“While

respondents never MANAGEMENT

AUGUST
Kramer, Hess
2002/ EMOTION
COMMUNICATION
DISPLAYS QUARTERLY /

referred to a rule COMMUNICATION RULES

FOR THE DISPLAY
that you should
OF EMOTIONS IN
mask negative
ORGANIZATIONAL
emotions, it
SETTINGS
appears to be a
general, MICHAEL W. KRAMER
JON A. HESS
understood University of Missouri–Columbia

principle. ”

AUTHORS’NOTE: We wish to thank Brad Reel for his assis-

tance in data collection. A previous version of this article
was presented at the National Communication Association
Annual Convention in New York, November 1998.

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, August 2002 66-80

© 2002 Sage Publications
66
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 67

Using a sample of employees from a wide range of occupations, this

research examines the general communication rules that govern
emotion management in all aspects of organizational involvement—
with coworkers and not just customers. Through content analysis of
examples of both appropriate and inappropriate displays or mask-
ing of positive and negative emotions, results showed that (a) main-
taining “professionalism” is central to appropriate emotion man-
agement, (b) positive emotions, not just negative emotions, need to
be displayed in appropriate ways, and (c) the appropriate display of
negative emotions typically means masking those emotions. This
leads to a broader view of the role of emotions in organizational
communication, one that is frequently overlooked in the rational
paradigm that permeates organizational research.

motions are an integral and inseparable part of every-

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

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Emotions are commonly explained in terms of expectancy viola-

tions (e.g., Omdahl, 1995). This explanation suggests that organi-
68 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

zational members have expectations for common experiences such

as goal achievement and relationship maintenance. Environmental
stimuli perceived as discrepant with expectations are a primary
cause of emotions. Positive emotions occur when experiences
exceed expectations, whereas negative emotions occur when expec-
tations are not met. The resulting felt emotions include physiologi-
cal and cognitive components with the severity of the discrepancy
increasing the level of emotional arousal (Fiebig & Kramer, 1998;
Omdahl, 1995).
Emotion displays, as the actual communication of emotions, do
not always openly express felt emotions. Through emotion man-
agement individuals decide to express, mask, or change felt emo-
tions (Kruml & Geddes, 2000). In all cultures the tension between
spontaneously expressing and strategically communicating felt
emotions is controlled by communication display rules that pre-
scribe the appropriate or inappropriate expression of emotions
(Planalp, 1999). Knowing the communication rules for emotion
management is important for individuals to understand organiza-
tional culture (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989), develop relationships
(Waldron, 2000), and to ultimately achieve career success (Staw,
Sutton, & Pelled, 1994).
Socialization research suggests that organizations deliberately
select employees who conform to certain rules for the display of
emotions (e.g., flight attendants in Hochschild, 1983; cruise ship
staff in Tracy, 2000; and bill collectors in Sutton, 1991). Once
hired, employees are formally taught emotion display rules. For
example, convenience store clerks were taught to display positive
emotions (Rafaeli, 1989), whereas bill collectors were taught to
communicate urgency (Sutton, 1991). Finally, many employees are
rewarded with raises and promotions throughout their careers if
they comply with organizational display rules (e.g., Sutton, 1991).
In addition to such conscious efforts at emotion management,
other research suggests that selection and socialization may be sub-
consciously based in part on following more general rules for
appropriate emotion displays. For example, Jablin and Krone
(1994) concluded that interviewees whose nonverbal behaviors
expressed positive affect were more likely to be rated positively and
receive second interviews. Research suggests that indirect and sub-
tle forms of rewards and punishment reinforce more general orga-
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 69

nizational rules for the appropriate display and management of

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

Research Question: What communication rules for the display of emo-

tions do employees perceive as functioning in organizations?

