EMOTIONS IN THE WORKPLACE: FEAR AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

by

Laurie K. Cure, Ph.D.

 Abstract

Affect plays a crucial role in organizational behavior. While research around the topic of

emotions in organizations is growing, the impact of fear in the organizational environment is an

area of little study. Additionally, research around this topic has been confined to only certain

facets. The phenomenological study presented sought to explore the experience of fear amongst

female leaders. It demonstrated that fear in the workplace was driven from threats to basic

motivational needs, primarily self-esteem and often resulted in a reaction of defense and

protection. Fear was enhanced or mitigated by the structural elements of confidence, trust,

support and experience. As impacting factors, degrees of conflict, uncertainty and control

affected whether an individual would experience the emotion of fear. Self-awareness served as

an important process in that it allowed the participants to understand their own experience of

fear, and seek strategies to increase aspects of the structural elements presented. Importantly, fear

was often used as an adaptive mechanism, which supported learning and growth. Elements of

fear have direct implications for organizational behavior including motivation, commitment,

trust, and performance. Additional study as presented will support the expansion of knowledge

and understanding around specific leader and organizational causes of fear and the linking

implications of fear within organizations.

 INTRODUCTION

I sat at the edge of a brightly lit boardroom observing the leaders who sat around a large

oak conference table. Each seat was filled with various company executives. The Chief

Executive Officer at the head of the table stood firm and serious; brow furrowed, hands clenched

tightly. The group faced a very serious situation that could ultimately result in closure of the

facility. The tension was rising amongst all the members and voices were silenced. Fear presided.

Despite all the wisdom, talent and experience across the organization, employees and leaders

were fearful; afraid to speak, afraid to be vulnerable, afraid to admit mistakes. The culture at the

company was punitive and employees at all levels of the organization engaged in behaviors to

protect themselves and their job.

Alternatively, there are organizations where safety and trust prevail. Employees and

leaders engage in open, honest conversation and work teams speak candidly to discuss problems.

Mistakes are viewed as opportunities for learning and individuals feel confident bringing their

opinions and ideas forward. Sitting in that boardroom and in many since, it has become evident

that understanding the role fear plays in organizational behavior has implications to culture,

leadership motivation and performance.

Introduction to the Problem

While the study of emotions in the human experience is well development, the cause and

impact of various emotions in the workplace offers limited scholarly research (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1995; Ashkanasy, 2002; Fisher, 2002). The experience and expression of emotion,

specifically the emotion of fear, in the organizational setting has significant implications. Further

scholarly research is needed to better understand various constructs and elements of fear in these

environments including causes of fear, relationship of fear to other emotions and the impact of
fear on workplace behaviors and outcomes. The study presented below, and the

recommendations for further research, seek to advance that purpose through the exploration of

meaning around the experience of fear in the workplace.

Affective elements play a critical role in leadership, organizational culture, change

management and performance improvement. Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) stated, “Emotions

are an integral and inseparable part of everyday organizational life. From moments of frustration

or joy, grief or fear, to an enduring sense of dissatisfaction or commitment, the experience of

work is saturated with feeling” (p. 98). It is for this reason that understanding emotions, and the

emotion of fear, becomes significant. What workplace or leadership behaviors lead to fear? What

is the impact of fear in organizations? How is fear used, individually and collectively, as an

adaptive mechanism? These key questions drive the need for additional research in this realm of

study.

EMOTIONS: A THEORETICAL REVIEW

Introduction

Since the age of Aristotle, there has been a constant struggle between head and heart;

with inadequate appreciation of the intimate relationship between the two perceived extremes

(Lazarus, 2006; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). In organizational environments, rationality tends

to be pervasive and the demonstration of emotional expression, either positive or negative, is

dismissed (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Ashkanasy & Rush, 2004). Often, leaders make the

inaccurate assumption that one can manage and lead without taking emotional aspects into

consideration (Ashkanasy & Rush, 2004).

