self-control and short-term benefit.
Nevertheless, PWU persisted. Based on the themes analyzed in the data, two models are presented that depict the
characteristics of the ambivalence and the overarching emotion-behavior process, respectively. The author concludes by
discussing the contributions to existing research and directions for further inquiry.

Keywords
cyberloafing, emotional ambivalence, guilty pleasure, personal Web usage, phenomenology

They [emotions] inject meaning into our working moments
positive, negative, mixed, conflicting or ambivalent. Our
emotionalities do not simply switch off; they tick over,
quietly signaling how things are and how we are doing
and what we want to do next.
Fineman (2003, p. 3)
As Fineman (2003) suggests, our interpretations of emo-
tion-inducing events at work send us signals on how to feel
and behave. It is the intensity and richness of these emo-
tional experiences and their underlying meaning that often
become the basis for a variety of behaviors in organizations.
Organizational scholars (Fineman, 2000; Hochschild, 1983;
Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988; Staw, Sutton & Pelled, 1994) have
laid the groundwork for exploring the role that emotions, both
in the felt experience and expression, play in everyday work
life. Although many have revealed a great deal about work-
place feelings, including anger (Fitness, 2000), frustration
(Fox & Spector, 1999), and toxicity (Frost, 2003), there is
still much to learn and extract from those on the front lines
to uncover the complicated nature of emotions in organiza-
tions. If we, as students and scholars of organizations, can
describe and explain emotions from the perspective of those
who feel and act on those feelings, we can also come to
understand how and why certain types of behavior persist
or diminish. For leaders, this requires an intense awareness of
follower decisions and emotion-driven behaviors. Followers
react to organizational stimuli and leaders must recognize
emotions in order to understand better how followers make
sense of their environments (Elfenbein, 2008, p. 356).
This study aims to explore the emotions of an emergent
technology behavior called cyberloafing (Lim, 2002) or,
as it is commonly known, personal Web usage (PWU;
Anandarajan & Simmers, 2004). This phenomenon has
contributed to numerous management challenges in both
government and business organizations (Griffiths, 2004).
The availability of the Internet at home, at work, and on
mobile devices has created an information-seeking and
-sharing society. With the reliance on the Internet for both
personal and business reasons, the interconnectivity of our
lives has emerged without boundaries. As such, using the
Internet as a tool to engage in non-business-related behav-
ior has become prevalent in many organizations, regardless
of control systems or policies (Greenfield & Davis, 2002).
1
University of North Carolina Asheville, Asheville, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Micheal T. Stratton, University of North Carolina Asheville, Department
of Management and Accountancy, 110 Owen Hall CPO 1850, One
University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804
Email: mstratto@unca.edu

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
Stratton 393
Although a group of researchers has studied this new tech-
nology behavior, employing a variety of methods and theo-
retical perspectives (Blanchard & Henle, 2008; Lee, Lee, &
Kim, 2004; Lim, 2002), we know very little about how
users emotions help define their Internet behaviors. By
specifically investigating the emotional dimension of PWU,
we may begin to identify why it continues to exist unabated
inside many organizations today.
Over the course of a year-long field study, 67 semistruc-
tured interviews were conducted with employees and man-
agers to gain further insight into PWU activity at a local
government in the United States. Employing a phenomeno-
logical methodology (Moustakas, 1994) to describe how
and why informants define their experiences, along with
archival analysis to identify context-specific details in
which this phenomenon exists, this qualitative study aims
to achieve two overarching purposes. First, this study will
reveal informants inner struggles with their PWU and
deconstruct the pushpull process (Polzer-Debruyne, 2008)
in which they either resolve the conflict or remain at odds
with their actions. Second, this study will further develop
the theoretical framework from which to examine PWU.
The methodology employed here will contribute to our
understanding of users experiences and draw a picture of
their interactions with, and interpretations of, their PWU
behavior. Inductively generating a new lens from which to
understand PWU is largely a departure from the positivist
approaches adopted by most researchers in the current lit-
erature (Lee et al., 2004; Zhang, 2005).
In the following section, the relevant scholarship in
emotions and PWU will be briefly examined. Given the
inductive nature of this study, the existing research will pro-
vide a backdrop for the themes and theoretical models that
will emerge from the data.
Relevant literature
Emotional Complexity in Organizational Life
Within much of workplace emotions research, in particular
the use of Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996), the focus has been on the discrete emotional reac-
tions to single events and the potential emotional episodes
that may ensue. These episodes may involve different reac-
tions than first experienced during the initial exposure to
the event. Weiss and Cropanzano suggest that a single
event of affective significance leads to the unfolding of a
series of sub-events [producing] a distinct, even opposite,
emotional response (p. 41). Whereas I accept that emo-
tions are immediate reactions to specific targets or events
(Ortony et al., 1988) based on a pleasurepain valence
scale (Elster, 1998), I argue that the experience of a single
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
emotion is likely clouded by the potential conflict in our
interpretations of the emotion-eliciting event (Frijda, 1988).
It is often the case that our felt experiences are anything
but single discrete reactions. For example, researchers
(Abrahamsson, Berggren, Hallberg, & Carlsson, 2002;
Fong, 2006; Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001; Pratt &
Barnett, 1997; Pratt & Doucet, 1999, 2000) have explored
the more complex, multifaceted nature of emotional ambiv-
alence. This unique experience is represented by feeling
simultaneous multiple emotions, both positive and nega-
tive. Often, this ambivalence paints a very complex picture
of what, how, and why we feel at work. In the words of
Moore and Hope-Hailey (2004), emotions are messy
(p. 3). The complexity behind our emotional experience is
rooted in our meaning making and construction of reality.
As Waldron (2000) maintains, this messiness is often set
aside by the incessant attempt to quantify and operational-
ize emotions as discrete phenomena. Fineman (2004) also
makes such a conclusion in his critical work on emotional
measurement. He concludes that many in organization stud-
ies seek to make inchoate tangible through quantification
(p. 721) while ignoring the subjective, interpretive nature of
how we define our emotionalities.
In an effort to explore the array of emotional color that
defines much of organizational drama, researchers (Fong &
Tiedens, 2002; Pratt & Rosa, 2003) have found that feeling
multiple, competing emotions about a particular event or
situation is evident in much of what we do at work. For
example, a study by Fong and Tiedens (2002) suggests that
women in high status positions often feel ambivalent about
the competing goals placed on them. Pratt and Rosa (2003)
also found such emotional competition in network market-
ing organizations. In this study, work-family commitments
often defined the ambivalence toward work. The nature of
such conflict is greatly dependent on the environment and
individual-level differences (Pratt & Rosa, 2003). In Fra-
zier and Meisenhelders (1985) ethnographic study of crim-
inals, ones own law-breaking behavior and the potential
consequences defined the push and pull of the criminals
emotional ambivalence. For instance, criminals revealed
that the excitement of the act and the shame if caught coex-
isted during and after the act.
Emotion scholars (Fong & Tiedens, 2002; Pratt &
Doucet, 2000) admit that the ambivalence of everyday
work-life is an underexplored phenomenon. In fact, Fong
and Tiedens (2002) contend that identifying the situations
in which emotional conflicts exist is indeed necessary to
uncover the intricacies that contribute to the specific type of
ambivalence. In addition, we need to find out what meaning
individuals attach to their ambivalence and its consequences
for behavior, as Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999)
suggest. Of particular interest in the current research is the
394 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
potential for situations to exist in which the positive or neg-
ative aspect of the ambivalence may win out over the other.
Discovering when and how the conflict is settled or persists
may tell us more about ones movement toward or against
the emotion-inducing event over time. As Pratt and Doucet
(2000) found in their study of ambivalence in banking call
centers, the emotional reactions may manifest in various
types of approach and avoidance behaviors such as engage-
ment or detachment. Therefore, it is critical to explore this
type of felt experience in the context of specific organiza-
tional environments and with regard to unique emotional
stimuli.
The Nature of PWU at Work
Investigating the emotional meaning attached to our behav-
iors at work could unlock the mystery behind much of the
emerging phenomena in modern organizations. One partic-
ular behavior that could benefit greatly from further discov-
ery is the ubiquitous engagement in PWU by employees.
One could argue that visiting Web sites for personal reasons
during work time has become as commonplace as using the
telephone for non-work purposes. Despite the perceived
parallel, there are numerous reasons that the uniqueness of
PWU at work deserves greater scholarly attention.
First, PWU is considered one of the most costly acts of
shirking in todays workplace (Malachowski & Simonini,
2006). Recent surveys and reports from the information
security industry (Gordan, Loeb, Lucyshyn, & Richardson,
2005; Richardson, 2003, 2008) suggest a growing degree of
unauthorized use of the Internet in organizations. U.S. fed-
eral agencies, in particular, have been under scrutiny from
the media and legislative oversight bodies for employee
misuse of the Internet. In audits conducted by the U.S.
Department of the Treasury (2000, 2003), employees at the
Internal Revenue Service were found to excessively use
both the Internet and e-mail for personal reasons while at
work. The reports indicate that during one 7-day review
period, 8,250 hours were for non-business reasons (U.S.
