Emotions in the Workplace: The Neglect of Organizational Behavior

Author(s): Paul M. Muchinsky

Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 7 (Nov., 2000), pp. 801-805
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100314
Accessed: 04-12-2017 11:43 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Organizational Behavior

This content downloaded from 213.55.76.173 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 801-805 (2000)

The Emotions in the workplace: the neglect

incubator of organizational behavior

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY*
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, USA

Summary This paper addresses itself to a long-neglected topic in organizational behavior:

emotions in the workplace. Possible reasons for this neglect are presented, as well as
emerging reasons for its consideration. It is proposed that the workplace is a rich arena
for the manifestation of human emotions, both positive and negative. An examination of
emotions in the workplace has both a theoretical and practical appeal, and may serve to
help bridge the scientist-practitioner gap. Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Lewis and Haviland (1993), in their seminal Handbook of Emotions, cogently expressed the
fundamental thesis of this paper:

No one would deny the proposition that in order to understand human behaviors, one must
understand feelings. The interest in emotions has been enduring; however, within the discipline
of psychology at least, the study of feelings and emotions has been somewhat less than
respectable. Learning, cognition, and perception have dominated what have been considered
the legitimate domains of inquiry .. .However, with the emergence of new paradigms in science,
we have seen a growing increase of interest in the study of emotion. No longer the outcast that
it was, the study of emotion has been legitimized by the development of new measurement
techniques, as well as by new ways to conceptualize behavior and feelings (p. ix).

The specialized field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology has generally followed the
path of its parent discipline in its neglect of emotions. The reasons for this neglect are under-
standable but nonetheless specious. Feelings and emotions are at the core of the human experi-
ence. Furthermore, we spend more of our lives engaged in work than any other single activity.
The logical conclusion would be that as a discipline concerned with behavior in the workplace,
I/O psychology would be at the forefront in explaining the role of emotions at work. Obviously,
however, such is not the case. How, then, can we explain our reluctance to formally address
emotions in the workplace?

* Correspondence to: Paul M. Muchinsky, Department of Business Administration, The University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412-5001, U.S.A.

Copyright C 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This content downloaded from 213.55.76.173 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
802 P.M. MUCHINSKY

One explanation lies in our assumptions about organizations and succ

Perhaps best expressed in William H. Whyte's classic book entitled T
published in 1956, Whyte spoke of effective business people as being lo
decision makers. Emotions were regarded as unwanted influences which
path of objectivity; forces to be controlled, if not, sublimated. To be
proclivity for weakness and instability, unwanted and undesirable characte
tion man. In turn, organizations themselves were incubators of this
preference for cold rationality was cultivated through selectively adminis
as if researchers adopted this perspective of organizations. It was duri
became the fundamental building blocks for understanding the structure
technical advances in job analysis soon followed, where jobs were dissected
and the corresponding knowledges, skills, and abilities needed to perform
these job analytic results were factually incorrect, but rather they reduced
to an integrated series of passionless, and thus emotionless, statements.
The second explanation for the intellectual debasement of emotions in th
about 30 years later. It is represented by the cognitive explanation of psyc
represented a rejection of the operant explanation of behavior, but its inf
The decade of the 1980s was heralded as the 'decade of the brain'.
advanced as the cutting edge of psychology. Time magazine, a highly respe
every year selects a person who has the greatest impact, good or bad,
selection process has been made for over 60 years, and past recipients incl
and Kennedy. In the midst of this decade, for the first time in its history
person as its 'Man of the Year', but a computer. Technically not a comp
The computer, and its enormous ability to process information, was
influential 'individual' of the year. Time's selection of a computer mirr
psychology, which in turn filtered its way into organizational behavior. W
explanations' of traditional organizational topics as leadership, motiva
appraisal. The organization man of the 1950s who was a rational decision m
the information processor of the 1980s.
To its credit, cognitive psychology also addressed itself to the study of e
emotions as the outcome of a cognitive evaluation process. Thus one could
'A Cognitive Explanation of Emotions', but not 'An Emotive Explanati
proclivity to view emotions through the lens of some other paradigm was
French philosopher Descartes over 300 years ago when he said, 'Everyo
passions within himself, and there is no necessity to borrow one's observa
order to discover their nature' (Descartes, 1649/1989).
Despite the fact that organizational behavior has never allowed itself a fo
realm of emotions in the workplace, psychological constructs saturated wi
have emerged in our research. I will limit myself to two examples.
The first is job satisfaction. It was estimated by Locke over 20 years ago
had been written at that time on the subject of job satisfaction (Locke, 19
the articles addressed issues of its measurement and correlates. Very few
construct definition, and perhaps more importantly, its phenomenolog
typically defined as an 'affective response', a term which has more impute
'pleasurable feeling'. The degree to which you like something (be it yo
inherently entails your feelings, and feelings are at the core of emotions.
why we did not elect to address the subject of job satisfaction as a man
emotions. Perhaps more importantly, we can speculate how the field of