Human capacity and the efforts of employees drive results and performance. Emotions

serve as a guidance system and aid individuals in regulating judgments, behaviors, and actions,
(Lewis, 2005) thereby supporting goal achievement (Smith, Seger & Mackie, 2007). Ultimately,

the success of leaders and the organization is grounded in motivating employees through

emotions (Maccoby, 2004; Ashkanasy & Rush, 2004). In considering the relevance of emotional

expression in the workplace, these experiences link to employee engagement, motivation,

learning and performance (Suarez, 1994). Knowledge of emotional impact and emotional theory

becomes pertinent in the organizational context when aligned to other organizational theories,

such as motivation, culture, leadership and change management. In assessing the theoretical base

surrounding emotions, one can gain a more comprehensive understanding about the relationship

between fear and critical organizational issues and patterns.

Emotional Theory

While emotional theory is expansive, cognitive appraisal theory offers a framework for

understanding emotions in the workplace. It proposes that emotions are the result of evaluations

of events, situations or circumstances (Roseman & Smith, 2001) and various emotional

responses result from how an individual assesses a given situation in relationship to his or her

goals (Smith, Haynes, Lazarus & Pope, 1993). As such, individuals experience positive emotions

when an event is viewed as supporting personal goals, and a negative emotion is experienced

when the event is seen as hindering or obstructing those goals (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-

Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986) (Smith et al., 1993). This theory argues that the appraisal of

the event, not the event itself, generates the emotional experience (Basch & Fisher, 2000). This

offers an explanation as to why the same event can create various emotions in different people

(Tiedens, 2000; Scherer, 1997).

In light of this approach, Lazarus (2006) outlines “core relational themes” which align

various emotional responses to personal appraisals in a predictable, consistent way. For example,
fear and anxiety will be the emotional result of an appraisal of danger or threat (Smith et al.,

1993). Similarly, anger is found to result from blame toward others and guilt results from self

blame. Believing that emotion is centered in motivation (Schorr, 2001), which guides individuals

to avoid harm and seek benefit to personal well being (Lazarus, 1991), this motivation drives

action, perception and feeling (Izard, 1993). This relationship between motivation and emotion

supports actions and adaptation (Izard, 1992).

Through the engagement in cognitive assessment, behavioral actions and subsequent

emotional appraisals continue to occur organically and seamlessly (Lazarus, 1991) in a way that

supports reaction. This cycle of event, cognitive appraisal, emotion and reaction continues to

play as one manages various situations. The evaluation of the situation either supports or is in

conflict with individual goals and triggers a cognitive assessment of the event. An emotion

(either positive or negative) results. As individuals react, their emotional experience is

continuously being reevaluated and different emotions emerge.

Adding to the complexity, Table 1 outlines various elements by which individuals

consciously and unconsciously evaluate as they engage in emotional experience and expression.

Ellsworth (2003) states, “emotions are combinations of these appraisals. . . Whenever one of the

component appraisal changes, the emotional experience changes, sometimes very subtly,

sometimes drastically” (p. 83). These elements are cognitively appraised and each unique

combination generates a different emotion. Supporting the argument above, as the cycle

continues and various dimensions change, a new emotion is generated in an effort to reach a

point where goals and emotional experience are aligned.

Cacioppo and Gardner (1999) found that individuals exhibit a stronger reaction, both

biological and emotional, to negative events than neutral or positive ones. Negative emotions
narrow people’s thought-action tendencies as they seek to act in prescribed ways (Izard, 1993).

Alternatively, positive emotions expand the range of behavioral options (Fredrickson & Losada,

2005; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2000). Reactions to these

dimensions are hypothesized to serve as a guidance system informing individuals to make

adjustments when negative emotion is experienced or to stay on track when they are feeling

positive emotions. All this occurs in an effort to support individuals in aligning there emotional

experiences with goals and motives. This also supports the adaptive properties of emotion in that

altering a negative state to better align goals demonstrates learning.

Table 1: Dimensions of emotional cognitive appraisal as proposed by various researchers.

