!Emotion Management Rules 1

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY /AUGUST 2002Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS

COMMUNICATION RULES

FOR THE DISPLAY

OF EMOTIONS IN

ORGANIZATIONAL

SETTINGS

MICHAEL W. KRAMERJON A. HESS

University of Missouri–Columbia

66

AUTHORS’NOTE:Wewish to thank Brad Reel for his assis-tance in data collection. A previous version of this articlewas presented at the National Communication AssociationAnnual Convention in New York, November 1998.

“While

respondents never

referred to a rule

that you should

mask negative

emotions, it

appears to be a

general,

understood

principle.”

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

Using a sample of employees from awide range of occupations, thisresearch examines the general communication rules that governemotion management in all aspects of organizational involvement—with coworkers and not just customers. Through content analysis ofexamples of both appropriate and inappropriate displays or mask-ing of positive and negative emotions, results showed that (a) main-taining “professionalism” is central to appropriate emotion man-agement, (b) positive emotions, not just negative emotions, need tobe displayed in appropriate ways, and (c) the appropriate display ofnegative emotions typically means masking those emotions. Thisleads to a broader view of the role of emotions in organizationalcommunication, one that is frequently overlooked in the rationalparadigm that permeates organizational research.

“E motions are an integral and inseparable part of every-day organizational life,” arguedAshforth andHumphrey

(1995, p. 98). Due to an increasing awareness of the role that emo-tional intelligence plays in human social life (Barrett & Gross,2001), researchers have increasingly investigated emotion man-agement in organizational life (Wharton, 1993). Although mostresearchers have focused on frontline employees interacting withcustomers or the general public (Morris & Feldman, 1996), researchneeds to examine a broad range of occupations, because emotionmanagementmost frequently occurs in employee interactions apartfrom public contact (Waldron, 1994). These interactions may havedifferent display rules, because customer interactions are public, or“onstage,” whereas employee interactions are private, or “back-stage” (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). In this study we examinedcommunication rules that influence themanagement and display ofemotions across a range of organizational occupations in variousemotion-laden interactions in organizational settings.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Emotions are commonly explained in terms of expectancy viola-tions (e.g., Omdahl, 1995). This explanation suggests that organi-

Kramer, Hess / EMOTION DISPLAYS 67

zational members have expectations for common experiences suchas goal achievement and relationship maintenance. Environmentalstimuli perceived as discrepant with expectations are a primarycause of emotions. Positive emotions occur when experiencesexceed expectations, whereas negative emotions occur when expec-tations are not met. The resulting felt emotions include physiologi-cal and cognitive components with the severity of the discrepancyincreasing the level of emotional arousal (Fiebig & Kramer, 1998;Omdahl, 1995).Emotion displays, as the actual communication of emotions, do

not always openly express felt emotions. Through emotion man-agement individuals decide to express, mask, or change felt emo-tions (Kruml & Geddes, 2000). In all cultures the tension betweenspontaneously expressing and strategically communicating feltemotions is controlled by communication display rules that pre-scribe the appropriate or inappropriate expression of emotions(Planalp, 1999). Knowing the communication rules for emotionmanagement is important for individuals to understand organiza-tional culture (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989), develop relationships(Waldron, 2000), and to ultimately achieve career success (Staw,Sutton, & Pelled, 1994).Socialization research suggests that organizations deliberately

select employees who conform to certain rules for the display ofemotions (e.g., flight attendants in Hochschild, 1983; cruise shipstaff in Tracy, 2000; and bill collectors in Sutton, 1991). Oncehired, employees are formally taught emotion display rules. Forexample, convenience store clerks were taught to display positiveemotions (Rafaeli, 1989), whereas bill collectors were taught tocommunicate urgency (Sutton, 1991). Finally,many employees arerewarded with raises and promotions throughout their careers ifthey complywith organizational display rules (e.g., Sutton, 1991).In addition to such conscious efforts at emotion management,

other research suggests that selection and socializationmay be sub-consciously based in part on following more general rules forappropriate emotion displays. For example, Jablin and Krone(1994) concluded that interviewees whose nonverbal behaviorsexpressed positive affectweremore likely to be rated positively andreceive second interviews. Research suggests that indirect and sub-tle forms of rewards and punishment reinforce more general orga-

