Page 1 of 18 ANZAM 2010
Emotion Work in Family Business
Dr Sanjeewa Perera School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide Email: [email protected]
Dr Shruti Sardeshmukh School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide Email: [email protected]
Dr Christina Scott-Young School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide Email: [email protected] ANZAM 2010 Page 2 of 18
Emotion Work in Family Business ABSTRACT
Working in a family business places individuals in a unique position where family and work domains overlap. Relationships and interactions among family members have a critical impact on functioning of family businesses. In this paper we draw on literature in the area of family business and emotion work to explore the nature of emotion work performed by family members who work together (family employees). We highlight how familiarity, presence of others, role and status, length and frequency of interactions, family functionality and the overlap between work and family domains create unique emotion work demands within a family business context. We conclude by the underlining the need to conduct further study in order to enhance our understanding of this distinct emotion work demand.
By any definition, family businesses are ubiquitous in the economic landscape. In Australia, family businesses constitute 70% of all enterprises (KPMG, 2009), while in the United States, 80%-90% of businesses are family dominated and provide almost half the nation’s employment (Shepherd and
Zacharakis, 2000). Worldwide, the numbers indicate an equally strong presence of family firms - 75% of businesses in the UK, 80% of businesses in Spain, more than 90% of those in Sweden and 99% of those in Italy, and 85% of businesses in the European Union can be classified as family controlled
(Upton and Petty, 2000). According to a recent survey, almost half the North American GNP is contributed by family businesses and the contribution is even higher for the EU (65%), Latin America
(70%), and Asia (82%) (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008).
Even when it is acknowledged that family firms constitute a significant proportion of large businesses, this literature has rarely taken into account the role of family related variables (Dyer,
2003). In such family-based organizations, family and business are integrally intertwined like a möbius strip (Litz, 2008), however the family business literature has mostly focused on the business side of the family business. Therefore, there is a pressing need to integrate the family back into family business research (Heck, 2004; Rogoff and Heck, 2003).
Family members working together in a family business are in a unique position as employees needing to manage concurrently two types of relationships in their workplace: both work and private.
Considering the inherent bivalent structure of family businesses (Tagiuri and Davis, 1996), it is important to understand the nature of the interactions among family members who work together in family businesses. Ket De Vries (1996) argues that key problems in family firms are often of a 1
Page 3 of 18 ANZAM 2010
psychological nature and that conflicts and interaction patterns from family settings flow into family
businesses, often making for dramatic situations. While the impact of family relationships on family
businesses has been acknowledged before (Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma,1998; Morris, Williams, Allen,
& Avila, 1997), few studies have explored in detail the nature of day-to-day interactions or the
emotion work among family members working together in family businesses (family employees). For
example it is established that successful family firms are managed by successful families (Masuo,
Fong, Yanagida & Cabal 2001), but very little is known about the distinctive interaction patterns and
the nature of emotional expression that characterize these successful families (Björnberg & Nicholson
2007; Lumpkin, Martin & Vaughn 2007).
The emotion work literature offers a new lens through which to examine these unique family
employee interactions. Literature in the area of emotion work acknowledges that working in the
modern workplace involves not only independently carrying out job-tasks that are of a technical
nature, but also interpersonally ‘interacting, transacting and synchronising with others’ (Boudens,
2005: 1303). Certain emotion display rules, or norms exist in the workplace to specify the
‘appropriate’ expression of emotion and these norms regulate employee interactions. Hence,
workplace interactions necessitate that employees attempt to conform to such display rules, or in other
words, perform emotion work (Crawley, 2004; Fineman, 1999; Leach and Tiedens, 2004; Tracy,
2000). Certain contextual factors such as role and status, familiarity and presence of others influence
the display rules and emotion work among co-workers. Family members working together in a
business context are required to frequently interact with each other and thus face a similar need to
perform emotion work. However due to the overlap of family and work relationships the contextual
factors that impact emotion work among family employees are not well defined. For example when a
father and a son interact with each other as co-workers in a family business setting their role and status
can become ambiguous. While literature to date has explored emotion work among co-workers few
studies have explored how contextual factors impact the nature of emotion work among family
employees.
2
ANZAM 2010 Page 4 of 18
Emotion work theory argues that workplace interactions are critically shaped by the emotion displayed by employees interacting with each other (Pugliesi, 1999). Emotion work functions as a communication tool during workplace interactions and can influence the emotion state and/or the behavior of the other party (Cote, 2005; Elfenbein, 2007; Glaso, Ekerholt, Barman, & Einarsen, 2006;
Zapf, 2002). For example, communication of displeasure through facial display can be used to compel a subordinate to comply with one’s wishes, whereas communication of happiness through emotion work can make a subordinate feel valued, thereby making him or her more amenable to the influence of a supervisor. Emotion work thus impacts the immediate outcomes of interactions in the short term and also influences workplace relationships in the long term.
However emotion work can be a double-edged sword. In its positive role, emotion work can ensure a smooth flow of interactions and strengthen workplace relationships (Bolton, 2005; Brunton, 2005;
Cropanzano, Weiss, & Elias, 2004; Smollan, 2006; Waldron, 1994). When employees adhere to display norms, this increases the predictability of interactions and makes way for a smooth interaction.
Smooth interactions and functional relationships are critical for the success and survival of the family business. Good relationships can give the family firm a strong strategic advantage, while the emotional issues arising out of negative familial interactions and relationships can be detrimental to the family business (Cabrera-Suarez, Saa-Perez & Garcia-Almeida, 2001; Eddleston and
Kellermanns, 2007).
In its negative role there may be potential ‘costs’ involved in performing emotion work―both to the employee and to the organisation. The effort involved in performing emotion work has been closely associated with burnout, psychological distress, reduced job satisfaction, physical illness, and employee turnover (Bono and Vey, 2005; Dormann and Zapf, 2004; Mann and Cowburn, 2005; Seery and Corrigal, 2009; Zapf, 2002). Managing dual relationships (personal/work) in family businesses is not easy and requires ‘special awareness, careful communication, and extreme effort’ (Jaffe, 2004:
27). Thus performing emotion work in the family business context may potentially have a deleterious effect on family members who work together. These negative, consequences may both be harmful to the family members and may prove to be costly to the business itself.
3
Page 5 of 18 ANZAM 2010
As outlined above the lack of research attention to the nature of emotion work among family
employees calls for further study into this unique work setting. Moreover the critical impact emotion
work of family employees have on their workplace interactions and consequently family firm
performance creates a more pressing need to enhance our understanding of emotion work among
family employees. In this paper, we integrate literature on emotion work with family business
literature to develop research propositions that illustrate the unique nature of emotion work performed
by family employees. In the next section, we briefly outline the two constructs family business and
emotion work. We then draw on these two strands of literature to examine in detail the factors that
impact the nature of emotion work among family employees. We conclude outlining a proposed
research design that could be used to test these propositions.
FAMILY BUSINESS There have been many definitions of a family business and most of them have revolved around
ownership, control and sometimes expectation or realisation of succession. Barry (1989) defines a
family business as an enterprise that is controlled by members of a single family. Daily and Dollinger
(1992) and Jaffe (2004) define family firms as those firms which are owned and managed by the
family.
Chua, Chrisman and Sharma (1999) also distinguish between theoretical definitions and operational
definitions of family business. There are several types of theoretical definitions of family business.
Some revolve around components - ownership, management, and trans-generational succession. The
other definitions discuss the essence of ‘familiness’ and define the family firm by behavior and
components that are viewed as necessary but not sufficient conditions for familiness. Chua et al.
(1999: 25) define a family business as ‘a business governed and/or managed with the intention to
shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the
same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across
generations of the family or families’. In our study, we follow this comprehensive definition by Chua
et al. (1999).
4
ANZAM 2010 Page 6 of 18
EMOTION WORK Defining Emotion Work The term ‘emotional labour’ was introduced by Hochschild in her seminal work (Hochschild, 1983) on service workers, where she defined emotional labour as the ‘management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display’ (Hochschild, 1983:7). She stated that jobs requiring emotional labour are characterised by the fact that they oblige service employees to have direct contact with customers, and in fact influence the emotion state of customers. Such jobs also allow organisations to control the emotional labour by enforcing organisationally prescribed emotion display rules. Based on Hochschild ‘s (1983) work, most subsequent studies specified emotional labour as the act of adherence to organisationally prescribed display rules during interactions with customers.
(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Cropanzano et al, 2004; Pugh, 2002; Zapf, 2002).
