Emotions and Wellbeing at Work A Multilevel Perspective - SAGE4

Sage Reference
The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing
For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website.
A free-to-view version of this content is available by clicking on this link, which
includes an easy-to-navigate-and-search-entry, and may also include videos,
embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio
content, and downloadable tables and resources.
Author: Ashlea C. Troth, Alannah Rafferty, Peter J. Jordan

Pub. Date: 2021
Product: Sage Reference
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187
Keywords: emotion work, emotion, wellbeing, affect, organizations
Disciplines: Business & Management, Organization Studies, Organizational Behavior, Organizational
Culture, Stress in Organizations
Access Date: March 3, 2024
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd
City: 55 City Road
Online ISBN: 9781529757187
© 2021 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.

Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L
Emotions and Wellbeing at Work: A Multilevel Per-

spective
Ashlea C. Troth Alannah Rafferty Peter J. Jordan
Introduction
It's business, leave your emotions at the door. The Wolf of Wall Street
Interest in how emotions shape organizational attitudes and behaviors has risen over the last couple of
decades among scientists and practitioners (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; Barsade and Gibson, 2007;
Hochschild, 1983). Appreciation of the critical role of workplace emotions emerged during the 1980s. Prior to
this, the idea of emotions at work was viewed as ancillary to the more ‘rational’ concepts of scientific man-
agement, which focused on industrial productivity and effectiveness (Ashkanasy et al., 2017). This led to the
idea – as evidenced by the opening quote – that emotions were to be ignored as an annoyance at best or,
at worst, as something to be eliminated. Unsurprisingly, employee wellbeing was not given much attention
at this time either. If it was considered, then the role of emotions – both their experience and expression –
was generally seen as something reflective of poor mental health and low control (i.e., reflective of neuroti-
cism and anxiety; Putnam and Mumby, 1993). In this chapter, we argue that emotions should be seen as an
essential component in all workplaces and that the appropriate management of emotions can lead to better
employee wellbeing.
Fortunately, it is now widely recognized that emotions are inevitable in the workplace and play a complex role,
including a positive one, in relation to wellbeing (Bakker and Oerlemans, 2011). The phrase ‘the Affective
Revolution’ (Barsade et al., 2003) has been coined to describe the transformation of the workplace from an
‘effective no-go zone’ for emotions to one where understanding the role of emotions is now seen to
be de rigueur for scholars working in the field. (Ashkanasy and Dorris, 2017: 68)
A major research topic of interest has been the role of emotion in workplace wellbeing and its subsequent
impact on performance. Emotion has been largely examined in two main ways in this body of work. First,
emotion has been viewed as part of one's daily work and, when considered in this light, is often discussed

Page 2 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
in terms of emotion work or emotional labor (Hochschild, 1983; Zapf, 2002). Researchers have considered
that emotional work or emotional labor has consequences for employee wellbeing (Holman et al., 2008). In
this vein, it is commonly acknowledged that many employees are not only required to work on tasks that use
mental and physical energy, they are also required to manage their emotions as part of the requirement of
their job (e.g., nurses are expected to show care and compassion with patients) and that this impacts on their
health and wellbeing.
The other major approach that has been adopted is to conceptualize affect as a key dimension or component
of wellbeing. This is particularly salient for researchers who take a hedonic approach to wellbeing and con-
ceptualize wellbeing in terms of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance with a focus on happiness (Wright,
2014). This approach contrasts with the eudaimonic approach, which focuses on meaning and self-realiza-
tion (Ryan and Deci, 2001). For example, Bakker and Oerlemans’ (2011) model of subjective wellbeing uses
the circumplex model of affect as a theoretical framework to distinguish between specific types of work-relat-
ed wellbeing, including work engagement, job satisfaction, happiness at work, and workaholism, with links to
performance. Likewise, one of the most widely used measures of wellbeing, the Job-Related Affective Well-
being Scale (JAWS: Van Katwyk et al., 2000) links job stressors to a diverse range of affective states at work.
Indeed, researchers examining variables such as burnout (considered the opposite of wellbeing) also use af-
fective terms to describe the phenomenon. Emotional exhaustion is commonly viewed as the key component
of the three factors that comprise workplace burnout (Goldberg and Grandey, 2007; Maslach and Jackson,
1981).
The aim of this chapter is to extend consideration of wellbeing through an emotion lens by examining the
nexus between emotion and wellbeing at multiple levels within the organization (e.g., in the daily work of an
employee, between individuals, in workplace relationships, groups, and organization-wide). To achieve this,
we employ the five-level model of emotion in organizations (Ashkanasy, 2003; Ashkanasy and Dorris, 2017).
Our goal in doing this is to provide a better understanding and recognition of the complex ways emotions
and wellbeing are intertwined. We also highlight several relevant affective theories and concepts that guide
our thinking at each of these levels, including Affective Events Theory (AET: Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996);
the Process Model of Emotional Regulation (Gross, 1998); Emotional Labor (Hochschild, 1983); and Emo-
tional Intelligence (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). A related aim in this chapter is to present a range of practical
suggestions or interventions targeted at these different levels that are useful to practitioners, managers, and
organizations.

