This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 11 October 2014, At: 10:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Emotion regulation in
leader–follower relationships
a a
Lars Glasø & Ståle Einarsen
a
University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
Published online: 05 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: Lars Glasø & Ståle Einarsen (2008) Emotion regulation in
leader–follower relationships, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
17:4, 482-500, DOI: 10.1080/13594320801994960

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320801994960

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2008, 17 (4), 482 – 500

Emotion regulation in leader–follower relationships

Lars Glasø and Ståle Einarsen
University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

This study investigates the extent to which leaders and followers express,
suppress or fake their emotions during interaction, using a sample of 135
leaders and 207 followers. The respondents completed questionnaires on
emotion regulation, the relationship quality between leaders and followers
(LMX), job satisfaction, and health complaints. The data indicate that
negative emotions such as disappointment, uncertainty, and annoyance are
typically suppressed, while positive emotions such as enthusiasm, interest, and
calmness are typically expressed or faked. The reported level of emotion
regulation was higher for leaders than for followers. Suppressing and faking
emotions correlated negatively with the LMX and job satisfaction, and
positively with health complaints among both groups. Emotion regulation is
thus a prominent and complex facet of leader – follower relationships with
possible negative effects for both leaders and followers.

Keywords: Leadership; Emotion regulation; Leader – member exchange; Job

satisfaction; Subjective health complaints.

The role of emotions in the leadership process has attracted increasing

interest in recent years (George, 2000; Humphrey, 2002). Goleman,
Boyatzis, and McKee (2003) even argue that emotions and emotional
intelligence are at the heart of effective leadership. Several authors have
concluded that managing group members’ emotions is not a peripheral task
with little relevance to workplace outcomes but rather one of the main ways
in which leaders can raise the levels of employee performance and
productivity (Humphrey, 2002; McColl-Kennedy & Andersen, 2002;
Pescosolido, 2002; Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002). Consistent
with such a view, Dasborough and Ashkanasy (2002) have claimed that
leadership is intrinsically an emotional process, where leaders display
emotions and attempt to evoke emotions in their followers.

Correspondence should be addressed to Lars Glasø, Department of Psychosocial Science,

University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, N – 5015, Bergen, Norway.
E-mail: Lars.glaso@psysp.uib.no

Ó 2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320801994960
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 483

In this respect, Bass (1990) describes the important role that emotions
play in contemporary leadership, by contrasting ‘‘transactional’’ leaders
with ‘‘transformational’’ leaders. While traditional transactional leaders do
not give affective experiences much consideration, but rather focus on
mutual transactions and the exchange of rewards for performance and
efforts between employee and employer, transformational leaders project a
vision that the subordinates believe in, they inspire and support the
subordinates, and make them feel wanted and valuable to the organization.
Hence, transformational leaders in particular appear to use emotion to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

motivate their subordinates (Ashkansy & Tse, 2000).

Furthermore, Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) have shown how
emotions influence the way subordinates perceive leaders, and found that
leaders’ emotional expressions are typically more important to followers
than the objective content of their communication. Dasborough and
Ashkanasy (2002) emphasized that leaders’ emotional displays are
important when subordinates interpret leaders’ overt sincerity, a finding
supported by Humphrey (2002). Such a perspective on leadership requires a
focus on the interaction between leaders and subordinates, consistent with
Yukl’s (2002) definition of leadership as a process of social interaction in
which leaders attempt to influence the behaviour of their followers.
According to Lazarus (1999), emotions are best understood as rule based
and not chaotic or irrational as much of the management literature implies.
Hence, there is a specific logic behind the experience of each particular
emotion. The kind, quality, and intensity of emotions reflect how the person
in question interprets ongoing events in his or her environment, as
exemplified by behaviours and interactions between leaders and followers.
Providing specific information about the kinds of emotion that leaders and
followers might experience during interaction and how they manage these
emotions would therefore increase our understanding of how both parties
appraise the leadership process. Hence, the present study examines the
extent to which leaders and followers regulate their emotions during
interaction, and the associations between such emotion regulation and the
experienced quality of this relationship, as well as the job satisfaction and
the level of subjective health complaints of those involved.
Several researchers have argued that there is a strong need for research on
the relationship between leadership and emotion (George, 2000) and on
emotion regulation at work (Gross, 1998; Zapf, 2002). Briner and Totterdell
(2002) have claimed that the field lacks descriptive data about who
experiences which emotions in which jobs and roles in the workplace.
While there is a significant lack of empirical research on the role of
emotion and emotion regulation in leader – follower relationships, such
regulation in the context of employee – customer relationships has been
extensively studied and has been labelled ‘‘emotional labour’’ (Hochschild,
 484 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

