Thefocusonjobsatisfactionandjobburnoutasthewell-beingoutcomesiswork-centric;itignoreshowemotionallabormayaffectthewholeperson.Hochschild(1983)originallyspokeofemotionalestrangement—alackofconnectiontoone’sself—thataffectsallrelationships.Onewaythisisbeginningtobestudiedisthroughemotionallaborspillovertononworkrelationships.Self-reportedemotionalregulationatworkiscorrelatedwithself-reportedemotionregulationathomeandperceivedwork–familyconflict(e.g.,Wagneretal.2014,Yanchusetal.2010),butsurprisinglylittleresearchhasassessedhowemotionregulationatworkislinkedtoemployeemaritalquality,friendships,andchildren’shealth(Grandey&Krannitz2015,Wharton&Erickson1995).Ifresourcesaregainedorlostfromemotionallabor,theseshouldhaveimpli-cationsfornonworkrelationshipsaswell.
gIdentifyresourcegainsfromemotionallabor.Additionally,moreemphasiscanbeplacedonthefinancialandsocialresourcegainsassociatedwithemotionallabor.Ifemotionallaborisuniquebecauseitisdoneforawage,weneedtoestablishauniqueeffectofsuchmonetarygainsonemployees.Dotheyactasapersonalresourceifoneisrewardedforshowingnegativeorneutral.ylnemotions,orjustasanincentiveforbeingpositive?Furthermore,althoughthesocialinteractiono emodel(C?té2005)waspublishedadecadeago,fewhavedirectlytestedwhetheremotionallaborsu lcouldimprovesocialresourcesthatthenbuffertheemployee’sstrain.Socialresourcesmaycomeanosfromcoworkersandleaders,buttheyalsomayvarybyemotionallaboroccupationsbasedontherepextentofongoingrelationshipsandpositivebehaviorsfromcustomers(Gabrieletal.2015a,r oFManeotis2014).Itwouldalsobeinterestingtoexplorepossibleresourcegainsfromengagingin .51emotionaldeviance,suchasfeelingauthenticandstronginstandinguptoahostilecustomer.
/81/04 noEmotionalLaborandOrganizationalPerformance
461.Atruisminbusinessisthat“servicewithasmile”(anda“happyworkforce”)isgoodforbusiness.69.3Thisassumptionexplainswhyemotionaldisplaysareanin-rolerequirement(Diefendorffetal.52.2006),enforcedthroughmonitoring,training,andincentives(Pughetal.2013,Rafaeli&Sutton69 y1987).Atthesametime,scholarshavepointedoutthatrequiringasmilemaycreatenegativeb dmoodsthatironicallyunderminethehappyperformance(Ashforth&Humphrey1993).Below,edivwereviewhowemotionallaborbenefitsinterpersonalperformancethroughsocialprocessesintheorpcustomer/perceiver.Wethenreviewtheself-regulatorydepletionperspective,whichexplainswhy sseemotionallabormaynotbenefittaskandoverallperformance.
ccA Interpersonalreactions:emotionalcontagionandsocialjudgments.Emotionallaborisconnectedtointerpersonaljobperformancebecauseemployees’expressionsaffectcustomers’attitudes,intentions,andjudgments.Thiscanoccurthroughtwomechanisms:automaticemotionalcontagionandcognitivejudgmentsaboutperformance,recentlysummarizedintheemotionsassocialinfluence(EASI)model(VanKleef2009)asaffectiveandinferentialprocesses.
Emotionalcontagionprocessesarefairlyautomaticandsociallyadaptiveresponsestoob-servingemotionalexpressions(Hatfieldetal.1994).Theemotions“spread”totargets(i.e.,customers)throughunconsciousmimicryofexpressions,whichinducesachangeinmoodintheperceiver,affectinghisorherjudgmentsandbehaviors.Incustomerservice,serviceemployees’positiveemotionalperformance(codedbyresearchers)predictedcustomers’reportsofpositivemood,whichexplainsperformancejudgments,timeinthestore,andbehavioralintentions(Pugh2001,Tsai&Huang2002,Tsai2001).Morespecifically,positiveexpressionmimicryhasbeenfoundbetweenemployeesandcustomersandlinkedtopositivemoodsandthenhigherperfor-manceevaluations(Barger&Grandey2006,Tanetal.2004).Emotionalcontagionhasalsobeen
www.annualreviews.org
??