Page 3 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Affect, Mood, and Emotion
Given our chapter specifically deals with emotional phenomena, it is important to have clear construct de-
finitions. Affect is the overarching term used by scholars to encompass affective dispositions, moods, and
emotions (Kelly and Barsade, 2001). Affect is broadly and inclusively defined as a ‘subjective feeling state’
(Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995). Dispositional affect consists of a person's affective predisposition toward per-
ceiving the world around them positively or negatively (Lazarus, 1991). It is an individual difference variable
that encapsulates the characteristic way basic emotions are experienced and expressed and permeates all of
one's experiences. In contrast, moods are low-intensity, diffuse feeling states that usually do not have a clear
antecedent (Forgas, 1995) and can be caused by dispositional affect or emotions. Emotions are distinct from
dispositional affect and moods in that they have a clear cause or target, are shorter in duration, and are more
focused and intense (Frijda, 1993). Examples of discrete emotions include fear, anger, happiness, pride, and
sadness. The terms dispositional affect, mood, emotion, and affect may all be seen to represent the broader
notion of ‘affect’ in this chapter.
Multilevel Model of Emotions in Organizations
In our chapter, we argue that it is important to consider the function of emotions in employee wellbeing across
multiple levels of the organization. By doing so, we will be able to develop a more comprehensive under-
standing of the complex and layered nature of the relationship between emotions and wellbeing, which will
ultimately lead to more effective and targeted organizational and management practices. We base our dis-
cussion on the five-level model of emotion in organizations developed by Ashkanasy (2003; Ashkanasy and
Dorris, 2017). This model outlines five levels at which emotions impact on work experiences for employees
(Figure 5.1). The model begins with Level 1, which refers to within-person temporal variability in affect and the
influence on attitudes and behavior. Level 2 refers to between-person variability, which refers to more stable
individual dispositions, including trait affectivity and emotional intelligence. Level 3 deals with the role of emo-
tions in interpersonal relationships, including the perception and communication of emotion, and emotional
labor. Level 4 views affect as a team-level property and includes team affective tone and team leadership. Fi-
nally, Level 5 focuses on the organization as a whole and encompasses organization-wide phenomena such
as affective culture and climate.

Page 4 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Figure 5.1 Five levels of emotion and relevance to workplace wellbeing (adapted from
Ashkanasy, 2003)
Emotion at the Within-person Level (Level 1) and Wellbe-

ing
Research at this level recognizes that an employee's experiences at work are far from consistent. Rather,
it is typical for employees to experience momentary and daily variations in every aspect of their behavior,
thoughts, and feelings (affect). Emotions experienced on a within-person basis in a single day can be diverse,
varying from happy and excited, to surprised, to sad, and to angry and fearful. Affective Events Theory (AET;
Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) is a key theory at this level. AET proposes that a range of daily events at
work (e.g., employee and customer interactions, roles, job design) influence employees’ emotional respons-
es, which give rise to important attitudinal and behavioral states. Researchers have identified a range of
states that emerge from employees’ momentary variations in emotional responses including wellbeing-related
indicators of psychological safety and job satisfaction as well as learning and goal orientations, and job perfor-
mance (Alam and Singh, 2019; Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002; Ashton-James and Ashkanasy, 2005; Glasø and
Einarsen, 2006). Indeed, there is a burgeoning stream of research that encourages the examination of the
dynamic within-person variation of emotion in the workplace (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Fisher and To, 2012).
The focus on examining daily fluctuations in employees’ emotional experiences is increasingly captured in
occupational stress models linking daily job conditions (stressors: challenge, threat, hindrance) to their reac-
tions (strains) via emotional reactions (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Drawing on AET, workplace stressors are

Page 5 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
viewed as affective events (Rodell and Judge, 2009). Challenge stressors (i.e., job demands that are viewed
by employees as rewarding work experiences that create an opportunity for personal growth, e.g., job com-
plexity and responsibility) have been shown to lead to positive emotions and wellbeing outcomes. In contrast,
hindrance stressors (i.e., job demands that are viewed as obstacles to personal growth or hinder one's ability
to achieve valued goals, e.g., role ambiguity and conflict) have been found to lead to negative emotions and
wellbeing outcomes (Rodell and Judge, 2009; Searle and Auton, 2015). Importantly, different discrete emo-
tions have been shown to be linked to different appraisals (e.g., anger to appraisals of other responsibility;
fear to appraisals of threat and uncertainty; Smith and Ellsworth, 1985). Understanding that there is within-
person variation in employees’ emotions at work (in response to workplace events) is important because it
reveals that it is these variations in emotional responses that have diverse consequences for wellbeing.
A focus on within-person variations in emotional responses shows that daily fluctuations in employees’ well-
being is partly dependent on the type of discrete emotion (e.g., anger or enthusiasm) experienced in relation
to an event, and how an individual regulates this emotion to respond to different situations. Next, we briefly
examine the research linking two discrete negative emotions – anger and fear – to wellbeing. Following this
discussion, we discuss the process of emotional regulation as one mechanism by which emotions are man-
aged at the within-person level in daily work life.
Discrete Emotions and Wellbeing
According to Lazarus and Cohen-Charash (2001), discrete emotions provide a more useful source of infor-
mation to understand employee coping and stress than broader constructs of positive and negative mood or
affect. For example, an employee might be angry, frustrated, sad, or ashamed about being reprimanded by
their supervisor and this might in part be due to the type of appraisal made about the event. All these emo-
tional responses are negative affective reactions, yet each emotion is linked to varying stressor appraisals
and may result in quite different psychological and behavioral consequences impacting wellbeing.
For instance, one of the emotions most frequently researched in relation to workplace stress and wellbeing
outcomes for individuals is anger. Gibson and Callister (2010: 68) defined anger as ‘an emotion that involves
an appraisal of responsibility for wrongdoing by another person or entity and often includes the goal of cor-
recting the perceived wrong'. The experience and expression of anger has usually been regarded as a nega-
tively valenced emotion, with poor consequences for employee wellbeing, especially when of higher intensity
and in the context of interpersonal conflict (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). However, it is also important for