Smith & Ellsworth, 1985 Scherer (1997, 2007)
Attention Attend to stimulus, ignore it or Novelty/ Was event expected
avoid it? Expectedness or sudden?
Certainty Is event uncertain or Intrinsic Was event pleasant or
unpredictable? Pleasantness unpleasant?
Control Circumstances are under the Goal Did event help or
individual control, or control Conduciveness hinder goals?
lies with another person or
separate circumstances?
Pleasantness Emotion determined to be Unfairness Was situation unfair
either positive or negative? or unjust?
Perceived Are there real or perceived External Who was responsible
obstacle obstacles in the situation? Causation for event?
Responsibility Is the outcome (good or bad); Coping Ability What was the ability
and legitimacy deserved or undeserved? to cope with the
situation?
Anticipated Amount of effort required to Immortality Was behavior of
effort address the circumstances other improper?
Self- How did event affect
consistency feeling of self?
Roseman, 1990
Motivational Motivation: avoiding Situational Is reward or
State punishment or seeking reward? state punishment absent or
present in the
situation?
Probability Is there certainty or Legitimacy Is the positive or
within the uncertainty within the situation negative outcome
situation itself deserved?
Agency Is outcome caused by
 circumstances, another person
or self?

The Emotion of Fear

Little is known about the organizational consequences of negative emotions (Basch &

Fisher, 2000) such as fear. At a fundamental level, the emotion of fear results from a real or

perceived threat, risk or danger in the environment (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Nezlek,

Vansteelandt, Mechelen & Kuppens, 2008; Manrique de Lara, 2006; Smith et al., 1993;

Roseman, Wiest & Swartz, 1994). Its primary evolutionary purpose is to protect one from harm

through the seeking of security, and avoidance of threat (Izard, 1992) (Izard, 1993). As a primary

emotion, (Scherer & Ellgring, 2007; Roseman et al., 1994) fear is “the most powerful and

fundamental of emotional states” (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Zerbe, 2000, p. 7), being both innate

and learned. Emotions operate as learning mechanisms, providing adaptive elements which

motivate thought and behavior (Izard, 2002) and divert attention to aspects of the environment

requiring action and response (Lewis, 2005). Fear also links to secondary emotions which

incorporate similar elements. For fear, this includes apprehension (Ashkanasy et al., 2000) or

anxiety.

Using the emotional dimensions presented in Table 1, fear can be aligned to various

appraisal items. Given the appraisal elements, fear occurs in situations or events which are

uncertain, sudden or unexpected, where there is a belief that either punishment is involved or

rewards are absent and when individual control of events is perceived as low (Smith and

Ellsworth, 1985; Scherer, 1997). Fear also surfaces when goals are obstructed, coping ability is

low, and the individual feels that the situation is too difficult to overcome (Roseman et al., 1990).
 From a physiological perspective, when an individual is afraid they will have feelings of

heart pounding, the desire to run away, thoughts of how bad things could get, and a yearning to

get to a safer place (Roseman et al., 1994). These biological aspects are nonappraisal items that

serve as key indicators of fear and make it very difficult to “unlearn” fear via cortical processes

(Ashkanasy et al., 2000). This leads to a strengthening of experiential learning with this emotion.

As individuals seek to cope with fear, they engage in various strategies including:

confronting, distancing, self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape-

avoidance, planful problem solving and positive reappraisal (Folkman et al, 1986). Depending on

the perceived threat, individuals will engage in these coping strategies differently.

Fear in the Workplace

From an organizational perspective, fear is most often linked to negative consequences

(Suarez, 1994). For individuals, threats can result from fear of loss (loss of job, control, and

power), change, uncertainty, punishment, failure, success, risk (Suarez, 1994; Briksin, 1996;

Appelbaum, Bregman, & Moroz, 1998) or retaliation (Pelletier & Bligh, 2008), These

environmental aspects of fear produce somewhat predictable effects. Fear often inhibits learning

(Briksin, 1996), stifles innovation, produces ineffective communication (Suarez, 1994),

negatively affects teamwork, (Maccoby, 1991) and results in low performance (Appelbaum et al.,

1998). Additionally, individuals who are fearful tend to exhibit more risk adverse behaviors

(Lerner & Keltner, 2001) and fear prevents the critical questioning of circumstances at work

(Briksin, 1996).