68 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

nizational rules for the appropriate display and management ofemotions. For example, one study showed that expressing morepositive emotions led to higher supervisor evaluations, pay raises,and social support (Staw et al., 1994).In summary, research indicates that communication rules govern

emotion displays in organizational settings. Understanding andcomplyingwith those rules has important implications for employ-ees. Through selection, socialization, rewards, and punishments,organizations teach and reinforce occupation-specific and moregeneral organizational rules for displaying emotions. Becausemostresearch has focused on front-line occupations with clearly speci-fied emotion display rules, there is a need to examine a broaderrange of emotion rules, that is, the general display rules that holdacross awide range of occupations. Such general display rulesmaybe part of the civility rules that facilitate successful coexistence byguiding employees to show or suppress positive or negative emo-tions, such as avoiding obscenity or verbal aggressiveness (Eubanks,1980) and showing appropriate sympathy and respect (Pin &Turndorf, 1985).Thus,we sought to answer the followingquestion:

ResearchQuestion:What communication rules for the display of emo-tions do employees perceive as functioning in organizations?

METHOD

RESPONDENTS

Students in a communication class received credit if they hadthree full-time employees complete the survey, thus providing datafrom a broad range of occupations and organizations. Of 110 sur-veys distributed this way, 95 were returned (86% response rate).Respondents listed a phone number, and a random sample of therespondents (20%) were called to verify their participation. Respon-dents ranged in age from 19 to 68 (M = 34), and 56%were women.The largest groups described their job as management (27.4%),customer service (22.1%), and office or staff work (13.7%) and


reported they were employed in retail (17.9%), education (17.9%),and health care (13.7%) organizations.

INSTRUMENT

This study is based on an interpretive perspective aimed atincreasing knowledge of the way things are understood (Putnam,1982). From this perspective, self-reported perceptions of eventsare the best indicators of respondents’ understanding of displayrules.Because knowledge of rules is increased by examining instances

of their being followed and violated the survey asked for examplesof appropriate and inappropriate emotion displays. Because emo-tion display rules often stipulate masking instead of expressingemotions it was important to gather examples of masking emotionsas well. Modeled after previous research (e.g., Waldron & Krone,1991), the survey included open-ended questions that asked forexamples of these situations: (a) appropriate displays of positiveemotions, (b) inappropriate displays of positive emotions, (c)appropriate displays of negative emotions, (d) inappropriate dis-plays of negative emotions, or (e) examples of masking. Because“masking” is not a common term, respondents were asked to recalla situation in which they knew or thought someone was displayingan emotion other than what they were experiencing.To prevent fatigue, each respondent only received questions

regarding three situations, two from a random mixture of the firstfour situations plus themasking situation. All received themaskingsituation given the frequency with which masking emotions is dis-cussed in the literature. This resulted in 42 examples of appropriatepositive displays, 38 of inappropriate positive displays, 53 ofappropriate negative displays, 53 of inappropriate negative dis-plays, and 92 examples of masking.For each situation respondents indicated (a) the participants,

(b) the event leading to the emotion, (c) the perceived felt emotion,(d) the expressed emotion, (e) the reason for considering it appro-priate or inappropriate, and (f) any impact it had on themselves orothers. In addition, respondents indicated basic demographic infor-mation about themselves.


ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS

Respondents provided 304 explanations of appropriate and inap-propriate behaviors, suggesting several general communicationrules for emotion displays. In what follows, we present each of thegeneral rules gleaned from the content analysis, followed by expla-nations and more specific expressions of the rule (if there wereany). We include exemplars from the data to illustrate each ruleand/or its more specific expressions.


The most common rule given was to express emotions profes-sionally (n = 98, 32%). Although there were many nuances to whatprofessionalism entailed, its most essential elements were havingcontrol over one’s emotion displays and maintaining a “business-like” atmosphere. For example, a buyer was described as profes-sional when she tried to smile pleasantly while meeting with a spe-cialist she disliked, and a computer analyst was described as actingprofessionallywhen he suffered a personal problem but did not dis-play his negative feelings while at work. In contrast, a supervisorwas described as unprofessionalwhen he yelled at a salesperson fora poorly done jobwhen it could have been handled in a calmerman-ner. As these examples illustrate, expressing negative emotionsprofessionally most often involved presenting a neutral or positiveemotion display by masking the negative felt emotions. However,professionalism also encompassed the management of positiveemotions. An employee who apparently thought he was expressingpositive emotion was described as unprofessional when he contin-ued to tease a bookkeeper who was having a bad day. A head of anonprofit agency expressed positive emotions inappropriately whenhe loudly congratulated his subordinate forwinning a bid in front ofthe losing party. In these cases, positive emotions were expressedunprofessionally because they were excessive and poorly timedgiven the circumstances. In some instances the respondents pro-vided an explanation ofwhy the emotion display demonstrated pro-fessionalism, such as the respondent who learned that to be profes-sional “sometimes you just have to control your feelings and dowhat you are told.” In other instances respondents did not articulatewhat professionalismmeant and used the term as if itsmeaningwasunderstood.Another frequently invoked rule was to express emotions to