J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 801-805 (200

Copyright C 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This content downloaded from 213.55.76.173 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EMOTIONS IN THE WORKPLACE 803

might have constructed itself differently over the past 20-30 years if in f
satisfaction to leverage own way into the domain of emotions in the workp
The second example of emotions in the workplace is that of job stress. While
stress to be the converse of job satisfaction, job stress is more complex in its o
word 'satisfaction' conjures up visions of positive feelings, 'stress' evokes image
of our emotions. The research on job stress speaks strongly to the subject o
cognitions or appraisal mechanisms. Its emotional component is unmistaka
The feelings which are most often cited include frustration, irritation, ang
subject of job stress placed organizational researchers squarely into the a
emotions, but I don't believe we ever felt any professional comfort in addressin
was almost as if we felt compelled to deflect our understanding of these emoti
into something which more readily fit with the prevailing literature base, a lit
most certainly did not place emotions at the centre or even at the periphery o
I believe the time has come in organizational behavior to acknowledge emotion
domain of scientific inquiry. Emotions should be studied as emotions, not
byproduct of cognitive evaluation. I am not suggesting we abandon or even dim
in cognitive processes in work behavior. I am suggesting we follow the a
Haviland (1993), and elevate the scientific status of emotions to be on the s
cognitions. The workplace brings out a wide variety of emotions in all of us, m
felt. When they are positive, they offer us some of the most gratifying experien
Likewise, when they are negative, they can represent some of the most v
experiences we endure.
Plutchik (1993) proposed a sequential model of human emotions in that certain
the chain of events we call an emotion. The triggering stimuli tend to be event
equilibrium of the individual at a given moment. These are events that crea
ditions. Even joyful emotional states can be conceptualized as being related
tends to be related to the receiving of nuturance and the accomplishment of g
personal prestige and power. Furthermore, most of the elements in the sequen
available to consciousness. Individuals often do not know why they becom
often do not recognize the functions served by their own emotions. Each indiv
to make interpretations of the emotions of other people, but also of his or her
feelings are indicators of our implicit or unconscious judgments of the signific
own emotions give us information about our reactions to situations that we mi
be aware of, and they reveal to us our needs, concerns, and motives. Our em
things feel unfinished, and they imply the need for action. Often unknown to
action implied is one that will have a chance of returning the individual from
to the neutral or normal state.
The workplace offers a bountiful opportunity to experience a wide range of emotions. Despite
the centrality of these emotions to our work lives, the vast majority of them are rarely, if ever,
openly discussed in organizational behavior. Lazarus and Lazarus (1994) offer five categories of
emotions. The first is what they call the 'nasty' emotions, and include anger, envy, and jealousy.
Who among us can say they have never experienced any one of the nasty emotions in their own
work lives, even though they might not fully understand wihy the precipitating conditions evoked
these feelings? The second is what is referred to as the existential emotions, and include anxiety,
guilt, and shame. The research on job stress and coping mechanisms clearly reveals the saliency of
these work-related emotions. The third category is emotions provoked by unfavorable life
conditions, including relief, hope, sadness, and depression. The aftermath of job loss, experienced
personally or witnessed in others, elicit these emotions in the contemporary work world. The

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 801-805 (2000)

This content downloaded from 213.55.76.173 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
804 P.M. MUCHINSKY