Page 6 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
managers to know that there is a growing recognition that anger can have positive functions (see Geddes
et al., 2020; Lazarus and Cohen-Charash, 2001). For example, by being angry, individuals may be able to
draw attention to or redress injustice (a common cause of anger). As such, the expression of appropriately
expressed anger may contribute to individual wellbeing by drawing attention to stressors in the workplace so
they can be resolved and the associated stress reduced.
Another emotion gaining increasing research interest is fear. Although there is a populist view that fear acts
to facilitate escape from threats (Frijda, 1986), leading researchers (e.g., see Barrett, 2006; LeDoux, 1998)
propose a more fundamental explanation about the role of fear. In particular, these theorists have argued that
appraisals of uncertainty often drive fear. In general, fear expressions are taboo in the workplace and fear
experiences have been negatively associated with wellbeing (Kligyte et al., 2013). However, as with anger,
some researchers (e.g., Lerner and Tiedens, 2006) report that fear is not always negative and that it might
sometimes be a motivating force to seek help or to help others (Tamir, 2016). Indeed, the rumination process
often engaged during a fear experience can result in the effective recognition and management of fear. This
process is critical to personal change and growth or as a source of energy to improve productivity and perfor-
mance (Keegan, 2015). Thus, we argue that discrete emotions are closely tied to wellbeing, but the nature of
these ties vary according to the stressor or affective event and appraisal to which they are attached, and how
individuals manage those emotions.
The Emotion Regulation Process Model
Another research focus at the within-person level is how individuals manage or modify these discrete emo-
tional experiences and expressions and the subsequent outcomes of this regulation. At this level, we draw
on Gross’ (1998) emotion regulation (ER) process model, which encapsulates ‘the process by which individ-
uals influence which emotions they have, when they have them and how they experience and express these
emotions’ (1998: 275). Events at work can potentially give rise to a full range of discrete emotions (e.g., hap-
piness, sadness, anger). However, the exact nature of the discrete emotion experienced and expressed partly
depends on the use of particular ER strategies (Lawrence et al., 2011) that ultimately impact upon wellbeing.
According to Gross (1998), individuals regulate their emotions using antecedent-focused (prior to the full de-
velopment of an emotional experience) and response-focused strategies (after the discrete emotion has been

Page 7 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
experienced). In this regard, Gross identified five broad strategies. The first four comprise antecedent strate-
gies: (1) situation selection, (2) situation modification, (3) attentional deployment, and (4) cognitive change.
The fifth is a response-focused response modulation strategy (e.g., expressive suppression) that occurs after
a discrete emotion has been experienced. All strategies are intended to increase, to maintain, or to decrease
one or more components of the discrete emotion (experiential or expression). Within Gross’ process theory,
the choice of strategy depends on an individual's emotion-related goals, and the enactment of a strategy can
occur consciously, unconsciously, in isolation, or as part of simultaneous regulation attempts (Gross, 2015;
Lawrence et al., 2011).
In terms of wellbeing, there is evidence to suggest that individuals who typically regulate their emotions
through use of reappraisal report more positive affect, less negative affect, and greater psychological wellbe-
ing than others. On the other hand, individuals who typically use suppression report less positive affect, more
negative affect, less social support, and more depression (Gross and John, 2003: John and Gross, 2007). It
is also increasingly recognized that the outcomes of ER depend on the intensity and type of emotion being
regulated and the context. For example, in terms of anger, there is evidence to suggest that, while the use of
re-appraisal regulation should improve employee outcomes, the use of anger expression could result in sim-
ilar outcomes depending on the intensity and target of the anger (Geddes and Callister, 2007; Geddes et al.,
2020). Furthermore, in the face of perceived excessive anger expressed by others, it might be judicious for
an employee to engage in suppression of their own expressions of felt anger, at least in the short term. Thus,
both the discrete motion and the type of strategy used to regulate a particular emotion in a given context is
closely linked to wellbeing outcomes at this level.
Emotion at the Between-Person Level (Level 2) and Well-

being
In the previous section we argued that emotions are dynamic and tied to specific events; however, we also
know that there are stable differences between persons in affective experiences and attitudes that influence
individuals’ overall wellbeing. This is captured in Level 2 of the multilevel model of emotions (Ashkanasy,
2003). There are two specific constructs at this level that are important to acknowledge in terms of their re-

Page 8 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
lationship to wellbeing: an individual's affective disposition (or trait affect) and emotional intelligence (EI). It is
also important to note at this point that both affective disposition and EI ultimately affect an individual's ability
to regulate and to manage his or her emotion at work on a daily/event basis (Level 1; see Lawrence et al.,
2011).
Affective Dispositions
Trait affectivity, which refers to a personal disposition that influences a person's tendency to experience con-
sistently positive or negative emotions, is related to wellbeing. Negative affectivity (NA) is characterized by an
individual's tendency to consistently experience negative emotional moods. Individuals high in NA are ‘more
likely to report distress, discomfort, and dissatisfaction overtime and regardless of the situation, even in the
absence of any overt or objective source of stress’ (Watson and Clark, 1984: 483). Individuals high on NA
are also more inclined to dwell on their mistakes and shortcomings while focusing on the negative elements
of their lives, which can influence their wellbeing (Chang et al., 1997). In contrast, positive affectivity (PA) is
the tendency to consistently experience positive emotional states and has been associated with enthusiasm
and optimism (Watson and Clark, 1984). There is substantial evidence that job satisfaction relates to PA while
this construct is inversely associated with NA (e.g., Brief et al., 1995). There is also evidence to show that the
strongest positive relationship between job satisfaction and performance occurs when high value attainment
(finding meaning) is coupled with either high positive or low negative affective disposition (Hochwarter et al.,
1999). We also know that higher levels of NA are associated with workplace burnout, a counter indicator of
wellbeing.
Emotional Intelligence
Another important emotion-related construct that has implications for employee wellbeing at this level is EI.
The most broadly accepted definition of EI was provided by Mayer and Salovey (1997), who proposed that
the construct consists of four basic abilities: (1) ability to perceive and to recognize emotions in both self and
others; (2) ability to incorporate emotional information in decision-making and thinking; (3) ability to under-
stand the effects of emotion in self and others; and (4) ability to use and to manage emotion in self and others.
There is now substantial evidence to show that an individual's level of EI is positively associated with their
level of workplace wellbeing (e.g., Brunetto et al., 2012; Carmeli et al., 2009). For example, Fernàndez-Berro-