EmotionalLaborataCrossroads337
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:323-349. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgdemonstratedwithpeers(Barsade2002,Totterdell2000)andfromleaderstofollowers(Bono&Ilies2006,Syetal.2005),withbothpositiveandnegativeexpressionsbeing“caught”andaf-fectingworkjudgmentsandbehaviors.
Inferentialprocessingmechanismssuggestthatexpressionsprovideinformationabouttheactor/organization(i.e.,smilingemployeesareperceivedasfriendlyandhelpful;scowlingem-ployeesareseenaspowerful)ortheperceiver(i.e.,theemployeeisperformingwell/poorly),andthesejudgmentsaffectsubsequentbehaviors(VanKleefetal.2012).Infact,positiveexpressivebehaviors(i.e.,smiling)predictappraisalsoftheemployee/organization(i.e.,friendlyclimate,performancejudgments),explainingbehavioralintentionsbeyondfeltmoods(Barger&Grandey2006,Tsai&Huang2002).Notably,insomecontexts,negativeemotionsarehelpfultoorga-nizationalgoalsbycommunicatinginformationaboutthepoweroftheactororthesubpar.ylno esu lanosrepr oF .51/81/04 no 461.69.352.69 yb dedivorp sseccA performanceofthetarget(Sinaceur&Tiedens2006,Syetal.2005).
However,emotionalperformancethatseemsinauthenticislesslikelytohavethesebenefitstointerpersonalperformance(Ashforth&Humphrey1993,Grandeyetal.2005a).Deepactingshouldbemoreeffective,asbychangingfeelingsoneappearsmoregenuinethanwhensurfaceacting.Infact,acrossstudies,employees’deepactinghaspositiveassociationswithcustomersatisfaction,whereassurfaceactinghasweaknegativeeffects(Hülsheger&Schewe2011).Positiveexpressionsthatseemgenuineappeartoamplifyboththeaffectiveandinferentialmechanisms:Deepactingstrengthensthelikelihoodofcatchingthepositivemoodexpressed(Hennig-Thurauetal.2006)andimprovesappraisalsofservicequalityfrompositivedisplays(Grandey2003,Hülshegeretal.2010).Asmilecreatedbysurfaceactinghasaweakeffectthatdependsonotherfactors.
Researchershavestartedtolinkemotionallabortointerpersonalperformancewithcoworkersaswellascustomers.Beyondemployeepositiveaffectivity,deepactingwaspositivelyrelatedtoself-reportedOCBtowardcoworkers,whereasthosewhotendtousesurfaceactingengageinlessOCB(Kiffin-Petersenetal.2011,Trougakosetal.2015);bycontrast,nodirecteffectwasfoundwithsupervisor-ratedOCB(Grant2013).Surfaceactingwithcoworkershadadirectnegativeeffectonworkgroupperformanceratedbyasupervisor;deepactingwasnottested(Ozcelik2013).ItisunclearwhetheremotionregulationstrategiesarelinkedtocoworkerOCBduetoglobalmotivationaltendencies,orwhetherperformingemotionregulationmayindirectlyaffecttheabilitytoperforminternally(i.e.,throughdepletionofresources).
Socialcontagionandjudgment-basedmoderators.Severalfactorsdeterminewhetheremotionalregulationandtheobservableemotionalperformancehasdesiredeffectsoncustomerreactions.Inadyadicfieldtest,Grothandcolleagues(2009)foundthatdeepactingimprovedperformanceappraisalsbyaffectingjudgmentsoftheemployee’sserviceorientation.Surfaceacting’seffectonjudgmentsoftheemployeewasnegativeonlywhencustomersaccuratelydetectedthattheywerefaking.Inbothalabandfieldstudy,deepactingdirectlyimprovedcustomerreactions(i.e.,tips,performancejudgments),butsurfaceacting’seffectivenessdependedonthesocialskills(i.e.,extraversion)oftheactor(Chietal.2011).Thus,thecombinationofactorandperceiverskillstoenactanddetectauthenticityisanimportantboundarycondition.