METHOD

RESPONDENTS

Students in a communication class received credit if they had

three full-time employees complete the survey, thus providing data
from a broad range of occupations and organizations. Of 110 sur-
veys distributed this way, 95 were returned (86% response rate).
Respondents listed a phone number, and a random sample of the
respondents (20%) were called to verify their participation. Respon-
dents ranged in age from 19 to 68 (M = 34), and 56% were women.
The largest groups described their job as management (27.4%),
customer service (22.1%), and office or staff work (13.7%) and
70 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

reported they were employed in retail (17.9%), education (17.9%),

and health care (13.7%) organizations.

INSTRUMENT

This study is based on an interpretive perspective aimed at

increasing knowledge of the way things are understood (Putnam,
1982). From this perspective, self-reported perceptions of events
are the best indicators of respondents’ understanding of display
rules.
Because knowledge of rules is increased by examining instances
of their being followed and violated the survey asked for examples
of appropriate and inappropriate emotion displays. Because emo-
tion display rules often stipulate masking instead of expressing
emotions it was important to gather examples of masking emotions
as well. Modeled after previous research (e.g., Waldron & Krone,
1991), the survey included open-ended questions that asked for
examples of these situations: (a) appropriate displays of positive
emotions, (b) inappropriate displays of positive emotions, (c)
appropriate displays of negative emotions, (d) inappropriate dis-
plays of negative emotions, or (e) examples of masking. Because
“masking” is not a common term, respondents were asked to recall
a situation in which they knew or thought someone was displaying
an emotion other than what they were experiencing.
To prevent fatigue, each respondent only received questions
regarding three situations, two from a random mixture of the first
four situations plus the masking situation. All received the masking
situation given the frequency with which masking emotions is dis-
cussed in the literature. This resulted in 42 examples of appropriate
positive displays, 38 of inappropriate positive displays, 53 of
appropriate negative displays, 53 of inappropriate negative dis-
plays, and 92 examples of masking.
For each situation respondents indicated (a) the participants,
(b) the event leading to the emotion, (c) the perceived felt emotion,
(d) the expressed emotion, (e) the reason for considering it appro-
priate or inappropriate, and (f) any impact it had on themselves or
others. In addition, respondents indicated basic demographic infor-
mation about themselves.
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 71

ANALYSIS

A grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used

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

RESULTS

Respondents provided 304 explanations of appropriate and inap-

propriate behaviors, suggesting several general communication
rules for emotion displays. In what follows, we present each of the
general rules gleaned from the content analysis, followed by expla-
nations and more specific expressions of the rule (if there were
any). We include exemplars from the data to illustrate each rule
and/or its more specific expressions.
72 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

The most common rule given was to express emotions profes-

sionally (n = 98, 32%). Although there were many nuances to what
professionalism entailed, its most essential elements were having
control over one’s emotion displays and maintaining a “business-
like” atmosphere. For example, a buyer was described as profes-
sional when she tried to smile pleasantly while meeting with a spe-
cialist she disliked, and a computer analyst was described as acting
professionally when he suffered a personal problem but did not dis-
play his negative feelings while at work. In contrast, a supervisor
was described as unprofessional when he yelled at a salesperson for
a poorly done job when it could have been handled in a calmer man-
ner. As these examples illustrate, expressing negative emotions
professionally most often involved presenting a neutral or positive
emotion display by masking the negative felt emotions. However,
professionalism also encompassed the management of positive
emotions. An employee who apparently thought he was expressing
positive emotion was described as unprofessional when he contin-
ued to tease a bookkeeper who was having a bad day. A head of a
nonprofit agency expressed positive emotions inappropriately when
he loudly congratulated his subordinate for winning a bid in front of
the losing party. In these cases, positive emotions were expressed
unprofessionally because they were excessive and poorly timed
given the circumstances. In some instances the respondents pro-
vided an explanation of why the emotion display demonstrated pro-
fessionalism, such as the respondent who learned that to be profes-
sional “sometimes you just have to control your feelings and do
what you are told.” In other instances respondents did not articulate
what professionalism meant and used the term as if its meaning was
understood.
Another frequently invoked rule was to express emotions to
improve situations (n = 64, 21%). This rule suggests emotion dis-
plays should be managed so that they result in positive rather than
negative outcomes. Whereas many of the display rules focused on
enacting the proper behaviors, this rule focused on outcomes. That
is, this rule regulates the ends people seek to achieve rather than the
means they use to attain them. Results suggest that positive out-
comes can be accomplished in three different ways. First, accord-
ing to the findings, people should use emotion displays to prevent
or correct a problem. For example, a cook reported that by masking
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 73