1983), i.e., the management of feelings to create a publicly observable and

desirable emotional display as part of a job role. In service organizations
effectiveness is thought to hinge partly on the emotions expressed by
employees; thus, the smiles and friendliness offered by the employees to
customers can be explained as a requirement of their job and a part of their
work role. Examples of emotional labourers are flight attendants, who
should continue to smile when confronted with rude passengers, and police
officers, who are required to be calm and dispassionate in the face of human
misery. Employees engage in emotional labour to influence the emotions of
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

customers or co-workers so that work goals can be achieved; for example,

the selling of a product or the making of a group decision (Diefendorff &
Gosserand, 2003).
Like leader – follower interactions, emotional labour occurs in face-to-
face or voice-to-voice interactions and is displayed to influence other
people’s emotions, attitudes and behaviours. Such displays follow certain
rules, which Ekman (1973) called ‘‘display rules’’. These rules are the norms
and standards of behaviour that indicate which emotions are appropriate in
a given situation and how these emotions should be publicly expressed.
Mann (1999) investigated emotional labour among employees in 12 UK
companies and found in 53% of the communications that respondents
indicated that they had laughed or frowned because they were expected to,
rather than because they genuinely felt like doing so. There was as much
emotional labour between employees as between employees and customers.
Supporting Mann’s observations, Glasø, Ekerholt, Barman, and Einar-
sen (2006) have reported from a qualitative study that emotional display
rules play an important part when leaders and followers interact. For
instance, leaders and followers share the same expectations of suppressing
anger or expressing a positive attitude towards each other despite inner
feelings of boredom or irritation. Following such display rules require the
use of regulatory strategies such as faking an unfelt emotion or suppressing
an inappropriate emotion (Gross, 1998). Furthermore, emotion regulation
can also be an impression management issue (see Rosenfeld, Giacalone, &
Riordan, 1995) or—related—an issue of self presentation (see Schlenker,
Dlugolecki, & Doherty, 1994). Hence, in the present study, we expect that
both leaders and followers report to suppress negative emotions and fake
positive emotions during interaction.
The performance of emotion regulation may be influenced by the quality
of the relationship between leaders and subordinates. If such a relationship
is characterized by high levels of mutual qualities, such as respect,
understanding, and trust, the parties may not need to fake or suppress
their emotions to the same extent as would be necessary if those qualities
were lacking. Consistent with this notion, Clark and Brisette (2000) found
that the kinds of emotional expression during interaction depended on the
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 485

quality of the relationship. Such a perspective on leadership requires a focus

on the interaction between leaders and followers, consistent with Yukl’s
(2002) definition of leadership as a process of social interaction in which
leaders attempt to influence the behaviour of their followers. In this respect,
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) conceptualize leadership in their Leader –
Member Exchange (LMX) theory as a process that centres on the
interactions between leaders and subordinates. This approach addresses
the specific positive and negative relationships that leaders have with their
followers, and emphasizes that effective leadership is contingent on effective
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

leader – member exchange (Northouse, 2004). The strength of LMX theory

is its focus on relationship qualities, such as respect and obligation, and how
these qualities determine whether the followers are members in an
‘‘ingroup’’ or an ‘‘outgroup’’ as respect to their leader. However, the
association between such relationship qualities and experienced affects and
subsequently emotion regulation has not yet been investigated. Therefore, in
the present study, we will examine this association in more detail. We expect
to find a negative relationship between emotion regulation and the
experienced quality of the relationship between leaders and followers.
In the service field, negative consequences associated with emotional
labour have been reported. Although the empirical findings provide mixed
results (e.g., Wharton, 1993), several authors have concluded that emotional
labour is negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Abraham, 1998;
Grandey, 2000; Härtel, Hsu, & Boyle, 2002; Zapf, 2002) and positively
related to stress and burnout (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Hochschild, 1983;
Mann, 1999; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Despite this evidence concerning
the potentially harmful consequences of emotional labour performed in
employee – customer relationships, the role and outcomes of such regulation
in leader – follower interactions have not yet been explicitly considered.
Hence, in the current study we examine the associations between emotion
regulation and the levels of job satisfaction and subjective health complaints
in the leader – follower relationship. In accordance with previous research
conducted in the service field (Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983), we expect
that emotion regulation performed in leader – follower relationships
correlates negatively with job satisfaction and positively with subjective
health complaints.

METHOD
Sample
The study was conducted among 342 respondents, of whom 135 were
middle-level leaders and 207 were followers. The selection criteria were that
the respondents were in full-time positions and in contact with their
 486 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

superiors or their subordinates at least three times a week. One hundred and
fifteen respondents—35 leaders and 80 followers—were recruited among
mature part-time university students taking a further education course in
work and organizational psychology. In addition, 227 respondents—100
leaders and 127 followers—were recruited among employees in a public
sector organization in the area of insurance and social security.
Females comprised 61.6% of the sample. Among the followers, 69 were
males and 138 were females. Among the leaders, 62 were males and 73 were
females. The age range was from 25 to 66 years, with a mean of 43.3 years
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

(SD ¼ 9.1). The respondents had a high educational level, with 77.1%
possessing a university or college degree. A majority of the respondents
worked in the office/administrative sector (38.6%), in counselling (11.2%),
law and legal rights (9.7%), and personnel, teaching, and training (7.4%).
The job tenure of 85.3% of the respondents was more than eight years.
Among the leaders, 63.1% had been a leader for more than four years.