Task/overallperformance:self-regulatorydepletion.Ofcourse,customersatisfactionandin-terpersonalperformancearenottheonlyindicatorsofhowwellsomeoneisperforming.Whentask-basedperformanceoroverallperformanceisused,therelationshipwithemotionallaborismixed.Deepactinghasaweakpositiveandsurfaceactingaweaknegativecorrelationwithtaskandoveralljobperformanceinmeta-analyses,evenwhentraitaffectivityiscontrolledfor(Hülsheger&Schewe2011,Kammeyer-Muelleretal.2013,Mesmer-Magnusetal.2012).Basedon
338
Grandey
??
Gabriel
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:323-349. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgonetheoreticalperspective,theseweakrelationshipsmaybeduetoperformancetrade-offsfromengaginginemotionallabor.Fromtheegodepletiontheoreticalperspective,individualshavealimitedpoolofresourcestohelpeffectivelymanagetheirperformance,andself-regulationononeself-regulatorytask(i.e.,suppressingexpressions)canhavecostsforsubsequentself-regulationinthesameoranother(i.e.,attentionalfocus)domain(Muraven&Baumeister2000).Giventhatemployeesinemotionallaborjobsaretryingtoachieveemotionregulatorygoalsinadditiontootherself-regulatorygoals(Diefendorff&Gosserand2003),emotionregulationmayhavecostsforthoseothergoalsthroughouttheworkday.
Severallaboratorystudieswithservicesimulationsprovideevidencethatemotionallaborhascoststotaskperformance.Emotionalrequirementsandemotionregulationreducedsubsequentself-regulatoryperformanceonattentionaltasks,decisionmaking,andphysicalexertion(Goldberg&Grandey2007,Zyphuretal.2007).However,thesecostsseemtobespecifictosurfaceactingorsuppression.Thetendencytosuppressemotionswasnegativelyrelatedtotaskperformance,whereasthetendencytousereappraisal(i.e.,deepacting)waspositivelyrelated,andmediatedbyattentionalfocus(Wallaceetal.2009).Goingbeyondthesurface–deepacting.ylndichotomy,anexperimentshowedthatattemptingtomodifytheemotionsofotherswasalsoo eself-depleting,andassociatedwithlowerlevelsofpersistenceonanunsolvableanagramsu l(Martínez-í?igoetal.2013).
anosrepSelf-regulatorydepletionmoderators.Egodepletiontheoryassumesthattheeffectofemotionr oFregulationonperformancedependsontheactor’scapacityandmotivationforself-regulation .51(Muraven&Baumeister2000).Intrinsicandextrinsicmotivation,oftenpresentinaworkcontext,/81canhelptooverridesuchdepletion,suchthatself-regulationmaynotnecessarilyharmtaskor/04 overallperformance(Muraven&Slessareva2007).Moreover,self-regulatorybreakscanhelpno 4employeesreplenishresourcesandimproveemotionalperformance,comparedwithwhenbreaks61.areusedforchores(Trougakosetal.2008).Greaterexperienceorpracticeengaginginemotion69.3regulationshouldalsostrengthenone’scapacitytoengageinemotionallabor,suggestingthatjob52.tenureorregulatorytrainingshouldmatter.
69 yb dFuturedirections:testassumptionsandboundaryconditions.Similartooursuggestionsforwell-edivbeingoutcomes,researchlinkingemotionallaborandperformancewouldbenefitfromtestingorpassumptionsaboutfinancialandstore-levelgains,anexpandedperformancecriterion,and ssethesocial-motivationalconditionsthatmoderatetherelationshipofemotionallaborwithccAperformance.
Testtheassumptionofbottom-linegains.Althoughmuchsupportexistsformomentaryeffectsofpositivedisplaysonthetarget(e.g.,customer/perceiver),wehavelimitedevidencethatpositiveemotionsare“goodforbusiness”intheformofpurchases,loyaltybehaviors,orotherbottom-lineoutcomes.Financialdecisionsmaybemoreaffectedbynegativeemotionalperformancesthatcommunicatepowerandinstillfear(e.g.,bynegotiators,billcollectors,interrogators)(VanKleefetal.2004)thanbypositivedisplaysthatcommunicateaffiliativetendencies.However,thefewstudiesthatdolookatsuchoutcomessuggesttheopposite.Positiveemotionalperformancewasnegativelyrelatedtosalesinconveniencestoresduetotheconfoundofstorebusyness(Sutton&Rafaeli1988),anditwasunrelatedtopurchasingbehaviorofshoestorecustomers,althoughcustomersdidstaylonger(Tsai2001).Noknownstudieshavedirectlydemonstratedthattheemotionallaborofaserviceproviderorunitincreasesthelikelihoodofcustomersbuyingmore,returningtothestore,orrecommendingittoothers.Suchevidenceandexplicationofthe
www.annualreviews.org
??