his negative felt emotions and expressing a neutral or positive emo-

tion display—acting politely toward his general manager with
whom he was irate—he was able to diffuse the problem and keep
his job. Second, employees should use emotion displays to create a
good climate in the workplace. An example of this was a salesper-
son showing joy at his promotion to manager. By expressing his
positive emotion appropriately, he affirmed to other coworkers that
hard work would be rewarded. Finally, workers must avoid emotion
displays that lead to negative outcomes. When a store manager
expressed his anger at a subordinate over how the store looked by
fabricating customer complaints he only made the situation worse.
If he had masked his anger the additional problems might have been
avoided. Thus, this emotion display was considered inappropriate.
A third general rule was to express emotions to the right people
(n = 32, 11%). For this rule it was not whether the emotion display
was positive or negative but whether it was directed at the appropri-
ate individuals. Two specific rules for expressing emotions to the
right people were suggested. For example, a supervisor praised an
individual in front of the group after a group effort and a builder
yelled at a temporary employee who was not responsible for a miss-
ing tool instead of at the responsible party. In both of these cases,
the individual failed to praise or reprimand the correct party. In
another example, a group of children and a sergeant in a Guatema-
lan village expressed their thanks to the American soldiers who
built a school and playground for them. Even though the children
could not speak English they were able to express appropriate grati-
tude to the correct party, in this case through nonverbal communication.
A fourth display rule was to express emotions to help individuals
(n = 32, 11%). The focus of this rule is on assisting individuals
rather than improving situations more generally. For example, a
doctor’s office manager was praised by the doctor for expressing
emotion to support others even when she felt depressed. She both
masked her negative emotions and showed warmth and compas-
sion that assisted others.
Other responses suggested a fifth general rule: Do not manage
emotions for personal benefit to the detriment of others (n = 23,
8%). Expressing artificial emotions by displaying positive or neu-
tral emotions was acceptable to show professionalism or help the
situation or others but inappropriate when used for personal gain at
74 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

others’ expense. When a bored secretary acted sick to leave work

early her emotion management was seen as inappropriate lying or
insincerity. She managed her emotions to gain time off, but others
had to do additional work to cover for her.
A sixth general rule respondents offered was that the expression
of certain emotions is always inappropriate (n = 10, 3%). In these
cases, it was not whether the emotion was positive or negative that
mattered; it was the inappropriateness of expressing the emotion at
all that was problematic. Results suggested two types of emotion
displays that were inappropriate. With positive emotions it was
noted that workers should maintain role-appropriate distance in
emotion expressions. When a purchasing manager at a manufactur-
ing firm expressed his positive emotions to a senior buyer by giving
her gifts, he created too personal a relationship with his buyer. For
negative emotion displays this rule was not to abuse others with
emotion displays. A foreman violated this rule when he yelled at a
worker in a way that suggested that the worker had to be at his beck
and call. In both of these cases, the respondents felt that the emotion
displays created inappropriate work relationships that should always
be avoided.
In some cases, respondents did not specify a rule and instead
relied upon an implicit understanding of what is appropriate or
inappropriate. These participants relied on unstated rules (n = 45,
15%) to explain appropriate and inappropriate emotion displays. In
supporting one of the few negative emotion displays deemed
appropriate, one respondent approved of another person’s negative
reaction because “I would have reacted in a similar manner.” In
another example, a respondent explained that it was inappropriate
for a dental hygienist to show displeasure over a new procedure
because “There should not have been any display of negative emo-
tion.” The respondent apparently felt that either there should not
have been any negative reactions or those negative emotions should
have been masked.
Overall, these results suggest that respondents were aware of
general rules that prescribe what is obligated, preferred, or prohib-
ited for emotion displays (Shimanoff, 1980). Respondents indi-
cated that there were appropriate contexts for expressing positive
emotions, such as when some positive outcome occurred, as well as
inappropriate ones, such as when it embarrassed or bothered some-
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 75