Questionnaires
In order to examine which moods, emotions, and emotion-laden judgements
leaders and followers regulate during interaction, a list of affects or ‘‘feeling
words’’ (Hochschild, 1983) was developed on the basis of a literature review
on ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘basic’’ emotions (Ben Ze’ev, 2000; Izard, 1984; Lazarus,
1999; Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987). Researchers typically differentiate
between moods, emotions, and emotion-laden judgements (Briner, 1999;
Gray & Watson, 2001). While emotions tend to change rapidly in quality
and intensity, and to represent a response to a specific event, moods are
considered to be relatively slow-changing, weak, or moderate in intensity,
and not necessarily a response to specific events. Emotion-laden judgements
or ‘‘hot cognitions’’ (Smith, Haynes, Lazarus, & Pope, 1993) also appear to
be a central part of affective experiences at work; for instance, the feeling of
being valued, appreciated, or disrespected. In real life, these concepts
probably reflect highly overlapping phenomena, and these feeling states
have often been lumped together under the broader label of affects (see Grey
& Watson, 2001; Parkinson, Totterdell, Briner, & Reynolds, 1996). Hence,
all these emotional experiences were included in our measure.
Emotional experiences thought to be specifically work related were added
to the list (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Zerbe, 2000; Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Härtel,
2002; Briner, 1999; Briner & Totterdell, 2002; Hochschild, 1983; Mann,
1999; Payne & Cooper, 2001). Furthermore, a pilot study with focus groups
(Glasø, 2002) and an exploratory study examining emotions exclusively
experienced in leader – follower relationships were conducted (Glasø &
Einarsen, 2006). The final list, which was formatted as a questionnaire,
consisted of 59 moods, emotions, and emotion-laden judgements thought
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 487

to be relevant in the workplace and in leader – follower relationships

(Table 1).
Emotion regulation can be assessed in different ways, such as asking
the respondents to which extent they are expressing, suppressing, or
faking their emotions in general, or by measuring emotion regulation on
the basis of responses to specific emotions. The first approach is
associated with biases, such as recall problems and self-presentation,
whereas the latter approach is more specific and thus may reduce
common method variance (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

2003). Glasø and Einarsen (2006) have demonstrated that leader –

subordinate relationships are strongly coloured by positive and negative
moods, emotions, and emotion-laden judgements, with four basic affective
factors for both leaders and subordinates: recognition, frustration,
violation, and uncertainty. Hence, on the basis of these emotional
factors, we measure to what extent leaders and subordinates do express,
suppress, and fake their emotions by items related to these emotional
factors. This approach gives many specific cues to the response process
(i.e., comprehension, retrieval, judgement, response selection, and report-
ing) during completion of the questionnaire and may therefore reduce self
regulation (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, we measure the emotions
that have been proved to be present when leaders and subordinates
interact.
When completing the questionnaire, leaders and followers were asked to
evaluate their emotional experiences during interaction three times. First,
they were asked to focus on the extent to which they had experienced and
expressed any of the 59 listed affects during interaction. Examples of items
are: ‘‘During interaction with my immediate superior/my followers I have
felt and expressed being bored, angry, proud . . . 56’’. The respondents rated
each affect on a Likert scale with seven response alternatives, ranging from

TABLE 1
The 59 affects in leader – subordinate relationships

proud embarrassed uncertain ashamed wanted worried enthusiastic

expectant fascinated timid anxious attracted to frightened shocked
glad full of hatred threatened hurt cared for shy desirable
unwell appalled interested terrified sad well disappointed
angry being in love uncomfortable despondent content grateful desperate
liked annoyed disliked respected bored despised sexually
attracted
jealous inadequate insecure inspired impatient harassed confident
resigned frustrated caring uneasy degraded calm insulted
grumpy humiliated envious
 488 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

0 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 6 ¼ ‘‘very much’’. Second, they rated which of the 59

affects they had suppressed during interaction; and third, which of the 59
affects they had faked during interaction.

The Leader – Member Exchange Inventory (LMX 7). This measures the
quality of the working relationship between leaders and followers. LMX 7 is
a seven-item questionnaire measuring three dimensions of the leader –
follower relationship: respect, trust, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). The LMX 7 consists of two versions, one for followers and one for
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

leaders. An example of the items is: ‘‘How well does your superior
understand your job problems and needs?’’ The respondents rated each of
the seven items on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 ¼ ‘‘not a bit’’ to
5 ¼ ‘‘a great deal’’, or from 1 ¼ ‘‘rarely’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘very often’’. In the present
study, the internal consistency of this instrument was satisfactory as
measured by Cronbach’s alpha, at .90 and .83 for followers and leaders,
respectively.

The Facet Free Job Satisfaction Inventory. This is a five-item instrument

that measures a person’s general affective reaction to his or her job without
reference to any specific component of the job (Quinn & Staines, 1979; cited
in Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981). An example of an item is: ‘‘All in
all, how satisfied would you say you are with your job?’’, with five
alternatives ranging from 1 ¼ ‘‘very satisfied’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘not at all satisfied’’.
Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory, at .78 and .80 for followers and leaders,
respectively.