improve situations (n = 64, 21%). This rule suggests emotion dis-plays should be managed so that they result in positive rather thannegative outcomes. Whereas many of the display rules focused onenacting the proper behaviors, this rule focused on outcomes. Thatis, this rule regulates the ends people seek to achieve rather than themeans they use to attain them. Results suggest that positive out-comes can be accomplished in three different ways. First, accord-ing to the findings, people should use emotion displays to preventor correct a problem. For example, a cook reported that bymasking


his negative felt emotions and expressing a neutral or positive emo-tion display—acting politely toward his general manager withwhom he was irate—he was able to diffuse the problem and keephis job. Second, employees should use emotion displays to create agood climate in the workplace. An example of this was a salesper-son showing joy at his promotion to manager. By expressing hispositive emotion appropriately, he affirmed to other coworkers thathardworkwould be rewarded. Finally,workersmust avoid emotiondisplays that lead to negative outcomes. When a store managerexpressed his anger at a subordinate over how the store looked byfabricating customer complaints he only made the situation worse.If he hadmasked his anger the additional problemsmight have beenavoided. Thus, this emotion displaywas considered inappropriate.A third general rule was to express emotions to the right people

(n = 32, 11%). For this rule it was not whether the emotion displaywas positive or negative but whether it was directed at the appropri-ate individuals. Two specific rules for expressing emotions to theright people were suggested. For example, a supervisor praised anindividual in front of the group after a group effort and a builderyelled at a temporary employeewhowas not responsible for amiss-ing tool instead of at the responsible party. In both of these cases,the individual failed to praise or reprimand the correct party. Inanother example, a group of children and a sergeant in a Guatema-lan village expressed their thanks to the American soldiers whobuilt a school and playground for them. Even though the childrencould not speakEnglish theywere able to express appropriate grati-tude to thecorrectparty, in thiscase throughnonverbalcommunication.A fourth display rulewas to express emotions to help individuals

(n = 32, 11%). The focus of this rule is on assisting individualsrather than improving situations more generally. For example, adoctor’s office manager was praised by the doctor for expressingemotion to support others even when she felt depressed. She bothmasked her negative emotions and showed warmth and compas-sion that assisted others.Other responses suggested a fifth general rule: Do not manage

emotions for personal benefit to the detriment of others (n = 23,8%). Expressing artificial emotions by displaying positive or neu-tral emotions was acceptable to show professionalism or help thesituation or others but inappropriate when used for personal gain at


others’ expense. When a bored secretary acted sick to leave workearly her emotion management was seen as inappropriate lying orinsincerity. She managed her emotions to gain time off, but othershad to do additional work to cover for her.A sixth general rule respondents offered was that the expression

of certain emotions is always inappropriate (n = 10, 3%). In thesecases, it was not whether the emotion was positive or negative thatmattered; it was the inappropriateness of expressing the emotion atall that was problematic. Results suggested two types of emotiondisplays that were inappropriate. With positive emotions it wasnoted that workers should maintain role-appropriate distance inemotion expressions.When a purchasingmanager at amanufactur-ing firm expressed his positive emotions to a senior buyer by givingher gifts, he created too personal a relationship with his buyer. Fornegative emotion displays this rule was not to abuse others withemotion displays. A foreman violated this rule when he yelled at aworker in a way that suggested that the worker had to be at his beckand call. In both of these cases, the respondents felt that the emotiondisplays created inappropriatework relationships that should alwaysbe avoided.In some cases, respondents did not specify a rule and instead

relied upon an implicit understanding of what is appropriate orinappropriate. These participants relied on unstated rules (n = 45,15%) to explain appropriate and inappropriate emotion displays. Insupporting one of the few negative emotion displays deemedappropriate, one respondent approved of another person’s negativereaction because “I would have reacted in a similar manner.” Inanother example, a respondent explained that it was inappropriatefor a dental hygienist to show displeasure over a new procedurebecause “There should not have been any display of negative emo-tion.” The respondent apparently felt that either there should nothave been any negative reactions or those negative emotions shouldhave been masked.Overall, these results suggest that respondents were aware of

general rules that prescribe what is obligated, preferred, or prohib-ited for emotion displays (Shimanoff, 1980). Respondents indi-cated that there were appropriate contexts for expressing positiveemotions, such aswhen some positive outcome occurred, aswell asinappropriate ones, such as when it embarrassed or bothered some-