one. Expressing negative emotions openly was frequently consid-

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

DISCUSSION

This research advanced our understanding of the dynamics of

emotion management in organizational settings by exploring both
appropriate and inappropriate displays of positive and negative
emotions. In addition to identifying the rules for emotion display
discussed above, the results suggest some general principles of
emotion management in organizational settings for interactions
with coworkers and the public.
The most common rule for emotion displays was to express
emotions professionally. Those who provided explanations of pro-
fessionalism emphasized maintaining a neutral or pleasant demeanor
regardless of the circumstances. Respondents often relied on the
terms professional or unprofessional to define appropriate and
inappropriate control of emotions without providing specific expla-
nation. This suggests that the understanding of professionalism is
often tacit knowledge learned through observation and experience.
Through a gradual learning process, employees construct an under-
standing of what professionalism means in their occupations.
Because the definition most likely varies across occupations, future
research should attempt to more precisely define the communica-
tive behaviors considered professional and unprofessional emotion
displays in general and for specific occupations so that information
can be provided to employees.
Previous research has emphasized masking negative emotions
or faking positive ones. The results of this study suggest that there
76 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

are also important rules for the appropriate display of positive emo-
tions. Together, the rules suggest that a positive emotion display
can be considered inappropriate primarily for three main reasons:
(a) It is excessive or poorly timed, such as gloating in front of peo-
ple who did not receive a positive outcome; (b) it involves misdi-
rected praise, for example, praising an individual for a group effort
or a group for an individual effort; or (c) it involves unsanctioned
workplace behavior, such as showing too much personal affection
in a work relationship. This suggests that managing positive emo-
tions and not just negative emotions is an important matter to exam-
ine in future research.
Taken together, the rules concerning the appropriate communi-
cation of negative emotions suggest a more general principle of
emotion management in the workplace. Only a few examples pro-
vided by respondents involved what was considered an appropriate
display of negative emotions, such as displaying anger at a deserv-
ing individual. Most were examples of masking negative emotions,
such as people acting calm when they were apparently upset. So
although respondents never referred to a rule that one should mask
negative emotions, it appears to be a more general, understood prin-
ciple for displaying negative emotions that applies to interactions
with coworkers as well as customers. Masking negative emotions
appears to be part of the general rules of civility that are learned as
part of the socialization process into occupations. This knowledge
may be part of the emotional intelligence needed for developing a
positive social life at work (Barrett & Gross, 2001). More research
on the appropriate expression of negative emotions is warranted.
A number of the display rules also suggest a general principle
that appropriate emotion management focuses on others rather than
on oneself. Whether it is to improve the situation, help other indi-
viduals, or avoid personal gain at others’ expense, the rules fre-
quently focused on the impact of the emotion displays on others
rather than on the felt emotions of the individual. Although scholars
have criticized emotion management because it is disempowering
(e.g., Krone, Waldron, & Cavanaugh, 1992) and primarily benefits
the organization (Putnam & Mumby, 1993), these results suggest
that people managing emotions in organizations often do so pri-
marily for the purpose of maintaining relationships and treating
others respectfully. These rules suggest that by balancing the ten-
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 77