Department of the Treasury, 2000, p. i). A more recent audit
by the U.S. Department of the Interior Inspector General
(2006) found that employee PWU, in the form of online
gaming and Internet auction sites, resulted in an estimated
104,221 hours in potential lost productivity over the course
of the year (p. 1). More recent, Washington, D.C., govern-
ment employees were terminated for accessing porno-
graphic Web sites multiple times throughout the workday
(Kuchment & Springen, 2008). One employee, for exam-
ple, visited such sites every 2.5 minutes.
Second, more and more organizations are employing
costly technology tools, training, and policies to curb such
behavior (Nord, McCubbins, & Horn-Nord, 2006). The
most recent American Management Association report
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
(2007) on this topic indicated that 66% of those surveyed
monitor Internet usage and other related activity (e.g.,
e-mail usage, computer games, etc.). They also found that
65% of those organizations blocked inappropriate Web
sites, a 27% increase from the previous American Manage-
ment Association (2001) survey.
Last, although it is interesting to note that individuals are
engaging in PWU and that organizations are responding
with deterrent policies and actions, it is also the utility of
PWU for individual users that should be of critical impor-
tance to organizational researchers. It is not only a tool to
balance work-life demands (Wallace, 2004), such as con-
necting with family members through e-mail or conducting
personal banking, it has also become a source of illicit
behavior that benefits the user and/or harms the organiza-
tion. Visiting sites that are benign to the user as being inap-
propriate, such as news or e-mail Web sites, and the
traditionally insecure pornographic and gambling Web sites
may pose a considerable risk to an organizations informa-
tion security and legal and fiduciary interests (Stratton,
2005). The vulnerabilities associated with virus infection
and data access and manipulation are also likely to increase
when users inside the organization open the doors to those
outside the computer network (Kuchment & Springen,
2008). Regardless of whether or not individuals are trying
to juggle the multiple demands in their busy lives or inten-
tionally exposing the organization to technology threats,
excessive PWU has been deemed a new form of addictive
behavior (Griffiths, 2003). The potential for becoming
addicted to PWU may have real implications for productiv-
ity because of the disruptive dependence that users have on
the Internet (Yellowlees & Marks, 2007). All of these rea-
sons underscore the importance of unmasking the realities
of PWU inside organizations today.
Building on recent contributions by organizational
scholars who have studied PWU (Anandarajan & Simmers,
2004; Blanchard & Henle, 2008; Greenfield & Davis, 2002;
Lee et al., 2004; Lim, 2002; Mahatanankoon & Igbaria,
2004), I hope to expose the often-forgotten emotional
undercurrent. Examined largely from a rational perspective,
existing studies center on user perceptions and attitudes
without concern for the emotions inherent in the PWU phe-
nomenon. With the exception of Manrique de Lara (2006),
who examines the fear of being punished associated with
PWU monitoring systems, much of the existing literature is
in its infancy and portrays organization members as cogni-
tive stick figures whose behavior is unaffected by emo-
tions (Brief, 2001, p. 132). Instead, the focus has been on
the effects of policy and control systems, position in the
hierarchy, the role that social forces play in users likeli-
hood of engaging in PWU (Lee et al., 2004), neutralization
strategies (Lim, 2002), and locus of control (Blanchard &
Henle, 2008). Research has shown that users often have
Stratton 395
positive attitudes toward PWU and rationalize why such
behavior would be appropriate (Griffiths, 2004; Lim, 2002).
Yet, we still do not know why PWU continues to persist.
Because this phenomenon is fairly new, this study may fill
some of the holes within the existing literature by discover-
ing how and why individuals use emotions to define their
behavior. Digging deeper into users experiences and how
they felt during and after PWU acts may allow researchers
to identify and explain the attitudes and rationalizations that
underscore this behavior.
Method
Research Questions
The study was designed to uncover informants interpreta-
tions of their PWU behavior and the unexplored emotional
meaning. I intentionally stop short of specifically identify-
ing certain emotions in the research questions, as the nature,
type, and direction of the feelings emerged from the data.
First, I sought to explore how and why users emotionally
define their acts of PWU both during and after engaging in
this behavior. Second, this study also aimed to reveal how
that meaning influenced the informants continued PWU
behaviors. Their shared experiences and reflections told
through narrative will be analyzed and described to expose
the emotional nature of PWU.
The Research Site
Emotion scholars (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Brief,
2001; Brief & Weiss, 2002; Fitness, 2000; Hochschild,
1979, 1983; Waldron, 2000) have reminded us of the impor-
tance of studying emotions in contextually rich settings.
What we do not have and need are theories that guide us in
identifying specific kinds of work conditions and/or events
associated with specific affective states (Brief & Weiss,
2002, p. 299). The context of the phenomenon under study
contributes to individuals felt experiences and provides a
basis for describing the psychological and social nature of
emotional development. Therefore, before presenting the
strategies for data collection and analysis, it is critical to
identify the organizational context in which this study was
conducted.
The study was proposed to approximately 100 govern-
ment municipalities information technology and leadership
staffs in a large Northeastern state. With reports of exces-
sive and problematic PWU occurring in the public sector
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 2006) and the pressures
for democratic accountability facing public administrators
(Behn, 2001), government organizations were relevant and
ideal sites for this research. However, given the sensitivity
of this topic, especially in light of recent media attention
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 2006; U.S. Department of
the Treasury, 2003), it was not surprising when only one
organization granted full access. To protect the informants
and site, the location and specific organizational details
remain confidential. With that said, the organization under
study is a municipal government with approximately 150
employees (n = 132 with Internet access) that provides mul-
tiple communities with health care, social services, police
protection, and job training, among other services. The
organization has a traditional bureaucratic structure with
several layers of management, starting with the legislative-
appointed public manager, division heads, unit supervisors,
and employees. The municipality agreed to participate
because of the human resource and technology challenges
associated with PWU.
Data Collection
An inductive, phenomenological approach to data collection
and analysis (Moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990) was used
to answer the aforementioned research questions. This qual-
itative method was purposely chosen to track events-in-
context as reported by key actors (Fineman, 2000, p. 14). In
narrative told through phenomenological reflection (van
Manen, 1990, p. 10), the informants emotions about their
PWU acts were systematically examined. These narrative
accounts, as Fineman (2003) contends, give substance,
nuance, purpose and legitimacy to our feelings (p. 17).
In conducting such qualitative research, Emerson (2001)
suggests to venture into the worlds of others in order to
learn firsthand how they live, how they talk and behave,
[and] what captivates and distresses them (p. 1). With a
longitudinal design, an initial 50 semistructured interviews
and 17 follow-up interviews were conducted. The follow-
up interviews were to determine if and how the informants
interpretations changed over time. The sample for this study
consisted of various Internet users in the organization,
including employees (n = 27), managers (n = 10), and exec-
utive leadership staff (n = 3) responsible for policy making.
In addition, interviews were conducted with information
technology (IT) professionals (n = 10) charged with manag-
ing and securing the information and network resources.
Employees (n = 12) and managers (n = 5) from the initial
sample participated in the follow-up interviews. By collect-
ing multiple perspectives (Klein & Myers, 1999), the indi-
vidual emotional experiences could be understood in the
context of a social environment that may or may not sup-
port PWU behavior.
After the municipality granted access, the IT director
requested organizational members to voluntarily participate
in this study. Informants from five line departments (job
training, planning, community outreach, health care, and
human resources), the leadership office, and the IT staff
396 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
agreed to the interview requests. In the course of 5 months,
confidential, semistructured interviews were conducted. The
follow-up interviews commenced approximately 3 months
after the first round of data collection. A majority of the
interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim,
with the exception of only a few interviews at the infor-
mants request. However, for those select interviews, I was
able to jot down field notes for later analysis and coding.
Although a protocol was designed to provide structure to the
data collection, the direction of the interviews became quite
fluid. Throughout data collection, many interview questions
were revised as I iteratively coded the data and revisited the
informants narrative accounts (see the appendix for the
final interview protocol). Through each interview and cor-
responding analysis, I sought to access the personal, the
individual, [and] the variations within themes (Conklin,
2007, p. 276). This first required developing interview ques-
tions that would solicit informants reflections about their
PWU behaviors. Informants were asked to describe how
they defined appropriate Internet activity at work. From this
answer, I probed them on their experiences with using the
Internet for personal reasons and how they felt both during
and after engaging in this activity. These initial questions
were intended to solicit unique accounts about their PWU
and what it meant to them in the workplace context. It is
within their narratives that I sought shared reflections and
themes to discover and refine the PWU phenomenon.
In addition to semistructured interviews, official site
documents were also collected in an effort to add depth to
the informants accounts. Documents included the informa-
tion security policy statement and a sample of Internet logs.
After signing a confidentiality agreement with the organi-
zation, the IT director provided the policy document and
Internet usage data. The latter provided a snapshot of Inter-
net activity during 1 month prior to the study and 1 month
during the interviews, including items such as username,
department, and the number of sites visited by category
(e.g., sports, news, pornography, etc.). The usage reports
also indicated whether or not the sites accessed were per-
mitted or blocked as PWU activity.