The Subjective Health Complaint Inventory (SHC). This measures

subjective somatic and psychological complaints experienced during the
previous 30 days (Eriksen, Ihlebæk, & Ursin, 1999). The SHC consists of
five subscales: musculoskeletal pain (eight items), pseudoneurology (seven
items), gastrointestinal problems (seven items), allergy (five items), and flu
(two items). The severity of each complaint is rated on a 4-point scale from
0 ¼ ‘‘none’’ to 3 ¼ ‘‘severe’’. In the present study the overall scale will be
used. The total score of all 29 items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 for
followers and .87 for leaders.

Procedure
For both part-time students and leaders in the public-sector organization,
the data were gathered during teaching and training sessions. The followers
in public sector were randomly selected to take part in the study. The leaders
distributed the questionnaires to these followers, who mailed the ques-
tionnaires directly to the researchers after completion.
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 489

RESULTS
When leaders and followers referred to experienced and expressed emotions,
the most highly scored emotions were ‘‘glad’’, ‘‘enthusiastic’’, ‘‘well’’, and
‘‘interested’’. Among the followers, 76.3% reported having faked emotions
and 89.4% reported having suppressed emotions when interacting with their
immediate superior. Among the leaders, 94.8% reported having faked
emotions and 97.9% reported having suppressed emotions when interacting
with followers. For both groups suppressed emotions were described by
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

negative affects such as ‘‘disappointed’’, ‘‘bored’’, ‘‘uncertain’’, and

‘‘frustrated’’. When referring to faked emotions, the most frequent affects
were positive, such as ‘‘interested’’, ‘‘calm’’, ‘‘enthusiastic’’, and ‘‘inter-
ested’’. These results are shown in Table 2. A frequency analysis was then
performed on subsamples of men and women with comparable results.
As shown in Table 2, there were only minor differences between leaders
and followers concerning the kinds of emotions they expressed, suppressed,
and faked during interaction. Although the groups gave different rankings,
seven out of ten expressed emotions were similar for both groups.
Concerning the suppressed emotions, nine of ten were identical; among
the faked emotions, all ten were identical. It was therefore possible to
calculate for both groups the total sums of scores for these expressed (seven
items), suppressed (nine items), and faked (ten items) emotions that were
common in the two groups. The internal consistency of the total score for
expressed emotions, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was satisfactory at
.88 and .86 for followers and leaders, respectively; the internal consistency
for suppressed emotions, at .92 and .89 for followers and leaders,
respectively; and for faked emotions, at .95 and .93, for followers and
leaders, respectively.
These total sum scores yielded individual scores for expressed,
suppressed, and faked emotions that could be compared between the two
groups. Although a similar pattern of expressing, suppressing, and faking
emotions during interactions was evident for both groups, a t-test revealed
that the leaders expressed emotions significantly more intensively than the
subordinates, M ¼ 3.82 (SD ¼ 1.11) and M ¼ 4.66 (SD ¼ 0.76) for subordi-
nates and leaders, respectively, t(338) ¼ 7.66, p 5.001. Furthermore, the
leaders suppressed emotions significantly more intensively than the
subordinates, M ¼ 1.77 (SD ¼ 1.30) and M ¼ 2.57 (SD ¼ 1.12) for subordi-
nates and leaders, respectively, t(337) ¼ 5.84, p 5.001. Leaders also faked
emotions significantly more intensively than their subordinates, M ¼ 1.28
(SD ¼ 1.31) and M ¼ 2.17 (SD ¼ 1.36) for subordinates and leaders,
respectively, t(336) ¼ 6.06, p 5.001 (Figure 1).
In order to test whether there were differences between leaders and
subordinates emotions that were experienced, suppressed, or faked, we also
 490 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

TABLE 2
The 10 highest scored affects that followers and leaders express, suppress, and fake
during interaction; responses from 0 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 6 ¼ ‘‘very much‘‘

Followers Leaders

n Mean SD n Mean SD

Expressed affects
glad 207 4.25 1.42 glad 133 5.16 0.90
enthusiastic 206 4.17 1.31 enthusiastic 133 4.80 1.08
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

well 206 3.82 1.38 interested 133 4.70 1.24

content 207 3.81 1.40 content 133 4.65 0.90
interested 206 3.67 1.82 grateful 132 4.64 1.23
calm 207 3.62 1.57 proud 133 4.53 1.37
valued 206 3.59 1.54 inspired 133 4.48 1.03
inspired 207 3.55 1.46 well 133 4.48 0.93
respected 207 3.50 1.56 expectant 133 4.37 1.12
expectant 207 3.47 1.48 confident 131 4.15 1.18
Suppressed affects
disappointed 207 1.97 1.88 bored 133 2.83 1.79
uncertain 207 1.92 1.61 frustrated 133 2.77 1.61
worried 207 1.88 1.71 annoyed 133 2.77 1.65
annoyed 206 1.84 1.72 disappointed 133 2.69 1.61
angry 207 1.78 1.78 angry 132 2.67 1.77
frustrated 206 1.69 1.71 resigned 133 2.66 1.53
sad 207 1.68 1.89 sad 133 2.65 1.72
proud 207 1.67 1.72 uncertain 132 2.64 1.63
resigned 206 1.65 1.70 worried 131 2.60 1.56
bored 206 1.65 1.72 anxious 132 2.60 1.87
Faked affects
interested 207 1.53 1.60 calm 133 2.70 1.84
enthusiastic 207 1.49 1.67 interested 131 2.45 1.88
content 207 1.41 1.57 inspired 133 2.37 1.59
calm 207 1.37 1.68 enthusiastic 131 2.25 1.58
glad 207 1.35 1.73 confident 133 2.20 1.68
inspired 207 1.22 1.50 content 131 2.14 1.72
well 207 1.22 1.61 well 133 2.02 1.76
expectant 207 1.09 1.48 expectant 133 2.00 1.78
grateful 207 1.07 1.45 glad 133 1.83 1.65
confident 207 1.03 1.43 grateful 133 1.79 1.67