This conceptualisation of emotional labour was inadequate to fully capture the range of emotion work prevalent in organisations. Firstly, it failed to include display rules that are not organisationally prescribed. Numerous earlier studies have confirmed that emotion work performed by employees is also influenced by display rules originating from other sources―such as peers and family and cultural norms (Bolton and Boyd , 2003; Bono and Vey, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2004; Smollan, 2006)
Secondly, Hochschild’s (1983) concept did not capture emotion work that is performed by employees during interactions with those internal to the organisation, such as with co-workers, subordinates or supervisors. A sizeable body of research now confirms that employees also perform emotion work during internal interactions (Bono and Vey, 2005; Brunton, 2005; Glaso et al, 2006; Smollan, 2006).
This has led to the conceptualisation of the broader construct ‘emotion work’, a term that subsumes employee behaviour captured in ‘emotional labour’, and also acknowledges the diverse and complex nature of emotion work carried out during internal workplace interactions(Bolton, 2001; Bolton and
Boyd, 2003; Bolton, 2005). The specification of emotion work within this study is fundamentally consistent with this conceptualization of emotion work with its focus on interactions among family employees..
What does Emotion Work Entail? Emotion work involves conforming to display rules present in the workplace. Display rules have been defined as learned norms that outline expectations with regard to how emotion should be expressed 5
Page 7 of 18 ANZAM 2010
during social interactions (Cropanzano et al., 2004; Diefendorff and Richard, 2003; Rafaeli and
Sutton, 1989). The concept display rules encompass formal as well as informal requirements
pertaining to the expression of emotion. Similar to most organisational norms, instead of being rigid
rules, display rules are expectations with regard to observable expressions of emotion during
workplace interactions (see Bolton 2005 and Conrad and Witte 1994).
The display rules govern what is perceived as the range of emotion ‘appropriate’ for expression during
workplace interactions. Previous researchers have confirmed that the range of ‘appropriate’ emotion
does not apply equally to all workplace interactions (See Lively, 2000; Seymour and Sandiford, 2005;
Tschan, Rochat & Zapf, 2005). This range varies depending on the interaction contexts. During some
interactions only a limited range of emotion is seen as ‘appropriate’ for display, for example
interactions with customers, supervisors and subordinates (Crawley, 2004; Perera, 2007). In contrast,
during some interactions a wider range of emotion is perceived as ‘appropriate’ for display as in
interactions with peers (Briner and Totterdell, 2002; Gabriel and Griffiths, 2002; Tschan et al., 2005).
Consistent performance of emotion work requires employees to regulate their emotions so they are
able to display ‘appropriate’ emotion to the relevant degree (self–directed emotion work). If they
experience emotional dissonance (experience emotion that is not perceived as appropriate for display)
this may involve suppression or toning-down ‘inappropriate’ emotion that is experienced, while
simultaneously expressing emotion perceived as ‘appropriate’. In addition to managing one’s own
emotions, emotion work also entails influencing emotion state and behaviour of others (other-directed
emotion work. For example, when an irate customer displays intense emotions (like anger and
aggression), an employee is required to re-orientate such customers by calming them down (Bolton
and Boyd, 2003; Crawley, 2004). ‘Hoschschild (1983:7) explained that this ‘other directed’ emotion
work ‘requires one to induce or suppress feeling in order to sustain the outward countenance that
produces the proper state of mind in others’(emphasis added). Thus, performing emotion work
requires that employees frequently and skillfully regulate their own experience and expression of
emotion, as well as attempt to influence the emotion state of others that they interact with.
6
ANZAM 2010 Page 8 of 18
EMOTION WORK IN FAMILY BUSINESSES
Emotion work (conforming to norms related to appropriate expression of emotion), also occurs in interpersonal relationships outside work settings. It may take place in close romantic personal relationships as well as family settings. For example, research found that even though mature personal relationships may allow a broader range of emotional expression, negative emotions are withheld more frequently (Strzyzewskiaune, Buller & Aune, 2006). Such control of negative emotions may be undertaken to maintain harmony even if display rules permit negative emotions (Strzyzewskiaune et al., 2006), indicating self-directed emotional work (Pugliesi and Shook, 1997). Similarly, personal relationships may involve other directed emotional work attempts such as deliberately managing family bonds and creating positive feelings of solidarity and affection among family members
(Pugliesi, 1999; Seery and Crowley, 2000). When family members work together in a business context they face emotion work demands stemming from both family and work domains.