Page 9 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
cal and Extremera (2016) showed that ability measures of EI were negatively associated with depression
and were positively associated with wellbeing, and that these associations were moderated by gender. Fur-
ther Miao, Humphrey, and Qian's (2017) meta-analysis showed that employees with higher EI have higher
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions. They concluded that EI improves
job satisfaction by helping employees to reduce negative feelings, by increasing positive feelings, and/or by
improving job performance. They also recommended that to produce productive and satisfied workers, orga-
nizations should incorporate EI in employee recruitment, training and development programs. Recently, in a
group of nurses, Szczygiel and Mikolajczak (2018) showed that EI reduced the impact of negative emotions
(anger and sadness) at work on job burnout beyond nurses’ demographic characteristics and their disposi-
tional affect. As we discuss in the final section in this chapter, the practical workplace implications for wellbe-
ing of the Level 2 constructs of affective disposition and EI are particularly salient in how they relate to ‘fit’ in
relation to key work-related decisions around selection (Gabriel et al., 2014).
Emotion in Interpersonal Interactions (Level 3) and Wellbe-

ing
Ashkanasy (2003) explains that Level 3 encompasses interpersonal interactions and associated emotion-re-
lated processes. In essence, this part of the model is focused on the perception and communication of emo-
tion in interpersonal exchanges and is consistent with De Dreu et al.'s (2001) idea of emotion as a relation-
al phenomenon. This is a critical level for considering emotionality as organizations, at their core, comprise
working relationships between colleagues, between supervisors and subordinates, and between employees
and customers. We also know that the quality of these interactions often involves affective elements that are
critical to determining important health and wellbeing outcomes.
At this level, we have chosen to focus on emotional labor, its nature, and the role it plays in influencing work-
place wellbeing. At the interpersonal level, however, ER is often conceptualized through the lens of emotional
labor, especially in regard to wellbeing (see Holman et al., 2008; Zapf, 2002).

Page 10 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Emotional Labor
Hochschild (1983) defined emotional labor as a process by which employees regulate their emotions within
interpersonal encounters in order to adhere to organizational emotional display rules. This process of adjust-
ing true feelings ‘may involve enhancing, faking, or suppressing emotions’ (Grandey, 2000: 95) to produce a
prescribed emotional display (e.g., to smile and be pleasant in a service role). Hochschild argued that, when
the organization requires employees to display specific emotions in the context of interactions (e.g., be caring
and empathetic as a nurse), they enact one of two interpersonal ER strategies: surface acting (suppressing
the expression of emotions and faking unfelt emotions) or deep acting (consciously modifying felt emotions to
match expressed emotions). Most studies on emotion labor and emotion work also note that emotional labor
can result in emotional dissonance. This occurs when an employee is required to express emotions which are
not genuinely felt in the particular situation. According to Zapf,
this may be considered a form of person-role conflict, in which a person's response is in conflict with
role expectations regarding the display of emotions… [and thus] a person may feel nothing when an
emotion display is required, or the display rule may require the suppression of undesired emotions
and the expression of neutrality or a positive emotion instead of a negative one. (Zapf, 2002: 245)
Over time emotional dissonance can be harmful to employee wellbeing.
Emotional labor research has revealed both positive and negative relationships between emotional labor and
employee wellbeing. Surface acting (i.e., suppressing the expression of emotions and faking unfelt emotions)
is related with low wellbeing, including poor job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion (Bono and Vey, 2005;
Grandey, 2003). The connection between deep acting (i.e., modifying the feelings to match the required dis-
plays) and wellbeing, however, is less straightforward (Grandey, 2003). For instance, Holman et al.'s (2008)
overview of research showed a non-significant association with job satisfaction (Bono and Vey, 2005) and
emotional exhaustion (Totterdell and Holman, 2003), but a positive association with personal accomplishment
(Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002). In contrast, however, Bono and Vey's (2005) meta-analysis revealed that
deep acting is positively linked with emotional exhaustion, but the effect was weaker than for surface acting.
One explanation for this pattern of relationships is that the impact of deep acting on exhaustion is mediated
by self-authenticity (Brotheridge and Lee, 2002). That is, the negative impact of deep acting on wellbeing that
occurs due to the effort required to engage in this type of emotional labor is offset by the positive effect of

Page 11 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
deep acting on other resources (i.e., more authentic and rewarding relationships).
Researchers also recognize that the consequences of emotion work, when interacting with others, are de-
pendent on personality variables (Level 2) such as positive or negative affective disposition (Zapf, 2002). Evi-
dence also shows that EI moderates the influence of emotional dissonance on general wellbeing and job sat-
isfaction (it reduces the negative effects; Giardini and Frese, 2006). More specifically, EI appears to function
as a psychological resource that supports employees’ efforts to cope with states of emotional dissonance.
In sum, these results underscore the complex and multilevel effects of emotions on wellbeing and show that
some employees might be better able to deal with emotion work and emotion labor than others.
Emotion in Teams and Workgroups (Level 4) and Wellbe-

ing
Level 4 of the multilevel model of emotions (Ashkanasy, 2003) incorporates teams and workgroups, acknowl-
edging the increasing use of team structures in organizations. Three important constructs to consider at this
level in terms of wellbeing are emotional contagion, affective tone, and the role of Leader–Member Exchange
(LMX), the latter assessing the quality of interactions between leaders and followers.
Emotional Contagion and Affective Tone
Two salient and interrelated constructs at this level include the effect of ‘emotional contagion in teams’ (i.e.,
when individuals ‘catch’ or transfer the emotions of others unconsciously and unintentionally to each other;
Hatfield et al., 1993) on ‘group affective tone’ (George, 1990). This latter construct has been defined as occur-
ring when individuals in workgroups tend to experience highly similar levels of affect (e.g., excitement, frustra-
tion etc.). Kelly and Barsade (2001) showed that emotional contagion is key to the dissemination of moods in
work teams. There is also evidence to suggest that leaders play a critical role in determining emotional states
at a group level, via their disproportionate influence in emotional contagion processes (Sy et al., 2005).
Group-level affective tone is related to wellbeing outcomes. Shared positive moods in teams has been found
to be positively related to team satisfaction (Kelly and Spoor, 2007) and team goal commitment (Chi et al.,