calculated the sum score for each of the four basic emotional factors
comprising the questionnaire; recognition, frustration, violation, and
uncertainty. The result showed that leaders significantly express more but
suppress less recognition emotions than followers. Regarding the frustration
factor, leaders express, suppress, and fake frustrations more than followers.
Leaders also suppress and fake more emotions than followers in the
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 491

violation factor, and, leaders express, suppress, and fake their uncertainty
more than followers (see Table 3).
As shown in Table 4, the scores on suppressed and faked emotions
correlated negatively with scores on the LMX and job satisfaction, and
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

Figure 1. Mean values of expressed, suppressed, and faked emotions during interaction among
leaders and followers, rated on a scale from 0 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 6 ¼ ‘‘very much’’.

TABLE 3
Means, standard deviations, and t-values for followers’ and leaders’ emotional factors
that are expressed, suppressed, and faked during interaction

Followers
(N ¼ 207) Leaders (N ¼ 133)

Emotional factors Mean SD Mean SD t(300)

Recognition
Expressed 25.19 10.67 38.60 7.23 7.74***
Suppressed 16.70 9.51 13.70 10.84 7 2.03*
Faked 22.97 9.61 19.37 13.46 7 1.51
Frustration
Expressed 8.73 6.45 11.85 6.26 4.18***
Suppressed 7.95 6.38 11.77 6.17 5.30***
Faked 2.55 4.44 4.68 5.26 4.00***
Violation
Expressed 1.73 3.78 1.87 3.17 0.36
Suppressed 2.94 5.22 5.87 6.87 4.25***
Faked 0.79 2.34 5.94 3.85 10.69***
Uncertainty
Expressed 5.71 4.47 9.46 3.98 6.42***
Suppressed 5.84 5.37 10.68 6.37 7.00***
Faked 2.08 3.55 3.50 4.08 3.38**

*p 5.05, **p 5.01, ***p 5.001.

 492 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

TABLE 4
Pearson’s product moment correlations between suppressing and faking, and
leader7member exchange (LMX), job satisfaction, and subjective health complaints
(SHC), for followers and leaders

Suppress Fake LMX Job satisfaction

Followers
Fake .65* –
LMX 7.47** 7.42** –
Job satisfaction 7.28** 7.32** .58** –
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

SHC .33** .36** 7.34** 7.34**

Leaders
Fake .65** –
LMX 7.20* 7.14 –
Job satisfaction 7.37** 7.26** .40** –
SHC .32** .23** 7.17 7.33**

*p 5.05 level, two-tailed; **p 5.01, two-tailed.

positively with scores on the SHC for both groups. Although the correlation
analysis portrayed a comparable pattern for the two groups, a Fischer r-to-z
transformation revealed significantly differences of the correlations of
suppressing, z ¼ 7.2.73, p 5.01, and faking, z ¼ 7.2.72, p 5.01, with LMX
for leaders and followers.

DISCUSSION
The body of research on emotions in organizations and leadership is
increasing. Yet, there is still limited research concerning leaders’ and
followers’ emotional experiences of their mutual interaction. Although
previous research has shown that leader – follower relationships are richly
coloured by emotions (Glasø & Einarsen, 2006), the present study is among
the first quantitative attempts to examine the extent to which leaders and
followers express, suppress, or fake their emotions during interaction, while
also investigating the relationships between such emotion regulation and the
quality of their interactions, and the levels of job satisfaction and subjective
health complaints.
The present study indicates that both leaders and followers express their
emotions to a higher degree than suppressing and faking them. This is in line
with previous research that has shown that employees mostly express what
they feel (Tschan, Rochat, & Zapf, 2005). However, both leaders and
followers reported that they expressed, suppressed, and faked their emotions
during interactions, indicating that emotion regulation is a prominent
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 493

feature of leader – follower relationships. These empirical findings resonate

with the notions of several researchers who claim that emotion regulation is
quite common in organizational life, both at and away from the frontline
(Hochschild, 1983; Mann, 1999; Parrot, 1993; Strazdins, 2002). For
example, a study of 78 employees in service and nonservice professions
has shown that emotional labour is not restricted to client or customers but
also is performed among co-workers (Tschan et al., 2005). One beneficial
outcome of emotion regulation is that it makes interactions more
predictable, thus reducing uncertainty at work. Suppressing and faking
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

therefore ‘‘lubricates the creaking mechanisms of social intercourse’’