Data Analysis
Given that emotions are an integral part of meaning
(Lofland & Lofland, 1995, p. 116), interview data were ana-
lyzed using the phenomenological method (Moustakas,
1994). Intent on capturing the informants interpretation of
their reality, the verbatim interview transcripts were
approached with a careful respect for aspiring to Husserls
(1931) concept of epoche. Through the bracketing tech-
nique (Conklin, 2007), I was able to consciously separate out
my thoughts about the phenomenon both before the inter-
views and during the analysis. With such self-awareness, I
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
sought to have the native view emerge so that the researcher
can be fully open to the phenomenon as it reveals itself
(Gibson, 2006, p. 66). The interviews were meant to solicit
reflections about their experiences with PWU. From the
narrative accounts, I conducted a thematic analysis called
horizonalizing (Moustakas, 1994), in which terms and
experiences related to PWU were separated out into themes.
The interview transcripts were analyzed sentence-by-sen-
tence and patterns across the interview data were further
broken down to gauge interconnectedness among experi-
ences. Although informants were quite explicit about how
they felt about their PWU experiences during the inter-
views, it was important to also identify the underlying fac-
tors that were the basis for the positive and negative valence
or direction. It was in this coding process where I identified
the informants emotions and the underlying meaning. As
Conklin (2007) states, Meaning making takes place at the
intersection of the physical world in which experience tran-
spires the mental and emotional world of the participant
(p. 277).
One important aspect must be considered before con-
tinuing: Words were only verbal, subjective expressions of
the informants feelings. Therefore, I could not simply
assume that pleasure for one informant meant the same for
all. As Fineman (2004) argues, The emotionality of narra-
tive is more than the location of certain emotion words and
phrases; it includes the relationship between the words, the
metaphors used and the sense of cadence, hesitation and
silences detectable in the structure of the text (p. 733).
Thus, I examined the verbatim transcripts by comparing the
informants interpretations of their PWU, including the
valence factors, rationalization strategies, and social cues,
to identify similarities and differences that would help
depict this phenomenon. Employing the memo technique
(Lofland & Lofland, 1995), textural and structural descrip-
tions (Conklin, 2007) were written about the coded data to
draw conclusions from the trends that surfaced from the
interviews. The memos were used to organize the major
ideas and relationships found while horizonalizing. Through
this thematic analysis of the narrative, and identifying
common threads (Conklin, 2007, p. 280) among the
informants accounts, the emotional meaning making that
defined this phenomenon emerged.
In an effort to address potential concerns for confirm-
ability and dependability in the data (Guba & Lincoln,
1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), I invited the informants and
an external auditor to review the analyses. I created an envi-
ronment that ensured that my coding, categorizing, and
interpreting of the data were confirmable by the informants
and aligned with their own understanding of their feelings
associated with PWU. Informants were provided access to
transcripts and the initial analyses. In addition, the external
auditor assisted in the actual data analyses. The auditor
Stratton 397
reviewed and commented on the developed codes, catego-
ries, and memos to determine if certain theoretical infer-
ences [were] justified (Bryman, 2001, p. 274) and
contextually accurate.
To give further context to the interview data, the official
policy statements and usage data revealed in the monitoring
reports were also analyzed. For example, when asking
about their PWU experiences, the informants often brought
up the policy document as evidence of their awareness for
the managerial position on PWU. The usage data were bro-
ken down by individual and categorized in a spreadsheet
applying Blanchard and Henles (2008) PWU typology. I
then calculated descriptive statistics to identify the varying
forms of PWU activities that, on average, existed in this
organization. These data gave context to the informants
descriptions of their behavior and credence to the fact that
PWU did, indeed, exist and persist at this site.
In the coming section, two models will be presented to
depict the informants rich emotion-laden narratives. I will
identify the interpretive factors underlying the informants
shared experiences in an effort to describe and explain the
role that emotions play in PWU behavior. A brief discussion
of the studys contributions to the existing scholarship and
suggested directions for future research will follow.
Evidence from the Field
Feeling Guilty Pleasure During and After PWU:
Ambivalence Revealed
I approached this study with the assumption that emotions
develop out of an interpretation process (Frijda, 1988)
where one assesses his or her values, beliefs, and expecta-
tions associated with the event. This meaning making is
greatly influenced by the social environment, including
messages or cues (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998) sent
by the broader culture and immediate subcultures in the
organization (Schein, 1996). In this study, the informants
interpretations about their PWU activity, with strong influ-
ence from the social cues, contributed to the emotional con-
flict depicted in Figure 1.
In the informants reflections on their PWU, there were
clear indications that this behavior produced simultaneous
pleasure and guilt. This type of emotional ambivalence was
often perpetuated by the conflict underlying the users per-
ceived short-term benefits of engaging in the behavior and
any potential adverse consequences after the fact. The mes-
sages sent by the culture and subcultures greatly influenced
the informants internal conflict. These points of conflict
influenced the direction of the valence (i.e., the anticipated
attractiveness of the event or behavior) and contributed
greatly to the experience of emotional ambivalence. Plea-
sure and displeasure are referred to as the affective core of
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
Negative Valence Factors Guilty Positive Valence Factors
Pleasure
Stealing Immediacy
Value Incongruence Escape
Contradictory Social Cues
Espoused Values in the
Organizational Culture
Subculture Artifacts
Symbols in the immediate work environment
Electronic Monitoring System
Information Security Policy
Behavioral norms shared by coworkers
Supervisor or expectations for behavior
Figure 1.The guilty pleasure of personal Web usage: Intersecting
interpretations and contradictory social cues.
emotions (Albarracn, Johnson, & Zanna, 2005, p. 414).
Regardless of the scale or structure used to categorize emo-
tions, pleasure is a term often used to generally describe the
emotions of joy, happiness, and satisfaction (Fisher, 1997;
Larsen & Diener, 1992; Shaver, Wu, & Schwartz, 1992;
Tran, 2007). In Trans (2007) recent critical review of emo-
tions research, she presents an emotion classification that
includes those based on achievement. Positive achievement
emotions, such as joy and satisfaction, occur in situations
when people have a sense of accomplishment (p. 40) and
experience comfort and fulfillment. The positive aspect of
the informants pleasurable experience was largely attrib-
uted to the joyful benefits of PWU interpreted during and
after the act. These included the immediacy and escape
advantages of PWU as shown in Figure 1.
Positive Valence Factors and Associated Social Cues. One
informant told of how she used the Internet and the organi-
zations printer equipment. For this employee, the resources
were available and immediate, but the risks associated with
PWU were also apparent during and after engaging in this
activity:
Informant (employee): My printer at home was
broken. So, I wanted to print something out from
the Internet. I was going to somewhere over the
weekend. I wanted to print the application and
there was some other agenda. So I came into work
early actually, before 8:30, to try to do that work
and it, you know, blocked me. But I was kind of
nervous, even when that time I was doing it
because I felt like I shouldnt be. I was like run-
ning to the printer to see if it had printed yet. And
then Id, you know, the printer jammed and I was
getting more and more nervous [laughs]. And, it
398 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
was getting closer and closer, and more people are
coming in.... See Im getting red in the face just
thinking about it.
This informant later admitted that using the Internet,
although risky, was enjoyable. She admitted, Even when I
was nervous about someone finding out, I mean, I needed it
at the time. Of course, I enjoyed using it because it took
care of what I needed. Thats probably why I still do it....
Theres some guilt, though, because its like breaking the
rules. In terms of Trans (2007) classification, this infor-
mant engaged in PWU for personal fulfillment; as a result,
she experienced satisfaction. Others echoed feeling plea-
sure when engaging in PWU. The positive emotional ben-
efit of PWU was enjoyed in the physical space and time that
was perceived to be their own. Essentially, the PWU was
interpreted as a shared symbol of ownership within the
informants subculture.
In any workplace, the environment is rich with symbolic
artifacts, such as the physical or behavioral actions of oth-
ers (Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1996). From discussions with
both IT personnel, who observe the interactions between
users and technology, and users, I found that the immediacy
benefit was due, in part, to its symbolic value in this organi-
zation. One informant explained,
Informant (manager): I dont see a problem whether
youre on the phone or whether youre on the
Internet to check on something that is personal. I
went to H&R Block during my lunchtime this
week to get tax information. Did I do something
wrong? Whats the big deal? I also dont see any
harm in someone checking the weather. Im going
to Boston next weekendwell, actually this
weekend. I want to see what the weathers like. I
think its pretty harmless to check the weather. Its
there. Just click on it and check the weather. Its
no big deal. I think if someone wants to check, say
maybe the stock market, whats the big deal? If
they want to know, Ill tell you, Ive used it per-
sonally. I mean, I like going to the Washington
Post for news and stuff, too.
Although the computer and workspace belonged to the
taxpayers, the non-work time spent on the job, such as
breaks and lunches, was symbolically personal to the Inter-
net users. In essence, the space was comfortable and seem-
ingly enhanced their sense of well-being. Applying Trans
(2007) classification, users felt real joy. It was an opportu-
nity to seek out immediate joy during their time and in their
space. To these informants, their desks and computers were
extensions of themselves, and the lunch and breaks allotted
by the organization often occurred within this space.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
The informants also interpreted their PWU as a vehicle
to escape from current work surroundings. For example, an
informant talked about viewing funny pictures on the Inter-
net. Sometimes you just need a grin here at work, and you
dont get too many of those. Like the time I saw funny kitty
pictures on a sitemade me look and laugh for a second. It
gives us a couple of seconds of laughter, or at least a grin...
or a groan... at the end of a joke. Although she felt plea-
sure from both seeing these pictures and the short-lived
laughable getaway, she also recognized thats not what
were supposed to use it for. Later in the interview, this
informant stated, When doing it,... I feel sort of guilty
because I know Im in the wrong.
When informants experienced emotional ambivalence
during and after their PWU, they reported feeling good
about what they did because it was deemed socially accept-
able by their peers. As one informant said, It seems to be
what everybody does. Its like a, dont worry about it
thing. Another informant stated that it became a part of
what they do at work:
Informant (employee): I think its a norm. I think
its a norm that, you know, we all know what
were supposed to do, but you know we might use
it for a few seconds or few minutes. I mean, do I
get inappropriate e-mails every day? No. Again,
its not an everyday thing. Do other people do it?
Obviously they do because I get them from other
people in the organization.
Later in the interview, he expressed, We need a way to
let loose and everyone knows that jumping on the Web is a
way to put the pen down and just get away. To the users,
they could collectively enjoy its benefits of immediacy and
escape, seeing that it was a normative or expected behavior
(Schein, 1996). As one manager put it, There may be pol-
icy and procedure there, but theres a lot of unwritten policy
and procedure, too. The Internet is case in point.
The immediacy and escape that defined their pleasure
also existed within a context of supervisory expectations
that perpetuated PWU acceptance. Across many of the
interviews, supervisors and department heads consistently
recalled how they not only used it for personal reasons but
also allowed it to occur in their department. The interviews
with the IT personnel who observed the Internet activity on
the network supported these findings:
Informant (IT personnel): When youre looking at
department heads, if you look at any of the depart-
ment head user IDs, youll see [that] the higher up
the food chain you go, the higher the abuse of the
Internet is, which, to me, flies in the face of [how]
it should actually be. The least abusive [are]
Stratton 399
because youre the most busy, and it goes down.
Its just like on this e-mail thing I just got; 24
hours I can now see the top ten e-mail users of the
entire organization receiving e-mail in from the
outside are department heads.
The managers acknowledge that some forms of PWU
were indeed inappropriate but, at the same time, permitted
other types of PWU to persist, especially during personal
time. One informant told of how he permitted PWU in his
department and strived to protect his employees:
Informant (manager): Ah, theyre professional peo-
ple. I dont think its in my purview to specifically
look. Im sure they do use it for personal use. I
think for the most part they do it for professional
use. If theyre on their lunch and theyre in there
and they want to use it, thats fine. I know IT can
watch everything they do; can watch everything I
do, and I do instill that in the staff, you know, that,
you know, wherever you go, they know where
youre going. So, you just be careful and its up to
you to watchdog yourself. You know, if it seemed
to be a chronic problem, but if they want to go on
the Internet and check something while theyre on
a break or theyre having a moment when they
need to do something mindless, I dont have a
problem with that. But, I wouldnt want them to
do it under the current situation because its all
tracked. So, Ive told them all to be careful.
With coworkers and managers informally supporting a
subculture of PWU, along with a workspace that was sym-
bolically personal, the informants defined their PWU as
emotionally appealing. However, they simultaneously
reflected on the negative valence underscoring this behav-
ior. This conflict between the positive and negative mean-
ing defined their feelings of guilty pleasure. In this
organization, as depicted in Figure 1, the immediacy and
escape competed with informants interpretations of PWU
as a form of thievery that was incongruent with their values
and principles for rule adherence.
Negative Valence Factors and Associated Social Cues.
Although on one level, the act of PWU was acceptable
behavior among their peers, it was also a violation of orga-
nizational policy. The municipalitys formal position on
Internet usage at work was clearly communicated to all
users in the information security policy. The policy stated,
It is unacceptable to use the organizations networking
facilities for activities unrelated to the organizations mis-
sion; for activities unrelated to official assignments and/or
job responsibilities; and for any activity meant to foster per-
sonal gain. In discussions with IT personnel and the
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
organizations leadership team responsible for drafting and
approving this policy, the official message sent to all staff
was that PWU, regardless of the type of Web site visited,
would be considered a violation of the expectations for
behavior outlined in the policy.
There was also pressure from the organization to accul-
turate members with values that encouraged appropriate
work-related Internet behavior. The monitoring system, for
example, was an obtrusive medium for sending social cues
to users. Whereas this policy statement was put in place 1
year prior to the study, along with antiquated electronic
monitoring software to observe Internet usage, a new
sophisticated software product was recently installed
approximately 1 month prior to this field research. The new
system was more restrictive and detailed in its surveillance
capabilities. Essentially, all aspects of user activity would
be monitored, including when, where, and how long they
visited a particular site. In addition, the IT department,
along with recommendations from the software developer,
determined which sites were deemed inappropriate and
unrelated to government business. Access for those specific
sites would then be blocked. When users visited such Web
sites, a window would appear on their screen informing
them that the particular site was in violation of policy and
access was denied.
Revisiting the informant who used the Internet and print-
ing equipment, her account was a rich depiction of the
guilty pleasure felt after engaging in PWU. After telling me
how she used the organizations resources for personal rea-
sons, representative of other informants accounts, she also
admitted feeling guilty:
Informant (employee): Yes, guilty. Its that whole
thing of if I take a paper and a pencil home from
work, havent I stolen something from the organi-
zation and the office, and stuff? If you want to get
real tight down to legalities and that, then yes, Im
doing something wrong.
Earlier in the interview, this informant indicated that the
instant benefit of being able to access a Web document and
print at work was something that she enjoyed. It was some-
thing I needed to do. I, of course, liked it because it saved me
time and, remember, my printer is broken at home. This
informant not only experienced pleasure from the immediate,
positive consequences of her PWU, but she also felt guilt
because in her interpretation, such behavior was synonymous
with stealing. Interpreting PWU as theft, her guilt was largely
a manifestation of the definition of rule-breaking behavior
outlined in the organizations policy and values.
For individuals who tended to follow rules in their per-
sonal lives, the messages sent by the organization influ-
enced their behavior at work. One informant described how
400 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
engaging in PWU was contrary to his values for rule adher-
ence. However, he continued to use it for personal reasons
because of the pleasure he received from the immediate
communication benefits:
Informant (employee): I dont think that they [man-
agement] would be angered, but my immediate
reaction was, Oops. I probably shouldnt have
done that. Because I was told that Im not to use
the Internet for personal reasons, and I did sign a
form saying that I was not going to, I felt guilty
because Im a good, honest person and I just kind
of betrayed my own personal self.
Researcher: At any other time that you use the Internet
for personal reasons, do you feel the same way?
Informant (employee): Guilt? Absolutely. Every
single time I used it. And then, I will think about
it at home even.... Like, Oh my god. Why did I
do that? And, its like a brief thing, like even
when Im checking my Yahoo mail.
Researcher: Why did you continue to use it even
though you felt guilty?
Informant (employee): Its there and I like to stay in
touch with my buddies from college and my fam-
ily who live out east. Like I said, I also like to go
on news from where I grew up, too.
When informants felt guilty pleasure, their interpreta-
tions were partially constructed by the contradictory social
cues. The positive valence associated with the immediacy
and escape characteristics of PWU were reinforced by sub-
cultures that supported such behavior. Whether it was the
symbolism inherent to their workspace, or the coworkers
and supervisory staff who normalized PWU as acceptable
behavior, the positive side of the informants experience
was a powerful force in defining their PWU. In the case of
the negative valence, the organizational culture communi-
cated disapproving messages through policy and monitor-
ing technologies. The guilt represented the watchful eyes of
the organization. When informants defined it as stealing or
as a contradiction to their values for proper rule-abiding
behavior, the organizations role in contributing to the guilt
became evident.
The Push and Pull of PWU Guilty Pleasure
The informants who felt guilty pleasure often reacted with
varying behaviors, including continued PWU. This was con-
sistent with user behavior throughout the organization. Dur-
ing both periods of data collection, the IT department
reported continued PWU. In Figure 2, the data indicate that
from April to June, the percentage of users engaging in
PWU grew in certain content areas. For instance, more users
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
visited hobby sites (e.g., personal Web sites, Web mail, and
social networking), sports, entertainment, and miscella-
neous. The latter category includes sites devoted to games,
sexuality, travel, and music, among others. The number of
Web sites visited per category is depicted in Figure 3.
It is outside the scope of this study to examine why spe-
cific categories of sites were visited more often than others
by a greater percentage of the users. Nevertheless, the quan-
titative data do suggest that PWU, as defined by the infor-
mants and this organization, indeed existed and continued
to persist over the course of this study. As modeled in Figure
2, some users temporarily limited their PWU, whereas oth-
ers simply continued personal Internet behaviors. Infor-
mants rationalized or neutralized (Griffin, OLeary-Kelly,
& Collins, 1998) their behavior and associated post-PWU
guilt to such a degree that using the Internet for personal
reasons continued unabated. Over the course of the study,
however, the informants emotional meaning about their
PWU began to diverge.
An approach-avoidance model that depicts the emotion-
driven response behaviors is shown in Figure 4. As revealed
in the model, some continued to experience guilty pleasure
during (GPi) and after (GPii) their PWU, whereas others no
longer felt guilty. The data reveal that the push toward PWU
was perpetuated by the pleasure and related positive valence
factors, whereas the pulling effect away from PWU was due
to the guilt and negative valence factors. Three overarching
behavioral scenarios emerged from the interview data con-
cerning the approach and avoidance of PWU.
In the first behavioral scenario, Decreased PWU, the
self-regulatory function of guilt (Fabricius, 2004) led some
to temporarily avoid () PWU by complying with policy on
a limited basis (LPC). However, they would return to it at a
later point due to developed rationalization strategies (R).
Therefore, the rationalizations led users to further approach
(+) PWU activities at a later point.
The second scenario is labeled Cyclical PWU Guilty
Pleasure. In these cases, their rationalizations (R) along the
underlying pleasure permitted them to fully approach (+)
further PWU without pause. Yet, they would still experi-
ence the ambivalence during their continued usage (GPi).
In the third behavioral scenario, Pleasure Winning Out,
the once emotionally ambivalent users became fully con-
trolled by the joyful nature of such activity (P-PWU) and the
underlying rationalization strategies (R). Hence, guilt-free
users approached (+) the PWU without apprehension. These
three scenarios are fully presented in the following analysis.
Scenario I: Decreasing PWU
Through Limited Policy Compliance (LPC)
In some instances, informants reflected on their attempts
to comply with existing policy (LPC). However, such
Stratton 401

*Includes sites related to art, finance, games, music, sexuality and travel.
Figure 2. Percentage of users engaged in personal Web usage by category.

*Includes sites related to art, finance, games, music, sexuality and travel.
Figure 3. Most visited personal Web usage sites by category.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
402 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
Guilty Pleasure Post-PWU
PWU Guilty Pleasure
Ambivalence Ambivalence
Figure 4.The guilty pleasure of personal Web usage: An approach-avoidance model.
compliance was limited in scope and short-lived. For
instance, one informant discussed how she felt guilty and
consequently stopped using the Internet to check her per-
sonal e-mail.
Informant (employee): There is definitely a line that
shouldnt be crossed, I think. In fact, I was check-
ing my Yahoo e-mail at work regularly and I
stopped doing that.
Researcher: Why?
Informant (employee): When I was doing it, I was
feeling guilty because we once got something
from management saying, Youve spent this
much time on these sites that you arent supposed
to be at. So, I had that in the back of my mind.
Researcher: But you, you used the Yahoo to check
your personal e-mail. How did [you] feel then?
Informant (employee): Well, we had some down
time. If you want something to do...
Researcher: You felt guilty, but at the same time, it
was something you wanted to do?
Informant (employee): I dont feel conflicted now.
Researcher: But, after you were doing it?
Informant (employee): Yeah, especially if I spent
more than 15 minutes at itand there are other
things that should be done instead. Yeah, but I
almost daily correspond with a friend of mine at
work on our e-mail here.
Although this informant stopped using her Web-based
e-mail program, she continued to engage in PWU by using
the organizations e-mail because of the pleasure she received
from the activity. Another informant reflected on similar
attempts to reduce PWU activity but succumbed to the posi-
tive emotional meaning attached to such behavior. This infor-
mant told how he limited his usage since monitoring was put
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
Rationalization Strategies Pleasure
Monitoring without enforcement PWU
PWU is appropriate behavior
Limited Policy
Compliance
into place. Feeling guilty about his behavior because of the
rule-breaking nature of PWU, and the fact that his actions
were being observed, this informant decreased his usage and
the types of sites visited. However, as his account suggests,
the degree of policy compliance was limited.
Informant (employee): I know they are watching
and I know I shouldnt be doing that much surfing
all the time. Do I feel bad about it? You bet. I
mean, its against the rules and stuff. Like I said
before, its sort of like taking pencils from work
not a huge deal, but still, I shouldnt do it all the
time. Ive stopped going to the sports sites as
much as I did before. Look, will I tell you that I
stop altogether? No. I still check out the news
occasionally and talk with my friends on e-mail. I
just do it during my break, so its okay.
Scenario II: Cyclical PWU Guilty Pleasure
Some users temporarily avoided PWU only to continue at a
later point or to a different degree. Yet, others approached
such behavior without end. In both cases, the self-regula-
tory nature of the guilt was momentarily set aside by users
rationalization strategies (R). In a sense, these strategies
allowed the users to feel okay about future PWU. The
rationalizations developed out of the individuals interpre-
tations of their guilty pleasure experiences felt during (GPi)
and after (GPii) their PWU. With PWU normalized in the
subculture, informants developed strategies to validate their
acts in the face of disapproving organizational values.
These rationalizations simultaneously lessened feelings of
guilt and permitted them to approach PWU in the future
(GPi). As I will discuss, the informants who engaged in
PWU often gave excuses for their behavior and rejected and
redefined the organizations definition of PWU.
Stratton 403
In an attempt to justify their PWU, users described how
they continued because of the nonexistent consequences.
The data confirm that users rationalized their PWU because
the monitoring system did not translate into adverse conse-
quences. These strategies neutralized the post-PWU guilt
and permitted them to enjoy it without concern. Essentially,
the informants felt good about what they did because the
lack of consequences sent a message that PWU may not be
as illicit as the policy implies. The informant who felt guilty
because of value incongruence gave a particularly intrigu-
ing look into his rationalization strategy:
Informant (employee): What I think is that the orga-
nization has given us a policy on usage. They
track our Internet usage, and have forever because
they come back with things, and no one has told
me that I shouldnt be where I am, so I think that
I can go all the places that you mention because no
one has come and said not to. Basically, I probably
abuse. Im suspecting that I abuse it more than
anybody in my department. I, I do use it. Im on a
couple Web listservs, and theres often links to go
to sites. I go there more often. I also look at news-
papers. I get daily the local newspaper. I look at
my hometown newspaper from where I grew up
and I look at the local radio news. I do that almost
daily, I guess.
As his narrative continues, the informant excused his
rule-breaking behavior as simply a result of how the organi-
zation actually provided users the opportunity and resources
to violate the policy.
Informant (employee): But, with the Internet thing,
its like theyre saying right up front that its like,
you guys cant be trusted so were going to put
this software on. Well, why give it to us at all?
Why, why, why have it? Its all that rope to hang
yourself thing. Seriously, if theres a plate of cook-
ies in the break room, and I pass by the break
room ten times, you know Im going to stop five
times and have a cookie, you know [patting his
stomach]. And, if they say that you can only have
one, Ill have one. But, if its just theres no limits,
its like a kid in a candy store.
He later responded, Why should I feel guilty? I mean,
they let me eat the cookies. I guess its just that I do feel bad
when I do it, but Im not going to stop. In this case, the
informant described the pleasure he received from the plate
of cookies, which was a metaphor for the Internet. Because
there appears to be no consequences for the occasional
cookie stealing, we begin to see how his positive feelings
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
became validated, whereas feelings of guilt were temporar-
ily set aside. It is interesting that we see the guilt reemerge
when reflecting on his continued use.
Although users felt guilty because PWU was recognized,
on one level, as theft, akin to stealing office supplies, on
another level, they rationalized it as justifiable behavior.
Therefore, it was not surprising that those conflicted about
their PWU attempted to rationalize their post-PWU guilty
feelings. To these users, PWU was a legitimate activity that
should not be defined by the organization as rule-breaking
behavior. For example, the following informants believed
their varying uses of the Internet cannotand should not
be labeled as bad behavior.
Informant (employee): Well, I think if youre going
to have Internet, then have total access to it. No...
no blocking, other than, you know, the pornogra-
phy, the gambling, and things like that, obviously.
But, as far as anything else, you should have free
access. And, it should be an individual, since they
know here when youre on and what if youre
behind in your work, then you should be disci-
plined. But, if you keep up with your work, you do
it appropriately, theres no problem with that, then
what you do on the computer while youre here.
Informant (employee): Someone needs to show me
anywhere in the reports where Im going to any
bad Web sites. I dont. Ive never done it and
never will. I go to legitimate sites that allow me to
see if the weather is still good up in parts of the
area because we were just there last week hiking
and biking. And... Ill probably get on it again...
because I dont like to give that up. Riding bikes,
its too... too important to me.
In rationalizing PWU as legitimate behavior, we begin to
see how informants emotions were affected. When they
accepted their behavior as somewhat appropriate, the ratio-
nalizations supported their feelings of pleasure and seemed
to diminish any post-PWU guilt. Although the data do not
point to a complete resolution of the informants emotional
ambivalence, as some informants indicated continued guilty
pleasure during future PWU (GPi), we can conclude that
rationalization strategies were instrumental in further defin-
ing the positive aspects of their emotional experience.
Scenario III: Pleasure Winning Out
A divergent theme emerged in the data analysis. For some
informants, the guilt was no longer on their emotional radar.