Page 12 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
2011), and has been negatively related to group absenteeism (Mason and Griffin, 2003). It is reasoned that
positive group affective tone helps team members build enduring social resources (e.g., cooperation, help-
ing), psychological resources (e.g., optimism, resilience), and physical resources (e.g., more energy) by in-
creasing supportive and encouraging communication during team interactions, which positively impacts on
team wellbeing and outcomes (Chi et al., 2011). Conversely, negative group affective states are more likely
to be linked to team conflict, absenteeism (George, 1990), exhaustion, and sick days (Knight et al., 2018). In
particular, absenteeism, exhaustion, and increased sick days are often proxy measures used to assess em-
ployee wellbeing.
Leader–Member Exchange
One way to assess the influence of leadership on followers is through the quality of LMX relationships (Graen
and Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX is another key construct related to emotion at Level 4. LMX focuses on the quality
of the relationship between a leader and follower and proposes that leaders develop a range of interpersonal
relationships with subordinates. Leaders form low-quality transactional relationships with some employees,
while they develop high-quality socioemotional relationships with other followers. The quality of LMX has con-
sequences for the work experiences of both parties and influences the experience of the overall team. A
high-quality LMX relationship tends to feature mutual respect, trust, and influence that go beyond the formal
employment contract (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Tse and Troth, 2013). In contrast, low-quality LMX relation-
ships are restricted to the terms derived from the formal employment contact. Compared to peers in high LMX
relationships, subordinates in low LMX relationships often receive less supervisory attention, poorer access to
resources, and fewer empowerment opportunities, which leads to job dissatisfaction and lower organizational
commitment (Gerstner and Day, 1997). All factors that can have a major impact on the experienced wellbeing
of employees.
An increasing research focus is on how emotions influence LMX quality (see Tse et al., 2018). Due to the
increased proximity and frequency of interactions between subordinates and supervisors within groups, emo-
tions are intrinsically involved in LMX processes in workgroups and teams. Underpinned by AET (Weiss and
Cropanzano, 1996), Tse and Troth (2013) showed that the quality of LMX relationships is perceived by sub-
ordinates as a source of affective events, which create ‘uplifts’ (e.g, positive feedback, praise, or inspiration)
that produce positive emotional responses or ‘hassles’ (e.g., unfounded criticism, being overlooked for a de-

Page 13 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
velopment opportunity in favor of another colleague). They also cause negative emotional reactions among
workgroup subordinates, with consequences for wellbeing.
Emotions in Organizations as a Whole (Level 5) and Well-

being
Level 5 of the multilevel model (Ashkanasy, 2003) considers the organization-wide role that emotions play.
At this level, theorists have considered the emotion phenomena related to organizational culture and climate.
Ashkanasy and colleagues (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002; Ashkanasy and Härtel, 2014) argued that, at this
level, researchers need to consider how organizations can engender a healthy emotional climate. They con-
tend that ‘healthy’ organizations are broadly characterized by positive emotions, high commitment, and high
job satisfaction – leading to high performance and positive outcomes. A positive affective culture and climate
is manifested though organizational members’ understandings about norms and expectations that exist in the
organization (Ashkanasy and Härtel, 2014). These norms and expectations, in turn, are reflected in the af-
fective climate (positive or negative), the norms for emotional expression, and in the organization's emotional
history. All of these factors enhance the wellbeing of employees. For example, an organization that has just
survived a restructure is likely to have an emotional history that is very different to an organization riding the
crest of an economic boom. Knight et al. (2018) argued that an organization develops an overall affective
tone, which influences workforce strain such that a positive affective tone reduces strain while a negative af-
fective tone increases strain.
Ashkanasy (2003) contends that the central concept at the organizational level appears to involve the idea of
‘emotional climate', defined as ‘an objective group phenomenon that can be palpably sensed – as when one
enters a party or a city and feels an attitude of gaiety or depression, openness or fear’ (de Rivera, 1992: 197).
Climate is distinct from culture. The latter construct is more accurately defined as organizational members’
espoused beliefs and values that are underpinned by deep-seated assumptions about the organization and
its stakeholders (Schein, 2010). Emotional climate, on the other hand, refers to the collective mood of orga-
nizational members, including attitudes toward the organization as a whole, their peers, and their leaders. As
such, affective climate is a subset of organizational climate (Ashkanasy, 2003).

Page 14 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Practical Implications of Emotions for Wellbeing
One of the benefits of examining the emotions and wellbeing nexus across multiple levels is that it enables re-
searchers and practitioners, managers and organizations to consider a broader range of more targeted inter-
ventions to optimize employee functioning. In this section, being mindful of the framework set out in the five-
level model, we discuss seven key practical implications that draw on work by Ashkanasy and Daus (2002)
and Ashkanasy and colleagues (2017).
1. Emotion expressions at work are valuable sources of information. Level 1 highlighted the range of
discrete emotions, beyond a simple dichotomy of positive and negative affect, that result from differ-
ent appraisals of affective workplace events. These emotions can have both positive and negative
consequences for employee wellbeing and performance. The main point made is that these different
emotional expressions serve as valuable sources of information about what the individual is thinking
and feeling about particular work events and provide early indications of employees’ attitudes, health,
and wellbeing. It was also highlighted that the research on emotional regulation and labor demon-
strates that managers should not assume that all negative emotion expressions are destructive and
need to be minimized.
2. Emotions impact all jobs. Building on the previous point, it is important that organizations and man-
agers do not expect employees and workplaces to be emotionless. This is counterproductive for well-
being and performance. Thus, it is important to evaluate the ‘emotional impact’ of jobs. As we
stressed throughout this chapter, managers need to recognize that all work has an emotional compo-
nent. This might run counter to more traditional and ingrained beliefs that employees need to be ra-
tional and emotionless to be professional. Although we acknowledge that some jobs require more
emotion work than others (e.g., care workers, service workers), it is equally clear that emotions im-
pact all jobs.
3. Emotions in job design. Just as the tasks, duties, and responsibilities of a job role need to be exam-
ined via job analysis, it is also important to assess the emotional challenges inherent in a job or envi-
ronment (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002). There are a range of questions that organizations should con-
sider. Does the job require high emotion management skills of employees? What are the emotionally
challenging aspects of the job (e.g., a care worker expected to be tolerant and empathic working with
dementia patients prone to anger outbursts)? If the job is emotionally challenging, then how does the
manager (Level 3) and organizational structure (Level 5) ensure ways to buffer the emotional impact
of more intense affective events (e.g., via scheduling/job rotation to give ‘emotion breaks')? This es-
pecially applies to providing individual employees with the freedom to use their own initiative with their