(Guthrie, 1971, p. 7, cited in Mann, 1999) and may help to avoid
embarrassing situations that might interrupt the interaction (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1993).
A similar pattern of expressing, suppressing, and faking emotions
appeared for both groups, suggesting that societal norms regulate the
display of these emotions. However, leaders expressed, suppressed, and
faked their emotions significantly more intensively than did followers.
The result concerning the expressive part of the regulation agrees with
those of Mann (1999), who reported that the hierarchical level of the
respondents had a significant effect on reported level of expressed
emotions. Mann argued that high-status workers can afford to be more
honest in their emotional displays as they are less afraid of the
consequences of disobeying display rules. In addition, displays of anger
seem to make the manager appear more competent in the eyes of the
observers (Tiedens, 2000). The notion that leaders, owing to their
superior position in the organizational hierarchy, have more power and
‘‘emotional currency’’ to spend than followers, also supports Sloan’s
(2004) view that superiors have greater freedom of emotional expression
than inferiors.
The reasons why leaders reported greater levels of suppression and faking
of their emotions than did followers may also be explained by their different
roles. A central part of leadership is to interact with followers and to deal
with both pleasant and unpleasant emotions. Thus, the focus of leaders is on
behaviours that may affect followers’ emotions. Such emotion management
might require various strategies of emotion regulation, such as expressing,
exaggerating, faking, and suppressing emotions. Furthermore, the result
may simply reflect the frequency of interaction; it is likely that a leader has
more interactions with his or her followers than a follower has with his or
her immediate superior. If so, a higher frequency of interaction can explain
why leaders report to express, suppress, and fake their emotions more
intensively than followers. Anyhow, our findings emphasize that leadership
is a highly emotional process that is loaded with affects and affective
responses.
 494 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

Despite their position of superiority, leaders are dependent on their

followers to get the job done. For strategic reasons, leaders might perform
‘‘control moves’’ (Goffmann, 1969) that influence the actions of their
followers. Control moves are intentional efforts by a leader to produce
emotional expressions in front of a follower to promote that leader’s own
interests. Thus, as reported in the present study, to get a job done, some
leaders might selectively express specific kinds of emotion, for instance
enthusiasm, while suppress others, such as anger or impatience, during
interaction with a follower.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

Furthermore, leaders are expected to act deliberately and rationally

(Putman & Mumby, 1993) as well as emotionally. Basic assumptions and
values in organizational cultures often underline the importance of
objectivity and fairness. Some leaders may therefore actively try to
distance themselves from their followers, because expressing inner feelings
might possibly disturb these values and conflict with their professional
role. Thus, suppressing emotions such as frustration or disappointment,
and faking emotions such as calmness and interest, might help to
maintain a nice, but dispassionate emotional climate with followers.
Besides, and consistent with the LMX theory, keeping a certain
emotional distance from followers may reflect an attempt to avoid the
development of privileged leader – follower relationships in the workplace
(see Northouse, 2004).
Leaders and followers may have quite different reasons for regulating
their emotions. From a subordinate perspective, leader – follower relation-
ships are almost always characterized by an imbalance of power, where a
subordinate is typically more dependent on the superior than vice versa. To
cope with this situation, followers must be cautious, because emotional
expressivity might lead to negative personal and social consequences
(Bonanno & Kaltman, 1999). For example, sustained or frequent expres-
sions of anger from a follower might be experienced as threatening by the
leader and may therefore lead to less social support and goodwill from the
leader. Emotion regulation often involves followers in hiding their inner
feelings in situations where it could be disadvantageous to express those
(Glasø et al., 2006). Consequently, they might manipulate their emotional
expression by selectively displaying and hiding their emotions during
interactions with the leader.
Our findings that leaders report more emotion regulation than the
followers may also be a self-selection or organization selection issue, where
people who more easily regulate emotions are selected into leadership roles.
In addition, emotion regulation may be a powerful and useful tool when
managers influence their followers (see also Glasø et al., 2006). Moreover, it
could be an impression management issue (see for example Rosenfeld et al.,
1995) or—related—an issue of self presentation (see Schlenker et al., 1994).
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 495

The findings that emotion regulation of the followers was so strongly

related to their relationship with their immediate superiors may be a
validation of the high degree of significance of superiors in the lives of their
subordinates. Power and influence make a superior a strong source of
reward and punishment, and can involve the satisfaction or denial of basic
human needs such as self-esteem, affection, and reinforcement as a member
of a group (de Dreu, West, Fisher, & MacCurtain, 2001; Williams, 1997).
The fact that leaders associate suppressing, but not faking, with LMX
quality, is hard to explain. However, leaders’ attitudes towards suppressed
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