EmotionalLaborataCrossroads339
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:323-349. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.ormechanismsbywhichthebehaviorsoccurareneededifwearetoarguethatemotionallaborisnecessaryandworththecoststoemployees’well-being.
Expandtheperformancecriterion.Ifemotionregulationdepletesself-regulatoryresources,deregulatedorcounterproductivebehaviorsmayalsobemorelikelythemoreoneregulates.Someworksuggeststhatwhenemployeesmustconstantlyfakeandsuppressnegativefeelings,theymay“breakcharacter”(Grandey2003,Groth&Grandey2012).Covertsabotageagainstcustomersisanoutcomeofbeingmistreatedbycustomers(Wangetal.2011),althoughitisunclearifemotionregulationmakesthismoreorlesslikely.Arecentstudyfoundthatsuppressingemotionsingeneral,measuredasatrait-likeemotionregulationtendency,increasedtheasso-ciationbetweendailynegativeworkemotionsandorganizationallydirectedcounterproductiveg.ylno esu lanosrepr oF .51/81/04 no 461.69.352.69 yb dedivorp sseccA behavior,butnotinterpersonallydirectedcounterproductivebehavior(Mattaetal.2014).Basedonegodepletion,emotionregulationwithcustomersshouldhaveperformancecoststootherregulatorydomains.
Scholarsinterestedinlinkingemotionallaborwithcoworkerinterpersonalperformanceneedtoconsiderthesocialcontext.DeepactingwasmorelikelytopredictOCBwithteammemberswhentherewasateam-levelclimatefordeepactingratherthansurfaceacting(Beckeretal.2014).Leadershavebeenencouragedtousedeepactingstrategiestoappearauthentictofollowers(Gardneretal.2009);yet,thismayonlybeimportanttoemployeeswithhigh-qualityleaderrelationshipswhoexpectmore“real”interactions(Fisk&Friesen2012).Infact,surfaceanddeepactinginresponsetodifficultsituationsatworkbothimprovedsupervisorratingsofemployees’performancebecausetheytendedtospeakupaboutproblemsmoreeffectively(Grant2013).Thesestudiesillustratetheimportanceofsocialnormsandexpectationstodeterminetheef-fectivenessofemotionregulationstrategies.
Identifytheboundaryconditionsofemotionallaboronperformance.Surfaceactinghasaweaknegativeeffectonperformance,suggestingmoderatingconditions.TheEASImodel(VanKleef2009)proposesthattheeffectofemotionallabordependsontheperceiver’smotivationtouseemotionasinformation,suchaspowerdifferentialsorintimacy.Similarly,theleveloffamiliaritybetweenanemployeeandacustomerhasbeenfoundtoneutralizewhetherpositivedisplayspredictserviceperformance;anamplifiedpositivedisplaywasmoreexpectedforfirst-timeinteractions(Gabrieletal.2015a,Wang&Groth2014).Asanotherexample,amplifyingpositiveexpressionswasbeneficialforperformanceratingsofAfricanAmericanserviceemployees,thoughnotforWhiteemployees,possiblybyoverridingstereotypes(Grandey&Houston2013).Clearly,understandingmoreaboutmotivationalandrelationaldifferencescanhelpdeterminehowpeoplerespondtoemotionregulationandperformance.
Finally,althoughegodepletiontheorysuggeststhatemotionregulationshouldnotimpairsubsequentregulatoryperformancewhenonehasstrongmotivationtoperform,hasrecoveredregulatoryresourcesbyabreak,orhasstrengthenedregulatorycapacitythroughpracticeortraining(Muraven&Slessareva2007),noknownresearchhastestedthesetheoreticalpossibilitiesinaworkcontext.Theseareexcitingdirectionstopursueandto“giveback”tothesocialpsychologyliteratureregardingboundaryconditionsofemotionregulationoutcomes.
CONCLUSION
Wehavecoveredalotofgroundinourreviewofemotionallabor,carvingoutmanynewroadsforscholarstofollow.Wenowturntonextstepsintermsofboththepracticalimplicationsandresearchdirections.
340
Grandey
??