Page 15 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
work.
4. Emotions and person–job–organization fit. Overall, the practical workplace implications regarding the
Level 2 constructs of affective disposition and EI for wellbeing are particularly salient as they pertain
to ‘fit’ in relation to key work-related decisions. For example, research suggests that there is a need
to make comparisons or seek to match the key attributes of job candidates (in this case their affective
dispositions) to similar attributes required of jobs, groups, or the organization (Ferris et al., 1985;
Judge and Ferris, 1992). There is a need to broaden recruitment and selection processes to consider
emotional capability as well as cognitive ability, skills, and experience (Gabriel et al., 2014). For ex-
ample, it is important when selecting employees and teams to, in part, consider their positive emo-
tional attitude (see Ashkanasy et al., 2017). If organizations are to develop a positive affective climate,
then clearly they need to attract employees who are able to demonstrate the personal qualities and
skills needed to achieve this outcome. In particular, it is important to consider the EI and affective
disposition of leaders, who have disproportionate influence in groups and influence affective climate
via emotional contagion. Moreover, recruitment, selection, and socialization of new employees are
functions that are inherently emotion-infused and are often the point at which employees begin to
learn the emotion norms of an organization regarding emotional expression and the emotional regu-
lation (Liu et al., 2011).
5. Emotions and organizational training and development processes. One potential area for focus re-
lates to the training and development of managers to be aware of, and skilled in, a range of ER strate-
gies to manage emotion-related events with staff appropriately to enhance employee wellbeing. Train-
ing employees in EI skills and healthy emotional expression (Jordan et al., 2002) enhances wellbeing.
Thus, organizations need to implement training programs across the organization that specifically ad-
dress emotional skills, including training in emotional intelligence (Slaski and Cartwright, 2003), em-
pathy (Cherniss, 2000), and emotion regulation training (Totterdell and Parkinson, 1999). In essence,
training in emotional factors could be applied to enhance organizational wellbeing.
6. Modeling appropriate emotions by managers. The emotional labor literature on leadership also has
important practical implications and managers need to pay attention to the moods and emotions of
their followers (Humphrey et al., 2008) to address wellbeing issues. Humphrey and his colleagues
argue that, although managers and other leaders do not have to express emotions continuously, ex-
pressing appropriate emotions is a key function that leaders, who should be concerned with both task
and relationships, need to perform. This means leaders need training in how to express their emo-
tions effectively and how to use either deep acting or genuine emotional expressions and avoid the
harmful psychological effects that accompany surface acting. These scholars also argue that being
proficient at the basic skills behind genuine emotional expression and deep acting may make the

Page 16 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
workplace more productive and pleasant for both leaders and followers, enhancing wellbeing. There
is also mounting evidence that leaders need to use considerable judgment about which emotions
to display, especially during times of crisis or when confronting other negative workplace events
(Ashkanasy et al., 2017). Ashkanasy and his colleagues argue that, at such times, leaders need pub-
licly to display emotions reflective of confidence and hopefulness even if they personally have the
same concerns as their subordinates. Although performing surface acting may make leaders more
effective, it may also add to leaders’ feelings of emotional exhaustion.
7. Establishing an organization's emotional requirements. Importantly, and consistent with AET (Level
1; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) and organizational affective climate (Level 5), employees also need
to see that there is a match between organizational policies and how they are expected to behave
day-to-day, especially in the form of positive organizational support. According to Ashkanasy et al.
(2017), engendering positive organizational culture and climate sometimes comes down ultimately to
the nature of the work done by individual employees, and including the freedom to use their own ini-
tiative within their work.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we presented a multilevel perspective on emotions and the interrelationships between some
key emotional concepts and processes with wellbeing. This theoretical analysis has resulted in the identifi-
cation of seven practical implications that should be carefully considered by organizations. Specifically, our
review reveals that emotional expressions at work are important sources of information about employees’ re-
sponses to organizational events, which influence employees’ wellbeing and performance. Importantly, emo-
tions may have negative or positive impacts on wellbeing and performance, and this emphasizes the need
for organizations to actively manage the emotional impact of all jobs. One aspect of managing the emotional
impact of jobs is a recognition that there is a need to assess the emotional impact of jobs via an emotional job
diagnosis. A second aspect of managing the emotional impact of jobs involves a recognition that when con-
sidering recruiting and selecting staff, the emotional fit of people with jobs and the organization's emotional
climate needs to be assessed. A third aspect of managing the emotional impact of jobs is a need to broaden
the focus on training and development programs within organizations to recognize the emotional demands of
different organizational contexts. A fourth implication of recognizing the role of emotions at work is that work-
place leaders need to become skilled at modeling organizationally appropriate emotions. The final implication

Page 17 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
of recognizing the importance of emotion in the workplace is a need to clarify an organization's emotional
requirements. All seven of these implications require organizations to consider emotions as a legitimate busi-
ness concern, requiring active consideration and management of emotions at multiple organizational levels,
in order to maintain individual and organizational wellbeing and performance.
References
Alam M and Singh P 2019 Performance feedback interviews as affective events: An exploration of the impact
of emotion regulation of negative performance feedback on supervisor–employee dyads. Human Resource
Management Review. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100740.
Andersson LM and Pearson CM 1999 Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy
of Management Review 24(3): 452–471.
Ashforth BE and Humphrey RH 1995 Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations 48(2):
97–125.
Ashkanasy NM 2003 Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. Research in Multi-Level Issues 2:

9–54.
Ashkanasy NM and Daus CS 2002 Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of
Management Perspectives 16(1): 76–86.
Ashkanasy NM and Dorris AD 2017 Emotions in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior 4: 67–90.
Ashkanasy NM and Härtel CEJ 2014 Positive and negative affective climate and culture: The good, the bad,
and the ugly. In: Schneider B and Barbera KM (eds) Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Climate and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–152.
Ashkanasy NM, Troth AC, Lawrence SA and Jordan PJ 2017 Emotions and emotional regulation in HRM: A
multi-level perspective. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 35: 1–52.
Ashton-James CE and Ashkanasy NM 2005. What lies beneath? A deconstructive analysis of affective events
theory. In: Ashkanasy NM, Zerbe WJ and Härtel CJ (eds) Research on Emotion in Organizations 1. Oxford:

Page 18 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Elsevier Science, pp. 23–50.
Bakker AB and Oerlemans W 2011 Subjective well-being in organizations. In: Cameron K and Spreitzer G
(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
178–189.
Barrett LF 2006 Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and
Social Psychology Review 10(1): 20–46.
Barsade SG, Brief AP and Spataro SE 2003 The Affective Revolution in Organizational Behavior: The Emer-
gence of a Paradigm. In: Greenberg J (ed) Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science 2. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–51.
Barsade SG and Gibson DE 2007 Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Per-
spectives 21(1): 36–59.
Bono JE and Vey MA 2005 Toward understanding emotional management at work: A quantitative review of
emotional labor research. In: Härtel CE, ZerbeWJ and Ashkanasy NM (eds) Emotions in Organizational Be-
havior. Cheltenham: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 213–233.
Brief AP, Butcher AH and Roberson L 1995 Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive
mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes 62(1): 55–62.
Brotheridge CM and Grandey AA 2002 Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of ‘people
work'. Journal of Vocational Behavior 60: 17–39.
Brotheridge CM and Lee RT 2002 Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional
labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(1): 57–67.
Brunetto Y, Teo ST, Shacklock K and Farr-Wharton R 2012 Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being
and engagement: Explaining organisational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource
Management Journal 22(4): 428–441.
Carmeli, A, Yitzhak-Halevy M and Weisberg J 2009 The relationship between emotional intelligence and psy-
chological wellbeing. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(1): 66–78.
Cavanaugh MA, Boswell WR, Roehling MV and Boudreau JW 2000 An empirical examination of self-reported

Page 19 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1): 65–74.
Chang EC, Maydeu-Olivares A and D'Zurilla TJ 1997 Optimism and pessimism as partially independent con-
structs: Relationship to positive and negative affectivity and psychological well-being. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences 23(3): 433–440.
Cherniss C 2000 Social and emotional competence in the workplace. In: Bar-On R and Parker JDA (eds) The
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School,
and in the Workplace. CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 433–458.
Chi NW, Chung YY and Tsai WC 2011 How do happy leaders enhance team success? The mediating roles of
transformational leadership, group affective tone, and team processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
41(6): 1421–1454.
Cropanzano R, Dasborough MT and Weiss HM 2017 Affective events and the development of leader-member
exchange. Academy of Management Review 42(2): 233–258.
De Dreu C K, West MA, Fischer AH and MacCurtain S 2001 Origins and consequences of emotions in orga-
nizational teams. In: Payne RL and Cooper CL (eds) Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications
in Management. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 199–217.
de Rivera J (1992) Emotional climate: Social structure and emotional dynamics. In: Strongman KT (ed) Inter-
national Review of Studies on Emotion, 2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 197–218.
Fernández-Berrocal P and Extremera N 2016 Ability emotional intelligence, depression, and well-being. Emo-
tion Review 8(4): 311–315.
Ferris GR, Youngblood SA and Yates VL 1985 Personality, training performance, and withdrawal: A test of the
person-group fit hypothesis for organizational newcomers. Journal of Vocational Behavior 27(3): 377–388.
Fisher CD and To ML 2012 Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 33(7): 865–877.
Forgas JP 1995 Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin 117(1): 39–66.
Frijda, NH 1986 The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda NH 1993 Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In: Lewis M and Haviland JM (eds) Handbook of
Emotions. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 381–403.

Page 20 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Chandler MM, Moran CM and Greguras GJ 2014 The dynamic relationships of
work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personnel Psychology 67(2): 389–420.
Geddes D and Callister RR 2007 Crossing the line(s): A dual threshold model of anger in organizations. Acad-
emy of Management Review 32(3): 721–746.
Geddes D, Callister RR and Gibson DE 2020 A message in the madness: Functions of workplace anger in
organizational life. Academy of Management Perspectives 34(1): 28–47.
George JM 1990 Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 107–116.
Gerstner CR and Day DV 1997 Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and con-
struct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 827–844.
Giardini A and Frese M 2006 Reducing the negative effects of emotion work in service occupations: Emotional
competence as a psychological resource. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11(1): 63–75.
Gibson DE and Callister RR 2010 Anger in organizations: Review and integration. Journal of Management
36(1): 66–93.
Glasø L and Einarsen S 2006 Experienced affects in leader–subordinate relationships. Scandinavian Journal
of Management 22(1): 49–73.
Goldberg LS and Grandey AA 2007 Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional ex-
haustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12(3):
301–318.
Graen GB and Uhl-Bien M 1995 Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member

exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly 6: 219–247.
Grandey AA 2000 Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(1): 95–110.
Grandey AA 2003 When ‘the show must go on': Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional
exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal 46(1): 86–96.
Gross JJ 1998 The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology
2: 271–299.