While all employees perform emotion work, emotion work demands on family members are unique because they interact with family members in a work setting. In the next segment we focus on this overlapping demand and how several contextual and family factors influence emotion work among family employees.
Factors that Impact Emotion Work Familiarity: Familiarity refers to the amount of information an individual possesses with regard to a potential interaction partner ( a person[s] one interacts with) in terms of his/her disposition, possible responses, likes and dislikes, and demographic factors etc. The familiarity with interaction- partner impacts relevant display rules (Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama and Petrova, 2005) and consequent emotion work. Most interactions with unknown interaction-partners are associated with strict display rules; however, as the familiarity increases, an opportunity arises to move onto more lenient display rules (Perera, 2007). The root of the word familiarity itself is etymologically related to the word family, highlighting the fact that family members are privy to intimate and detailed information about each other. Therefore, family members, typically, will consider a wider range of emotions as appropriate for expression when interacting with each other. Thus family employees will be able to
7
Page 9 of 18 ANZAM 2010
express a wider range of emotion when interacting with another family employee, as compared to a
typical interaction between unrelated colleagues.
Proposition 1: Familiarity will affect family employee display rules and emotion work in family business setting.
Presence of others: Even though familiarity may relax display rules, there may be other
factors that affect emotion work among family members in a family business context, for example the
presence or absence of others in the vicinity. In the presence of others, the family members may place
a higher emphasis on adherence to relevant display rules―in contrast to interactions that take place in
the absence of others ( Goffman, 1959; Rafaeli and Sutton, 1989a;Taylor and Tyler, 2000). The degree
of influence the presence of others has on these family employees may vary, depending on type of
person(s) present. For example, the presence of customers may impel the family employee to adhere to
relevant display rules. Similarly, the presence of other non-family employees may create the need for
stricter adherence to display rules. Emotion work is often used as a strategy to enhance impression-
management attempts (Tracy, 2005). Given that family members may need to express integrity in front
of non-family employees, family employees may have to follow integrative display norms to show
solidarity or underplay negative emotions such as anger, frustration etc masking emotions in order to
concede to the ‘pressure on a family-firm family to maintain an image of cohesiveness’(Kepner,
1991:68).
Proposition 2: The presence of non-related others will affect family employee display rules and emotion work in family business setting.
Role and status: In the family business context, family employee has to interact with the
family members as a coworker and a family member, and relate to each other in multiple roles. For
example, siblings may be in a supervisor – subordinate relationship in the workplace; spouses may be
coworkers etc. The role played by an employee during an interaction influences the display rules. For
example, when a supervisor relates to a subordinate, the supervisory role necessitates fostering and
maintaining the image of a ‘rational’ supervisor that requires a display of greater emotional restraint in
comparison to an interaction with a peer (Fineman, 1999; Lively, 2000; Perera, 2007; Wilk and
Moynihan, 2005).
8
ANZAM 2010 Page 10 of 18
Another primary characteristic of an interaction-partner that shapes display rules is his/her status in relation to the employee (Diefendorff, Morehart and Gabriel, 2010; Perera, 2007). The term status here refers to the position occupied by an individual in the informal hierarchy, within an organisation. In case of family members this status may also be influenced by their status within the family unit.
Interactions between persons of asymmetrical status are associated with strict display rules (Fineman,
1999; Lively, 2000; 2002). During workplace interactions, the interaction-partner of higher status may enjoy certain privileges in contrast to the interaction-partner of lower status. Firstly, the interaction- partner of higher status is able to display a wider range of emotion compared to the interaction-partner of lower status (Erickson and Ritter, 2001; Glaso et al., 2006; Smollan, 2006). Secondly, the higher status interaction-partner is able to set the ground rules for the interaction. Thirdly the interaction- partner of higher status is able to signal when to relax or reinforce the emotional tone of an interaction
(Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993;de Castro & Agnew, 2004; Fineman, 1999). However, in contrast, the interaction-partner of low status is obliged to comply with the direction taken by the interaction- partner of high status. The challenging nature of emotion work performed by ‘low status’ employees also stems from the fact, that individuals are more likely violate display rules when they perceive themselves to be interacting with those of low status (Boyle, 2005). Erickson and Ritter (2001) termed this situation an ‘emotional double bind’, (p. 148) detailing how employees of low status are exposed to more negative emotions yet are required to display a only limited range of positive emotion. In a family business setting, individuals of higher status (in either family or business) can determine the tone and display norms relevant to an interaction, with lower status family employees having to follow the norms dictated by higher status family employee.
Proposition 3: Role and status of the family employee will affect display rules and emotion work in the family business setting.
Family functionality: The family is viewed basically as an emotional system for meeting its individual member’s needs (Bateson 1972; Friedman 1991), hence the management of emotional expression is an essential facet of family functioning. However, not all families are functional: healthy
(functional) families and unhealthy (dysfunctional) families differ in their emotional expression
(Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, & Wilson, 1992; Beavers 1988). Dysfunctional families
9
Page 11 of 18 ANZAM 2010
tend to either display intense emotions (high levels of disagreement and negative emotions) or they
suppress most emotion displaying very little emotion. In contrast, functional families tend to operate
from a base of agreement and exhibit higher levels of positive emotion and low levels of negative
emotion (Olson et al. 1992).
Dysfunctional family systems also tend to be rigid and inflexible (Olson et al. 1992), hence it is likely
that a dysfunctional family will carry its ‘at home’ emotion display rules over into the business,
regardless of whether those display rules are appropriate for effective workplace interactions.. On the
other hand, families that are functional exhibit greater flexibility and adaptability (Walsh, 1998) and
are therefore more likely to adopt a different, more business appropriate set of display rules when at
work.
Proposition 4: Family functioning will affect display rules and emotion work in the family business setting.
Length and frequency of interactions: The length and frequency of interactions can play a
didactic role, and critically shape display rules relevant to interactions. Brief interactions reduce the
degree of familiarity between interaction-partners, consequently limiting the range of emotion that can
be displayed. Such brief transient interactions can be emotionally taxing, since they do not provide an
opportunity for any kind of meaningful relationship to emerge (Rafaeli, 1989; Himmelweit, 1999). At
the same time, brief transient interactions provide an opportunity to maintain a certain degree of
detachment from the interaction. Emotion work literature has underscored that employees are able to
adhere to relevant display rules with ease during brief/transient interactions, adopting a scripted
approach (Boyle, 2005; Rubin, Tardino, Daus & Munz, 2005; Zapf, 2002).
On the other hand, emotion work during lengthy/frequent interactions is consistently found to be more
demanding (Heuven, Bakker, Schaufeli & Huisman, 2006; Sharpe, 2005). Lengthy/frequent
interactions provide an opportunity to increase the degree of familiarity allowing employees to move
to more lenient display rules (Perera, 2007). However, during lengthy or frequent interactions, the
interaction-partners may develop a higher degree of personal involvement (Diefendorff, Croyle, &
Gosserand, 2005; Sandiford and Seymour, 2002; Zapf, 2002). Such high involvement has a downside:
10
ANZAM 2010 Page 12 of 18
it makes it difficult for interaction partners to distance themselves from such interactions and actions of these interaction partners. For example an employee may be able to easily forget a rebuff from another employee with whom he/she has only a few interactions whereas forgetting a rebuff from a spouse/co-worker may take more effort. Family employees tend to have lengthy, frequent interactions with each other and such high personal involvement is typical to family employee relationships.
Proposition 4: Lengthy/frequent interactions among family employees will reduce detachment from interaction partners and will increase effort involved in performing emotion work.
Overlap of work/family domains: Usually, the family and work domains are separate, and family may provide a respite from emotion work at the work setting, while work may allow escape from emotion work in the family setting. Such a recovery or respite from stressors, hitherto studied in the context of work stressors, is associated with positive wellbeing outcomes (Sonnentag and Bayer,
2005; Sonnentag, Binnewies & Mojza,2008). The effectiveness of this detaching can be supported by (Dollard, 2003: 87) who has argued that detaching is ‘one of the best strategies to counteract emotional dissonance and other…customer-related social-stressors’.