Gabriel
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:323-349. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orPracticalImplications:BalancingEmployeeandOrganizationalWell-Being
Earlyarticlesprovidedcasestudiesofthepracticesusedtomanageemotionallabor(Rafaeli&Sutton1987,VanMaanen&Kunda1989).Yet,quantitativeevidencecomparingpracticestomanageandsupportemotionallaborersisminimal(Pughetal.2013).Organizationscanfocusonhowtorecruitandselectthebestfitforthesejobs,suchthatself-expressioniscongruentwithemotionalrequirements(Arveyetal.1998),whichwillaffecttheperson–jobcongruencedepictedinFigure1.Socializationisalsousedtoincreaseidentificationwiththeorganizationgoals,whichbuffersstrainfromemotionallabor(Schaubroeck&Jones2000,VanMaanen&Kunda1989).However,negativeeventsarelikelytooccur,whichmakesself-expressionchallenging,andorganizationsmaynotbeabletoselecttheperfectfitatalltimes.Thus,otherpracticalimplicationshavebeenproposedtomanageemotionallabor.
gInterestingly,researchhasnotfoundsupportforHochschild’s(1983)proposalthatman-agementtactics,suchasmonitoringandrewards,makeemotionallabormorecontrollinganddistressing.Infact,performancemonitoringincallcentersdidnotincreaseemotionallaborand.strainiftheperceivedpurposeofmonitoringwassupportive(Holmanetal.2002),andfinancialylnoincentivesenhancedsatisfactionfromemotionallabor(Grandeyetal.2013a).Overall,the esupresenceofhumanresourcepracticesforemotionallaborincreasedcommitmenttoemotional langoals(Diefendorff&Croyle2008),whichmotivatedtheuseofsurfaceanddeepactinginresponseosrtotheemotionalrequirements(Gosserand&Diefendorff2005).Thus,managementtacticsmayepr providenecessaryvalueandsupportforanotherwiseundervaluedaspectoflabor.
oF .Inthepracticalimplicationsectionofmostemotionallaborstudies,thereisusuallythesug-51/gestionfortrainingemotionregulation,specificallydeepacting.However,deepactingmayhave81/hiddencoststoemployeesduetoconstantlychangingtheiremotionalsignalsinternally04 n(Hochschild1983)and,inarecentmeta-analysis,waspositivelyrelatedtophysiologicalindicatorso 46ofstrain(Hülsheger&Schewe2011).Moreover,management-traineddeepactingmayfunction1.6differentlythandeepactingthatemergesnaturally.Thereisevidenceforemotionalcompetence9.35trainingtoimproveself-efficacyandwell-being,aswellasother-ratedrelationaloutcomes(Kotsou2.6etal.2011).However,suchtraininghasnotbeendirectlyappliedtoemotionallaborcontexts,and,9 ybunfortunately,suchtrainingisofteninvestedonlyintomanagersandleaders,notintoserviceworkers. deOtherinterventions,suchasend-of-daypositivereflectionandmindfulness(i.e.,nonjudgmentaldivocompleteattention;Bonoetal.2013,Hülshegeretal.2013),areeffectiveforemployeewell-beingandrp sseemconceptuallyrelatedtodeepactingandtorestoringregulatoryresources.Finally,anothersecpracticalavenueformanagementistotrainorsocializethebehaviorofthecustomer(Groth2005),cA reducingthecustomermistreatmentthathasbeenidentifiedasapredictorofsurfaceactingandburnout.
Identifyingandtestingpracticalinterventionsarecriticaltothefutureofemotionallaborasanorganizationaltopic.Weencouragescholarstoconsidernotonlyhoworganizationalpracticesaffectemotionallaborinisolation,butalsohowpractices(e.g.,recruitment,training,performancemanagement)functionasasystemtocreateenvironmentsconducivetomorebeneficialformsofemotionregulation.
ResearchImplications:QuestionAssumptionsandExpandExistingApproaches
Weencourageresearcherstoquestionandtestassumptionsaboutemotionallabor.Weidentifiedfourthatwefeelexistbutneedmoreevidence.Oneassumptionisthatpeoplewhoareabetterfitwillneedtodolessemotionallabor.Yet,whentraitsarecongruentwithemotionalrequirements(i.e.,extraversion,self-monitoring,positiveaffectivity),moreregulation(i.e.,deepacting)is
www.annualreviews.org
??
EmotionalLaborataCrossroads341
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:323-349. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.or