sion between spontaneously expressing emotions and strategically

expressing them (Planalp, 1999), individuals can create more posi-
tive and civil work relationships.
Because the focus of this research is on individuals’ understand-
ing of rules for displaying emotions, it was appropriate to rely on
respondents’ explanations. However, self-report data do have limi-
tations. For example, individuals may have overstated or incor-
rectly identified felt emotions and simply have projected their emo-
tions on others. These concerns suggest that combining self-report
data with observation, peer interviews, or other methods could
offer additional insights into workplace emotion display.
The results of this study suggest practical applications for both
employees and trainers. The study may help individuals realize the
importance emotion management may play in their career success.
Abiding by display rules, particularly displaying neutral and posi-
tive emotions and masking negative emotions, may affect work
relationships and advancement opportunities. Learning which rules
are general and which are workplace specific could help people
understand the interpersonal skills expected in their careers. For
example, swearing may be less appropriate in some professions
than others (e.g., pharmaceuticals vs. construction) and may vary
within professions. Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1983),
for instance, related how one executive knew how to swear appro-
priately but another swore only when he was angry, in a very unbe-
coming manner.
Organizations typically focus the majority of their socialization
and training on task-related activities. Although an extensive focus
on emotion display might be unnecessary for some professions,
given the evidence of an implicit understanding of professionalism
and the presence of unstated rules, organizations may want to spend
more time actively socializing employees by providing instruction
concerning appropriate emotion displays for interactions with other
employees and not just with the public. This study specifies a set of
general emotion display rules that could be incorporated into train-
ing sessions, such as expressing emotions to the proper people or
exercising restraint in positive emotion display when the situation
is negative for others present. However, some rules, such as show-
ing professionalism, need interpretation within the specific organi-
zation. By making it clear what behaviors are professional and
78 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

unprofessional in their company, employers can more easily edu-

cate employees about how to manage their emotions in the workplace.
This study has indicated the presence of many widely held rules
for appropriate and inappropriate display of emotion in organiza-
tional settings. In particular, professional behavior seems to involve
masking negative emotions as neutral and appropriate control of
positive emotions. Through further examination of rules for dis-
playing emotions, we may gain a better understanding of the role
that communicating emotions plays in organizational settings.

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reap-

praisal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to
sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barrett, L. F., & Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A process model of
emotion representation and regulation. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.),
Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 286-310). New York:
Guilford.
Eubanks, R. T. (1980). Reflections on the moral dimension of communication.
Southern Speech Communication Journal, 45, 297-312.
Fiebig, G. V., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). A framework for the study of emotions in
organizational contexts. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 536-572.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. J. (1994). Task/work relationships: A life-span perspec-
tive. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commu-
nication (2nd ed., pp. 621-675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krone, K. J., Waldron, V. R., & Cavanaugh, S. K. (1992, November). General
issues in emotional experience in a corrections organization. Paper presented
at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor:
The heart of Hochschild’s work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14,
8-49.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and conse-
quences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010.
Omdahl, B. L. (1995). Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 79

Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communi-

cation as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126-147.
Pin, E. J., & Turndorf, J. (1985). The pleasure of your company: A socio-
psychological analysis of modern sociability. New York: Praeger.
Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and cultural pro-
cesses. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigms for organizational communication research: An
overview and synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 192-206.
Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotion and the myth of
rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 36-57). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, A. (1989). When clerks meet customers: A test of variables related to
emotional expressions on the job. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 385-393.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational
life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1-42.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and
favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51-71.
Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of
bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245-268.
Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self-
subordination, and discursive construction of identity in a total institution.
Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90-128.
Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). “Real feelings”: Emotional expression and
organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103.
Waldron, V. R. (1994). Once more, with feeling: Reconsidering the role of emo-
tion in work. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 17, pp. 388-
416). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waldron, V. R. (2000). Relational experiences and emotion at work. In S. Fineman
(Ed.), Emotions in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 64-82). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Waldron, V. R., & Krone, K. J. (1991). The experience and expression of emotion
in the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 287-309.
Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emo-
tions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232.

Michael W. Kramer (Ph.D., 1991, University of Texas at Austin) is an asso-

ciate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of
Missouri–Columbia. His other research interests include organizational
transitions and group communication. His recent research has appeared in
Communication Monographs, Southern Communication Journal, and Com-
munication Studies.
80 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

Jon A. Hess (Ph.D., 1996, University of Minnesota) is an assistant profes-

sor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri–
Columbia. His other research interests include closeness and distance in
personal relationships, maintaining difficult or unwanted relationships,
and communication ethics. His research has appeared in Human Commu-
nication Research, Communication Studies, and the Journal of Applied
Communication Research.