Moreover this process of detaching or maintaining a ‘healthy distance’ (Wharton, 1999: 164) grants an employee a sense of control, as well as a degree of protection from the strain of emotional dissonance
(Bulan, Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Crawley, 2004, Garot, 2004). It allows the individual recovery time, and it may take place through breaks of different duration such as vacations, weekends, evenings away from work, and short breaks at work (Sonnentag et al., 2008). In case of a family business, given the overlap of family and business, and interaction with family employees in both the business and family settings, such respite and separation may not always be possible. This creates a situation where the family members may have to perform emotion work in both the family and business contexts, with the same people. When an individual has to manage emotions on a continual basis, s/he may have little escape from attentiveness to emotions. Since there is little separation between home and work, there may be little psychological detachment opportunity for family employees who come home to the same individuals, thereby intensifying the effect of emotion work in the family business setting.
Proposition 6: Overlap between family and work domains will reduce the effectiveness of detaching as an emotion work strategy and increase effort involved in performing emotion work.
11
Page 13 of 18 ANZAM 2010
Researching emotion work in family business
Emotions and emotion work in family businesses is a complex phenomenon and require
methodological rigor as well as sensitivity in exploring the issue. We argue that a large scale multi-
respondent longitudinal quantitative study using valid and reliable scales is necessary to unpack this
complex phenomenon. Emotion work takes place through interactions. Therefore, we argue that
collecting perspectives of multiple respondents from the family is essential to understanding emotion
work in family businesses. Further, given that emotion work strategies in the family businesses context
have a long term time horizon, there may be potential bidirectional and reciprocal effects of emotion
work on the family business function. A longitudinal study tracking respondents and their emotion
work patterns can shed better light on these causal dynamics. Not all families are alike, and
understanding the diversity of family dynamics is critical to understanding emotion work in family
businesses. Therefore, we propose that a large sample dataset is essential to explore such effects.
CONCLUSION
Pulling together strands of literature from family business and emotion work, this paper illustrated the
unique emotion work demand among family members who work together in a business context. The
kind of emotion work they perform differs from emotional work between non-related colleagues due
to the private, kinship dynamics that co-exist between them. The paper highlighted factors that impact
this emotion work demand either by intensifying or reducing the associated emotion work.
Successful family business activity is closely linked to emotional patterns of family members within
the family business. For example, success of family business depends on smooth interactions and
functional relationships and dysfunctional emotional issues can threaten the survival of the family
business (Cabrera-Suarez et al., 2001; Eddleston and Kellermanns, 2007). Thus there is a need to
explore in depth emotion work demand in the intersection of personal and work domains that is
distinctive of family business contexts. Further research can investigate factors that influence the
emotion work demand and strategies that are effective in this unique setting.
12
ANZAM 2010 Page 14 of 18
REFERENCES Ashforth, B. E. & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.
Barry, B. 1989. The development of organization structure in the family firm. Family Business Review, 2, 293-315.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler.
Beavers, W.R. 1988. A clinically useful model of family assessment. In C. Ramsey (Ed.), Family systems in medicine. New York: Guilford Press.
Björnberg, A. & Nicholson, N. 2007. The family climate scales—development of a new measure for use in family business research. Family Business Review, 20 (3)
Bolton, S. C. 2001. Changing faces: Nurses as emotional jugglers. Sociology of Health and Illness, 23, 85-100.
Bolton, S. C. 2005. Emotion management in the workplace, Hundmills, Palgrave MacMillan.
Bolton, S. C. & Boyd, C. 2003. Trolley dolly or skilled emotion manager? Moving on from Hochschild's Managed Heart. Work, Employment & Society, 17, 289-308.
Bono, J. E. & Vey, M. A. 2005. Toward understanding emotional management at work: A quantitative review of emotion labor research. In: Hartel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (eds.) Emotions in Organizational Behavior. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Boudens, C. J. 2005. The story of work: A narrative analysis of workplace emotion. Organization Studies, 26, 1285-1306.
Boyle, M. V. 2005. "You wait until you get home": Emotional regions, emotional process work, and the role of onstage and offstage support. In: Hartel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (eds.) Emotions in Organizational Behavior. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Briner, R. B. & Totterdell, P. 2002. The experience, expression and management of emotion at work. In: WARR, P. (ed.) Psychology at work. Fifth ed. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Brunton, M. 2005. Emotion in health care: the cost of caring. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 19, 340-354.
Bulan, H., Erickson, R. & Wharton, A. 1997. Doing for others on the job: The affective requirements of service work, gender, and emotional well-being. Soc. Probs., 44, 235.
Cabrera-Suarez, K., Saa-Perez, P. & Garcia-Almeida, D. 2001. The Succession Process from a Resource- and Knowledge-Based View of the Family Firm. Family Business Review, 14, 37-48.