In light of these negative impacts, leaders and organizaitons can engage in various

strategies in order to minimize fear and its negative effect. The desire to mitigate fear in the

workplace allows for establishment and execution of cultural and leadership strategies to prevent
fear and fear-based consequences. As an example, leadership theory purports that effective

leaders are able to guide employees through emotional experiences (Humphrey, 2006). This

occurs by aligning organizational and individual goals, such that emotional expression supports

behaviors. Transformational leadership is built on the philosophy that emotional variables such

as inspiration, generate positive organizational outcomes (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005). These

affective contributions then impact job satisfaction (Fisher, 2000) and performance (Humphrey,

Pollack & Hawver. 2008). Cognitive appraisal elements can support these efforts.

Fear is lessened by role clarity, predictability with rules, and the empowerment of

employees (Bohnke, 2000). This aligns with the dimensions of fear appraisal in that these culture

components will seemingly reduce uncertainty and increase individual control thereby

decreasing fear response. Organizational theorist Aguayo stated, “Fear is a motivator, but it

doesn’t motivate towards constructive action. . . The efforts tend to be directed towards

avoidance of the perceived danger” (Suarez, 1994, p. 26). If leaders and organizations engage in

strategies to minimize these perceived dangers, they systematically decrease fear.

Leaders “shape affective events that determine employee’s attitudes and behaviors in the

workplace” (Pelletier & Bligh, 2007, p. 829), and these emotional experiences significantly

impact performance (Humphrey, 2006). Knowing this, leaders must engage in practices which

allow for the healthy expression of emotion. In addition, organizations can employ strategies

around change management and coaching which seek to foster emotional expression, enhance

employee buy in and support development.

THE PRESENT STUDY

This research study explored the experience of fear amongst female leaders in the

workplace in an effort to offer additional scholarly literature to an issue with significant human
and organizational implications. Using a qualitative phenomenological methodology, 9 female

leaders were recruited to participate in a semi-structured interview process. This model was

selected as it allowed the topic of fear to be explored with depth and meaning.

The experiences of fear shared by participants contained elements of profound meaning,

relevance, and wisdom. This study “provided a context for the creation of knowledge and

meaning through the exploration of the environment by which individuals operate” (Cure, 2009).

The research question guiding the study was: How do women in formal leadership roles

experience the emotion of fear in the workplace?

The study sample included 9 women who held leadership roles at a director level or

above. Participants age ranged from early 30’s to late 50’s and they represented a variety of

industries including healthcare, higher education, service and entrepreneurship. All participants

lived in northern Colorado and worked in either northern Colorado or southern Wyoming.

Individuals who held membership in various networking, business or women’s

organizations were located via internet searches and membership directories. They were sent

either an e-mail and or letter as an invitation to participate.

Method/Procedure

The research design used was a qualitative approach using Moustakas’s (1994)

transcendental phenomenology. Lazarus (2006) stated, “I have come to believe that emotions are

best regarded and studied as dramatic stories or narratives” (p. 28). Using a qualitative

phenomenological approach allowed the researcher to capture the experience in a way that

fostered rich descriptions and meaning from story. In addition, Lazarus (1995) proposed that in-

depth interviewing can offer advantages to understanding the unconscious appraisals that rise
from emotional experiences. The interview process allowed the researcher to explore the

intensity of the participant’s experience in a way that encouraged discovery and understanding.

Participants who responded with interest to the e-mail or mailing were contacted by the

researcher and a 30 minute conference call was scheduled. During this call, the study purpose

was reviewed, as well as, inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those who elected and were eligible

to continue were asked to consider (and journal if desired) any experiences of fear in the

workplace prior to the interview.

Saturation parameters were utilized and 9 individual; 60-90 minute semi-structured

interviews were conducted. Interviews were compared and analyzed for depth of experience,

relevant statements, themes, and textural and structural descriptions. Interviews were transcribed

and all relevant statements of fear were captured, organized and reported into themes and

descriptions. Textural and structural themes were compiled into a composite description of the

experience of fear amongst female leaders. All interviews were recorded and videotaped.

To build validity, the researcher used an independent reviewer who acted in part as peer

reviewer and external auditor. Additionally, a third meeting was held with each of the

participants/coresearchers in order to review the final conclusions and verify the results.