Instead, PWU was defined solely as a pleasure-inducing
behavior devoid of guilt. Select informants, although expe-
riencing such ambivalence in earlier interviews, now
404 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
revealed that both PWU guilt and post-PWU guilt had sub-
sided; essentially, pleasure won:
Informant (employee): Our last discussion was a bit
ago, but I believe that after I spoke with you, I
became stricter on limiting my use of the Internet
for personal reasons. As time went by, though, I
relaxed my standards and again began to use it
whenever. Part of this was due to discussions with
fellow coworkers and because they seemed more
liberal in their use. I, in turn, was more liberal. I
guess I just dont feel guilty anymore. Once again,
Ive decided that I will continue to use work com-
puters for personal use. There are lots of different
ways I can abuse time or goof off at work.
This informants reflection on past behavior and inten-
tions for future PWU, which was consistent with a number
of informants narratives, implies that the emotional mean-
ing associated with PWU changed. Both the immediacy and
escape benefits associated with PWU, and the underlying
rationalization strategies, were cited as reasons that these
informants attached a positive meaning to their PWU. As
these informants suggest, with the fact that enforcement
was nonexistent and PWU was normative, along with its
benefits, the guilty feelings subsided.
Informant (employee): I only use the Internet for
personal reasons when I connect to my Web mail.
The workplace has acknowledged that communi-
cating with family as necessary is okay. We cant
use the county e-mail accounts for personal pur-
poses, so I just get on the Web. Its available, so
why not? I dont feel guilty at all anymore after
hearing about what other people have been
observed doing.
Informant (employee): You do a little this and a
little that throughout the day. I mean, IT reminds
us that were being watched and everything, but
doing it during lunch or something isnt a big deal.
It gets me away. I like checking out the weather
and news and stuff. The weather is not blocked,
and CNN and FoxI can get to those sites too.
Informant (employee): I probably will be bad every
once in a while, you know. Take, for instance, the
time that somebody sent me a joke. It was a really
good one, and I didnt just read it but I also sent it
home to myself and to my friends. Sometimes you
just have to send it to somebody for a good laugh.
You just need that laughit just hits, well that, or it
just hits the moment. There was one that came, you
know, and I thought it was such a stress reliever.
But, it was a very... it went back to the serenity
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
prayer and reminding you that you can only take on
one thing at a time, you know, and it just fit in with
all of the issues that were going on in a few parts of
my life, and a few other people I knew, and I
thought, you know, reading this just made a whole
lot of difference to my mindset right now, to me. If
I can help somebody else, if by reading this will
help them, I should send it on. This is a stress man-
agement moment for myself [sic] and somebody
else. You know, we all have our, you know, we have
stressful moments that are work related, you know.
I will tell you, I actually get some of the jokes from
higher up people than myself.
To the last informant, using the Internet to e-mail jokes
or other non-work-related communications provided an
opportunity for relaxation and enjoyment. Although she
admitted to moments of PWU, she, by no means, associated
the behavior as having adverse effects on the organization.
On the contrary, her reaction to the PWU was one of plea-
sure stemming from the positive consequences of sending
and receiving e-mails.
In a theme reflected in many narratives, one particular
informant again interpreted her PWU as having both imme-
diacy and escape benefits. Using the organizations e-mail
to communicate with her husband was defined as enjoyable
and necessary behavior. The ability to e-mail her husband at
her leisure, which provided a form of respite from her work
life, resulted in a pleasurable feeling and continued PWU.
Researcher: Since the last time we spoke, have you
changed your Internet habits when it came to per-
sonal use? I mean, before, you mentioned how
you enjoyed surfing the Web or sending e-mails
but, at the same time, indicated some guilt during
and after using it. How would you describe your
feelings now?
Informant (employee): Yeah, well, I definitely dont
feel guilty after anymore. I used to, but its just
something I like to do and need to do it, too. The
only thing now is that if I do get e-mail from my
husband whenever I want on the county e-mail
system instead of AOL, since that is blocked. Hes
like my psych-consult when Im having a bad day
[laughter].
Unlike those who temporarily complied, or those who
simply continued using PWU while feeling the guilty plea-
sure after the fact, there were some who reflected on a new
emotional experience. Free of restriction or constraint,
these informants were captured by both their rationaliza-
tions and the positive emotional meaning associated with
their PWU. In the end, as one informant put it, Theyve
Stratton 405
always made me feel guilty and stuff, but now Im not
really feeling it. Im not doing anything bad.
Discussion and Conclusions
Contributions to the Literature
The aim of this research is to explore the emotions of PWU.
The findings revealed in this study both further develop the
PWU phenomenon and contribute to the broader research
on emotions in the workplace. This investigation used the
phenomenological method in an effort to discover meaning
and knowledge that offers a portal of insight into the indi-
vidual and idiosyncratic (Conklin, 2007, p. 276). Through
a thematic analysis of informants narratives, there emerged
a pattern of complex and competing felt experiences and
divergent behaviors.
Departing from the extant research on PWU, this study
appears to be the first of its kind to investigate both users
subjective realities and actual objective behavioral data.
The latter, often difficult to access because of the politically
sensitive nature of this topic (see U.S. Department of the
Treasury, 2000), provided context that supported the
assumption that PWU was indeed a prevalent reality in this
organization. The former, however, afforded an opportunity
to identify PWU as emotion inducing.
Researchers have found that users often possess favor-
able attitudes toward PWU, possibly associated with the
benefits of balancing work-life demands, as Anandarajan,
Narasimha, and Simmers (2006) discovered. These posi-
tive attitudes, in turn, seem to influence users intentions to
further engage in this behavior (Lee et al., 2004). Although
users may hold positive attitudes toward PWU, the current
research takes a step further by exposing the emotional
nuances inherent to user attitudes. For informants in this
study, the PWU is defined by both guilt and pleasure.
Building on existing research that identifies the pushpull
effect behind PWU (e.g., Polzer-Debruyne, 2008), it is the
self-restriction and indulgence in this type of emotional
ambivalence that underscores the PWU behavior. For some
informants, the escape and immediacy of engaging in
PWU, along with certain justifications, led them to con-
tinue such behavior. In effect, the pleasure pushed users
toward PWU. For others, however, the intrapsychic con-
flict remained and reflected both PWU approach and
avoidance. The negative valence associated with the PWU
led some to temporarily succumb to the guilt and pull away
from their personal Internet activities. Defining this
phenomenon in terms of emotional meaning offers a
deeper understanding of users experiences and possibly
greater insight into the ensuing attitudes and behavioral
intentions.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
As Pratt and Doucet (2000) suggest, scholars should
come to understand the nature of emotional ambivalence in
organizations and situations in which types of conflict exist
(Fong & Tiedens, 2002). Larsen (2007) also adds that little
is known about the consequences associated with mixed
emotions. To that effort, this study reveals a new type of
guilty pleasure. The dual-valence experience that users felt
was often defined in terms of addressing competing values,
interests, and priorities. For some users, the conflict was
resolved, but for others, the guilty pleasure experienced
during and after PWU persisted. The varying affect-driven
behavioral reactions discovered in this study further the
guilty pleasure literature by uncovering situations in which
the guilt or pleasure actually wins out. In his well-known
experimental study on this topic, Griner-Sorolla (2001)
suggests that to determine when one surrenders to the guilt
and avoids the indulgence, we should attempt to uncover
how we experience [the guilt] (p. 219) as it relates to the
potential adverse consequences associated with the indul-
gence. Given that guilty feelings often induce us to justify
our behavior (Frazier & Meisenhelder, 1985; Kivetz &
Zheng, 2006; Lim, 2002), users in this study participated in
PWU because pleasurable benefits were anticipated.
Because there were no adverse long-term consequences
associated with policy violation, the guilt could not control
the choice of approaching the PWU. In fact, guilt had only
temporary influence over users; compliance was often
short-lived before succumbing to rationalization strategies
leading to continued PWU. Although some users still
reported feeling conflicted during and after their PWU, this
study suggests that without any adverse consequences
fully known or experienced by the users, the short-term
benefits that gave meaning to the positive valence would
prevail.
Directions for Future Research
Although this exploratory study yielded findings that con-
tribute to both the theoretical and practical understanding of
PWU, there are still many unanswered questions. As it
relates to this study, there are three opportunities for organi-
zational scholars. First, researchers have begun defining
PWU as a potential addictive behavior (Chak & Leung,
2004; Engelberg & Sjberg, 2004; Griffiths, 2003, 2004).
Would those addicted to PWU experience guilty pleasure,
or would the guilt be less pronounced, depending on their
interpretations and organizational contexts? Would PWU
addicts define their behavior differently? Research suggests
that addicts are less able to control their emotions (Chak &
Leung, 2004), which may reflect the presence and influence
of pleasure seeking for short-term benefit. Further study is
needed to provide clarity.