Chrisman, J., Chua, J. & Sharma, P. 1998. Important Attributes of Successors in Family Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Family Business Review, 11, 19-34.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. & Sharma, P. 1999. Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19.
Conrad, C. & Witte, K. 1994. Is emotional expression repression oppression? Myths of organizational affective regulation. Communication Year Book, 17, 417-428. 13
Page 15 of 18 ANZAM 2010
Cote, S. 2005. A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of Management Review, 30, 509-530.
Crawley, E. M. 2004. Emotion and performance: Prison officers and the presentation of self in prisons. Punishment & Society, 6, 411-427.
Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. & Elias, S. 2004. The impact of display rules and emotional labor on psychological well-being at work. Research in occupational stress and well being, 3, 45-89.
Daily, C. M. & Dollinger, M. J. 1992. An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally managed firms. Family Business Review, 5, 117-136.
de Castro, A. B. & Agnew, J. 2004. Emotional labor: Relevant theory for occupational health practice in Post-Industrial America. AAOHN Journal 52, 109-115.
Diefendorff, J. & Richard, E. 2003. Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284-294.
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H. & Gosserand, R. H. 2005. The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339-357.
Diefendorff, J.M., Morehart, J. and Gabriel, A. 2010. The influence of power and solidarity on emotional display rules at work. Motivation and Emotion. 34, 2, 120-132.
Dollard, M. F. 2003. Introduction: Context, theories and intervention In: Dollard, M. F., Winefield, A. H. & Winefield, H. R. (eds.) Occupational stress in the service professions London: Taylor & Francis.
Dormann, C. & Zapf, D. 2004. Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 61-82.
Dyer, W. G. 2003. The Family: The Missing Variable in Organizational Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 401-416.
Eddleston, K. & Kellermanns, F. 2007. Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 545-565.
Elfenbein, H. A. 2007 Emotion in organizations: A review in stages. In: Brief, A. & Walsh, J. (eds.) Academy of Management Annals. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Erickson, R. & Ritter, C. 2001. Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146-163.
Fineman, S. 1999. Emotion and organizing In: Clegg, S. & Hardy, C. (eds.) Studying organization: Theory and method. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Friedman, E. H. (1991). Bowen theory and therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy. 2, 134–170 New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Gabriel, Y. & Griffiths, D. S. 2002. Emotion, learning and organizing. The Learning Organization, 9, 214-221.
Garot, R. 2004. "You're not stone" : Emotional sensitivity in a bureaucratic setting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 735-766.
14
ANZAM 2010 Page 16 of 18
Glaso, L., Ekerholt, K., Barman, S. & Einarsen, S. 2006. The instrumentality of emotion in leader- subordinate relationships. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 1, 255-276.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Middlesex, Penguin Books Ltd.
Heck, R. K. Z. 2004. A commentary on entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource- based analysis of the effect of organizational culture". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 383- 389.
Heuven, E., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B. & Huisman, N. 2006. The role of self-efficacy in performing emotion work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 222-235.
Himmelweit, S. 1999. Caring labor. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 27-38.
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Jaffe, D. 2004. Working with the ones you love. Aspen Family Business Group.
Kepner, E. 1991. The family and the firm: A coevolutionary perspective. Family Business Review, 4, 445-461.
Ket De Vries M. F. R. (1996) Human dilemmas in family business. London Routledge
KPMG (2009) KPMG and Family Business Austrlaia Survey of Familiy Buisinesses 2009 www.fambiz.org.au/documents/FBAKPMGFamilyBusinessSurvey-2009.pdf , accessd 29th June 2010
Leach, C. W. & Tiedens, L. Z. 2004. Introduction: A world of emotion. In: Tiedens, L. Z. & Leach, C. W. (eds.) The Social Life of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Litz, R. A. 2008. Two Sides of a One-Sided Phenomenon: Conceptualizing the Family Business and Business Family as a Mobius Strip. Family Business Review, 21, 217-236.
Lively, K. 2000. Reciprocal emotion management: Working together to maintain stratification in private law firms. Work and Occupations, 27, 32.
Lively, K. J. 2002. Client contact and emotional labor: Upsetting the balance and evening the field Work and Occupations, 29, 198-225.
Lumpkin, G. T., Martin, W. & Vaughn, M. 2008. Family orientation: individual-level influences on family firm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21, 2, 127-138.