Assumptions/Limitations

Izard (1993) indicates emotion is a “motivational condition or process (that) can be

accessed and verbally reported” (p. 72). Fear is also considered a basic emotional state (Izard,

1993) which is experienced by all individuals. This guided the assumptions that leaders had

experienced the emotion of fear in regards to work situations and these experiences could be

recalled, articulated and expressed through the interview process.

 Beyond basic limitations of qualitative research, a specific limitation of the study was

limited time in the field. A delimitation for the research was that the sample audience included

only females, all working in the Northern Colorado area. The study also only centered on the

emotion of fear. Although other emotions surfaced as part of the description of experience, the

researcher focused on the emotion of fear and emotions that share aspects of the fear experience

such as anxiety or fright.

RESULTS

Results were generated through the Moustakas (1994) transcendental phenomenological

process. This included creating a composite textural, structural and a textural/structural

description of the experience of fear based on individual descriptions. Core components of the

structural/textural description are presented below.

The results demonstrated three significant conclusions (Cure, 2009, p. 323).

1. Fear is the workplace is driven from threats to the basic motivational needs of self-

esteem, physical security and affiliation. These threats often generated a reaction of

defense and protection. In relationship to these threats, the structural elements of

confidence, trust, support and experience were factors that either enhanced or

mitigated fear experiences.

2. Self-awareness served as a component to these structural elements in that it allowed

the participants to understand their own experience and seek strategies to increase

confidence, trust, support and experience. As impacting factors, issues of conflict,

uncertainty and control affected whether an individual would experience fear and

played a role in the structural elements listed above.

 3. For the coresearchers who participated in the study, fear served as an important

adaptive mechanism which supported learning and growth. Individual’s goals served

as a beacon, which determined how they responded to these elements.

Composite Textural-Structural Description for All Participants

The textural and structural elements of fear operate in harmony to either generate or

mitigate a fear response. Threats, conflict, uncertainly and lack of control are textural qualities

which support the primary textural theme of threat to self-esteem, security and affiliation. These

threats to basic motivational needs were the fundamental drivers of a fear response and included

issues of competence, recognition, achievement, approval, value, respect and contribution,

among others.

The structural elements of confidence, support, trust and experience serve as pivotal

components to define the experience of fear. As such, they offer insight in determining how the

experience of fear comes to exist. When any of these structural elements are lacking, either

individually or in work environments, the risk of fear is present. The relationship to self,

specifically self-confidence, was a critical component of the fear experience. When individuals

gained competence or were provided with positive recognition, their confidence increased and

subsequently, emotions of fear declined. Additionally, relationship to others through trust and

support was an important structural theme. In situations where coresearchers lacked confidence,

support or trust, they often moved into fear and responded through protection, defense or

avoidance. Coresearchers offered great clarity in their statements that when trust was low in an
environment, fear was high. In addition, they often sought support from peers, managers or

friends and family in managing situations of fear.

In support of the analysis of the results, Figure 1 presents the textural and structural

themes identified.
Lo wor lack of Hig hcon fid ence ,
Confidence, Trust, trust, su pport,
Support , Ex perience experien ce

T HREATS, Co nflict,
La ck of con trol,
Uncerta inty

THR EATS to Self –

esteem, Security,
Affiliation needs

FEAR
Learning, Grow th,
Avoidanc e, “Stuc k”, Development, Adaptat ion
ag gressive and or defensive
behaviors, “give-u p”

Protection an d/or
Increase d confi denc e,
Defe nse Response experien ce, trus t

Figure 1: Contributing factors of fear in the workplace

On the outer ring of the circle, the aspects of confidence, trust, support and experience are

outlined. As depicted, when confidence, trust or support in the work environment or situation is

lacking, a fear response results. Additionally, when coresearchers lacked experience with a given

situation, their competency and confidence was in question and they felt fearful. The middle ring

of the circle outlines variables of threat, conflict, uncertainty, or control. Finally, the inner ring

illustrates the prevalence and significance of threats to self-esteem and security which led to a

fear response.