406 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
A second area to explore would be differences in organi-
zational context and the influences on emotional meaning
attached to PWU. In this study, the PWU existed in a some-
what rigid environment where values for information secu-
rity, accountability, and rule adherence were espoused. In
addition, PWU became normative as both peers and super-
visors approved of such behavior. In organizations where
monitoring controls are fully implemented, coupled with
adverse consequences for rule-breaking behavior, users
emotional experiences may be quite different. For example,
the rationalizations and pleasure-seeking aspect of PWU
may be subdued by feelings of guilt. In another potential
context, mobile technologies may afford opportunities to
engage in personal Internet behaviors without accessing the
workplace computer resources. As new technologies
emerge, individuals will continue to seek out ways to
engage in personal activities at work because doing so
helps them balance work, personal, home and leisure
(DAbate, 2005, p. 1023). Will we see additional controls
placed on PWU on mobile devices and, if so, will users still
define PWU as a guilty pleasure and to what extent? These
questions remain unanswered.
Last, researchers could examine the potential relationship
between ambivalence toward PWU and user reactions to
organizational control strategies that discourage such behav-
ior. Exposing the complex nature of user emotions about
their own PWU can be useful to leaders who seek to create
change in organizations, specifically in the technology area.
Cenfetelli (2004) suggests that emotions are important and
overlooked contributors to technology use.... As technol-
ogy becomes more and more a part of our lives, we will need
to understand its influence beyond our heads and into our
hearts (p. F6). The findings here suggest that users ambiv-
alence toward PWU provides an opportunity for leaders to
clarify expectations and reflect on how organizational
responses to such behavior influence follower emotions.
Effective leadership requires emotional knowledge and
sensitivity (Fineman, 2003, p. 91). With the use of bureau-
cratic control mechanisms, such as electronic surveillance
and strict usage policies, the guilt associated with using the
prohibited technology may persist if the pleasurable benefits
are crushed by the coercive policies. If this occurs, guilt may
be compounded by further pain in the form of frustration
and anger, which may lead to workplace stress (Holman,
2002, 2003). Simply assuming that users will succumb to
the guilt without adverse consequences for the organization
could reflect a severe misunderstanding of follower senti-
ment. This is an area of further study that would have practi-
cal implications for technology leaders in particular.
Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) state, Perhaps the most
promising research questions concern the specific links
between the content and context of work and the emergence
of emotions (p. 118). Researchers interested in describing
and explaining behavior inside organizations must venture
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
out into the vast world of work to take the pulse of mem-
bers emotional experiences. By doing so, we will be better
equipped to describe not only how and why we feel, but
also how those emotions lead to specific behaviors. In this
study, a new guilty pleasure was discovered. The PWU phe-
nomenon, an existing force inside many 21st-century work-
places, was further defined and understood through the lens
of those who feel and behave. We must continue to move
beyond the rational and into the emotional. This study takes
a step in that direction.
APPENDIX
Interview Protocol
Informant Type: Employee-Users
Initial Questionsa
1. What does your position entail here in X government?
2. Do you often use the Internet pertaining to your job? Is
it an essential tool for you?
Personal Web Usage (PWU)
3. Do you think that visiting sites (e.g., news, shopping,
etc.) is okay, or do you think it is wrong? Please explain.
4. Many employees use the Internet for personal reasons
in the workplace to some degree (e.g., checking e-mail,
banking, etc.). Can you think of a time or times when
you experienced this? Was it a problem? If so, please
think about the circumstances and your feelings in
these circumstances.
5. If you used the Internet for personal reasons in the past,
can you tell me about how you felt immediately after
using it? How do you feel today about using it?
6. Why did you feel conflicted? [if an informant indicates
that he or she felt conflicted after using it]
7. Are you aware that a security policy exists that outlines
appropriate use? What do you think about this policy?
8. How should you act by organizational standards?
9. Do you believe that changing your Internet habits is a
worthwhile effort? Why or why not?
10. What would you think if the organization took away all
of your Internet privileges? How would you describe
your feelings about something like that?
11. How do you think your coworkers feel about PWU?
12. Do you think that your coworkers adhere to the rules
about using the Internet?
13. Were there ever instances in which your coworkers
abused their Internet privileges? If so, do you think
its a regular occurrence here at the organization? If
so, why?
(continued)
Stratton 407
Appendix (continued)
14. You said that you believed the employees would (or
would not) adhere to the computer use policy. Does
their support (or opposition) influence how you feel
about PWU?
Informant Type: Management-Users
Initial Question
1. I would like to start out by asking you a little bit about
yourself. What is your role in this department? How
many employees do you oversee?
PWU
2. Do you think that visiting sites (e.g., news, shopping,
etc.) is okay, or do you think it is wrong? At what point
do you believe it is crossing the line?
3. Can you describe how employees use the Internet here
in the organization and, specifically, in your depart-
ment? Would you say it is mostly used for office pur-
poses or do you believe they often visit sites that are
unrelated to organization business?
4. [If the informant indicates that certain behaviors are
okay, I will ask him or her the following question about
his or her own behavior.] Do you engage in any type of
PWU? If so, do you believe it is legitimate behavior?
Why?
5. Can you describe your feelings after using the Internet?
6. As a supervisor, have you ever observed PWU activity?
Can you think of a time or times when you experienced
this as a problem? If so, please think about the circum-
stances and your feelings in these circumstances.
7. Has a staff member ever been disciplined or talked to
for using the Internet for personal reasons? If so, can
you tell me about that instance?
8. Do you believe being disciplined for such activity is
justified? Why or why not?
9. How do employees react when you confront them
about their usage? Do they know that what they are
doing is wrong? How so? Do they continue to use it
regardless of what you say?
10. Why do you believe PWU exists in the organiza-
tion? Why do you believe employees engage in such
behavior?
11. What do you think you and your organization do to
prevent abusive activities on the Internet?
12. What would you think if the organization took away
employee Internet privileges?
(continued)
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
Appendix (continued)
Informant Type: Information Technology (IT) Personnel
Initial Question
1. As a member of the IT staff, what is your role?
PWU
2. Do you think that visiting sites (e.g., news, shopping,
etc.) is okay, or do you think it is wrong? At what point
do you believe it is crossing the line?
3. Can you describe how employees use the Internet here
in the organization and, specifically, in your depart-
ment? Would you say it is mostly used for office
purposes or do you believe they often visit sites that are
unrelated to organization business?
4. Can you describe your feelings about using the Internet?
5. [If the informant indicates that certain behaviors are
okay, I will ask him or her the following question about
his or her own behavior.] Do you engage in any type of
PWU? If so, do you believe it is legitimate behavior?
Why?
6. Have you ever observed PWU activitybasically,
misuse of Internet privileges? Can you think of a time
or times when you experienced this as a problem? If so,
please think about the circumstances and your feelings
in these circumstances.
7. Has a staff member ever been disciplined or talked to
for using the Internet for personal reasons? If so, can
you tell me about a time when this happened?
8. Do you believe being disciplined for such activity is
justified? Why or why not?
9. How do employees react when you confront them
about their usage? Do they know that what they are
doing is wrong? How so? Do they continue to use it
regardless of what you say?
10. Why do you believe PWU exists in the organization?
Why do you believe employees engage in such behavior?
11. What do you think you and your organization do to
prevent abusive activities on the Internet?
12. What would you think if the organization took away
employee Internet privileges?
a. Other than the initial question(s), no specific order was established
or used in the interviews; the protocol simply acted as a guide and not
a script.
Authors Note
I wish to thank colleagues and mentors for their unwavering
support and comments in the development of this article.
Sue Faerman, Mitch Abolafia, John Rohrbaugh, David
McCaffrey, and Celia Ferradino at the University at Albany,
408 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
along with Mary Jo Hatch from the University of Virginia,
Andrea Polzer-Debruyne from The University of Auckland,
David Gurzick from Hood College, Deneen Hatmaker
from the University of Connecticut, Amy Smith from the
University of Massachusetts Boston, and Shawn Flanigan
from San Diego State University were all instrumental
in drafting the final version. Lastly, I would like to thank
Ken Thompson and two anonymous reviewers for their
comments and commitment to this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Albarracn, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (2005). The hand-
book of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Abrahamsson, K. H., Berggren, U., Hallberg, L., & Carlsson, S. G.
(2002). Ambivalence in coping with dental fear and avoidance: A
qualitative study. Journal of Health Psychology, 7(6), 653-664.
American Management Association. (2001). Workplace moni-
toring and surveillance: Policies and practices. Retrieved
December 2003 from http://www.amanet.org/research/archive_
2001_1999.htm#2001
American Management Association. (2007). 2007 electronic mon-
itoring & surveillance survey. Retrieved November 2008 from
http://press.amanet.org/press-releases/177/2007-electronic-
monitoring-surveillance-survey/
Anandarajan, M., Narasimha, N., & Simmers, C. A. (2006).
Perceptions of personal Web usage in the workplace: A
Q-Methodology approach. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
9(3), 325-335.
Anandarajan, M., & Simmers, C. A. (Eds.). (2004). Personal Web
usage in the workplace: A guide to effective human resources
management. London: Idea Group.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the work-
place: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Wash-
ington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different
forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus of
control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1067-1084.