Mann, S. & Cowburn, J. 2005. Emotional labour and stress within mental health nursing. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12, 154-162.
Masuo, D., Fong, G., Yanagida, J. & Cabal, C. 2001. Factors associated with business and family success: a comparison of single manager and dual manager family business households. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 22, 1, 55-73.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S.H., Hirayama, S. and Petrova, G. 2005. Development and validation of a measure of display rule knowledge: The display rule assessment inventory. Emotions, 5, 23-40. Morris, M. H., Williams, R. O., Allen, J. A. & Avila, R. A. 1997. Correlates of success in family business transitions. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 385-401.
15
Page 17 of 18 ANZAM 2010
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1992). Family inventories. Minneapolis: Life Innovations.
Perera, S. 2007. Firewalling emotion: Exploring how hospitality employees gain competence in emotion work (A Grounded Theory study). Doctor of Philosophy University of South Australia.
Pricewaterhousecoopers 2008 Making a difference: Family Business Survey 2007/2008.
Pugh, D. S. 2002. Emotion regulation in individual and dyads: causes, costs, and consequences. In: Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J. & Kanfer, R. (eds.) Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
Pugliesi, K. 1999. The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 125-154.
Pugliesi, K. & Shook, S. 1997. Gender, jobs, and emotional labor in a complex organization. SocialPerspectives on Emotion, 4, 283-316.
Rafaeli, A. 1989. When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of supermarket cashiers. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 245-273.
Rafaeli, A. & Sutton, R. 1989. The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11.
Rogoff, E. & Heck, R. 2003. Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business: Recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 559- 566.
Rubin, R. S., Tardino, V. M. S., Daus, C. S. & Munz, D. C. 2005. A Reconceptualisation of the emotional labour construct: On the development of an integrated theory of perceived emotional dissonance and emotional labor. In: Hartel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (eds.) Emotions in Organizational Behavior. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Sandiford, P. J. & Seymour, D. 2002. Emotional labor in public houses: Reflections on a pilot study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 26, 54-70.
Seery, B. & Crowley, M. 2000. Women's emotion work in the family: Relationship management and the process of building father-child relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 100.
Seery, B. and Corrigall, E. 2009. Emotional labor: Links to work attitudes and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 8, 797-813.
Seymour, D. & Sandiford, P. 2005. Learning emotion rules in service organizations: socialization and training in the UK public-house sector. Work, Employment & Society, 19, 547.
Sharpe, E. K. 2005. "Going above and beyond:" The emotional labor of adventure guides. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 29-50.
Shepherd, D. & Zacharakis, A. 2000. Structuring Family Business Succession: An Analysis of the Future Leader's Decision Making. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 24.
Smollan, R. 2006. Running hot and cold: how acceptable is emotional expression at work? International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 1, 215-231.
16
ANZAM 2010 Page 18 of 18
Sonnentag, S. & Bayer, U. 2005. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393-414.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C. & Mojza, E. 2008. Did you have a nice evening? iJournal of Applied Psychology, 93, 674-684.
Strzyzewskiaune, K., Buller, D. & Aune, R. 2006. Display Rule Development in Romantic Relationships Emotion Management and Perceived Appropriateness of Emotions Across Relationship Stages. Human Communication Research, 23, 115-145.
Tagiuri, R. & Davis, J. 1996. Bivalent Attributes of the Family Firm. Family Business Review, 9, 199- 208.
Taylor, S. & Tyler, M. 2000. Emotional labour and sexual difference in the airline industry. Work, Employment & Society, 14, 77-95.
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
Tracy, S. J. 2005. Locking up emotion: Moving beyond dissonance for understanding emotion labour discomfort. Communication Monographs, 72, 261-283.
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 Organizational Psychology, 78, 195-220.
Upton, N. & Petty, W. 2000. Venture capital investment and US family business. Venture Capital, 2, 27-39.
Waldron, V. R. 1994. Once more, with feeling: Reconsidering the role of emotion in work. Communication Year Book, 17, 388-416.
Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford Press.
Wharton, A. S. 1999. The psychosocial consequences of emotional labor. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 158-176.
Wilk, S. L. & Moynihan, L. M. 2005. Display rule "regulators": The relationship between supervisors and worker emotion exhaustion . Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 917-927.
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.
17