and faked emotions may be different. It is reasonable to suppose that

suppressed feelings are more personal and genuine than those that are faked,
because faked feelings are likely to be regarded by leaders as deceptive. The
faking of emotions may be performed according to role expectations and
regardless of the LMX quality, while the suppressing of emotions may be
dependent on that quality.
The present study revealed that high LMX quality was associated with
less suppressing and faking, for followers in particular. For that reason, an
atmosphere of trust and confidence is most likely to be a necessary
prerequisite for frank and honest relationships, in line with Clark and
Brisette (2000), who have argued that emotional expression during
interaction is dependent on the quality of the relationship. Of course, with
correlation data it is always impossible to indicate the direction of the
relationship. Just as defendable would be the prediction that the extent to
which emotions are faked or suppressed affects the perceived quality of the
relationship. Indeed, people who fake or suppress emotions may appear less
genuine and more dishonest, thus leading to poor relationships; people who
fake or suppress emotions to a lesser extent are thus seen as relatively more
open and trustworthy.
High levels of emotion regulation correlated negatively with job
satisfaction and positively with subjective health complaints among both
leaders and followers. These results are consistent with previous research in
the service field that has documented negative outcomes of emotional
labour, such as stress and low job satisfaction (Mann, 1999; Zapf, 2002).
Such outcomes may be explained by the concepts of ‘‘faking in good faith’’
and ‘‘faking in bad faith’’ (Hochschild, 1983). Faking in good faith, i.e.,
faking an acceptable emotional display, is not associated with poor job
satisfaction and high levels of health complaints, while faking in bad faith,
i.e., faking emotions that are not accepted as part of the working role, is
associated with low job satisfaction and low well-being (Abraham, 1998;
Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987).
Several authors assert that disagreeing with the norm for expressed
emotion creates more dissonance than does faking an acceptable emotional
display. Therefore, faking in bad faith is more stressful, and might lead to
 496 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

more negative outcomes in relation to job satisfaction and health (Härtel

et al., 2002; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). The negative outcomes associated with
emotional regulation in the present study may thus be explained by what
might be termed a bad-faith perspective, meaning that the respondents
disagree with the societal norms for expressed emotion in this particular
relationship. They may therefore feel dishonest when suppressing and faking
emotions, owing to the perception that it is unethical to suppress or fake
emotions as they are then not genuine or sincere (Mann, 1999).
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
In the present study, emotion regulation performed in leader – follower
relationships is identified and described. However, such reports may be
affected by several biases. Matsumoto (1990), for example, has demon-
strated considerable differences in emotion judgements, display rules, and
self-reported emotional expressions as a function of ethnicity. Social
desirability may also come into play if the respondents have a strong need
to make a good impression (Gravdal & Sandal, 2004). Furthermore, in this
study emotion regulation was measured exclusively on an intensity-
dimension scale. The frequency of emotion regulation, attentiveness to
display rules, and the variety of emotions expressed, suppressed, and faked
most probably influence the outcomes (see also Matsumoto, Yoo,
Hirayama, & Petrova, 2005; Morris & Feldman, 1996). The sample and
the cross-sectional design of our study limits generalizations and causal
conclusions about the relationships between emotion regulation and the
quality of the interaction between leaders and followers, and their
experienced job satisfaction and subjective health complaints.
Moreover, the study has a monosource/monomethod design. Such a
design is associated with common method variance, a problem that may
inflate the relationships between variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). One key
to controlling common method variance is to obtain measures of the
variables from different sources, in our case from two different samples. The
advantage of this procedure is that it makes it impossible for the respondent
to bias the observed relationship between the variables, thus eliminating the
effects of consistency motifs, implicit theories, social desirability tendencies,
dispositional and transient mood states, and any tendencies on the part of
the respondent to comply in a lenient manner (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In the
present study, analyses were conducted on leaders and followers separately
and comparisons across the two independent samples are not likely to be
affected by these biases. Again, following Podsakoff et al. (2003), it was
explicitly stated that the respondents’ identity were kept anonymous, and
the participants were assured that there are no right or wrong answers, thus
reducing common method variance as well.
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 497

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present study emphasizes that leader – follower relationships are loaded
with emotional responses and that leadership is a highly emotional process.
Knowledge of the prevalence of emotional regulation and the kinds of
emotions that are usually expressed, suppressed, and faked during interaction
is a vital prerequisite for the effective management of such interaction.
Undoubtedly, leaders’ and subordinates’ interactions are smoother and more
predictable if socially appropriate emotional expressions are displayed.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

However, the present study has shown that high levels of emotion regulation
are associated with low job satisfaction and a higher level of subjective health
complaints. Thus, organizations should carefully consider the effects of
emotional display rules in leader – follower relationships and attempt to
implement strategies to reduce any potential negative consequences.
Suppressing and faking may deplete these relationships of valuable
information for effective decision making. According to Argyris, Putnam,
and Smith (1985), a lack of valid information in interpersonal interactions
may lead to an impaired learning environment and a range of negative
consequences concerning decision making and subsequent support of
decisions made. The findings from the present study confirm the notion
that emotions and their regulation play an important role in leadership
processes, and suggest that emotional aspects of leadership will continue to
be a rich area for research.