Once a fear response experienced, coresearchers tended to take one of two paths. The

first was to engage in behaviors of avoidance, aggression, defensiveness or protection. When this

occurred, they remained in a cycle of fear. On the other hand, when a coresearcher actively used

fear for self-reflection and awareness, they often moved quickly into learning and growth,

thereby demonstrating an adaptive usefulness from the emotional state.

DISCUSSION

The implications of the data collected as a result of the study are significant at both an

individual and organizational level. The study findings were useful in that they expanded upon a

traditional definition of danger and threat and incorporated threats to greater motivational needs.
The aspects of self-esteem and affiliation place additional emphases on the need for leaders and

organizations to manage variables such as competency, recognition, belonging and value.

In consideration of threats, the study supported that fear is enhanced by elements of

uncertainty and lack of control. Given that, change and leadership strategies must incorporate

elements which increase certainty and perceived levels of individual control. Likewise, strategies

of feedback, communication and support will enhance confidence and trust. By engaging in

these activities, organizations and leaders can proactively alter the emotional experience of their

employees and move them from states of fear, which often results in negative behavior and

outcomes, to a place of growth, engagement and productivity.

An additional implication for leaders and coaches is derived from Fredrickson's

"broaden-and-build" theory, which asserts that positive emotions broaden an individual’s

thoughts and actions, (Fredrickson & Losado, 2005), buffer against stress (Tugade &

Fredrickson, 2004), and build personal resources (Fredrickson, 2001). Using positive

psychological strategies and introducing positive emotions into leadership and coaching

conversations is a method to enhance learning from fear. This may be one of many ways to

support individuals to move through fear and even use fear in ways that they promote deep

growth. Self reflective practices support this purpose enhance the ability to grow from emotional

experience.

Ideally, this discussion begins to support specific strategies for accomplishing enhanced

experience, growth and performance. When an individual is experiencing fear, they can begin to

identify where the threat is being generated and actively engage in strategies to increase

confidence, support, trust, or experience. As a leader, the findings of the study generate an
approach to creating cultures of growth and learning and seek to support methods to execute

cultural strategies which mitigate negative aspects of fear.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The study supported additional research in several areas. As mentioned previously, a

significant element of this study focused on the learning aspects of fear. This could be explored

through the study of how individuals learn from their emotional experiences or translate those

experiences to the larger organizational picture. Exploring the adaptive elements of growth and

learning offers the advantage of increased understanding of how and why fear is used as a

motivation tool and determining when it is successful and when negative outcomes are

experienced.

In addition, researchers could test an assessment instrument to measure aspects of fear in

an organization’s culture. This would support a quantitative model and would have implications

by expanding the sample size while testing the results against a broader sample. Ultimately, this

leads to more generalizable results. This would also support the need to better understand causes,

effects and strategies to mitigate fear in the workplace.

To create a deeper understanding of how these various cognitive appraisal elements

interface with workplace situations, one could use a fear assessment through a longitudinal study

asking participants to reflect on their daily experiences and rate their levels of fear along a

continuum of appraisal items. Various causes could be collected using this approach, as well as,

what interventions are successful in mitigating fear.

.Finally, researchers could explore individuals and/or organizations with higher levels of

fear and use an intervention to assess implications to fear levels. As an example, one could assess
fear levels at an organization or within a work team; introduce a coaching intervention, and then

reassess fear following the intervention.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the present research study and its accompanying results significantly

contributed to the body of knowledge around the topic of fear in the workplace. As a topic of

little scholarly research, this information supports much of the previous literature, adds

additional elements for consideration and opens the door for additional topics of research and

evaluation. The model of relationships created lends itself to additional study, as well as provided

practical implications for both individuals and organizations.

Managing fear in the workplace means respecting people and the gifts they bring. It is

fostered by increasing confidence, providing support, and building trust. It is about nurturing

people in a way that supports their self-esteem and creates a sense of belonging. It is my hope

that this research and subsequent work will support this objective.
 REFERENCES

Appelbaum, S. H., Bregman, M., & Moroz, P. (1998). Fear as a strategy: Effects and
impact within the organization. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(3), 113-139.