Brief, A. P. (2001). Commentary: Organizational behavior and the
study of affect: Keep your eyes on the organization. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 131-139.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior:
Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
279-307.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cenfetelli, R. T. (2004). Getting in touch with our feelings towards
technology. Paper presented at the 64th annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Chak, K., & Leung, L. (2004). Shyness and locus of control as
predictors of Internet addiction and Internet use. CyberPsy-
chology & Behavior, 7(5), 559-570.
Conklin, T. A. (2007). Method or madness: Phenomenology asknowl-
edge creator. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 275-287.
DAbate, C. P. (2005). Working hard or hardly working: A study of
individuals engaging in personal business on the job. Human
Relations, 58(8), 1009-1032.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Emotion in organizations. The Academy
of Management Annals, 1(1), 315-386.
Elster, J. (1998). Emotions and economic theory. Journal of Eco-
nomic Literature, 34, 47-74.
Emerson, R. M. (Ed.). (2001). Contemporary field research: Perspec-
tives and formulations. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Engelberg, E., & Sjberg, L. (2004). Internet use, social skills, and
adjustment. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(1), 41-47.
Fabricius, D. (2004). Guilt, shame, disobedience: Social regula-
tory mechanisms and the Inner Normative System. Psycho-
analytic Inquiry, 24(2), 309-327.
Fineman, S. (2000). Emotional arenas revisited. In S. Fineman (Ed.),
Emotion in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 1-24). London: Sage.
Fineman, S. (2003). Understanding emotion at work. London:
Sage.
Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotionand the
cautionary tale of emotional intelligence. Human Relations,
57(6), 719-740.
Fisher, C. D. (1997). Moods and emotions while workingmiss-
ing pieces of job satisfaction. Bond University Schoo l of Busi-
ness Discussion Papers, 64.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script
approach to anger episodes between workers and their supe-
riors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 147-162.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on cre-
ativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016-1030.
Fong, C. T., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2002). Dueling experiences and
dual ambivalences: Emotional and motivational ambivalence
of women in high status positions. Motivation and Emotion,
26(1), 105-121.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-
aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931.
Frazier, C. E., & Meisenhelder, C. (1985). Exploratory notes on
criminality and emotional ambivalence. Qualitative Sociol-
ogy, 8(3), 266-284.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psycholo-
gist, 43(5), 349-358.
Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard Business School Publishing.
Stratton 409
Gibson, S. K. (2006). Mentoring of women faculty: The role of
organizational politics and culture. Innovative Higher Educa-
tion, 31(1), 63-79.
Gordan, L. A., Loeb, M. P., Lucyshyn, W., & Richardson, R.
(2005, September). CSI-FBI computer crime and security sur-
vey. Retrieved December 2005 from www.gocsi.com
Greenfield, D. N., & Davis, R. A. (2002). Lost in cyberspace: The
web @ work. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 347-353.
Griffin, R. W., OLeary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. M. (1998). Dys-
functional behavior in organizations: Non-violent and deviant
behaviors. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Internet abuse in the workplace: Issues and
concerns for employers and employment counselors. Journal
of Employment Counseling, 40, 87-96.
Griffiths, M. (2004). Internet abuse and addiction in the work-
place: Issues and concerns for employers. In M. Ananda-
rajan & C. A. Simmers (Eds.), Personal Web usage in the
workplace: A guide to effective human resources management
(pp. 230-245). London: Idea Group.
Griner-Sorolla, R. (2001). Guilty pleasures and grim necessities:
Affective attitudes in dilemmas of self-control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 206-221.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualita-
tive research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand-
book of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social
structure. The American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551-575.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization
of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holman, D. (2002). Employee well-being in call centers. Human
Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 35-50.
Holman, D. (2003). Phoning in sick? An overview of employee
stress in call centers. Leadership & Organization Develop-
ment Journal, 24(3), 123-130.
Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenome-
nology (W. R. B. Gibson, trans.). New York: The Macmillan Co.
Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2006). Determinants of justification and
self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135(4),
572-587.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for con-
ducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in informa-
tion systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94.
Kuchment, A., & Springen, K. (2008, November 29). The tangled
web of porn in the office. Newsweek. Retrieved November 29,
2008, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/171279
Larsen, J. T. (2007). Ambivalence. Encyclopedia of Social Psy-
chology. Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.sageerefe
rence.com/socialpsychology/Article_n17.html
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people
feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81(4), 684-696.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the
circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
personality and social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 25-59). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Lee, Z., Lee, Y., & Kim, Y. (2004). Personal Web usage in orga-
nizations. In M. Anandarajan & C. A. Simmers (Eds.), Per-
sonal Web usage in the workplace: A guide to effective human
resources management (pp. 28-45). London: Idea Group.
Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing,
neutralizing, and organizational justice. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 23, 675-694.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings:
A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mahatanankoon, P., & Igbaria, M. (2004). Impact of personal
Web usage on employees well-being. In M. Anandarajan, &
C. A. Simmers (Eds.), Personal Web usage in the workplace:
A guide to effective human resources management (pp. 246-
261). London: Idea Group.
Malachowski, D., & Simonini, J. (2006). Wasted time at work
still costing companies billions in 2006. Retrieved Septem-
ber 2007 from http://salary.com/sitesearch/layoutscripts/sisl_
display.asp?filename=&path=/destinationsearch/personal/
par542_body.html
Manrique de Lara, P. Z. (2006). Fear in organizations: Does intimi-
dation by formal punishment mediate the relationship between
interactional justice and workplace Internet deviance? Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 580-592.
Moore, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2004). Anything else is just one-
sided myopia: Researching emotion at workdabbing some
color on the emotional canvass [sic]. Paper presented at the
Fourth International Conference on Emotions in Organiza-
tional Life, London, England.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nord, D. G., McCubbins, T. F., & Horn-Nord, J. (2006). E-moni-
toring in the workplace: Privacy, legislation and surveillance
software. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 73-77.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure
of emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
Polzer-Debruyne, A. M. (2008). Psychological and workplace
attributes that influence Personal Web Use (PWU). Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation, Massey University, NZ.
Pratt, M. G., & Barnett, C. K. (1997). Emotions and unlearning
in Amway recruiting techniques: Promoting change through
SAFE ambivalence. Management Learning, 28(1), 65-88.
Pratt, M. G., & Doucet, L. (1999). Marriages of convenience and
other trade-offs: Exploring the ambivalent nature of organiza-
tional relationships. Unpublished manuscript.
Pratt, M. G., & Doucet, L. (2000). Ambivalent feelings in organi-
zational relationships. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in orga-
nizations (2nd ed., pp. 204-226). London: Sage.
410 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(4)
Pratt, M. G., & Rosa, J. A. (2003). Transforming work-family
conflict into commitment in network marketing organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 395-418.
Richardson, R. (2003). CSI-FBI computer crime and security sur-
vey. Retrieved December 2003 from www.gocsi.com
Richardson, R. (2008). CSI computer crime and security survey.
Retrieved August 2008 from www.gocsi.com
Robinson, S. L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see,
monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial
behavior of employees. The Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 41(6), 658-672.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Organizational culture and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural
similarities and differences in emotion and its representation.
In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion: Review of personality and
social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 175-212). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Staw, B., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emo-
tion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization
Science, 5, 51-71.
Stratton, M. T. (2005). An Affective Events Theory-based concep-
tual model of emotional ambivalence in the context of per-
sonal Web-usage monitoring. In N. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe, &
C. Hrtel (Eds.), The effect of affect in organizational settings:
Research on emotion in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 47-76). New
York: Elsevier.
Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between
displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of conve-
nience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 451-487.
Tran, V. (2007). The use, overuse and misuse of affect, mood
and emotion in organizational research. In N. Ashkanasy,
W. Zerbe, & C. Hrtel (Eds.), Functionality, intentionality and
morality: Research on emotion in organizations (Vol. 3, pp.
31-53). New York: Elsevier.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General.
(2006). Excessive indulgences: Personal use of the Internet at
the Department of the Interior (Report No. Y-Ev-MOA-0002-
2006). Washington, DC: E. E. Devaney.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on November 28, 2015
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2000). Employees executive
personal use of the Internet should be controlled. Washington,
DC: P. J. Gardiner.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2003). Inappropriate personal
use of the Internet jeopardizes the security and privacy of tax-
payer data (Reference No. 2003-2020-2133). Washington,
DC: G. C. Milbourn, III.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human
science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario,
Canada: Althouse Press.
Waldron, V. R. (2000). Relational experiences and emotion at
work. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.,
pp. 64-82). London: Sage.
Wallace, P. (2004). The Internet in the workplace: How technology is
transforming work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory
(AET): A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and
consequences of affective experiences at work. In M. B. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of
justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(5), 786-794.
Yellowlees, P. M., & Marks, S. (2007). Problematic Internet use or
Internet addiction? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1447-
1453.
Zhang, Y. (2005). Age, gender, and Internet attitudes among
employees in the business world. Computers in Human
Behavior, 21, 1-10.
Bio
Micheal Stratton, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Management
in the Department of Management and Accountancy at the
University of North Carolina Asheville. He completed his doc-
toral work in public administration and organizational behavior at
the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at
the University Albany, State University of New York. His research
interests include emotions in the workplace, electronic monitor-
ing, qualitative methodology, and management pedagogy.