Page 21 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Gross JJ 2015 Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry 26(1): 1–26.
Gross JJ and John OP 2003 Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for af-
fect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(2): 348–362.
Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT and Rapson RL 1993 Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence 2: 96–100.
Hochschild AR 1983 The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Hochwarter WA, Perrewe PL, Ferris GR and Brymer RA 1999 Job satisfaction and performance: The moder-
ating effects of value attainment and affective disposition. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54(2): 296–313.
Holman D, Martinez-Iñigo D and Totterdell P 2008 Emotional labor, well-being and performance. In: Cartwright
S and Cooper C (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 331–355.
Humphrey RH, Pollack JM and Hawver T 2008 Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychol-
ogy 23: 151–168.
John OP and Gross JJ 2007 Individual differences in emotion regulation. In: Gross JJ (ed.) Handbook of Emo-
tion Regulation. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 351–372.
Jordan PJ, Ashkanasy NM, Härtel CE and Hooper GS 2002 Workgroup emotional intelligence: Scale devel-
opment and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Re-
view 12(2): 195–214.
Judge TA and Ferris GR 1992 The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions. Human Re-
source Planning 15(4): 47–66.
Keegan S 2015 The Psychology of Fear in Organizations: How to Transform Anxiety into Well-being, Produc-
tivity and Innovation. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Kelly JR and Barsade SG 2001 Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes 86(1): 99–130.
Kelly JR and Spoor JR 2007 Naïve theories about the effects of mood in groups: A preliminary investigation.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(2): 203–222.

Page 22 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Kligyte V, Connelly S, Thiel C and Devenport L 2013 The influence of anger, fear, and emotion regulation on
ethical decision making. Human Performance 26(4): 297–326.
Knight AP, Menges JI and Bruch H 2018 Organizational affective tone: A meso perspective on the origins and
effects of consistent affect in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 61(1): 191–219.
Lawrence SA, Troth AC, Jordan PJ and Collins A 2011. A review of emotion regulation and development of a
framework for emotion regulation in the workplace. In: Perrewe P and Ganster D (eds) Research in Occupa-
tional Stress and Well-being 9. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 197–263.
Lazarus RS 1991 Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist 46(4): 352–367.
Lazarus RS and Cohen-Charash Y 2001 Discrete emotions in organizational life. In: Payne RL and Cooper C
(eds) Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications for Management. London: Wiley, pp. 45–84.
LeDoux J 1998 Fear and the brain: Where have we been, and where are we going? Biological Psychiatry
44(12): 1229–1238.
Lerner JS and Tiedens LZ 2006 Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger's
influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19(2): 115–137.
Liu Y, Xu J and Weitz BA 2011 The role of emotional expression and mentoring in internship learning. Acad-
emy of Management Learning & Education 10(1): 94–110.
Maslach C and Jackson SE 1981 The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior 2(2): 99–113.
Mason CM and Griffin MA 2003 Group absenteeism and positive affective tone: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior 24(6): 667–687.
Mayer JD and Salovey P 1997 What is emotional intelligence? In: Salovey P and Sluyter D (eds) Emotional
Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators. New York: Basic Books, pp. 3–31.
Miao C, Humphrey RH and Qian S 2017 A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and work attitudes. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 90(2): 177–202.
Putnam LL and Mumby DK 1993 Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In: Fineman S (ed) Emo-
tion in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 36–57.

Page 23 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Rodell JB and Judge TA 2009 Can ‘good’ stressors spark ‘bad’ behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in
links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology 94(6): 1438–1451.
Ryan RM and Deci EL 2001 On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eu-
daimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 141–166.
Schein EH 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership 2. Chichester: Wiley.
Searle BJ and Auton JC 2015 The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress,
& Coping 28(2): 121–143.
Slaski M and Cartwright S 2003 Emotional intelligence training and its implications for stress, health and per-
formance. Stress and Health 19(4): 233–239.
Smith CA and Ellsworth PC 1985 Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 48(4): 813–838.
Sy T, Côté S and Saavedra R 2005 The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group
members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(2): 295–305.
Szczygiel DD and Mikolajczak M 2018 Emotional intelligence buffers the effects of negative emotions on job
burnout in nursing. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1–10.
Tamir M 2016 Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion regulation. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review 20(3): 199–222.
Totterdell P and Holman D 2003 Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a model of emotional
labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 8(1): 55–73.
Totterdell P and Parkinson B 1999 Use and effectiveness of self-regulation strategies for improving mood in
a group of trainee teachers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 4(3): 219–232.
Tse HHM and Troth AC 2013 Perceptions and emotional experiences in differential supervisor-subordinate
relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 34: 271–283.
Tse HM, Troth AC, Ashkanasy NM and Collins A 2018 Affect and leader-member exchange in the new mil-
lennium: A state-of-art review and guiding framework. The Leadership Quarterly 29(1): 135–149.

Page 24 of 25
Sage Sage Reference
Van Katwyk PT, Fox S, Spector PE and Kelloway EK 2000 Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale
(JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(2):
219–230.
Watson D and Clark LA 1984 Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.
Psychological Bulletin 96(3): 465–490.
Weiss HM and Cropanzano R 1996 Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes
and consequences of affective experiences at work. In: Staw BM and Cummings LL (eds) Research in Orga-
nizational Behavior 18. Westport, CT: JAI Press, pp. 1–74.
Wright TA 2014 Putting your best ‘face’ forward: The role of emotion-based well-being in organizational re-
search. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(8): 1153–1168.
Zapf D 2002 Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual con-
siderations. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2): 237–268.
• emotion work
• emotion
• wellbeing
• affect
• organizations
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187

Page 25 of 25

Emotions and Wellbeing at Work A Multilevel Perspective - SAGE4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotions and Wellbeing at Work A Multilevel Perspective - SAGE4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sage Reference

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Author: Ashlea C. Troth, Alannah Rafferty, Peter J. Jordan

© 2021 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.