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

DISCUSSION

This research advanced our understanding of the dynamics ofemotion management in organizational settings by exploring bothappropriate and inappropriate displays of positive and negativeemotions. In addition to identifying the rules for emotion displaydiscussed above, the results suggest some general principles ofemotion management in organizational settings for interactionswith coworkers and the public.The most common rule for emotion displays was to express

emotions professionally. Those who provided explanations of pro-fessionalism emphasized maintaining a neutral or pleasant demeanorregardless of the circumstances. Respondents often relied on theterms professional or unprofessional to define appropriate andinappropriate control of emotions without providing specific expla-nation. This suggests that the understanding of professionalism isoften tacit knowledge learned through observation and experience.Through a gradual learning process, employees construct an under-standing of what professionalism means in their occupations.Because the definitionmost likely varies across occupations, futureresearch should attempt to more precisely define the communica-tive behaviors considered professional and unprofessional emotiondisplays in general and for specific occupations so that informationcan be provided to employees.Previous research has emphasized masking negative emotions

or faking positive ones. The results of this study suggest that there


are also important rules for the appropriate display of positive emo-tions. Together, the rules suggest that a positive emotion displaycan be considered inappropriate primarily for three main reasons:(a) It is excessive or poorly timed, such as gloating in front of peo-ple who did not receive a positive outcome; (b) it involves misdi-rected praise, for example, praising an individual for a group effortor a group for an individual effort; or (c) it involves unsanctionedworkplace behavior, such as showing too much personal affectionin a work relationship. This suggests that managing positive emo-tions and not just negative emotions is an importantmatter to exam-ine in future research.Taken together, the rules concerning the appropriate communi-

cation of negative emotions suggest a more general principle ofemotion management in the workplace. Only a few examples pro-vided by respondents involved what was considered an appropriatedisplay of negative emotions, such as displaying anger at a deserv-ing individual.Most were examples ofmasking negative emotions,such as people acting calm when they were apparently upset. Soalthough respondents never referred to a rule that one should masknegative emotions, it appears to be amore general, understood prin-ciple for displaying negative emotions that applies to interactionswith coworkers as well as customers. Masking negative emotionsappears to be part of the general rules of civility that are learned aspart of the socialization process into occupations. This knowledgemay be part of the emotional intelligence needed for developing apositive social life at work (Barrett & Gross, 2001). More researchon the appropriate expression of negative emotions is warranted.A number of the display rules also suggest a general principle

that appropriate emotionmanagement focuses on others rather thanon oneself. Whether it is to improve the situation, help other indi-viduals, or avoid personal gain at others’ expense, the rules fre-quently focused on the impact of the emotion displays on othersrather than on the felt emotions of the individual.Although scholarshave criticized emotion management because it is disempowering(e.g., Krone, Waldron, & Cavanaugh, 1992) and primarily benefitsthe organization (Putnam & Mumby, 1993), these results suggestthat people managing emotions in organizations often do so pri-marily for the purpose of maintaining relationships and treatingothers respectfully. These rules suggest that by balancing the ten-


sion between spontaneously expressing emotions and strategicallyexpressing them (Planalp, 1999), individuals can create more posi-tive and civil work relationships.Because the focus of this research is on individuals’understand-

ing of rules for displaying emotions, it was appropriate to rely onrespondents’ explanations. However, self-report data do have limi-tations. For example, individuals may have overstated or incor-rectly identified felt emotions and simply have projected their emo-tions on others. These concerns suggest that combining self-reportdata with observation, peer interviews, or other methods couldoffer additional insights into workplace emotion display.The results of this study suggest practical applications for both

employees and trainers. The study may help individuals realize theimportance emotion management may play in their career success.Abiding by display rules, particularly displaying neutral and posi-tive emotions and masking negative emotions, may affect workrelationships and advancement opportunities. Learning which rulesare general and which are workplace specific could help peopleunderstand the interpersonal skills expected in their careers. Forexample, swearing may be less appropriate in some professionsthan others (e.g., pharmaceuticals vs. construction) and may varywithin professions. Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1983),for instance, related how one executive knew how to swear appro-priately but another swore only when he was angry, in a very unbe-coming manner.Organizations typically focus the majority of their socialization

and training on task-related activities. Although an extensive focuson emotion display might be unnecessary for some professions,given the evidence of an implicit understanding of professionalismand the presence of unstated rules, organizationsmaywant to spendmore time actively socializing employees by providing instructionconcerning appropriate emotion displays for interactions with otheremployees and not just with the public. This study specifies a set ofgeneral emotion display rules that could be incorporated into train-ing sessions, such as expressing emotions to the proper people orexercising restraint in positive emotion display when the situationis negative for others present. However, some rules, such as show-ing professionalism, need interpretation within the specific organi-zation. By making it clear what behaviors are professional and


unprofessional in their company, employers can more easily edu-cate employees abouthowtomanage their emotions in theworkplace.This study has indicated the presence of many widely held rules

for appropriate and inappropriate display of emotion in organiza-tional settings. In particular, professional behavior seems to involvemasking negative emotions as neutral and appropriate control ofpositive emotions. Through further examination of rules for dis-playing emotions, we may gain a better understanding of the rolethat communicating emotions plays in organizational settings.

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reap-praisal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125.

Bakeman, R., &Gottman, J.M. (1986).Observing interaction: An introduction tosequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barrett, L. F., & Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A process model ofemotion representation and regulation. In T. J.Mayne&G.A.Bonanno (Eds.),Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 286-310). New York:Guilford.

Eubanks, R. T. (1980). Reflections on the moral dimension of communication.Southern Speech Communication Journal, 45, 297-312.

Fiebig, G. V., & Kramer, M.W. (1998). A framework for the study of emotions inorganizational contexts.Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 536-572.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Jablin, F.M.,&Krone, K. J. (1994). Task/work relationships: A life-span perspec-tive. InM. L.Knapp&G.R.Miller (Eds.),Handbook of interpersonal commu-nication (2nd ed., pp. 621-675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krone, K. J., Waldron, V. R., & Cavanaugh, S. K. (1992, November). Generalissues in emotional experience in a corrections organization. Paper presentedat the annual convention of the SpeechCommunicationAssociation,Chicago.

Kruml, S.M., &Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor:The heart of Hochschild’s work.Management Communication Quarterly, 14,8-49.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and conse-quences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010.

Omdahl, B. L. (1995). Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.


Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communi-cation as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126-147.

Pin, E. J., & Turndorf, J. (1985). The pleasure of your company: A socio-psychological analysis of modern sociability. New York: Praeger.

Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and cultural pro-cesses. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigms for organizational communication research: Anoverviewandsynthesis.WesternJournalof SpeechCommunication,46, 192-206.

Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotion and the myth ofrationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.),Emotion in organizations (pp. 36-57). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, A. (1989). When clerks meet customers: A test of variables related toemotional expressions on the job. Journal of AppliedPsychology,74, 385-393.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizationallife. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1-42.

Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion andfavorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51-71.

Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case ofbill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245-268.

Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self-subordination, and discursive construction of identity in a total institution.Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90-128.

Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). “Real feelings”: Emotional expression andorganizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103.

Waldron, V. R. (1994). Once more, with feeling: Reconsidering the role of emo-tion in work. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.),Communication Yearbook (Vol. 17, pp. 388-416). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Waldron, V. R. (2000). Relational experiences and emotion at work. In S. Fineman(Ed.), Emotions in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 64-82). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Waldron, V. R., & Krone, K. J. (1991). The experience and expression of emotionin the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 287-309.

Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work:Managing emo-tions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232.

Michael W. Kramer (Ph.D., 1991, University of Texas at Austin) is an asso-ciate professor in the Department of Communication at the University ofMissouri–Columbia. His other research interests include organizationaltransitions and group communication. His recent research has appeared inCommunicationMonographs, Southern Communication Journal, andCom-munication Studies.


Jon A. Hess (Ph.D., 1996, University of Minnesota) is an assistant profes-sor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri–Columbia. His other research interests include closeness and distance inpersonal relationships, maintaining difficult or unwanted relationships,and communication ethics. His research has appeared inHuman Commu-nication Research, Communication Studies, and the Journal of AppliedCommunication Research.


!Emotion Management Rules 1

Documents

Transcript of !Emotion Management Rules 1