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

Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Studies of cognition and emotion in organizations: Attribution,

affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion. Australian
Journal of Management, 27, 11-20.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotions in the workplace:
Research, theory, and practice. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J.,
(Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace. (pp. 3-18). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Rush, S. (2004). Emotional rescue: A conversation with Neal M.
Ashkanasy. Leadership in Action, 24(4), 15-18.

Basch, J., & Fisher, C.D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of
work events and associated emotions. In Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel C.E.J., and
Zerbe, W. J., (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice. (pp. 36-
48). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Beerel, A. C. (2003). How the power dynamics and the culture of fear in business
organizations contribute to the gap between ethics and morality in business
practice. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64(3). (UMI No. 3083821)

Bohnke, J. M. (2000). An analysis of cognitive discrepancies regarding supervisors’ use

of fear as a management tool in the workplace. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of La Verne, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(2). (UMI No. 3004765)

Briksin, A. (1996). Fear and learning in the workplace. The Journal of Quality and
Participation, 19(7), 28-34.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,
191-214.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of
emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 4523-466.

Ellsworth, P. C. (2003). Confusion, concentration, and other emotions of interest:

Commentary on Rozin and Cohen (2003). Emotion, 3(1), 81-85.
Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job
satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 85-201.

Fisher, C. D. (2002). Real time affect at work: A neglected phenomenon in organizational

behaviour. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 1-11.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466-475.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986).
Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter
outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992-1003.

Fredrickson, B. L. & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of

attention and thought action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.

Fredrickson, B.L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of
human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686.

Humphrey, R. H. (2006). Promising research opportunities in emotions and coping with

conflict. Journal of Managerial and Organization, 12(2), 179-186.

Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with emotional labor.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 151-168.

Izard, C. E. (2002).Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions.

Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 796-824.

Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: cognitive and noncognitive
processes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 68-90.

Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition

relations. Psychological Review, 99(3), 561-565.

Lazarus, R. S. (1982, September). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and

cognition. American Psychologist, 1019-1024.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist,

46(4), 352-367.

Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Emotions express a social relationship, but it is an individual mind

that creates them. Psychology Inquiry, 6(3), 253-265.
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Towards a person
centered conceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74(1),
9-46.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger and risk. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(1), 146-159.

Lewis, M. D. (2005). Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic

systems modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 169-245.

Maccoby, M. (1991). Closing the motivation gap. Research Technology Management,

34(1), 50-51.

Maccoby, M. (2004, winter). Trust trumps love and fear. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 14-15.

Manrique de Lara, P. Z. (2006). Fear in organizations: Does intimidation by formal

punishment mediate the relationship between interactional justice and workplace
internet deviance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 580-592.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Napper, R. (2009). Positive psychology and transactional analysis. Transactional

Analysis Journal, 39(1), 61-72.

Nezlek, J. B., Vansteelandt, K., Mechelen, I. V., & Kuppens, P. (2008). Appraisal
emotion relationships in daily life. Emotion, 8(1), 145-150.

Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. (2007). The aftermath of organizational corruption:

Employee attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80,
823-844.

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory. In Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A.,
Johnstone, T.(Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion (pp. 3-19). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-eliciting

events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(5), 899-915.

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals
differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67(2), 206-221.
Scherer, K. R. (1997). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 902-922.

Scherer, K.R., & Ellring, H. (2007). Multimodal expression of emotion: Affect programs
or componential appraisal patterns. Emotion, 7(1), 158-171.

Schorr, A. (2001). Appraisal: The evolution of an idea. In Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A.,
Johnstone, T.(Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion (pp. 20-33). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813-838.

Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the “hot”
cognitions: Attributions, appraisals and their relation to emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 916-929.

Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level?
Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93(3), 431-446.

Suarez, G. G. (1994). Managing fear in the workplace. The Journal for Quality and
Participation, 17(7), 24-31.

Tiedens, L. Z. (2000). Powerful emotions: the vicious cycle of social status positions and
emotions. In Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel C.E.J., and Zerbe, W. J., (Eds.), Emotions
in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice. (pp. 36-48). Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient Individuals Use Positive Emotions to
Bounce Back From Negative Experience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86(2), 320-333.