REFERENCES
Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: Antecedents, consequences, and
moderators. Genetic Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 229 – 246.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. London: Jossey-Bass.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of
identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88 – 115.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotions in the work place: Research,
theory, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A
conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the
work place: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 221 – 235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2002). Managing emotions in a changing
workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Managing emotions in
the workplace (pp. 3 – 22). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share a
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19 – 32.
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bonanno, G. A. & Kaltman, S. (1999). Toward an integrative perspective on bereavement.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 760 – 776.
Briner, R. B. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotion at work. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 323 – 346.
 498 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

Briner, R. B., & Totterdell, P. (2002). The experience, expression and management of emotion
at work. In P. Warr (Ed.), Psychology at work (pp. 229 – 252). London: Penguin.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the
dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57 – 67.
Clark, M. S., & Brisette, I. (2000). Relationship beliefs and emotion: Reciprocal effects. In
N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and belief: How feelings
influence thoughts (pp. 212 – 239). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, J. S., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A
compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

leader – member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615 – 634.

De Dreu, C. K. W., West, M. A., Fisher, A. H., & MacCurtain, S. (2001). Origins and
consequences of emotions in organizational teams. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Emotions at work (pp. 199 – 217). New York: Wiley.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor process: A
control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24, 945 – 959.
Ekman, P. (1973). Cross-cultural studies of facial expression: A century of research in review.
New York: Academic Press.
Eriksen, H. R., Ihlebæk, K., & Ursin, H. (1999). A scoring system for subjective health
complaints (SHC). Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 1, 63 – 72.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53(8), 1027 – 1055.
Glasø, L. (2002). Emosjoner i organisasjoner og ledelse [Emotions in organizations and
leadership]. In A. Skogstad & S. Einarsen (Eds.), Ledelse på godt og vondt. Effektivitet og
trivsel (pp. 101 – 124). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2006). Experienced affects in leader – subordinate relationships.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 49 – 73.
Glasø, L., Ekerholt, K., Barman, S., & Einarsen, S. (2006). The instrumentality of emotions in
leader – subordinate relationships. International Journal of Work Organization and Emotion,
1(3), 255 – 276.
Goffmann, E. (1969). Interaction ritual. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2003). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of
emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Graen, G. B., & 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. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219 – 247.
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize
emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95 – 110.
Gravdal, L., & Sandal, G. (2006). The two-factor model of social desirability: Relation to
coping and defense, and implications for health. Personality and Individual Differences,
40(5), 1051 – 1061.
Gray, E., & Watson, D. (2001). Emotion, mood, and temperament: Similarities, differences, and
a synthesis. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work (pp. 21 – 43). New
York: Wiley.
Gross, J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of
General Psychology, 2, 271 – 299.
Härtel, C. E. J., Hsu, A. C. F., & Boyle, M. V. (2002). A conceptual examination of the causal
sequences of emotional labor, emotional dissonance, and emotional exhaustion: The
argument for the role of contextual and provider characteristics. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 111 – 134).
New York: M. E. Sharpe.
 EMOTION REGULATION IN LEADER – FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS 499
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
493 – 504.
Izard, C. E. (1984). Emotion – cognition relationships and human development. In C. E. Izard,
J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition and behaviour (pp. 17 – 37). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Mann, S. (1999). Emotion at work: To what extent are we expressing, suppressing, or faking it?
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 347 – 369.
Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

Emotion, 14, 195 – 214.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Development and validation
of a measure of display rule knowledge: The Display Rule Assessment Inventory. Emotion,
5(1), 23 – 40.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Andersen, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on
subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545 – 559.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 989 – 1010.
Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and affective congruence in
perceptions of leaders: An experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 601 – 614.
Northouse, P. C. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions, Cognition
and Emotion, 1, 29 – 50.
Parkinson, B., Totterdell, P., Briner, R. B., & Reynolds, S. (1996). Changing moods: The
psychology of mood and mood regulation. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Parrot, W. G. (1993). Beyond hedonism: Motives for inhibiting good moods and for
maintaining bad moods. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental
control (pp. 278 – 305). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Payne, R., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Emotions at work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 583 – 599.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C. E. J., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the
impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R & D teams. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 561 – 581.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 – 903.
Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotion, and the myth of rationality. In
S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 36 – 57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 23 – 37.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in
organizations. London: Routledge.
Schlenker, B. R., Dlugolecki, D. W., & Doherty, K. (1994). The impact of self presentations on
self appraisals and behaviors: The power of public commitment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 20 – 33.
Sloan, M. (2004). The effects of occupational characteristics on the experience and expression of
anger in the workplace. Work and Occupation, 31, 38 – 72.
Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the ‘‘hot’’
cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 916 – 929.
 500 GLASØ AND EINARSEN

Strazdins, L. (2002). Emotional work and emotional contagion. In N. M. Ashkanasy,

W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 111 – 134).
New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Tiedens, L. Z. (2000). Powerful emotions: The vicious cycle of social status positions and
emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the work
place: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 71 – 81). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a
model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 55 – 73.
Tschan, F., Rochat, S., & Zapf, D. (2005). It’s not only clients: Studying emotion work with
clients and co-workers with an event sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 10:33 11 October 2014

Organizational Psychology, 78, 1 – 27.

Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job.
Work and Occupations, 20, 205 – 232.
Williams, K. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. I. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors
(pp. 133 – 170). New York: Plenum.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and
some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237 – 268.

Original manuscript received January 2006

Revised manuscript received October 2007
First published online May 2008