fourth category is emotions provoked by favorable life conditions, incl

and love. While we speak of designing jobs which cause us to take pride in o
do we really know about these most basic goals of life, or what the philosop
summon bonum (the highest good)? Lastly, there are the empathetic emotio
and compassion. President Clinton led a conference on increasing volu
predicated upon a national understanding and recognition of these emo
improving the quality of life.
While each of us experiences the full gamut of emotions in our lives, we
same way to them, particularly the nasty emotions. What happens afte
emotions is the process of coping. Coping shapes our emotions, but its most
is to manage those emotions once aroused, as well as the sometimes trou
provoke them. Coping is what we do and think in an effort to manage
associated with it. If coping succeeds, the person is no longer in jeopardy an
emotional distress disappear. What people do to cope depends on the sit
threat it poses, and the immediate results of their coping efforts. To be succ
be flexible and adapted to the requirements of the situation, which oft
unfolds. Coping is not just a fixed set of strategies that are drawn on when
but a changing pattern that is responsive to what is happening.
How much do we know about coping with emotions evoked in the wor
izational researchers be concerned with coping strategies? I believe w
hypothesize that how we cope with our emotions, particularly the na
contributing factor in understanding job performance. In an era of int
increasingly by factors over which individuals have little or no control, th
cope with our emotions is highly related to interpersonal relations. Openne
third of the 'Big Five' personality factors, is associated with the intensity
both positive and negative. The most recent research on workplace v
reveals homicides and suicides are the responses given by emotionally distra
felt they had no other coping resources at their disposal. Furthermo
proposed a construct to explain this capacity, which he refers to as e
Emotional intelligence has five components: (1) knowing one's emotio
one's emotions as they are happening; (2) managing emotions so they
motivating oneself-marshalling emotions in the service of a goal; (4) r
others or empathy-the most fundamental 'people skill'; and (5) handlin
is skill in managing emotions in others. Emotional intelligence may be the
link (or at least a portion thereof) which unites the classic 'can do' abili
performance with the 'will do' dispositional determinants. It seems plausibl
of emotional intelligence could become a staple of a personnel selection test
was the decade where we recognized the complexity of our cognitive proces
decade will witness our recognition of emotional processes in personn
performance.
I strongly believe that the study of emotions in the workplace will serve
Furthermore, these purposes aid both the science and practice of organizati
as possibly providing the on-ramp to the elusive bridge which unites the tw
level, it is not the case we should be forced to make a false choice between
The two are inherently intertwined, and both are equally deserving
emergence of new research paradigms in science-interactive feedback mode
top-down and bottom-up networks-permit us to simultaneously addr
previously were intentionally excluded from consideration or were assumed

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 801-805 (200

This content downloaded from 213.55.76.173 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EMOTIONS IN THE WORKPLACE 805

effect. Even the most rudimentary analysis of workplace emotions, as a list o

which evoke jealousy, anger, and guilt, would be a start to understand w
believe the current research on organizational justice, which speaks to concept
and what is right, would relate to our study of emotions. In short, we would
new scientific literatures to study workplace emotions. We currently have bo
methods to accommodate these new interests.
At the practitioner level, I feel little needs to be said about the importance of emotions in the
workplace. The number one concern of the American worker today is an emotion. That emotion
is fear, in particular fear of job loss. Human resource managers have to deal with their workers'
emotions on a daily basis. I know of one human resource manager who found a new coping
mechanism to deal with his own emotional distress. He purchased and wears a bullet proof vest
when he has to inform his fellow workers their jobs have been lost due to downsizing. It would
not be necessary to belabor to him the salience of emotions in the workplace.
Finally, if there truly is a bridge between the science and practice of organizational behavior,
its prime girder would have to be shared relevance. I believe both the scientist and practitioner
can see the relevance of emotions in the workplace. Emotions in the workplace are real. They are
not, as was believed in the 1950s, just annoyances which deflect us from objectivity. They are the
essence of the human experience which are manifested in that context which consumes most of
our life's energies-our jobs.
In conclusion, I implore organizational behavior to cease its neglect of emotions in the work-
place. As individuals we both think and feel. We need to devote as much of our energies to
studying feelings as thinking. The study of emotions is at the very core of our inquiry into
ourselves and our own natures. As Solomon (1994) observed, 'Part of that knowledge is surely an
understanding of our emotions, which are, after all, much of what makes life worth living'.

References

Descartes, R. 1989. On the Passions of the Soul (Original work published in 1649), Hackett, Indianapolis.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence, Bantam: New York.
Lazarus, RS, Lazarus, BN. 1994. Passion and Reason: Making Sense of our Emotions, Oxford: New York.
Lewis, M, Haviland, JM. 1993. Preface. In Handbook of Emotions, Lewis, M, Haviland, JM (eds). Guilford:
New York.
Locke, EA. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organization
Psychology, Dunnette, MD (ed.). Rand McNally: Chicago.
Plutchik, R. 1993. Emotions and their vicissitudes: emotions and psychopathology. In Handbook of
Emotion, Lewis, M, Haviland, JM (eds). Guilford: New York.
Solomon, RC. 1993. The philosophy of emotions. In Handbook of Emotions, Lewis, M, Haviland, JM
(eds). Guilford: New York.
Violanti, JM. 1996. Violence turned inward: police suicide in the workplace. In Violence on the Job
VandenBos, GR, Bulatao, EQ (eds). American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
Whyte, WH. 1956. The Organization Man, Simon and Schuster: New York.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 801-805 (2000)

This content downloaded from 213.55.76.173 on Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms