Managers' Affective Expressions as Determinants of Employee Responses to Change: Valence, Inappropriateness and Authenticity

Rachael Elwork Wells

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

2008 UMI Number: 3317659

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

® UMI UMI Microform 3317659 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ©2008 Rachael Elwork Wells All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT

Managers' Affective Expressions as Determinants of Employee Responses to Change:

Valence, Inappropriateness and Authenticity

Rachael Elwork Wells

This dissertation contributes to an understudied area in organizational change research: the effects of managers' affective expressions on employee responses to change. I build upon the psychological literature on resilience and the organizational literatures on affect and change to develop hypotheses based on the premise that resilient responses to change may be the result of social processes in addition to purely individual ones. Independent variables include emotional content (e.g., positive, high activation emotions), as well as emotional inappropriateness, authenticity, and the specific regulation strategy of suppression. To test hypotheses, I surveyed employees and managers from several organizations undergoing change, including a sub-prime mortgage lender, a luxury retail company, a governmental organization, a law firm, and a Fortune

500 internet company. Results featured a series of interactive effects of perceptions of managers' expressed positive emotions and their overall emotional inappropriateness and authenticity. Managers' positive emotional expressions were associated with enhanced employee change-related outcomes, when those managers were not perceived as inappropriate in their emotional expressions and when they were seen as authentic.

Managers' effective use of humor also interacted with emotional authenticity and inexpressiveness in its relationship to improved outcomes. Contrary to predictions, humor was related to enhanced employee outcomes when managers were not perceived to be authentically emotionally expressive. Managers' emotional inappropriateness was found to be detrimental to employee outcomes. Finally, while managers' use of suppression was associated with worsened outcomes as compared with authentic emotional expression, the worst employee outcomes were associated with managers perceived to be faking the emotions they were expressing. TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiv

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Overview 1

Subordinate Change Outcomes of Interest 2

CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Framework, Including Literature Review and

Hypotheses

Managers' Positive High Activation Emotions and the Use of Humor 6

Inappropriateness of Managers' Emotional Displays 17

Authenticity of Managers' Emotional Displays 18

Managers' Use of Emotional Suppression 21

CHAPTER 3: Method

Overview 24

Sample 24

Procedure 30

Measures 31

CHAPTER 4: Results

Overview 38

Main Results 58

Additional Analyses 79

i CHAPTER 5: Discussion

Overview 104

Results Highlighted 104

Implications for Theory and Practice 108

Study Limitations 113

Other Future Research 116

Conclusion 119

REFERENCES 121

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Study Proposal to Organizations 132

Appendix B: Original Scale: Employee Perceptions of the 134

Appropriateness of Managers' Emotional Displays

ii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Providing Perceptions 26

of Managers (includes Employee-level and Non-top management)

Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of Managers in the Sample Providing 28

Self-Report Data

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Models not Including Use 40

of Humor

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Models Including Use of 42

Humor

Table 5 Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction (Without Humor) 45

Table 6 Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction (Including Humor) 46

Table 7 Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment (Without 47

Humor)

Table 8 Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment (Including 48

Humor)

Table 9 Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions (Without Humor) 49

Table 10 Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions (Including Humor) 50

Table 11 Regression Analyses for Helping Behaviors (Without Humor) 51

Table 12 Regression Analyses for Helping Behaviors (Including Humor) 52

Table 13 Regression Analyses for Sleep Difficulties 53

Table 14 Regression Analyses for General Life Satisfaction 54

Table 15 Regression Analyses for Procedural Fairness Judgments 55

iii LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Table 16 Regression Analyses for Interactional Fairness Judgments 56

Table 17 Regression Analyses for Relationship Quality with Manager 57

Table 18 Regression Analyses Showing Relationships Between Outcome 81

Variables and Posited Mediators

Table 19 Mediation Analyses for Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention 83

Models

Table 20 Mediation Analyses for Organizational Commitment and Helping 84

Behavior Models

Table 21 Mediation Analyses for Sleep Difficulties and General Life 85

Satisfaction Models

Table 22 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Risk/Benefit Perceptions 86

and Predictor Variables

Table 23 Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction Controlling for 88

Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Without

Humor)

Table 24 Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction Controlling for 89

Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Including

Humor)

Table 25 Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling 90

for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments Manager

Risk/Benefit Assessments (Without Humor)

iv LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Table 26 Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling 91

for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Including

Humor)

Table 27 Regression Analyses for Procedural Fairness Judgments Controlling 92

for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments

Table 28 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Charisma Perceptions 93

and Predictor Variables

Table 29 Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction Including Manager 95

Charisma (Including Humor)

Table 30 Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling 96

for Manager Charisma (Without Humor)

Table 31 Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling 97

for Manager Charisma (Including Humor)

Table 32 Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions Controlling for 98

Manager Charisma (Without Humor)

Table 33 Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions Controlling for 99

Manager Charisma (Including Humor)

Table 34 Regression Analyses for Procedural Fairness Judgments Controlling 100

for Manager Charisma

Table 35 Regression Analyses for Interactional Fairness Judgments 101

Controlling for Manager Charisma

v LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Table 36 Regression Analyses for Relationship Quality With Manager 102

Controlling for Manager Charisma

VI LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 1 Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function 59

of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and anger (model not including humor as a predictor

variable).

Figure 2 Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function 59

of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and anger (model including humor as a predictor

variable).

Figure 3 Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a 60

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and anger.

Figure 4 Predicted values of S' s j ob satisfaction as a function of interactive 61

effects of S's perceptions of manager's type 2 emotional

inappropriateness overall and whether S manages at least 1

employee him/herself (model not including humor as a predictor

variable).

Figure 5 Predicted values of S' s j ob satisfaction as a function of interactive 62

effects of S's perceptions of manager's type 2 emotional

inappropriateness overall and whether S manages at least 1

employee him/herself (model including humor as a predictor

variable).

vn LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 6 Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of 63

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall (model

not including humor as a predictor variable).

Figure 7 Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of 63

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall (model

including humor as a predictor variable).

Figure 8 Predicted values of S's sleep difficulties as a function of interactive 64

effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and

type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall.

Figure 9 Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a 64

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness

overall.

Figure 10 Predicted values of S's assessments of interactional fairness as a 65

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness

overall.

viii LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 11 Predicted values of S's quality of relationship with manager as a 65

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness

overall.

Figure 12 Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function 66

of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model

not including humor as a predictor variable).

Figure 13 Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function 66

of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model

including humor as a predictor variable).

Figure 14 Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of 67

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model

not including humor as a predictor variable).

Figure 15 Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of 67

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model

including humor as a predictor variable). LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 16 Predicted values of S's sleep difficulties as a function of interactive 68

effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and

type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall.

Figure 17 Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a 68

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness

overall.

Figure 18 Predicted values of S's assessments of interactional fairness as a 69

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness

overall.

Figure 19 Predicted values of S' s quality of relationship with manager as a 69

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's

expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness

overall.

Figure 20 Predicted values of S's job satisfaction as a function of interactive 70

effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and type 2

emotional inappropriateness overall (model including humor as a

predictor variable).

x LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 21 Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of 71

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and emotional authenticity overall (model including

humor as a predictor variable).

Figure 22 Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of 72

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and

emotional authenticity overall (model including humor as a

predictor variable).

Figure 23 Predicted values of S's assessments of interactional fairness as a 72

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use

of humor and emotional authenticity overall.

Figure 24 Predicted values of S's quality of relationship with manager as a 73

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use

of humor and emotional authenticity overall.

Figure 25 Predicted values of S's turnover intentions as a function of 74

interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and

emotional authenticity overall (model including humor as a

predictor variable).

Figure 26 Predicted values of S's sleep difficulties as a function of interactive 74

effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and emotional

authenticity overall.

xi LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 27 Predicted values of S's general life satisfaction as a function of 74

interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and

emotional authenticity overall.

Figure 28 Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a 75

function of interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness

overall and emotional authenticity overall.

Figure 29 Predicted values of S's turnover intentions as a function of 75

interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and

emotional authenticity overall (model not including humor as a

predictor variable).

Figure 3 0 Predicted values of S' s j ob satisfaction as a function of interactive 76

effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and overall

emotional inexpressiveness (model including humor as a predictor

variable).

Figure 31 Predicted values of S's general life satisfaction as a function of 77

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and

overall emotional inexpressiveness.

Figure 32 Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a 77

function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use

of humor and overall emotional inexpressiveness.

xn LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 33 Predicted values of S's general life satisfaction as a function of 78

interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed

enthusiasm and manager's overall emotional inexpressiveness.

xiii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am incredibly lucky to have many extraordinary people in my life who have helped me make this dissertation possible. I could fill another hundred pages with my gratitude.

First, I would like to thank my advisor, Joel Brockner. Joel granted me the freedom to pursue ideas that truly excite me and then was an engaged sounding board the whole way through. My arguments and analyses have benefited greatly from his questions and the broad perspective that comes along with all his experience. Joel is also a role model more generally. His great impact on the literature is even more remarkable considering how devoted he is to his family and how generous he is in terms of professional service. I still do not quite know how, but Joel gives me hope that doing it all is possible.

My committee overall has also given me much useful input throughout the dissertation process and has always done so constructively. I thank Frank Flynn for being one of the first supporters of these ideas and for encouraging me to present them early on at a conference at Stanford. I thank George Bonanno for providing much of the original intellectual inspiration for this work, and for being gracious enough to talk to a young organizational researcher about how resilience might be a relevant construct in entirely different settings than those he typically studies. Elke Weber and Tory Higgins both helped sharpen my theory and research design, making essential suggestions that make this study more convincing, useful, and ultimately, publishable. Finally, I thank

Malia Mason for giving me great feedback on this project as I was practicing my job talk

xiv and for literally saving the day in the face of a defense scheduling crisis. Her creative and insightful comments and questions have been extremely helpful to me.

The lessons I learned working with Sheena Iyengar the first few years of my doctoral training will stay with me forever. Through our job search study, I internalized many of the "nuts and bolts" of the research, writing, and publication processes. Sheena modeled how to be resourceful. Above all, she taught me the importance of finding "the story" in your research.

My fellow doctoral students have helped me tremendously as well, both in terms of feedback on this work in particular and general social support. I am so excited that these great friends will also be colleagues for life. I would like to particularly thank Arik

Lifschitz, Mukti Khaire, Rebecca Levine, Emily Amanatullah, Zou Qian (Cannie), and

Yoko Iwaki.

I am very grateful to have many family and friends who have both rooted me on and put up with me through these years. Special thanks go to my parents, Amiram and

Andrea Elwork, for imagining long ago that I could do big things and always being there to listen to, love and support me as I try. My sister Rebecca Elwork has also consistently found ways to make me laugh and ensure I kept perspective.

Finally, I am deeply grateful to my husband Rich Wells, for somehow always believing in me even when I have not quite believed in myself. Rich has sat with me through countless weekend nights at home in front of SPSS data. He has provided feedback on every form of this work, from pre-proposal stream-of-consciousness brainstorming to the study pitch for business people to presentation and paper drafts. Above all, though, Rich's unconditional love, friendship, and patience make me a better researcher and person every day. 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Overview

Almost daily, newspapers feature CEO announcements of organizational change: reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions, major technological and strategic changes, and more. Frequent organizational change has become a vital means of sustaining, improving, and signaling firm performance in the face of dynamic market and customer demands. While top management teams often pursue change in the hopes of better satisfying shareholders and customers, the reactions of employees are often less favorable. Yet, success often depends on positive employee responses, as the organization relies on its people to effectively implement change initiatives. Many important contributions have been made to our understanding of what drives positive employee outcomes in the context of change. However, much of the existing literature has centered on cognitive predictors, e.g., perceptions of fairness (Brockner et al., 1994;

Kernan & Hanges, 2002) and of control and self-efficacy (Brockner et al., 2004;

Wanberg & Banas, 2000). This dissertation instead focuses on some previously unexplored managerial influences on employee responses to marked workplace system shock, concentrating on characteristics of managers' emotional expressions. It also helps to extend the conceptualization of emotional expression in organizational behavior at large, by attending to the effects of inappropriateness and authenticity of emotional expression in addition to the more standard examination of emotional content.

Imagine an employee, sitting at her desk, having just received news of significant organizational change via an e-mail from her company's CEO. What does she do first? 2

She lifts her head out above her cubicle wall and peers out to the world beyond, to take in others' reactions, especially those of her direct manager. Does it matter whether she looks out to see a manager's face beaming with enthusiasm despite the challenges versus one clouded by fear or taut in anger? Will she react differently to change if she sees inappropriate displays of emotion? In practice, managers often wonder if they can be candid about their feelings, or if they should, as one alternative, suppress their emotions and remain stoic about such announcements. Does the authenticity of managers' emotional expressions influence subordinate responses? These aire the central questions of this study. I will argue that the emotional displays of middle managers may indeed help sustain healthy employee functioning during tumultuous times at work. More specifically, I will consider main and interactive effects of managers': a) expressed positive emotions; b) use of humor; c) inappropriateness of emotional expression; d) authenticity of emotional expression; and e) use of suppression as an emotional regulation strategy.

Before moving into the theoretical framework and predictions, though, I first pause here to further detail which change-related outcomes I seek to understand.

Subordinate Change Outcomes of Interest

I aim to identify factors that enable workers' general functioning to evade being significantly disrupted by marked workplace system shock, including change, crisis, challenge, or other sources of stress (e.g., layoffs, reorganizations, process re- engineering, mergers and acquisitions, major strategic, technological, or policy changes).

The psychological literature on individual responses to loss, trauma, and other stressors has been a primary influence in making this determination, especially research focused 3 on the most positive response trajectory observed, that labeled as "resilience" (e.g.,

Bonanno, 2004, 2005; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Bonanno (2004) uses the aforementioned term to denote those trauma victims who demonstrate:

The ability to maintain a stable equilibrium.... the ability of adults in otherwise

normal circumstances who are exposed to an isolated and potentially highly

disruptive event, such as the death of a close relation or a violent or life-

threatening situation, to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological

and physical functioning (p. 20).

While I do not conceive of weathering a downsizing, as one example of organizational change, as entirely analogous to the experience of losing a loved one (Bonanno,

Moskowitz, Papa, & Folkman, 2005) or surviving war (Bonanno, Papa, Lalande,

Westphal, & Coifman, 2004) or the September 11 attacks (Bonanno, Rennicke, & Dekel,

2005), I find the latter research highly relevant to studies of organizational change. This is because, psychologically speaking, organizational changes are in practice often experienced as "potentially traumatic" events in many workers lives just as events like

Hurricane Katrina are classified.

Based on such a theoretical assumption, in choosing outcomes of interest, I thought it worthwhile to employ the more holistic approach to human functioning that I found in the clinical literatures. As an organizational behavior researcher, I am of course interested in measures that have become standard markers of individual functioning within organizational change research such as: job satisfaction (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik,

& Welbourne, 1999; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Wanberg &

Banas, 2000), organizational commitment (Brockner et al., 2004; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Judge et al., 1999; Kernan & Hanges, 2002), turnover (Brockner et al., 2004; Judge et al, 1999), turnover intentions (Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006;

Wanberg & Banas, 2000), and job performance (Brockner et al., 2004; Judge et al.,

1999). I would also like to predict judgments of procedural and interactional fairness, as these have been shown by much previous research to be significantly related to the other outcomes above (e.g., Brockner et al., 1994; Kernan & Hanges, 2002) and have been relatively understudied as a dependent variable, (e.g., Barsky & Kaplan, 2007; Kernan &

Hanges, 2002; van den Bos, 2003). Yet, given my conceptualization of the worker facing organizational change as another human being facing a traumatic life event, I am also interested in measures that have been more common to clinical studies than to organizational ones, including physical health (e.g., sleep difficulties) (see, for example,

Bonanno, Rennicke et al., 2005; for an exception in the organizational literature, see

Greenberg, 2006), broader subjective well-being than is typical in the OB literature, and the quality of one's social relationships [in this case that with one's manager - which has been subject to much organizational research (see Gerstner & Day, 1997)]. With regard to the physical health outcome of sleep difficulties, it is notable that this is not just a personally relevant outcome. Sleep disturbances have been shown to impair achievement motivation and cognitive ability (Dinges et al., 1997; Philibert, 2005), including attention, memory and learning (Walker & Stickgold, 2006), and then eventually performance (for a review, see Maas, 1998). Even just a single night of disrupted sleep has been shown to produce such effects (Yoo, Gujar, Hu, Jolesz, & Walker, 2007). Thus, subordinates lacking sleep may not be able to perform maximally effectively on the job. To review, this dissertation will be focused on the following outcome categories, all at the individual level of analysis:

• Classic organizationally relevant outcomes (job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and helping behaviors;

the latter being one type of performance on the job)

• Assessments of procedural and interactional fairness

• Physical health (sleep difficulties)

• Overall subjective well-being (life satisfaction)

• Quality of social relationships (in this case, with one's manager) 6

CHAPTER 2

Theoretical Framework, Including Literature Review and Hypotheses

Managers' Positive, High Activation Emotions and the Use of Humor

Psychological studies conducted in non-work settings have repeatedly featured the experience of positive, high activation affect (in addition to, not instead of, negative affect) as a driver of the most resilient response trajectory to potentially traumatic events

(e.g.,Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno, Rennicke et al., 2005; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). This finding is counterintuitive to many of us. The research does not consistently indicate that people who respond best experience less negative emotions while under stress. Rather, these individuals have the capacity to experience move positive, high activation emotions in the midst of dealing with stress or trauma. They report feeling happier, more eager, interested, and excited and are able to make more jokes and laugh (Bonanno, 2004;

Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004).

From where does this capacity for positive emotions, and by extension, the associated improved response trajectory come? Most of the existing literature casts this tendency as an individual difference - sometimes suggesting it might even be innate

(Bonanno, 2005). At least within organizational settings, though, I would like to consider that a relationship between positive affect and favorable change-related outcomes may occur wterpersonally, as well as mfr*a-personally. Although the potential for a buoyant response to potentially traumatic events may be within all of our capabilities, it is plausible that the behavioral expression of such a capability may involve both person and environment factors. In addition to being rooted in traits, I argue that this positive response trajectory may be elicited by environments and, more specifically, emerge as a 7 state which results from natural social processes within work teams. To begin, I offer the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Managers' expressions of positive, "high activation " affect are related to enhanced subordinate change-related outcomes (e.g., increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, assessments of procedural and interactional fairness, general SWB, and relationship quality with the manager, and decreased sleep difficulties and turnover intentions).

Hypothesis 2: Managers' use of humor is related to enhanced subordinate change-related outcomes (e.g., increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, assessments of procedural and interactional fairness, general SWB, and relationship quality with the manager, and decreased sleep difficulties and turnover intentions).

There are three causal pathways through which the above relationships may operate, those routed through: (1) emotional contagion processes and the associated transfer of positive emotions from manager to subordinate, (2) the direct influence of observing managerial positive affect on subordinate judgments (independent of employees' own affective experiences), and (3) effects of managerial positive affect on a manager's own job performance.

Path 1: Effects Resulting from Emotional Contagion

Per emotional contagion theory (Barsade, 2002; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson,

1994), subordinates will often "catch" their managers' emotional expressions in the course of interpersonal exchanges. When people engage in face-to-face conversation, they tend to mimic each others' nonverbal behaviors in the service of establishing rapport, often unconsciously (Chartrand, Maddux, & Lakin, 2005; Hess, Philippot, &

Blairy, 1999; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Levenson & Ruef, 1997) but sometimes also as a result of conscious social comparison processes (Barsade, 2002). As one conversation partner mimics the nonverbal behaviors of another, the emotions underpinning those contagious nonverbal behaviors tend to spread to the other person as well (Barsade, 2002;

Hatfield et al., 1994). Moreover, there is evidence that those with greater power may be more likely to pass on their own emotions to others, rather than the other way around

(Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003; Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). This emotional transfer may be especially likely to occur in the context of organizational change, which often involves a sense of threat, thereby leading people to be more attentive to and influenced by others' reactions (Gump & Kulik, 1997). Through the contagiousness of their own positive emotional expressions, managers may therefore be able to coax out employees' own abilities to respond adaptively to change, enabling better outcomes. Indeed, recent research has demonstrated relationships between employee positive affect and reactions to change (Seo, Taylor, & Hill, 2007).

In explaining such a relationship between subordinates' own positive emotions and their change responses, I look again to the general psychological literature. This work suggests that positive emotions are not mere by-products of effective modes of thinking and behaving during potentially stressful or traumatic circumstances; studies have implicated them as playing an active role in how people respond to stressors (e.g.,

Burns et al., 2008; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003; Tugade & Fredrickson,

2004). Specifically, the experience of positive emotions may affect employees': 1) physiological states, 2) cognitive styles and processes, 3) motivational systems, 4) self- evaluations, and 5) evaluations of the situation at hand (e.g., of the manager, relationships, the degree of threat the system shock presents, etc). These factors are not entirely independent from one other, but they are conceptually distinct and important drivers of responses to potentially traumatic stimuli. 9

Effects of positive emotions on physiology. Fredrickson and her colleagues

(Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004) have demonstrated that positive emotions have a beneficial effect on the body, undoing cardiovascular stress reactions to negative emotional experience and enabling individuals to quickly return to baseline physiological levels. Increased cardiovascular activity (e.g., elevated heart rate) has been associated with insomnia (Adam, Tomeny, & Oswald, 1986;

Bonnet & Arand, 1998), therefore experiencing positive emotions ought to reduce sleep difficulties.

Effects of positive emotions on cognition. Positive emotions have been associated with broader scopes of attention and thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson & Branigan,

2005) and with greater creativity (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Isen, Daubman, &

Nowicki, 1987), even in organizational samples (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw,

2005; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). During stressful organizational circumstances in which employees' help may be critical to figuring out how to get work done with fewer resources, or to developing a new strategy or technology, this widened focus and consideration of ideas and actions may be particularly useful. Moreover, previously observed relationships between positive affect and cognition may be heightened in the face of stressors. This is because the baseline emotional state during organizational change is more likely to be elevated negative affectivity (e.g., fear, anxiety, and anger), which has been associated with narrowed thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson &

Branigan, 2005). Without positive affect intervening to undo effects of negative affect, we may expect that employees in change situations will be even more likely than usual to 10 be beginning with a rigid frame of mind not conducive to the creativity that these situations may require.

Cognitive changes may not only influence objective performance but also may drive effective coping behaviors. The active open-mindedness associated with positive affect is needed to successfully engage in thinking-based coping tactics, such as reappraisal. In fact, Tugade & Fredrickson (2004) found that people experiencing positive emotions were more likely to assess a stressor as a "challenge" as opposed to a

"threat," and to find positive meaning in the experience with the stressor. Longitudinal field research from Fredrickson and colleagues (Burns et al., 2008; Fredrickson & Joiner,

2002) also supports the notion that positive affect drives increased "positive coping"

("broad-minded, proactive and engaged approaches to coping", Burns et al., 2008, 363).

This type of coping, in the earlier Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) study, in turn, fueled effective regulation of negative emotions and associated cardiovascular recovery. Such effective emotional regulation and speedy physiological quieting can help prevent significant lapses in general subjective well-being as well as work-specific satisfaction.

Effects of positive emotions on motivation. Positive affect has also been previously associated with enhanced job motivation, including goal setting behaviors

(Erez & Isen, 2002; J. M. George & Brief, 1996; Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004) and proactive helping behaviors (J. M. George & Brief, 1992). Being in a state of positive affect can enhance individuals' expectancies and their subjective valuation of the benefits of achieving their goals, which in turn leads to setting higher targets and being more committed to those targets. Boosts in motivation and goal setting may make the 11 difference between giving up or avoiding work and persisting on toward goals in this situation.

Furthermore, the regulatory focus theory of motivation (E.T. Higgins, 1997,

1998) has associated a promotion focus with positive, high activation emotions, and research has demonstrated a relationship between a promotion focus and creative cognition (Friedman & Forster, 2001). Although positive emotions such as cheerfulness have typically been framed as outcomes of a promotion focus, the reverse may also be true. That is, a positive emotional state may also activate a promotion focus, facilitating the explorative processing style that may be particularly needed for performance under shifting environmental conditions. Once goals are achieved, then, the promotion state will produce even more positive emotions which would be reflected in measures of subjective well-being and job satisfaction. Along similar lines, a promotion focus has also been associated with a greater sense of intrinsic motivation (Brockner & Higgins, 2001), which in turn also produces creative performance (Amabile, 1988) and satisfaction

(Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Positive mood at work also helps produce what George and Brief (1992) have called "organizational spontaneity," including voluntary behaviors such as helping co­ workers and making constructive suggestions. As noted earlier, these behaviors might be especially necessary to foster the maintenance of team performance in times of change or crisis. Such subordinate helping driven by positive emotions is also likely to help sustain good relationships between managers and subordinates.

Effects of positive emotions on self- and other-evaluations. Particularly when other information on which to base a particular judgment is ambiguous and when the 12 cause of experienced emotions is uncertain, individuals have been shown to use their feelings as "information" or input into their judgments (Schwarz & Clore, 1983). Most organizational system shocks will create the requisite uncertainty to propel people to look to their feelings for help in determining their attitudes. When those emotions being consulted are positive, in general, employees will conclude that all must be all right.

Additionally, I expect that in employees who experience mixed emotions, or negative emotions immediately followed by positive emotions, the positive affect experienced will mitigate any effects of negative affect on judgments. I now treat potential targets of evaluations in such a context more specifically.

With regard to judgments about the self, positive affect may lead employees to sustain greater levels of self-efficacy and senses of personal control (Lyubomirsky, King,

& Diener, 2005). This may be because they infer that they could not be feeling positively if they were not capable of achieving their goals and in control. Both self-efficacy and perceived control have been empirically linked to relevant outcome variables in the context of downsizing [e.g., organizational commitment, other indicators of subjective well-being, and performance (Brockner et al, 2004; Wanberg & Banas, 2000;

Wiesenfeld, Brockner, & Martin, 1999; Wiesenfeld, Brockner, Petzall, Wolf, & Bailey,

2001)]. Within the clinical and health psychology literatures, self-efficacy (and even more precisely, self-enhancement) has been highlighted as a central pathway to numerous measures of effective responses to potentially traumatic events (EJauer & Bonanno, 2001;

Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno, Rennicke et al., 2005; Taylor & Armor, 1996; Taylor,

Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Gruenewald, 2000). Of course, many studies outside of the context of traumatic events altogether have suggested basic linkages between self- 13 efficacy and task performance (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), mental health (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999), and physical health

(Bandura, 2004).

Particularly in situations mired by ambiguity, and via the same "mood as information" mechanism (Schwarz & Clore, 1983, 2003), the experience of positive affect may also impact evaluations of targets outside the self. Positive affect has been associated with perceptions of greater procedural fairness at work (van den Bos, 2003) and increased trust (Burns et al., 2008; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005). In studies of downsizings and organizational change, justice and trust (in management) have in turn been shown to produce greater subjective well-being (e.g., buy-in, job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and performance, and decreased turnover intentions (e.g.,

Brockner et al., 2004; Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Kernan & Ranges, 2002; Spreitzer

& Mishra, 2002). Having a sense that management is treating employees fairly may also lead to a higher quality of social relationship with the manager as well (Roch & Shanock,

2006).

Effects of rapport. The other general benefit of emotional contagion processes, no matter what the content of the emotion being passed, is an increase in rapport. The instinct for the mimicry that produces contagion in the first place is to produce rapport.

Most obviously, such boosts in rapport will be related to the overall quality of the relationship between the manager and employee, at a time when trust is often precarious.

Besides trust, rapport is also associated with increased liking between interaction partners

(Chartrand et al., 2005). As research has suggested that positive people are generally more likable (for a review, see Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), the latter effect is in addition to 14

any direct effects of the manager's positive emotions on employee liking of the manager.

Employees who like their managers are apt to value pleasing them more highly and

consequently will be more, even in tough times. In the terms of Vroom's (1964)

expectancy-valence theory of motivation, the experience of rapport with the manager will

raise the employee's valence level, or the extent to which he values the rewards he will

get for achieving his goals(in this case, the continued social approval of the manager).

Indeed, previous research suggests that an employee's affective attachment to a manager

to be directly related to his job performance, as well as inversely related to another

behavioral outcome of interest: turnover (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Vandenberghe, Bentein,

& Stinglhamber, 2004).

Effects of Managers' Use of Humor. Given how helpful employees' experiences

of positive affect may be to their responses to change, I also consider a secondary social

route to the creation of such emotions: the use of humor. One of the hallmarks of the

resilient individual in more classic trauma settings has been an ability to keep laughing

through it all (Henman, 2001; Keltner & Bonanno, 1997), at least given the appropriate

context (Bonanno et al., 2007). Employing humor has not been found to be consistently

reflective of denial or other unhealthy means of coping with stressful events. Instead, this

research has suggested that humor, and more specifically the genuine laughter that

ensues, may be associated with effective reappraisal of stressors as less dangerous and an

"undoing" of deleterious effects of distress (Keltner & Bonanno, 1997). Moreover,

research demonstrating how rarely laughter occurs when one is alone suggests that it may be one of the most fundamentally social of emotional expressions (Provine, 1992).

Ample evidence has demonstrated that it is indeed contagious (e.g., Warren et al., 2006). 15

Still, other literature suggests that managers' attempts at humor, whether or not they actually laugh themselves, may be very effective at getting subordinates to laugh in the service of social bonding. Stillman, Baumeister, and DeWall (2007) found that being in a position of low power was associated with increased laughing at the jokes of higher powered individuals. This greater laughter did not appear to be consciously strategic in nature; low power individuals laughed more at jokes rated as objectively more humorous.

Rather, the authors suggest that low power individuals laugh more involuntarily and genuinely, as a result of higher motivation for establishing rapport. Therefore, it may be that managers' good humor, if delivered effectively and appropriately, will prompt subordinates to laugh, keeping their spirits up and enabling all the benefits of the experience of positive affect discussed above. In hypothesizing such a positive effect of humor, I follow a small body of existing work within the leadership literature (e.g.,

Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999).

Path 2: Direct Effects on Employee Judgments

Independent of emotional contagion processes, a manager's positive emotions and use of humor may nevertheless lead to benefits in subordinates' evaluations and reactions to change, via the results of social comparison processes first studied by Schachter

(1959). Change at work often creates much ambiguity and uncertainty and introduces novelty into one's work environment (Ashford, 1988; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006), particularly for those more distant from the decision making processes which give birth to such events. Research has shown that individuals in both change contexts specifically, and uncertain or novel contexts more generally, seek more feedback for informational 16 and goal-seeking purposes. Schachter's original study pointed to anxious experimental subjects' desire for access to other subjects' nonverbal expressions, specifically.

As the example on the first page illustrated, subordinates, feeling starved for reliable information to help them evaluate the situation, may turn to more actively gleaning information from monitoring their bosses' facial expressions and other nonverbal signals. Thus, they may use their managers' expressions of positive affect as

"social information" bases for job attitudes (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), self-efficacy and team-efficacy judgments. For example, they may look at managers' positive affective expressions or ability to maintain a sense of humor and then reason that their managers would not be able to feel positively if they did not believe that their groups were able to meet the current challenges. As discussed above, those higher expectancies will help foster enhanced subjective well-being and performance.

Path 3: Effects on the Manager's Own Job Performance

Even without assuming emotional contagion or direct effects of managers' emotions on employee attitudes, managers' positive emotions and use of humor may have other beneficial consequences for the maintenance of subordinate change-related outcomes. This would occur through benefits to their own performance. The positive affect of managers may lead them to evaluate themselves and their teams more favorably, thereby leading them to engage in more effective goal-setting for their subordinates, improving motivation and job-related attitudes (Locke & Latham, 2002). Due to a related broadened scope of attention (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005) and an "approach"

(rather than "avoid") motivational focus (Seo et al., 2004), managers experiencing positive emotions may also be naturally more inclined to be fair in their change 17

management practices. For example, they may be less prone to hide in their offices and

more likely to communicate fully and encourage employee participation in change-

related decisions.

Inappropriateness of Managers' Emotional Displays

Inappropriateness is a second important dimension of managers' affective

expressions1. Positions of power can decrease managers' inhibitions (Anderson &

Berdahl, 2002; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), leading to more automatic and

effusive emotional reactions to stimuli and, at times, more socially inappropriate

behavior. Evidence suggests that positions of power bestow managers with more social

leeway in expressing certain emotions, like anger (Hess, Adams, & Kleck, 2005). Yet

strong social expectations for the emotions one is allowed to internally experience in a

particular situation, ("feeling rules," (Hochschild, 1979) or at least externally express

("display rules," (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989), may apply to

managers as well, in the eyes of those observing them. Tiedens (2001) has suggested that

managers' expressions of sadness may result in a loss of power as construed by their

employees.

To be maximally influential and effective, then, managers may need to express

emotions that meet the expectations of what their social environments deem appropriate

for a given situation. If they are inappropriate in their expressions, their violation of

1 I apologize for the linguistic awkwardness brought on by naming this dimension "inappropriateness" as opposed to "appropriateness". However, the distinction in meaning is important, because the intended construct in these arguments is truly a lack of appropriateness. I surmise that social perceivers more actively, quickly, and confidently judge violations of social norms governing emotional expressions than they judge particularly "appropriate" displays of emotion. I do not believe inappropriateness and appropriateness in this domain to necessarily be opposite ends of the same continuum. For example, being judged low in inappropriateness might not necessarily mean that one's expressions were considered highly appropriate. Moreover, I would argue that increasing inappropriateness is far more negatively consequential than increasing appropriateness is beneficial. 18 emotion-related social norms may be generalized and construed as a signal of broader injustices related to the change process. A boss who is judged as insensitive to his audience when it comes to day to day expressions is not likely to be perceived as respectful of his employees through the change process. Emotional inappropriateness could be a significant independent driver of decreased interactional fairness. Moreover, managers who are inappropriate in their emotional displays are likely to be handicapped in their ability to effectively implement procedural directives that might otherwise lead to fairness. One may ask his employees for voice, or have a session to provide information, but the manner in which these things are done matters. Therefore, despite my earlier arguments, I recognize that positive, high activation emotions and the use of humor may not be appropriate in every situation. For example, smiling or telling jokes while telling layoff survivors about the dismissal of their former colleagues would likely be disastrous.

Accordingly I propose:

Hypothesis 3: Managers' emotional inappropriateness is related to worsened subordinate change-related outcomes (e.g., decreased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, assessments of procedural and interactional fairness, general SWB, and relationship quality with the manager, and increased sleep difficulties and turnover intentions).

Hypothesis 4: Inappropriateness moderates HI & H2, such that those relationships are stronger when managers are perceived to be less emotionally inappropriate.

Authenticity of Managers' Emotional Displays

A third dimension of managers' emotions that may influence positive change- related employee outcomes is their perceived authenticity. Specifically, I distinguish three cases: expressed emotions that are perceived to be genuinely experienced (authentic emotional expression), a lack of expressed emotions that conceals genuine feelings 19 experienced by the manager (emotional suppression), and expressed emotions that are perceived to be faked externally and not actually felt (inauthentic emotional expression).

Genuineness, whether in what one says or what one expresses nonverbally, is often experienced by conversation partners as a social gift of sorts; a sign that the communicator likes, trusts, and even respects the other person enough to be unguarded.

Managers' authenticity may make subordinates feel valued, and past change research has highlighted the positive role of self-esteem and efficacy. Furthermore, if a manager is seen as inauthentic in day-to-day emotional displays, their other more formal actions may be mistrusted. Any management practices they adopt to try to make employees feel included in decision processes (e.g., "town hall" meetings) may be viewed with suspicion at best, and seen as manipulative in spirit at worst - the opposite of the recommended benefit of engaging in such practices. This may lead to decreased rather than increased procedural fairness estimations.

In terms of interacting with managers' emotional content, manager's positive affective expressions that are perceived to be genuine may be more likely to help sustain employee and team functioning than those that are perceived to be inauthentic. Ekman and colleagues (Ekman, 1992; Ekman, Davidson, & Friesen, 1990; Ekman & Friesen,

1982; Frank, Ekman, & Friesen, 1993) have demonstrated that genuine (i.e., Duchenne) smiles, classic means of expressing positive affect, predictably feature certain facial characteristics that faked smiles lack. Keltner and Bonanno (1997) also differentiate

Duchenne from non-Duchenne laughter in their facial coding. Moreover, evidence from both basic (Frank et al., 1993) and applied research in the context of customer service encounters (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005; Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, & Gremler, 2006) suggests that lay social perceivers react more positively to authentic smiles than to inauthentic ones. Similarly, Keltner and Bonanno (1997) found that authentic, but not inauthentic, laughter in bereaved individuals related to better interpersonal relations and more positive reactions from observers. Such findings imply that, even if at a non-conscious level, perceivers can detect authenticity and that authenticity matters in their direct responses to others' positive affective expressions.

Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul & Gremler (2006) demonstrate a significant influence of authenticity on the contagiousness of positive emotional displays too. In their study, customers who interacted with service employees expressing more authentic positive emotions reported greater positive affect after the interaction than did those exposed to less authentic emotional displays on the part of service employees. Thus, this research suggests that nonverbal behaviors that are not naturally produced by felt emotions would be less likely to lead to the intended emotional experience in the subordinates, and by extension, the downstream benefits of successful emotional contagion discussed previously.

Independent of effects on contagion processes, too, previous research suggests direct effects of emotional authenticity in perceivers' evaluations of related targets. If employees sense phoniness in their managers' emotional displays, not only will those displays fail to influence more positive employee evaluations, but they may actually incite more negative employee reactions to the change, as a result of feeding employee distrust. As noted previously, past research suggests that such distrust of management would be associated with negative change-related outcomes (Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002). 21

Finally, managers who are faking positive emotions are unlikely to muster the personal performance benefits of genuine positive affect either. Indeed, research has shown that workers in other positions who fake organizationally desired emotions end up actually experiencing fewer positive emotions and finding the emotional display activity more difficult (Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Green, 2006; Grandey, 2003), leading to higher rates of emotional exhaustion and burnout (Montgomery, Panagopolou, de Wildt,

& Meenks, 2006; Zammunier & Galli, 2005). Other general psychological research has also associated only Duchenne (genuine) smiles and laughter with the intrapersonal phenomenon of positive affect "undoing" negative affect and its associated aversive effects (Keltner & Bonanno, 1997; Papa & Bonanno, 2008). Consequently, I propose the following:

Hypothesis 5: Managers' emotional authenticity is related to enhanced subordinate change-related outcomes (e.g., increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, assessments of procedural and interactional fairness, general SWB, and relationship quality with the manager, and decreased sleep difficulties and turnover intentions).

Hypothesis 6: Authenticity moderates HI & H2, such that those relationships will be stronger when managers are perceived to be more emotionally authentic.

Managers' Use of Emotional Suppression

Managers' suppression of emotions, as a distinct form of inauthenticity, may have its own specific detrimental consequences for employee change-related outcomes as well.

Influenced by the Protestant ideology of the founders of our country (Weber, 1947;

1904/1958), many American managers subscribe to the belief that expressing emotion in the workplace is a barrier to productivity and is "unprofessional" (Sanchez-Burks, 2002,

2005). Yet, in times of crisis, when managers may be trying to hide and ultimately rid 22 themselves of intense emotions, attempting to suppress emotion may backfire. Studies show that when individuals are highly motivated to deceive others about their true emotions they are in fact less likely to succeed in deception (Depaulo & Friedman, 1998).

Moreover, research has identified several unintended consequences of emotional suppression that would not be beneficial in this context. First, individuals have not been found to be able to suppress certain emotions while maintaining the expression of others

(Gross & John, 2003b). Accordingly, as a manager attempts to suppress negative emotions, any positive emotions experienced are likely to be suppressed as well, eliminating the benefits of such expression detailed above. Secondly, suppression has been associated with worsened interpersonal functioning (Butler & Egloff, 2003; Gross &

John, 2003b), including increased social withdrawal and avoidance (Gross & John,

2003 b). In the laboratory, suppression has also been linked to worsened communication with conversation partners and decreased rapport (Butler & Egloff, 2003). Suppressors in the aforementioned experiment were liked less by their partners as well.

Applied to the current context, such social consequences could have negative effects. Managers who try to suppress their emotions are likely to develop less rapport with employees. With the experience of decreased rapport and liking, employees are relatively unlikely to value pleasing such managers, and, as a result may be less motivated to perform, particularly when given a justification for slacking off, such as an organizational shock. Beyond not being especially liked, managers who suppress may actually end up being disliked. Perhaps more importantly, as in the case of inauthentic managers, they may also be mistrusted. Sensing the attempts to deceive them in this regard, subordinates may begin to doubt their managers' procedural fairness. They may 23 also wonder what other information the manager may be hiding from them, and this increased uncertainty may lead to a decreased sense of personal control. Emotional suppression has also been shown to cause physiological arousal (increased blood pressure) in the suppressors' conversation partners (Butler & Egloff, 2003), which, as discussed previously, may worsen employee change-related outcomes. Hence, subordinates who perceive their managers to be suppressing emotions may only suffer more in the face of challenge, rather than less.

Of course, suppression on the part of managers may actually inhibit their abilities to directly foster positive change-related outcomes through their own efforts as well.

Suppression has been found to be an ineffective means of chronic emotional regulation.

When one suppresses the external display of emotions, he actually ends up experiencing more rather than less negative emotions (Butler & Egloff, 2003; Gross & John, 2003b).

Perhaps most problematically, managers attempting to suppress their emotions may be those most likely to withdraw from their teams, retreating to closed-door offices. Such avoidant behavior would likely entail inadequate communication with employees, which, in turn, may lead employees to feel unfairly treated. As a result, I propose:

Hypothesis 7: Managers' use of emotional suppression is related to worsened subordinate change-related outcomes (e.g., decreased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, assessments of procedural and interactional fairness, general SWB, and relationship quality with the manager, and increased sleep difficulties and turnover intentions). Chapter 3

Method

Overview

For my dissertation research, I conducted a field study. I wanted to get as close to the naturally existing phenomenon as possible to begin this research program and see what the organic setting suggests. Later on, I will be able to follow up with experimental work to better extricate causal processes. As this section will describe in more detail, I surveyed employees and managers from several organizations undergoing change, representing different industries and geographical regions. I collected both employee perceptions of managers' emotional expressions as well as managers' self-reports. To keep this dissertation to a manageable size, analyses reported here are limited to those using subordinates' perceptions as the measure of managers' emotional expressions.

Future work with this dataset will also be able to examine effects of managers' self- reports and compare those forms of measuring my predictor constructs with the perceptual peer-report data provided by subordinates. I will also be able to examine team-level perceptions of managers' emotional expressions (by examining agreement across team members that share the same manager and aggregating where appropriate).

For now, though, I focus on individual-level analyses of subordinate perceptions and outcomes.

Sample

Through media research and conversations with personal and professional contacts, I identified a number of organizations that had recently (within the previous three months) undergone significant workplace change. Using alumni databases, 25 personal and professional contacts again, and internet searches, I identified contacts at each organization. These contacts were senior business managers (e.g., C-level executives), or internal human resources/organizational development professionals. I sent an e-mail (see Appendix A) to each contact describing the goals of the study, what would be involved in participating (filling out online surveys taking no more than 30 minutes), and what each organization would receive in return (a report on team results).

Managers and human resources professionals expressing interest were then provided with more details via e-mail and/or phone.

Portions of five organizations ended up being able to coordinate participation within the required time-frame: a sub-prime mortgage lender, a Fortune 500 internet company, a luxury retail company, a governmental organization, and a law firm. These organizations were located across the United States, including the Northeast, the

Southeast, the West, and the Midwest. The types of organizational change occurring in these sites included downsizing, restructuring/reorganization, location moves, technological and strategic changes significantly impacting the way work gets done, senior leadership changes, and an acquisition. The participating workforce segments from these organizations varied, depending on what the senior manager or human resources professional deemed appropriate and useful. One organization included just their top

100+ managers in the study (representing senior management through team supervisors); others asked for participation from specific divisions. Of the 491 workers (managers and employees) invited to participate in the survey, 356 responded, for an overall response rate of 72.5%. A number of managers were also considered subordinates in this sample

(due to multiple levels being represented). See Tables 1 and 2 below for the demographic 26 characteristics of all respondents (provision of demographic information was left as optional, therefore Ns vary). Self-reported demographic data on managers is provided in

Table 2 for the purpose of giving readers more insight into the type of organizational environments within which this study was situated.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Providing Perceptions of Managers (includes Employee-level and Non-top management) Variable Total Number %of N of Overall Respondents Sample 1. Sex 326 Female 195 (60%) Male 131 (40%) Age 300 Under 30 years 31 (9%) 30-39 years 125 (37%) 40-49 years 79 (24%) 50-59 years 45 (13%) 60-69 years 14 (4%) Over 70 years 6 (2%) Education 310 Less than a high school degree 1 (0.3%) High school diploma 34 (10%) Associate's degree 23 (7%) Bachelor's degree 148 (44%) Graduate degree (master's or 88 (26%) higher/other) Other 16 (5%) Race (check all that apply) 307 American Indian or Alaska Native 2 (0.7%) Asian 24 Black or African American 11 70) White 265 (79%) Other 11 JO/ 5. Ethnicity 307 Hispanic or Latino 14 (4%) Not Hispanic or Latino 293 (87%) 6. Work Status 315 Full-time 285 (85%) Part-time 26 (8%) Other 4 (1%) 27

Table 1 Continued. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Providing Perceptions of Managers (includes Employee-level and Non-top management) Variable Total Number % of N of Overall Respondents Sample 7. Tenure with the Organization 301 Less than 6 months 17 (5%) 6 months to 1 year 18 (5%) 1 year to 3 years 76 (23%) 3 years to 5 years 55 (16%) 5 years to 10 years 78 (23%) 10 years to 15 years 26 (8%) 15 years to 20 years 20 (6%) 20 years and over 11 (3%) 8. Level within the Organization 298 Non-management employee 112 (38%) Supervisory level (manages at least 46 (15%) 1 employee) Mid-level manager 103 (35%) Senior manager 37 (12%) 9. Work Address's Region 289 US Mid-Atlantic 48 (14%) US Midwest 2 (0.6%) US New England 3 (1%) US Rocky Mountain 86 (26%) US South 63 (19%) US Southwest 22 (7%) US West 63 (1%) UK 2 (0.6%) 28

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Managers in the Sample Providing Self-Report Data Variable Total Number %of N of Overall Respondents Sample 1. Sex 89 Female 49 (57%) Male 40 (43%) Age 83 Under 30 years 2 (2%) 30-39 years 35 (39%) 40-49 years 27 (30%) 50-59 years 15 (17%) 60-69 years 3 (3%) Over 70 years 1 (1%) Education 85 Less than a high school degree 0 (0%) High school diploma 0 (0%) Associate's degree 4 (5%) Bachelor's degree 41 (48%) Graduate degree (master's or 38 (45%) higher/other) Other Race (check all that apply) 86 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 (1%) Asian 6 (7%) Black or African American 2 (2%) White 78 (88%) Other 2 (2%) 5. Ethnicity 85 Hispanic or Latino 3 70) Not Hispanic or Latino 82 (92%) 6. Work Status 89 Full-time 89 (100%) Part-time 0 (0%) Other 0 (0%) Tenure with the Organization 83 Less than 6 months 2 (2%) 6 months to 1 year 4 (5%) 1 year to 3 years 23 (26%) 3 years to 5 years 14 (16%) 5 years to 10 years 18 (20%) 10 years to 15 years 11 (12%) 15 years to 20 years 6 (7%) 20 years and over 5 (6%) Table 2 Continued. Demographic Characteristics of Managers in the Sample Providing Self-Report Data Variable Total Number % of N of Overall Respondents Sample 8. Race (check all that apply) 86 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 (1%) Asian 6 (7%) Black or African American 2 (2%) White 78 (88%) Other 2 (2%, ) 9. Ethnicity 85 Hispanic or Latino 3 (3%) Not Hispanic or Latino 82 (92%) 10. Work Status 89 Full-time 89 (100%) Part-time 0 (0%) Other 0 (0%) 11. Tenure with the Organization 83 Less than 6 months 2 (2%) 6 months to 1 year 4 (5%) 1 year to 3 years 23 (26%) 3 years to 5 years 14 (16%) 5 years to 10 years 18 (20%) 10 years to 15 years 11 (12%) 15 years to 20 years 6 (7%) 20 years and over 5 (6%) 12. Level within the Organization 87 Non-management employee 0 (0%) Supervisory level (manages at least 22 (24%) 1 employee) Mid-level manager 30 (34%) Senior manager 35 (40%) 13. Work Address's Region 76 US Mid-Atlantic 8 (9%) US Midwest 0 (0%) US New England 1 (1%) US Rocky Mountain 27 (30%) US South 12 (14%) US Southwest 4 (5%) US West 23 (26%) UK 1 (1%) Procedure

Study participants received communications either from senior managers or from their supervisors introducing the project and requesting their participation within the following two weeks. I then sent participants links to the online survey and included team identifiers which they used to log into the first page of the website. These team identifiers enabled subordinates to be linked with the appropriate team managers.

Participants' names were not requested, and responses were otherwise kept confidential.

There were three versions of the online survey: one for participants only serving as subordinates in this sample, or perceivers of their managers ("subordinate version"), a second for participants whose direct reports and whose bosses were participating in the survey ("middle manager version"), and a third for managers whose direct reports were participating but not anyone about them in the organizational hierarchy ("senior manager version"). The subordinate version of the survey asked respondents for their own reactions to the changes as well as their perceptions of their managers' emotional expressions since the announcements of change. The middle manager version asked for that group's own reactions to the changes, their perceptions of their managers' emotional expressions, as well as self-report items regarding their own emotional expressions since change announcements. Due to time and fatigue concerns, because middle managers had to complete both extensive self-reports and perceptions of their managers, some dependent measures as well as the independent variable of humor had to be cut out from this version. At the least, all middle managers completed items tapping organizational commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and helping behaviors. The senior manager survey version only asked for self-report data. 31

Other survey details were as follows. Survey item order was randomized, including the order of the presentation of scales and the order of items within scales.

Items from different scales were randomly combined into single sections as much as possible. There was no individual incentive provided for participation in the study.

Rather, organizations and managers were promised and given reports on their survey results. When requested, I also orally debriefed managers regarding organizational, team, and individual-level results.

The value of the reports for managers was two-fold. First, the reports provided a gauge on a team's organizational effectiveness and offered a warning system for identifying reactions and challenges related to the change process. Secondly, these reports contained interesting direct feedback for managers, identifying places where direct reports' impressions and evaluations of them differed from their own self-views.

Managers were able to get a sense of their strengths, as well as areas for development.

Study feedback suggested that employees' motivation to participate seemed to come from a desire to share their views with management, combined with a curiosity about being able to learn about the results from their teams and organizations overall.

Measures

As scale reliabilities were adequate, item responses were averaged into indices for each variable in this study. Item responses went from 1 {strongly disagree) to 7 {strongly agree) across measures unless noted otherwise.

Independent and Moderator Variables

Managers' Emotions. I adapted a subset of the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule-Expanded Form (PANAS-X; Watson & Clark, 1999).to serve as a peer-report measure of managers' emotional states (for a similar adaptation see Gross & John,

2003b). Subordinates were asked to indicate how much their managers had been expressing various positive and negative emotional states, using words, tone, facial expressions, or other actions, since the announcement of the change. Responses were provided on a Likert scale from 1 (very little or not at all) to 5 (very much). I then created five index variables: "enthusiasm" (enthusiastic, happy, excited; a = 0.88);

"calmness" (at ease, relaxed, calm, a = 0.87); "sadness" (sad, blue, downhearted, a =

0.80); "nervousness" (nervous, jittery, afraid, a = 0.82); and "anger" (angry, irritable, a =

0.70). I also administered the scale above to the managers in the sample as a self-report scale and created five parallel variables representing the self-reported emotional content of managers' expressions: self-reported "enthusiasm" (enthusiastic, happy, excited; a =

0.88); self-reported "calmness" (at ease, relaxed, calm, a = 0.84); self-reported "sadness"

(sad, blue, downhearted, a = 0.81); self-reported "nervousness" (nervous, jittery, afraid, a

= 0.80); and self-reported "anger" (angry, irritable, a = 0.81). As noted above, the self- report versions of the variables will not be used in analyses reported here but are available for future analyses of this dataset.

Managers' Use of Humor. Managers' use of humor was assessed via two items

(a = 0.88, r = 0.79) used by Avolio, Howell, and Sosik (1999). Employees were asked:

"How frequently on average, following the announcement of the change situation:" a)

"has your manager made your team laugh at yourselves when you are too serious?" and b)"has your manager used humor to take the edge off during stressful periods?".

Responses were provided on a scale ranging from 1 (once or twice since the announcement of change) to 4 (a few times per week) to 7 (many times daily). 33

Inappropriateness of Managers' Emotional Displays. Because there were no pre­ existing scales, through piloting, I developed my own set of items to measure subordinates' perceptions of the inappropriateness of their managers' emotional displays overall. The full measure appears in Appendix B. Two types of inappropriateness were targeted: a) "Type 1 Emotional Inappropriateness" (Type 1 EI): inappropriateness in overall emotional content or high intensity (3-item scale, e.g., "My supervisor has shown a lack of awareness about when it's appropriate to express certain emotions and when it's not.", a = 0.69) and b) "Type 2 Emotional Inappropriateness" (Type 2 EI) inappropriateness in the low intensity of overall expression (2-item scale, e.g., "My supervisor ought to have expressed stronger emotions about what's going on.", a = 0.71).

Authenticity of Managers' Emotional Displays. To measure the authenticity of managers' emotional displays since the announcement of change, I used a three-item scale (a = 0.79) combining adaptations of two items previously used by Grandey et al.

(2005) (e.g., "my manager has seemed to be faking how s/he has been feeling" - reverse- scored) with a peer-report adaptation of one item from Gross and John (1998) ("my manager's behavior has usually appeared to have been an expression of his/her true inner feelings"). Managers also filled out self-report version of this scale (a = 0.77) (not used in current analyses).

Suppression (Low Authenticity, High Emotional Inexpressiveness). To capture emotional suppression, as a distinct form of managerial inauthenticity, I had to compute an interaction between the authenticity variable above and a measure of inexpressiveness.

Inexpressiveness was assessed via two of the suppression factor items of Gross & John's

(2003a, 2003b) Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (a = 0.74), adapted to a peer-report 34 format ("my manager has controlled his/her emotions by not expressing them" and "my manager has kept his/her emotions to him/herself). Managers also filled out self-report version of this scale (a = 0.81) (again, not used in current analyses). In order to fit the intended definition of suppression, a manager had to be perceived as high in emotional inexpressiveness while simultaneously being perceived as low in emotional authenticity.

Dependent Variables

Classic Organizationally Relevant Outcomes: Job Satisfaction, Organizational

Commitment, Turnover Intentions, and Helping Behaviors. Following Judge's recent work (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005; Judge & Hies, 2004; Judge, Scott, & Hies,

2006), job satisfaction was assessed using the five-item short version items (a = 0.86) of the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) measure (e.g., "I find real enjoyment in my work" and

"Each day at work seems like it will never end" (reverse-scored)). For the measure of organizational commitment, like Brockner et al. (2004) and Spreitzer and Mishra (2002) I administered three items (a = 0.70) drawn from a shortened version of Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982). These items were "I am willing to put in effort beyond what is normally expected at work", "I talk up my company as a great organization to work for", and "My company really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance".

Per Kernan & Hanges (2002), I used the following two items (a = 0.76) to assess turnover intentions: "I plan to make a genuine effort to find a new job with a new organization within the next year" and "I intend to work for this company for this company for a long time" (the latter was reverse-coded). To assess helping behaviors

(one type of performance measure), participants answered three items (a = 0.71) from the altruism subscale of Podsakoff et al's (1990) organizational citizenship behaviors 35 measure: "Since the current workplace change situation was announced," a) "I have frequently been voluntarily helping others at work who have had heavy work loads", b)

Even though it is not required, I have often been helping orient new people or existing coworkers to new tasks", and c) "I have been willingly helping others with work-related problems quite routinely".

Sleep Difficulties. Following Greenberg (2006), employees indicated the extent to which they had been experiencing the following symptoms (a = 0.88) at night since the change was announced or in the past four weeks, if the announcement was made over four weeks prior: (a) difficulty falling asleep, (b) waking up several times per night, (c) difficulty staying asleep (including waking up too early), and (d) waking up feeling tired and worn out after one's usual amount of sleep. I added one extra symptom from Levine et al.'s (2003) scale as well: (e) falling asleep during quiet activities like reading, watching tv, or riding in a car/train. The response scale for these items ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a great extent).

General Life Satisfaction. As a general measure of overall personal subjective well-being, I had employees complete three items (a = 0.81) from Pavot & Diener's

Satisfaction with Life scale (see Pavot & Diener, 1993 for full details, including psychometric properties). Employees were asked to what degree they agree with the following statements: a) "In most ways, my life (including work + non-work) is close to ideal"; b) "The conditions of my life (including work + non-work) are excellent; and c)

"I am satisfied with my life (including work + non-work)".

Assessments of Fairness: Procedural and Interactional. I asked participants three items (a = 0.76) adapted from Colquitt's (2001) measure of procedural justice (e.g., 36

"have you been able to express your views and feelings during the change implementation process?") and three items adapted from Bies & Moag's (1986) interactional justice scale to target the participants' managers (e.g., "has s/he been considerate in how s/he has treated you?"). Responses were provided from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent).

Quality of Relationship with Manager: Leader-Member Exchange. Participants rated their manager relationship quality via four items (a = 0.86) from the "affect" and

"loyalty" subscales of the Leader-Member Exchange assessment (LMX-MDM) (Liden &

Maslyn, 1998) (e.g., "I like my supervisor very much as a person" and "My supervisor would come to my defense if I were 'attacked' by others").

Control Variables. As represented in Tables 1 and 2 above, participants were asked a standard range of demographic and other organizational classification measures, including sex, age, education level, race, ethnicity, work status, tenure and hierarchical level within the organization, and work address's geographical region. Supplementary analyses were also conducted reporting results of models controlling for subordinate perceptions of managers' change-related risk and benefit judgments as well as controlling for subordinate perceptions of managers' charisma. The goal of the above analyses was to rule out potential concerns that effects of managers' emotional expressions were nothing more than proxies for managers' risk and benefit judgments regarding the change situation or than epiphenomenal of effects of charisma. Finally, supplementary analyses were also conducted to examine whether the effects of managers' positive affect varied as a function of subordinates' regulatory pride. Pride in a prevention-minded orientation has been associated with positive, low-activation emotions (e.g., calmness) rather than the positive, high-activation emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) hypothesized about here (E.T.

Higgins, 1997, 1998). Thus, it was possible that the hypothesized relationships might hold only, or more strongly, for subordinates high in promotion pride. Meanwhile, those high in prevention pride might respond more favorably when paired with a manager they perceived to be high in calmness, as opposed to enthusiasm. Details on the measures of perceptions of managers' risk/benefit judgments and charisma and subordinates' regulatory pride are provided in the Additional Analyses section (see page 72). 38

Chapter 4

Results

Overview

Study results covered in this dissertation are based on regression analyses of study participants' self-reported outcome variables. Central predictor variables are the participants' individual perceptions of their managers' emotional expressions. Due to time and fatigue constraints, a subset of the respondents completing the "middle manager" version was not asked to complete a measure of their managers' use of humor and dependent measures for this group were also limited. To make use of the total sample size where possible, I report regression analyses for models of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and helping behaviors both with and without the inclusion of the humor variable. Tables 3 and 4 provide means and correlations for the two cuts of the sample used for analyses.

I initially conducted regressions including all demographic variables as control variables. However, the only significant variables in these models were organizational dummy variables representing differences between the five organizations in the sample and another dummy variable representing whether the survey participant managed at least one employee him/herself. Thus, control models reported here include only the latter variables. There were organizational differences in commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, sleep difficulties, overall personal subjective well-being, procedural and interactional fairness, relationship quality with one's manager, and judgments of one's manager's emotional inappropriateness and inexpressiveness. Being a manager oneself was related to increased helping behaviors (6=0.44, p<0.05), overall personal 39

subjective well-being (b= 1.32, p<0.05), and decreased judgments of interactional fairness (b= -1.15,/?<0.05).

Hierarchical regression modeling was used such that models proceeded to test effects of: 1) control variables, 2) main effects, and 3) interaction effects. All potential two-way interactions between each independent variable of interest and all other variables in the model, including controls, were tested. For the sake of both parsimony and model precision, I only report significant interaction effects. See Tables 5 - 17 for detailed results of regression analyses for each dependent variable. Examining changes in adjusted r-squared, full models added between 5 and 55% of the variance explained, and the mean total change in r-squared observed (as compared to control models) was

0.22. The text picks up following the tables to go through results for each hypothesis across dependent variables. Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Models not Including Use of Humor (N=320) Variable M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Org A Dummy .33 .47 - 2. Org B Dummy .05 .22 -.16** - 3. Org C Dummy .27 .44 -.42** -.14* - 4. Org D Dummy .07 .25 - 19** -.06 -.16** - 5. S is Mgr Dummy .52 .50 68** -.24** . 25** -.12* - 6. Mgr Enthusiasm 2.78 .89 -.12* .12* .00 -.06 -.21** - 7. Mgr Calmness 2.96 .99 -.ir .06 -.01 -.07 _ YJ** .50** - 8. Mgr Sadness 1.49 .69 [9** -.04 -.09 -.14* .11* _ 27** -.38** - 9. Mgr Nervousness 1.64 .76 25** -.09 -.05 -.12* .20** _ 27** ..47** .61** - lO.Mgr Anger 1.56 .74 05 -.03 .04 -.07 .05 -.18** -.39** .46** .45** - 11.Mgr Type 1 EI 2.59 1.10 -.01 -.09 .07 .13* .03 -.24** _ 30** 29** .28** .41** 12.Mgr Type 2 EI 3.04 1.26 13* -.03 -.04 .02 .11* _ 27** -.21** .12* .21** 23** 13.Mgr Authenticity 5.18 1.27 -.01 .10+ -.09 -.01 -.09 23** .29** _ 25** -.25** -.28** 14.Mgr 3.64 1.40 00 -.03 .00 -.10+ .07 -.24** -.09 .03 .07 .06 Inexpressiveness 15.S Helping Beh'rs 5.54 1.09 12* .01 .00 -.05 29** .03 -.07 .08 .02 -.03 16.SOrg 5.74 .97 28** .18** -.28** .02 .13* .12* .16** -.04 -.06 -.26** Commitment 17.SJob 5.58 1.10 10+ .10+ -.24** .02 .04 .13* .26** -.07 . 29** . 30** Satisfaction 18.S Turnover 2.45 1.40 - ^7** -.10+ .22** .15** -.02 -.12* -.21** -.04 .06 .22** Intentions +p< .10; *£<.05; *" J7 < .01

4^ o Table 3 Continued. Descriptive: Statistics and Correlations for Models not Including Use of Humor (N=320) Variable M S.D. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 .Mgr Type 1 EI 2.59 1.10 - 12.Mgr Type 2 EI 3.04 1.26 .47** - 13 .Mgr Authenticity 5.18 1.27 -.52** . 57** - 14.Mgr 3.64 1.40 j5** 49** -.47** - Inexpressiveness 15.S Helping Beh'rs 5.54 1.09 -.09 -.01 -.01 .07 - 16.SOrg 5.74 .97 -.40** -.22** .32** -.07 31** Commitment 17.SJob 5.58 1.10 _ 44** _ 32** 39** -.13* .21** .65** Satisfaction 18.S Turnover 2.45 1.40 .40** .22** . 29** .04 23** -.64** -.64** Intentions *p 1 EE .39 .49 .95** -.21** -.41** -.06 Him/herself 6. Mgr Enthusiasm 2.83 .92 -.15* .12+ .07 -.08 19** 7. Mgr Use of Humor 3.46 1.73 .07 -.15* -.07 -.11+ 06 18** - 8. Mgr Calmness 2.98 .98 -.18** .06 .04 -.08 2i** 53** .18** 9. Mgr Sadness 1.50 .72 19** -.05 -.12+ -.16* 17** 30** .04 .42** 10. Mgr Nervousness 1.66 .79 29** -.10 -.06 -.14* 28** 2o** .08 -.50** .(62* * 11 .Mgr Anger 1.56 .76 .06 -.03 .04 -.08 07 18** -.03 -.40** .'44* * 12.MgrType 1 EI 2.61 1.11 .00 -.10 .10 .14* 07 26** -.23** .39** ;20* * 13.MgrType2EI 3.01 1.25 .08 -.03 .01 .03 12* 26** -.24** .29** 12* 14.Mgr Authenticity 5.24 1.27 -.03 .10 -.07 -.02 06 23** 23** 33** 19** 15.Mgr 3.59 1.39 .02 -.03 -.04 -.11 04 22** -.16** -.13* .<0 4 Inexpressiveness 16.S Helping Beh'rs 5.42 1.06 .12* .04 -.02 -.02 ir 06 -.05 -.06 09 17.S Org Commitment 5.79 .95 .25** 19** -.25** .00 24** 14* .20** .18** -. 06 + 18.S Job Satisfaction 5.58 1.08 .06 A\ -.22** .02 07 16* .18** .25** -. 07 + 19. S Turnover 2.38 1.42 -.12 -.10 .20** .18** 09 .15* -.22** -.20** -. 05 Intentions 20. S Sleep Difficulties 2.96 1.68 .26** -1?+ .05 -.09 97** 15* -.05 . 9^** 1Q** 21. S General Life 4.95 1.36 -.02 .11+ -.14* -.01 07 .13* .11 01 02 Satisfaction 22. S Procedural 5.31 1.42 19** .05 -.26** .04 21** .23** .20** -. 18** 09 Fairness 23. S Interactional 6.0 1.10 .00 .09 -.14* -.08 23** .41** .32** -. 05 15* Fairness 24. S Relationship 5.97 1.06 .08 .11+ _ 17** -.03 18** .40** .27** -. 06 06 with Manager ><.10;*p<.05;**/?<.01 Table 4 Continued. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Models Including Use of Humor (N=254) Variable M S.D. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10. Mgr Nervousness 1.66 .79 - 11 .Mgr Anger 1.56 .76 44** - 12.MgrType 1 EI 2.61 1.11 .29** .41** - 13.Mgr Type 2 EI 3.01 1.25 .22** .24** .51** - 14.Mgr Authenticity 5.24 1.27 _ 29** -.29** -.53** -.61** - 15.Mgr 3.59 1.39 .10 .06 .13* .48** -.48** - Inexpressiveness 16.S Helping Beh'rs 5.42 1.06 .05 -.06 -.11+ -.05 .01 .05 - 17.S Org Commitment 5.79 .95 -.08 -.28** _ 39** -.29** .31** -.10 .35** - 18.S Job Satisfaction 5.58 1.08 -.18** _ 29** -.40** _ 37** 3g** . 17** .24** .62** - 19.S Turnover 2.38 1.42 .04 .21** .40** .27** _ 29** .07 -.27** -.62** -.61** Intentions 20. S Sleep Difficulties 2.96 1.68 .26** 32** .21** .25** -.25** .13* .13* -.06 -.22** 21. S General Life 4.95 1.36 -.04 -.08 -.13* -.14* .20** -.11+ .16* 33** .46** Satisfaction 22. S Procedural 5.31 1.42 -.08 -.26** _ 39** _ 33** .36** -.21** .12+ .54** .41** Fairness 23. S Interactional 6.0 1.10 -.20** -.35** -.61** -.54** .56** -.27** .03 45** .42** Fairness 24. S Relationship 5.97 1.06 -.10 -.25** -.53** -.45** .53** -.26** .18** .58** .48** with Manager + r, < 1H- * " < H^- ** P <.01

-1^ Table 4 Continued. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Models Including Use of Humor (N=254) Variable M S.D. 19 20 21 22 23 24 19.S Turnover 2.38 1.42 Intentions 20. S Sleep Difficulties 2.96 1.68 .10 21. S General Life 4.95 1.36 -.35** -.27** Satisfaction 22. S Procedural 5.31 1.42 -.32** -.12+ .28** Fairness 23. S Interactional 6.0 1.10 -.37** -.27** .17** .58** Fairness 24. S Relationship with 5.97 1.06 -.41** -.17** .22** .44** .67** Manager ><.10;*/?<.05; **;?<.01

4^ Table 5. Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction (Without Humor) (df=319) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB 8 B SEB B Org A Dummy Variable .06 .18 .03 .03 .18 .01 Org B Dummy Variable .28 .26 .06 .29 .26 .06 Org C Dummy Variable -.40** .14 -.16 -.39** .14 -.16 Org D Dummy Variable .26 .24 .06 .19 .24 .04 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .14 .15 .06 -.49 .30 -.23 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.03 .07 -.02 -.03 .07 -.03 Mgr Calmness .13+ .07 .11 .11 .07 .10 Mgr Sadness .18+ .10 .11 .17+ .10 .11 Mgr Nervousness -.05 .10 -.04 -.04 .10 -.03 Mgr Anger -.19* .09 -.13 -.21* .09 -.14 Mgr Type 1 EI -.21** .06 -.21 -.20** .06 -.20 Mgr Type 2 EI -.11+ .06 -.12 -.23** .07 -.26 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .14* .06 .17 .16 .14 .19 Mgr Inexpressiveness .04 .05 .06 .06 .17 .08 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.01 .03 -.03 Manager Dummy*Type 2 EI .21* .09 .35 A Adjusted R2 .22 .01 Model Adjusted R2 .27 .28 F 9.62** 8.92** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.05 Table 6. Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction (Including Humor) (df=253) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions ~B SEB ~fT B SEB ~p Org A Dummy Variable -.66 .49 -.29 -.49 .48 -.22 Org B Dummy Variable .34 .27 .08 .36 ^6 .08 Org C Dummy Variable -.33+ AS -A2_ -.32+ AJ -.12 Org D Dummy Variable .04 .28 .01_ -.04 2S -.01 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .83+ .47 .31_ -.24 J>& -.11 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .02 .08 .02 .02 .08 .01 Mgr Use of Humor .04 .04 .06 -.03 .U -.04 Mgr Calmness .08 .09 Jp2 .04 .08 .04 Mgr Sadness .19+ J_l .13_ .19+ A\ .12 Mgr Nervousness -.08 .11 -.06 -.04 .11 -.03 Mgr Anger -.20* .10 -.14 -.25* JO -.17 Mgr Type 1 EI -.15* .07 -.16 -.14+ Sn_ -.15 Mgr Type 2 EI -.14* ,07 -J^ .00 .13 .00 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .11 .07 A3_ .02 .16 .03 Mgr Inexpressiveness .01 .05 .02 -.40+ .22 -.51 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .02 M .14 Manager Dummy*Type 2 EI .29** .10 .48 Mgr Use of Humor*Type 2 EI -.07* ^3 -.38 Mgr Use of Humor*Inexpressiveness .07** ;03_ .52 A Adjusted R2 .21 M Model Adjusted R2 .24 ^8 F 5.63** 6.11** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.03 Table 1. Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment (Without Humor) (df=319) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB $ Org A Dummy Variable .66** .16 .32 .63** .16 .31 Org B Dummy Variable .83** .22 .19 .78** .22 .18 Org C Dummy Variable -.14 .13 -.06 -.14 .12 -.06 Org D Dummy Variable .49* .21 .13 .49* .21 .13 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.02 .13 -.01 -.03 .13 -.01 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .04 .06 .04 -.04 .12 -.03 Mgr Calmness .02 .06 .02 .02 .06 .02 Mgr Sadness .06 .09 .04 .07 .09 .05 Mgr Nervousness .08 .08 .06 .05 .08 .04 Mgr Anger -.19* .08 -.14 -.19* .08 -.14 Mgr Type 1 EI -.21* .06 -.24 .06 .14 .07 Mgr Type 2 EI -.07 .05 -.09 -.39** .13 -.51 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .10* .05 .14 .22+ .12 .29 Mgr Inexpressiveness .08+ .04 .11 .25+ .15 .36 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.03 .03 -.21 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.09+ .05 -.33 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 2 EI .11* .04 .46 A Adjusted R2 .16 .01 Model Adjusted R2 .30 .31 F 10.87** 9.53** p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.14

4^ -^1 Table 8. Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment (Including Humor) (df=253) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB 0 B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable .44 .42 .22 .32 .41 .16 Org B Dummy Variable .95** .23 .24 .75** .23 .19 Org C Dummy Variable -.06 .15 -.03 -.10 .15 -.04 Org D Dummy Variable .45+ .24 .13 .36 .24 .11 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .21 .40 .11 .24 .39 .12 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .05 .07 .05 -.34+ .18 -.33 Mgr Use of Humor .07* .03 .12 .31* .12 .57 Mgr Calmness .03 .07 .03 .01 .07 .01 Mgr Sadness .07 .10 .05 .14 .10 .11 Mgr Nervousness .03 .09 .03 -.04 .09 -.03 Mgr Anger -.21* .08 -.17 -.22** .08 -.18 Mgr Type 1 EI -.16* .06 -.19 .21 .16 .25 Mgr Type 2 EI -.10+ .06 -.13 -.51** .15 -.67 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .06 .06 .09 .07 .19 .09 Mgr Inexpressiveness .06 .05 .08 .14 .17 .20 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.01 .03 -.08 Mgr Humor*Authenticity -.05* .02 -.53 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.12* .05 -.45 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .13** .04 .58 Mgr Enthusiasm*Authenticity .06* .02 .46 A Adjusted R2 .18 .03 Model Adjusted R2 .30 .33 F 8.23** 7.38** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.12 Table 9. Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions (Without Humor) (df=318) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB ft Org A Dummy Variable -A2+ .24 -.14 -.38 .24 -.13 Org B Dummy Variable -.32 .34 -.05 -.32 .34 -.38 Org C Dummy Variable .45* .19 .14 .45* .19 -.32 Org D Dummy Variable .51 .31 .09 .53+ .31 .45 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .19 .20 .07 .16 .20 .53 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.02 .10 -.01 -.03 .10 .16 Mgr Calmness -.11 .09 -.08 -.11 .09 -.03 Mgr Sadness -.31* .14 -.15 -.31* .13 -.11 Mgr Nervousness -.02 .13 -.01 .02 .13 -.31 Mgr Anger .25* .12 .13 .22+ .12 .02 Mgr Type 1 EI .31** .08 .24 .28** .08 .22 Mgr Type 2 EI .09 .08 .08 .11 .08 .10 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.11 .08 -.10 -.49** .18 -.45 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.09 .06 -.09 -.60** .22 -.60 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .09* .04 .47 A Adjusted R2 .15 .01 Model Adjusted R2 .23 .24 F 7.85** 7.80** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.08 Table 10. Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions (Including Humor) (df=252) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable .40 .66 .14 .35 .65 .12 Org B Dummy Variable -.35 .36 -.06 -.37 .36 .35 Org C Dummy Variable At 24 .13 .47* .24 .13 Org D Dummy Variable .73+ .38 .14 .73+ .38 .14 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.57 .63 -.19 -.52 .62 -.18 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.07 .11 -.05 -.07 .11 -.05 Mgr Use of Humor -.07 .05 -.08 -.07 .05 -.09 Mgr Calmness -.10 .11 -.07 -.10 .11 -.07 Mgr Sadness -.32* .15 -.16 -.32* .15 -.16 Mgr Nervousness -.03 .15 -.02 .03 .15 .02 Mgr Anger .26* .13 .14 .23+ .13 .12 Mgr Type 1 EI .28** .10 .22 .23* .10 .18 Mgr Type 2 EI .09 .09 .08 .10 .09 .09 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.09 .09 -.08 -.55* .21 -.49 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.05 .07 -.05 -.66* .27 -.65 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .11* .05 .55 A Adjusted R2 .14 .02 Model Adjusted Rl .21 .23 F 5.55** 5.65** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.07

o Table 11. Regression Analyses for Helping Behaviors (Without Humor) (df=317) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB P Org A Dummy Variable .04 .21 .02 -.06 .21 -.03 Org B Dummy Variable .26 .29 .05 .23 .29 .05 Org C Dummy Variable .17 .17 .07 .12 .17 .05 Org D Dummy Variable .11 .27 .03 .01 .27 .00 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .46** .17 .21 .48** .17 .22 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .20* .08 .16 .15 .16 .12 Mgr Calmness -.17* .08 -.16 -.15+ .08 -.14 Mgr Sadness .25* .12 .16 .30* .12 .19 Mgr Nervousness -.15 .11 -.10 -.13 .11 -.09 Mgr Anger -.10 .10 -.07 -.70** .23 -.47 Mgr Type 1 EI -.11 .07 -.11 -.11 .07 -.11 Mgr Type 2 EI -.01 .07 -.01 .30* .15 .34 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.01 .07 -.01 .16 .16 .19 Mgr Inexpressiveness .09 .05 .11 .28 .20 .36 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.04 .03 -.26 Mgr Enthusiasm*Mgr Anger .24** .08 .49 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI -.11* .04 -.42 A Adjusted R2 .02 .03 Model Adjusted R2 .04 .07 F 2.05* 2.46** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.02 Table 12. Regression Analyses for Helping Behaviors (Including Humor) (df=252) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable .58 .55 .26 .37 .54 .17 Org B Dummy Variable .29 .30 .07 .28 .29 .06 Org C Dummy Variable .27 .20 .10 .25 .19 .10 Org D Dummy Variable .36 .32 .09 .25 .31 .06 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.17 .52 -.08 -.04 .51 -.02 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .20* .09 .17 .02 .17 .02 Mgr Use of Humor -.04 .04 -.07 -.03 .04 -.04 Mgr Calmness -.15 .10 -.14 -.11 .09 -.10 Mgr Sadness .24+ .13 .16 .32* .13 .22 Mgr Nervousness -.04 .12 -.03 -.03 .12 -.02 Mgr Anger -.13 .11 -.09 -.90** .24 -.64 Mgr Type 1 EI -.12 .08 -.13 -.13 .08 -.13 Mgr Type 2 EI -.05 .07 -.06 .24 .16 .28 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.02 .08 -.02 .06 .18 .07 Mgr Inexpressiveness .08 .06 .11 .18 .22 .24 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.02 .04 -.15 Mgr Enthusiasm*Mgr Anger .30** .08 .65 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI -.10* .05 -.41 A Adjusted R2 .02 .04 Model Adjusted R2 .03 .07 F 1.48 2.03** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.01

bo Table 13. Regression Analyses for Sleep Difficulties (df=253) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable .35 .35 .35 .16 .77 .05 Org B Dummy Variable -.17 .44 -.02 .00 .43 .00 Org C Dummy Variable .60* .29 .14 .62* .28 .15 Org D Dummy Variable -.08 .46 -.01 .01 .45 .00 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .59 .76 .17 .78 .74 .23 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.01 .13 -.01 -.34 .24 -.18 Mgr Use of Humor -.02 .06 -.02 -.02 .06 -.02 Mgr Calmness -.04 .14 -.03 -.01 .13 -.01 Mgr Sadness -.03 .18 -.01 -.04 .18 -.02 Mgr Nervousness .11 .18 .05 .23 .18 .11 Mgr Anger .49** .16 .22 .50** .15 .23 Mgr Type 1 EI -.05 .12 -.03 -1.11** .30 -.74 Mgr Type 2 EI .13 .11 .10 .78** .28 .58 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.11 .11 -.09 -.78** .26 -.59 Mgr Inexpressiveness .01 .09 .01 -.91** .32 -.75 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .16** .06 .66 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 1 EI .34** .09 .75 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI -.21** .08 -.53 A Adjusted R2 .08 .06 Model Adjusted R2 .16 .22 F 4.25** 4.91** p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.08 Table 14. Regression Analyses for General Life Satisfaction (df=252) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable -1.81 .69 -.64 -1.97** .68 -.70 Org B Dummy Variable .40 .38 .07 .36 .37 .07 Org C Dummy Variable -.45+ .25 -.13 -.51* .25 -.15 Org D Dummy Variable -.58 .40 -.12 -.70+ .39 -.14 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself 1.63* .66 .59 1.71** .64 .61 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .00 .11 .00 -.49* .22 -.33 Mgr Use of Humor .05 .05 .06 -.23+ .13 -.30 Mgr Calmness .07 .12 .05 .08 .12 .06 Mgr Sadness .15 .16 .08 .23 .16 .12 Mgr Nervousness .02 .16 .01 -.08 .15 -.05 Mgr Anger -.11 .14 -.06 -.07 .13 -.04 Mgr Type 1 EI -.01 .10 -.01 .04 .10 .03 Mgr Type 2 EI -.02 .09 -.02 .02 .09 .01 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .14 .10 .13 .61** .22 .57 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.05 .08 -.05 -.07 .32 -.08 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.12* .05 -.61 Mgr Enthusiasm* Inexpressiveness .12* .05 .47 Mgr Use of Humor*Inexpressiveness .08* .03 .46 A Adjusted R2 .01 .06 Model Adjusted R2 .04 .10 F 1.78* 2.55** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.03

4^ Table 15. Regression Analyses for Procedural Fairness Judgments (df=240) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB P Org A Dummy Variable -24 .69 -.08 -21 .65 -.09 Org B Dummy Variable .33 .35 .06 .07 .33 .01 Org C Dummy Variable -.36 .25 -.10 -.43* .24 -.11 Org D Dummy Variable .42 .38 .08 .25 .35 .05 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .84 .67 .29 .71 .62 .25 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .17 .11 .11 .01 .20 .01 Mgr Use of Humor .08 .05 .10 -.24+ .12 -.29 Mgr Calmness .05 .11 .03 .03 .11 .02 Mgr Sadness .03 .15 .02 .20 .14 .10 Mgr Nervousness .10 .15 .05 .01 .14 .00 Mgr Anger -.21 .13 -.11 -1.01** .30 -.54 Mgr Type 1 EI -.23* .10 -.18 .97** .26 .76 Mgr Type 2 EI -.13 .09 -.11 -.92** .22 -.81 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .12 .09 .10 .47* .20 .42 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.04 .07 -.04 .16 .27 .16 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.09* .04 -.44 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 1 EI -.39** .08 -1.03 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .26** .07 .79 Mgr Use of Humor*Inexpressiveness .09** .03 .50 Mgr Enthusiasm*Mgr Anger .29** .10 .48 A Adjusted R2 .19 .12 Model Adjusted R2 .25 .37 F 6.37** 7.92** p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.06 Table 16. Regression Analyses for Interactional Fairness Judgments (df=252) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions ~B SEB ~jT B SEB /? Org A Dummy Variable .30 .40 .13" .26 .37 .11 Org B Dummy Variable .23 .22 .05_ .08 .20 .02 Org C Dummy Variable -23 .14 ^09 -.26+ .13 -.09 Org D Dummy Variable -.04 23 ^0J_ -.04 .22 -.01 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.37 38 -06_ -.38 ,35 -.17 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.04 .07 -.04 -.17 .n -.14 Mgr Use of Humor .16** .03 Q5_ .57** .11 .90 Mgr Calmness .03 .07 .02 .00 .06 .00 Mgr Sadness -.04 .09 -.02 .03 .09 .02 Mgr Nervousness .06 .09 .04 -.01 .08 .00 Mgr Anger -.17** .08 -.12 -.21** .07 -.14 Mgr Type 1 EI -.29** .06 -.29 .33* .14 .33 Mgr Type 2 EI -.15** .05 -.17 -.85** .13 -.96 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .17** .06 .19 .47** .15 .54 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.01 .04 -.02 .11 .16 .14 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.01 .03 -.08 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.20** .05 -.66 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .22** .04 .87 Mgr Use oi Humor • Authenticity -.08** .02 -.78 2 A Adjusted R .48 .07 Model Adjusted R2 .52 .59 F 19.16** 20.06** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1:

OS Table 17. Regression Analyses Relationship Quality with Manager (df=256) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB 0 B SEB fi Org A Dummy Variable .11 .37 .05 .02 .35 .01 Org B Dummy Variable .49* .23 .11 .37+ .22 .08 Org C Dummy Variable -.09 .15 -.04 -.14 .14 -.05 Org D Dummy Variable .28 .24 .08 .21 .23 .06 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .08 .35 .04 .17 .33 .08 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.04 .07 -.03 .03 .12 .02 Mgr Use of Humor .15** .03 .24 .64** .12 1.06 Mgr Calmness .08 .07 .07 .05 .07 .05 Mgr Sadness .05 .10 .03 .07 .09 .05 Mgr Nervousness .11 .09 .08 .11 .09 .08 Mgr Anger -.07 .08 -.05 -.12 .08 -.09 Mgr Type 1 EI -.25** .06 -.27 .09 .16 .10 Mgr Type 2 EI -.08 .06 -.09 -.35* .14 -.41 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .22** .06 .26 .35* .16 .41 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.01 .05 -.01 -.23 .17 -.31 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .04 .03 .29 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.12* .05 -.41 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .09* .04 .35 Mgr Use of Humor*Authenticity -.09** .02 -1.00 A Adjusted R2 .41 .05 Model Adjusted R2 .43 .48 F 13.70** 13.49** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.02 58

Main Results

Main Effects of Subordinate Perceptions of Their Managers' Positive, High Activation

Emotions

HI, positing a main effect of managers' enthusiasm on employee change responses, was minimally supported. Managers' enthusiasm was significantly positively related to helping behaviors in the models both excluding and including managers' use of humor. Both models suggest that every one unit increase in managers' enthusiasm was associated with a 0.20 increase in helping behaviors (p<0.05), holding all else constant

(see Tables 3 and 4). These main effects of managers' enthusiasm were further refined via interactions with managers' anger. Figures 1 and 2 below depict these interactions

(for these and all other figures, "low" signifies one standard deviation, below the mean for that predictor and "high" indicates 1 standard deviation, above the mean; plotted values are those predicted by the model while holding all other variables outside those in the interaction constant at their means). Per the graphs, the effect of managers' enthusiasm on employees' helping behavior was strongest when managers' anger was high. This same interaction involving managers' enthusiasm and anger emerged in the model of assessments of procedural fairness as well (see Figure 3 below). 59

Figure J. Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and anger (model not including humor as a predictor variable).

• Low anger • High anger

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 2. Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and anger (model including humor as a predictor variable).

•Low anger •High anger

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm 60

Figure 3. Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and anger.

5.5

•Low anger • High anger

4.5

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Main Effects of Subordinate Perceptions of Their Managers' Use of Humor

H2, positing a main effect of managers' use of humor, was partially supported.

Managers' use of humor was significantly positively related to organizational

commitment (b= Q.Q7,p<0.05; see Table 8), interactional fairness judgments (6= 0.16,

/?<0.01; see Table 16), and manager relationship quality judgments (6=0.15,p<0.01; see

Table 17).

Main Effects of Subordinate Perceptions of Their Managers' Overall Emotional

Inappropriateness

There was considerable support for H3 with respect to main effects of type 1 EI.

Employees who perceived their managers to be more inappropriate in the content and/or

high intensity of their overall emotional expressions reported significantly lower scores

for job satisfaction (model without humor: b= -0.21, p<0.0\, see Table 5; model

including humor: b= -0.15, p<0.05, see Table 6), organizational commitment (model

without humor: b= -0.21, p<0.05, see Table 7; model including humor: b- -0.16, p<0.05, see Table 8), procedural fairness judgments (b= -.23,/?<0.05, see Table 15), interactional fairness judgments (b= -29,p<0.0l, see Table 16), and manager 61 relationship quality (b= -.25,_p<0.01, see Table 17) and significantly higher scores for turnover intentions (model without humor: b= 0.31, p

I also found partial support for H3 regarding main effects of type 2 EI.

Subordinates who perceived their managers to be inappropriately low in the intensity of their emotional expressions overall reported significant lower scores for job satisfaction

(model without humor: b= -0.11, marginal at/?<0.10, see Table 5; model including humor: b= -0.14, p<0.Q5, see Table 6), organizational commitment (model without humor: b= -0.10, marginal atp<0.\0, see Table 8), and interactional fairness (b= -0.15,

/?<0.01, see Table 16). In both models of job satisfaction, there was a significant interaction between type 2 EI and the dummy variable representing whether the respondent was a manager him/herself. As you can see in Figures 4 and 5 below, type 2

EI was associated with decreased job satisfaction only for respondents who were not managers themselves.

Figure 4. Predicted values of S's job satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall and whether S manages at least 1 employee him/herself (model not including humor as a predictor variable).

•S is NOT a mgr •S IS a mgr

Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low low in intensity of overall emotional in intensity of overall emotional expression expression 62

Figure 5. Predicted values of S's job satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall and whether S manages at least 1 employee him/herself (model including humor as a predictor variable).

S is NOT a manager him/herself — — S IS a manager him/herself

Low T2 El: Not perceived as High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression of overall emotional expression

Interactive Effects of Employee Perceptions of Their Managers' General Emotional

Inappropriateness and Positive Affect

H4 received substantial support. In terms of interactive effects between managers'

type 1 emotional inappropriateness and enthusiasm, significant effects in the predicted

directions were found in the models of organizational commitment, sleep difficulties,

procedural and interactional fairness judgments, and manager relationship quality.

Figures 6-11 depict the nature of these interactions for each of the dependent measures.

As hypothesized, when managers were not perceived as inappropriate in the overall

content/intensity of their emotional expressions, enthusiasm was positively associated with organizational commitment and procedural and interactional fairness, and negatively related to sleep difficulties. Note also that for all these models except that of

organizational commitment excluding humor as a predictor, when managers were perceived as high in type 1 EI, however, these relationships were reversed (see Figures 7-

10). 63

Figure 6. Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall (model not including humor as a predictor variable).

•Low T1 El: Not perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity • High T1 El: Perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 7. Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

•LowT1 El: Not perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity • High T1 El: Perceived as 5.4 inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity 5.2

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm 64

Figure 8. Predicted values of S's sleep difficulties as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T1 El: Not perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity • High T1 El: Perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 9. Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T1 El: Not perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity • High T1 El: Perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm 65

Figure 10. Predicted values of S's assessments of interactional fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T1 El: Not perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity • High T1 El: Perceived as 5.5 inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 11. Predicted values of S's quality of relationship with manager as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 1 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T1 El: Not perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity • High T1 El: Perceived as inappropriate in overall emotional content/intensity

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Significant effects of the interaction between managers' type 2 EI and enthusiasm were also found in the predicted direction, but only in the models of helping behaviors.

Figures 12 and 13 show that in these models managers' enthusiasm was associated with increased employee helping behavior when the managers were not perceived to be inappropriately low in the intensity of overall emotional expression. 66

Figure 12. Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model not including humor as a predictor variable).

•Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression • High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

4.5 4 Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 13. Predicted values of S's self-reported helping behaviors as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

— Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression — — High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

The models of organizational commitment, sleep difficulties, procedural and interactional fairness judgments, and manager relationship quality also featured significant effects of the interaction between managers' type 2 EI and enthusiasm, though not as predicted. Rather than type 2 EI moderating a main effect of enthusiasm, these interactions are more naturally interpreted as the reverse (enthusiasm moderating the effect of type 2 EI). Figures 14-19 show that the negative effects of overall type 2 EI on the outcome measures emerge when enthusiasm is low. When managers' enthusiasm is 67 judged as high, though, managers' overall type 2 EI appears to have no effect on outcome variables.

Figure 14. Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model not including humor as a predictor variable).

6.5 •LowT2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression 5.5 * High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

4.5 Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 15. Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

•Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional 5.6 expression • High T2 El: Perceived as 5.4 inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional 5.2 expression

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm 68

Figure 16. Predicted values of S's sleep difficulties as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression • High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 17. Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall.

5.5 •Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression • High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression 4.5

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm 69

Figure 18. Predicted values of S's assessments of interactional fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression • High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Figure 19. Predicted values of S's quality of relationship with manager as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall.

•Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression • High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Finally, with respect to interactive effects between the use of humor and emotional inappropriateness, the only significant effect was in the job satisfaction model.

As you can see in Figure 20, in this model, managers' use of humor was associated with increased job satisfaction when type 2 EI was low. When type 2 EI was high, however, this effect was flipped and increased humor was associated with decreased job satisfaction. 70

Figure 20. Predicted values of S's job satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and type 2 emotional inappropriateness overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

Low T2 El: Not perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression — — High T2 El: Perceived as inappropriately low in intensity of overall emotional expression

Low humor High humor

Main Effects of Employee Perceptions of Their Managers' Emotional Authenticity

H5 was partially supported. Main effects of managers' overall emotional

authenticity were observed in models of job satisfaction (without humor) (b= 0.14, p<0.05), organizational commitment (without humor) (b= 0.10, p<0.05), interactional

fairness (b= 0.17,p<0.0\), and manager relationship quality (b= 0.22,/?<0.01).

Interactive Effects of Employee Perceptions of Their Managers' Emotional Authenticity and Positive Affect

H6 only received slight support in terms of the predicted nature of the interaction, via one of the models of organizational commitment (see Table 8). As Figure 21 depicts, managers' enthusiasm was only associated with increased organizational commitment when managers' overall emotional authenticity was high. 71

Figure 21. Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and emotional authenticity overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

5.8

5.6 — Low authenticity 5.4 — High authenticity

5.2

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

Interactive effects of the use of humor and emotional authenticity were also observed in models of organizational commitment, interactional fairness, and manager relationship quality. These effects were not in the predicted direction, as shown in

Figures 22-24. Instead, for each of these models, the positive effects of use of humor held only when overall authenticity was low. When authenticity was low, high levels of humor boosted outcomes up to par with levels otherwise associated with high authenticity. The worst employee outcomes were associated with managers perceived as low in both humor and authenticity. 72

Figure 22. Predicted values of S's organizational commitment as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and emotional authenticity overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

———— Low authenticity — — High authenticity

Low humor High humor

Figure 23. Predicted values of S's assessments of interactional fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and emotional authenticity overall.

• Low authenticity high authenticity

Low humor High humor 73

Figure 24. Predicted values of S's quality of relationship with manager as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and emotional authenticity overall.

Low authenticity High authenticity

Low humor High humor

Effects of Subordinate Perceptions of Their Managers' Use of Emotional Suppression

H7 received partial support from the models of turnover intentions, sleep

difficulties, general life satisfaction, and procedural fairness judgments. Figures 25-28

show the nature of the interaction term used to capture suppression, that between managers' overall emotional inexpressiveness and overall authenticity. As predicted, the

"suppression" quadrant (not emotionally expressive overall, low authenticity) was associated with worsened outcomes as compared to the "authentic, expressive category"

(emotionally expressive overall, high authenticity). In all four graphs, the highest sleep difficulties and the lowest general life satisfaction and procedural fairness judgments were associated with a different quadrant still, however: that representing "faking" emotions (emotionally expressive overall, low authenticity). 74

Figure 25. Predicted values of S's turnover intentions as a function of interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and emotional authenticity overall (model including humor as a predictor variable).

•Emotionally expressive overall • Not emotionally expressive overall

Low authenticity High authenticity

Figure 26. Predicted values of S's sleep difficulties as a function of interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and emotional authenticity overall.

• Emotionally expressive overall Not emotionally expressive overall

Low authenticity high authenticity

Figure 27. Predicted values of S's general life satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and emotional authenticity overall.

•Emotionally expressive overall • Not emotionally expressive overall

Low authenticity High authenticity 75

Figure 28. Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and emotional authenticity overall.

Emotionally expressive overall

— — Not emotionally expressive overall

Low authenticity High authenticity

The model of turnover intentions without humor also featured a significant interaction between managers' emotional inexpressiveness and authenticity. Here, however, the "suppression" quadrant was not significantly different from the "authentic, expressive" quadrant. The "faking" quadrant was associated with significantly higher turnover intentions as compared with the other three quadrants. See Figure 29 for the graphical depiction.

Figure 29. Predicted values of S's turnover intentions as a function of interactive effects of S's emotional inexpressiveness overall and emotional authenticity overall (model not including humor as a predictor variable).

•Emotionally expressive overall

• Not emotionally expressive overall

Low authenticity High authenticity 76

Other Non-Predicted Effects

I had not made any predictions about interactive effects of managers' use of humor and overall emotional inexpressiveness, yet this interaction emerged as significant in models of job satisfaction, general life satisfaction and procedural fairness judgments.

The nature of these interactions appears similar to that of humor and authenticity depicted earlier. That is, the effect of humor was positive when the manager was also perceived to not be highly emotionally expressive overall. Figures 30-32 graph these relationships.

Figure 30. Predicted values of S's job satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and overall emotional inexpressiveness (model including humor as a predictor variable).

—Emotionally expressive overall — Not emotionally expressive overall

Low humor High humor 77

Figure 31. Predicted values of S's general life satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and overall emotional inexpressiveness.

•Emotionally expressive overall • Not emotionally expressive overall

Low humor High humor

Figure 32. Predicted values of S's assessments of procedural fairness as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's use of humor and overall emotional inexpressiveness.

5.5 ~ Emotionally expressive overall

—— — Not emotionally expressive overall 4.5

Low humor High humor

A significant interaction between managers' overall emotional inexpressiveness and enthusiasm was also found in the model of employees' general life satisfaction. In this case, it seems most useful to interpret the interaction as managers' enthusiasm moderating the effect of managers' inexpressiveness. The graph (Figure 33) shows that when managers' enthusiasm is judged as low, managers' being emotionally inexpressive overall is associated with significantly lower general life satisfaction. Meanwhile, when 78 managers' enthusiasm is judged as high, inexpressiveness does not appear to have a significant relationship with employee general life satisfaction.

Figure 33. Predicted values of S's general life satisfaction as a function of interactive effects of S's perceptions of manager's expressed enthusiasm and manager's overall emotional inexpressiveness.

— Emotionally expressive overall — Not emotionally expressive overall

Low enthusiasm High enthusiasm

While I did not make predictions in this dissertation about the effects of managers' negative emotions (and did not test interactions between these variables and the inappropriateness and authenticity variables in regression analyses), there were several effects to report. Increased employee perceptions of managers' anger were associated with decreased job satisfaction (model without humor: 6= -.19,/? < 0.05; model with humor: b= -.20, p < 0.05, see Tables 5 and 6), organizational commitment

(model without humor: b= -.19,p< 0.05; model with humor: b= -.21, p < 0.05, see Tables

7 and 8), and interactional fairness judgments (b= -.17, p<0.0\, see Table 16), as well as with increased turnover intentions (model without humor: b= 25,p<0.05; model with humor: b= .26,p<0.05, see Tables 9 and 10) and sleep difficulties (b= A9,p<0.0\, see

Table 13). Perceptions of managers' expressed sadness were also marginally positively related to job satisfaction (model without humor: b= .18,/? < 0.10; model with humor: b=

.\9,p< 0.10), significantly positively related to helping behaviors (model without humor: b- .25, p < 0.05; model with humor: b- .24, p < 0.10) and significantly negatively related to turnover intentions (model without humor: b= -.31, p < 0.01; model with humor: b= -.32, p < 0.01). No significant effects were found for perceptions of managers' nervousness.

With respect to perceptions of positive, low activation emotions, increases in managers' calmness were associated with decreased reports of helping behavior (model without humor: b= -.17,/?<0.05) and marginally significant increased reports of job satisfaction (model without humor: b= A3,p<0.l0).

Additional Analyses

Mediation Analyses

While specific mediation predictions were not formalized in my proposal, my theoretical arguments suggested three partial mediators of hypothesized relationships that were testable in the current study. These potential partial mediators were: a) employee perceptions of interactional fairness, b) employee perceptions of procedural fairness, and c) employee trust in management. More expressly, I asserted that part of why managers' emotional expressions might drive employee change-related outcomes ranging from turnover intentions to sleep difficulties is that these emotional variables would drive employee assessments of fairness and trust.

Considerable extant organizational change literature has identified employee judgments of fairness and trust in management to be important drivers of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, and turnover intentions (e.g., Brockner et al., 2004; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002; Wat & Shaffer, 2005).

Greenberg (2006) also found evidence for a negative causal relationship between 80

interactional justice during organizational change and levels of insomnia, and in Tepper

(2000), both procedural and interactional justice were found to be related to later general

life satisfaction. Thus while additional mechanisms were also posited to be involved in

explaining the current relationships of interest, I was able to at least examine support for

partial mediation as described above. To test the mediating effect of trust, I assume the

manager relationship quality variable (leader-member exchange) as an adequate proxy for

trust. This assumption is based on previous literature supporting a deep connection

between the two constructs (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Gomez & Rosen, 2001).

I followed Baron and Kenny's (1986) recommended method for assessing

mediation. Regression analyses reported in the Results section covered the first and

second steps in this method, showing that the independent variables, or 'TVs", (pertaining to managers' emotional expressions) were significant predictors of both the dependent variables, or "DVs" (turnover intentions, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, helping behaviors, sleep difficulties, and general life satisfaction) and the posited mediator variables (procedural fairness, interactional fairness, and manager relationship quality). Next, I conducted additional regression analyses to ascertain that justice assessments and manager relationship quality (or the trust proxy) were significantly related with the other DVs. These models, shown in Table 18 below, yielded significant effects of procedural fairness assessments and manager relationship quality for the models of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and general life satisfaction. Helping behaviors were significantly predicted by interactional fairness judgments and manager relationship quality. Sleep difficulties were significantly predicted by only interactional fairness judgments. 81

Table 18. Regression Analyses Showing Relationships Between Outcome Variables and Posited Mediators (df=239) Job Org Turnover Helping Sleep General Sat. Commit. Intentions Behaviors Diffs Life Sat. Model Model Model Model Model Model

fi fi fi fi fi fi Org A Dummy -.26 .23 -.06 .43 .05 -.59* Org B Dummy .04 .18** -.02 .06 -.02 .04 Org C Dummy -.12+ -.01 .13* .07 .12 -.12+ Org D Dummy -.04 .05 .19** .04 -.04 -.14+ S Manages > 1 .23 -.03 .09 -.31 .25 1.26+ EE Him/herself Procedural .20** 32** -.16* .12 -.01 27** Fairness Interactional .07 -.04 -.02 -.22** -.23* -.15 Fairness Manager .33** 44** -.28** 27** -.02 .21+ Relationship Quality (Proxy for Trust) Model .29 .48 .21 .05 .13 .10 Adjusted R2 F 13.02* 29.10** 8.92** 2.43* 5.58** 4.46** * + p<.10;*p<.05;**p<.01

The final step in this method for testing mediation is to show whether the effect of the IVs (representing managers' emotions) on the DVs (turnover intentions, job satisfaction, etc.) are reduced once the proposed partial mediators (measures of perceived fairness and trust) were included as additional predictors. Tables 19-21 present the results of this final step. The results labeled "Model 3" show the initial effects of the IVs on the DVs before the inclusion of the mediators. The results labeled "Model 4" then show what happens to the effects of the IVs on the DVs once the mediators are added as additional predictor variables. The models of helping behaviors (see Table 20) and sleep difficulties (see Table 21) show no mediation of any predicted effects. To the contrary, 82 the predictor variables appear to wipe out the effects of interactional fairness in both models. The pattern across the other models suggests the predicted partial mediation.

The models of organizational commitment (see Table 20) show that procedural fairness and the trust in management proxy mediated all other effects, with the exception of those of manager enthusiasm and the interactive effect of manager enthusiasm and authenticity.

In the models of job satisfaction, the effect of type 1 EI was fully mediated, and the effects of manager anger and the (humor x inexpressiveness) interaction were partially mediated (p<0A0) while the other two interactive effects remained significant. The type

1 EI variable was also fully mediated in the turnover intentions models, but the other effects stayed significant. The test on the general life satisfaction model yielded two partial mediations - of the main effect of manager use of humor and the (manager enthusiasm x inexpressiveness) interaction (p < 0.10). No other effects in that model were at all mediated however. 83

Table 19. Mediation Analyses for Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention Models (df=240) Variable Job Job Turnover Turnover Satisfaction Satisfaction Intentions Intentions Model 3 Model 4 Model 3 Model 4 (Mediation (Mediation Test) Test) fi fi fi fi Org A Dummy Variable -.27 -.27 .06 06 Org B Dummy Variable .07 .04 -.06 - 03 Org C Dummy Variable -.13* -.10 .12+ 10 Org D Dummy Variable -.03 -.05 .13+ 16* S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.04 -.05 -.12 - 08 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .02 .01 -.05 - 05 Mgr Use of Humor -.08 -.03 -.08 - 02 Mgr Calmness .04 .02 -.03 - 01 Mgr Sadness .15+ .13+ -.17* - 16* Mgr Nervousness -.07 -.10 .06 08 Mgr Anger -.16* -.12+ .11 09 Mgr Type 1 EI -.15* -.07 .19* 11 Mgr Type 2 EI -.01 .04 .09 06 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .10 .05 -.52** - 50* Mgr Inexpressiveness -.42 -.26 -.71* - 80** Inexpressi veness * Authenticity .07 .01 .59* 67** Manager Dummy*Type 2 EI .47** .42* Mgr Use of Humor* Type 2 EI -.37* -.38* Mgr Use of .50* .37+ Humor* Inexpressiveness Procedural Fairness .15* -.09 Manager Relationship Quality .25** -.24** (Trust Proxy) A Adjusted R2 .05 .04 Model Adjusted Rl .29 .34 .21 .25 F 6.08** 6.90** 5.10** 5.45** + p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01 84

Table 20. Mediation Analyses for Organizational Commitment and Helping Behaviors Models (df=240) Variable Org Org Helping Helping Commit Commit Behaviors Behaviors Model 3 Model 4 Model 3 Model 4 (Mediation (Mediation Test) Test) P P P P Org A Dummy Variable .13 .13 .17 .17 Org B Dummy Variable .19** .16** .06 .03 Org C Dummy Variable -.04 .02 .09 .08 Org D Dummy Variable .09 .06 .06 .04 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .16 .08 -.02 -.06 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.37* -.33* .02 .00 Mgr Use of Humor .52* .00 -.05 -.10 Mgr Calmness .01 -.01 -.10 -.11 Mgr Sadness .12+ .08 .22* .21* Mgr Nervousness -.06 -.09 -.02 -.05 Mgr Anger -.15* -.08 -.65** -.66** Mgr Type 1 EI .23 .00 -.12 -.06 Mgr Type 2 EI -.68** -.28 .28 .27 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .08 -.13 .08 .12 Mgr Inexpressiveness .25 .30 .24 .40 Inexpressiveness* Authenticity -.10 -.16 -.15 -.29 Mgr Use of -.48+ -.01 Humor* Authenticity Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.45* -.03 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 2 EI .60** .22 -.41* -.40* Mgr Enthusiasm* Authentic .50* .36* Mgr Enthusiasm* Mgr Anger .64** .67** Procedural Fairness .25** Interactional Fairness -.12 Manager Relationship Quality 44** .34** (Trust Proxy) A Adjusted R2 .15 .04 Model Adjusted R2 .35 .50 .07 .11 F 7.34** 11.76** 2.01* 2.62** p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01 85

Table 21. Mediation Analyses for Sleep Difficulties and General Life Satisfaction Models (df=24Q) Variable Sleep Sleep General General Life Difficulties Difficulties Life Satisfaction Model 3 Model 4 Satisfact'n (Mediation (Mediation Model 3 Test) Test) P P P P Org A Dummy Variable 05 .06 . 72** . 7i** Org B Dummy Variable 00 .00 .06 .04 Org C Dummy Variable 16* .15* -.16+ -.14+ Org D Dummy Variable 00 .00 -.14+ -.15+ S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself 22 .22 .63* .58* Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm - 18 -.18 -.36* -.36* Mgr Use of Humor - 01 .00 -.35* -.29+ Mgr Calmness - 01 -.01 .05 .04 Mgr Sadness - 02 -.02 .16+ .15+ Mgr Nervousness 11 .11 -.09 -.11 Mgr Anger 24** 23** -.05 -.02 Mgr Type 1 EI - 74** _ 73** .05 .10 Mgr Type 2 EI 58** .53* .04 .06 Mgr Emotional Authenticity - 60** -.59** .64** .58** Mgr Inexpressiveness - 75** -.75** -.09 -.01 Inexpressiveness* Authenticity 66** .66** -.64* -.63* Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI 74** 71** Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 2 EI - 53* -.49* Mgr .48* .36+ Enthusiasm* Inexpressiveness Mgr Use of .51** .50** Humor* Inexpressiveness Procedural Fairness .16* Interactional Fairness -.05 Manager Relationship Quality .10 (Trust Proxy) A Adjusted R2 .00 .02 Model Adjusted R2 .22 .22 .11 .13 F 4.98** 4.72** 2.63** 2.78** + p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01 86

Perceptions of Managers' Risk/Benefit Assessments

To help rule out potential concerns that measures of managers' emotional expressions were actually just tapping managers' risk and benefit judgments regarding the change situation, I administered two items from Finucane et al. (2000) to capture the latter. Participants were asked: "How risky/beneficial does your manager think the current workplace situation is?". Responses were provided from 1 {not at all beneficial/risky) to 7 (extremely beneficial/risky). Means and standard deviations for these two items, as well as correlations with the central predictor variables are provided in Table 22 below.

Table 22. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Risk/Benefit Perceptions and Predictor Variables Variable M S.D. 1 1. Mgr Risk Assessment 2.22 1.40 - 2. Mgr Benefit Assessment 5.01 1.63 -.05 - 3. Mgr Enthusiasm -.20** .47** 4. Mgr Humor -.03 -.05 5. Mgr Calmness . 32** .26** 6. Mgr Sadness .23** -.18** 7. Mgr Nervousness 33** -.09+ 8. Mgr Anger .26** -.13* 9. Mgr Type 1 EI .16** -.15** 10. Mgr Type 2 EI .15** -.06 11. Mgr Authenticity -.15** .09 12. Mgr Inexpressiveness -.01 -.05 + p<.10;*p<.05;**p<.01

Control models were run including perceptions of managers' risk and benefit judgments. These variables were not even significant predictors in the baseline models of turnover intentions, helping behaviors, sleep difficulties, general life satisfaction, interactional fairness, or manager relationship quality. In the models of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural fairness, there were significant effects. However, in four of the five models capturing those dependent variables, the effects of the risk and benefit judgments were mediated by the central predictors of interest in this dissertation, rather than the other way around. In the procedural fairness model, perceptions of managers' benefit assessments remained significant in the full model, but did not impact the effects of the central predictor variables. Full regression analyses for these models are provided in Tables 23-27. Table 23. Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction Controlling for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Without Humor) (df=315) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB fi B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable .03 .19 .01 .01 .19 .00 Org B Dummy Variable .25 .27 .05 .27 .27 .05 Org C Dummy Variable -.37* .15 -.15 -.35* .15 -.14 Org D Dummy Variable .26 .24 .06 .20 .24 .04 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .15 .16 .07 -.52+ .31 -.24 Mgr Risk Assessment -.03 .04 -.04 -.05 .05 -.06 Mgr Benefit Assessment .03 .04 .05 .04 .04 .06 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.06 .08 -.05 -.07 .08 -.06 Mgr Calmness .12 .07 .10 .10 .07 .09 Mgr Sadness .18+ .10 .12 .18+ .10 .12 Mgr Nervousness -.04 .10 -.03 -.02 .10 -.02 Mgr Anger -.18* .09 -.12 -.20* .09 -.14 Mgr Type 1 EI -.21** .06 -.21 -.20** .06 -.21 Mgr Type 2 EI -.20+ .06 -.12 -.23** .08 -.26 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .14* .06 .17 .14 .14 .16 Mgr Inexpressiveness .04 .05 .05 .03 .18 .03 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .00 .03 .00 Manager Dummy*Type 2 EI 9^* no is A Adjusted R2 .19 .02 Model Adjusted R2 .26 .28 F 8.10** 7.68** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.07

00 00 Table 24. Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction Controlling for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Including Humor) (df=251) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable -.71 .50 -.32 -.58 .49 -.26 Org B Dummy Variable .42 .29 .09 .43 .28 .10 Org C Dummy Variable -.19 .20 -.07 -.16 .19 -.06 Org D Dummy Variable .08 .29 .02 -.01 .29 .00 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .98* .48 .44 -.13 .58 -.06 Mgr Risk Assessment -.08 .05 -.11 -.10+ .05 -.14 Mgr Benefit Assessment .03 .05 .04 .04 .05 .06 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .00 .09 .00 -.03 .09 -.03 Mgr Use of Humor .05 .04 .07 -.03 .11 -.05 Mgr Calmness .06 .09 .06 .02 .08 .02 Mgr Sadness .20+ .11 .13 .20+ .11 .14 Mgr Nervousness -.07 .11 -.05 -.02 .11 -.02 Mgr Anger -.18+ .10 -.13 -.24* .10 -.17 Mgr Type 1 EI -.15* .07 -.16 -.15* .07 -.15 Mgr Type 2 EI -.14* .07 -.16 -.03 .13 -.03 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .10 .07 .12 -.02 .16 -.02 Mgr Inexpressiveness .01 .05 .01 -.45* . .23 -.59 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .03 .04 .20 Manager Dummy*Type 2 EI .32** .10 .52 Mgr Use of Humor*Type 2 EI .52* .03 -.35 Mgr Use of Humor*Inexpressiveness .07** .03 .52 A Adjusted R2 .18 .04 Model Adjusted R2 .24 .28 F 5.57** 5.58** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.06 Table 25. Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Without Humor) (df=315) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB 0 Org A Dummy Variable .57** .17 .28 .55** .17 .27 Org B Dummy Variable .68** .24 .16 .63** .24 .14 Org C Dummy Variable -.15 .13 -.07 -.16 .13 -.07 Org D Dummy Variable .42* .21 .11 .42* .21 .11 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.07 .13 -.04 -.08 .13 -.04 Mgr Risk Assessment .03 .04 .04 .03 .04 .05 Mgr Benefit Assessment .07+ .04 .11 .07+ .04 .11 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .00 .07 .00 -.08 .12 -.08 Mgr Calmness .02 .06 .02 .02 .06 .02 Mgr Sadness .07 .09 .05 .08 .09 .06 Mgr Nervousness .07 .09 .06 .04 .09 .03 Mgr Anger -.18* .08 -.14 -.18* .08 -.13 Mgr Type 1 EI -.21** .06 -.24 .06 .14 .07 Mgr Type 2 EI -.07 .05 -.09 -.39* .13 -.52 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .10* .05 .13 .22+ .12 .29 Mgr Inexpressiveness .07* .04 .11 .25 .15 .36 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.03 .03 -.21 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.09+ .05 -.34 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .11* .04 .47 A Adjusted R2 .15 .01 Model Adjusted Rz .30 .31 F 9.33** 8.37** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.15

M3 O Table 26. Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (Including Humor) (df=251) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SE B p B SEB $ Org A Dummy Variable .30 .42 .15 .19 .42 .09 Org B Dummy Variable .86** .24 .22 .65** .25 .17 Org C Dummy Variable -.02 .16 -.01 -.06 .16 -.02 Org D Dummy Variable .40 .25 .12 .31 .25 .09 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .27 .40 .14 .29 .39 .15 Mgr Risk Assessment -.01 .04 -.01 .00 .04 .00 Mgr Benefit Assessment .07+ .04 .12 .07+ .04 .13 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .00 .08 .00 -.36* .18 -.35 Mgr Use of Humor .08* .03 .15 .37** .12 .68 Mgr Calmness .01 .07 .01 -.01 .07 -.01 Mgr Sadness .08 .10 .06 .15 .10 .12 Mgr Nervousness .01 .09 .01 -.06 .09 -.05 Mgr Anger -.19* .08 -.15 -.20* .08 -.16 Mgr Type 1 EI -.17** .06 -.20 .21 .16 .25 Mgr Type 2 EI -.09+ .06 -.13 -.52** .15 -.68 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .06 .06 .08 .11 .19 .15 Mgr Inexpressiveness .05 .05 .08 .15 .17 .22 lllWAUlCi3JlVVllUd3 /iLULllVXXtlVllV -.01 .03 -.09 Mgr Humor* Authenticity -.05* .02 -.62 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 1 EI -.12* .05 -.45 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .13** .04 .60 Mgr Enthusiasm*Authenticity .05* .02 .41 A Adjusted R2 .16 .03 Model Adjusted R2 .30 .33 F 7.18** 6.70** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.14 Table 27. Regression Analyses for Procedural Fairness Judgments Controlling for Perceptions of Manager Risk/Benefit Assessments (df=239) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable -.68 .70 -.23 -.72 .64 -.25 Org B Dummy Variable .02 .38 .00 -.26 .35 -.04 Org C Dummy Variable -.45 .28 -.12 -.50* .26 -.13 Org D Dummy Variable .20 .38 .04 .03 .35 .01 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself 1.02 .68 .35 .90 .62 .31 Mgr Risk Assessment .00 .07 .00 -.01 .07 -.01 Mgr Benefit Assessment .18* .06 .21 .20* .06 .23 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.01 .12 -.01 -.13 .20 -.09 Mgr Use of Humor .09+ .05 .10 -.27* .12 -.33 Mgr Calmness .04 .11 .03 .00 .10 .00 Mgr Sadness .05 .15 .02 .20 .14 .10 Mgr Nervousness .11 .14 .06 .02 .14 .01 Mgr Anger -.23+ .13 -.12 -.89** .29 -.48 Mgr Type 1 EI -.24* .10 -.19 .94** .25 .73 Mgr Type 2 EI -.13 .09 -.11 -.93** .21 -.82 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .12 .09 .10 .47* .20 .42 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.06 .07 -.06 .10 .27 .10 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.09* .04 -.44 <-* rv .1. .1. A/I -t s\ S~L Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -..SS-- .U5 -l.UU Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .26** .06 .80 Mgr Use of Humor*Inexpressiveness .10** .03 .55 Mgr Enthusiasm*Mgr Anger .23* .10 .38 A Adjusted R2 .16 .12 Model Adjusted R2 .28 .40 F 6.47** 8.14** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.12 93

Perceptions of Managers' Charisma

I also wanted to be able to address potential fears that effects of measures of managers' emotional expressions were merely epiphenomenal of effects of charisma.

This concern may arise in light of previous research that has suggested that charismatic leaders are more effective in times of organizational crisis than non-charismatic leaders

(Flynn & Staw, 2004). The survey thus also included three items (a = 0.79) from the

"Idealized Influence", or "Charisma" portion of Bass and Avolio's (1997) Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X. Participants were asked: "How frequently does your manager do each of the following? a) specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose, b) considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions, c) emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission". Responses were provided from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently if not always). Table 28 displays the mean and standard deviation for this variable, along with correlations with the central predictor variables.

Table 28. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Charisma Perceptions and Predictor Variables Variable M S.D. 1 l.Mgr Charisma 4.00 0.87 2. Mgr Enthusiasm .34** 3. Mgr Humor 27** 4. Mgr Calmness 25** 5. Mgr Sadness 05 6. Mgr Nervousness 15** 7. Mgr Anger 17** 8. Mgr Type 1 EI 47** 9. Mgr Type 2 EI 44** 10. Mgr Authenticity 42** 11. Mgr Inexpressiveness 25** + p<.10;*p<.05;**p<.01 First, I ran baseline models including the measure of charisma. Charisma did not significantly predict helping behaviors or sleep difficulties. For the other models, I moved to the next step of analysis to see if charisma's inclusion affected the significance of the central predictors of interest. Charisma dropped out of significance after the other variables were entered in the cases of the job satisfaction-without humor and general life satisfaction models. The overwhelming majority of the significant predicted effects in the other models were unaffected by the inclusion of charisma. Full regression analyses for the latter models are provided in Tables 29-36. Table 29. Regression Analyses for Job Satisfaction Controlling for Manager Charisma (Including Humor) (df=253) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB 8 Org A Dummy Variable -.80 .49 -.36 -.60 .48 -.27 Org B Dummy Variable .27 .27 .06 .30 .26 .07 Org C Dummy Variable -.33+ .18 -.12 -.31+ .17 -.12 Org D Dummy Variable .06 .28 .02 -.01 .28 .00 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .92* .46 .42 -.15 .58 -.07 Mgr Charisma .20* .09 .16 .18* .09 .14 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.01 .08 -.01 -.01 .08 -.01 Mgr Use of Humor .02 .04 .04 -.01 .11 -.01 Mgr Calmness .09 .08 .08 .05 .08 .04 Mgr Sadness .16 .11 .11 .16 .11 .11 Mgr Nervousness -.06 .11 -.04 -.03 .11 -.02 Mgr Anger -.20* .10 -.14 -.24* .10 -.17 Mgr Type 1 EI -.12 .07 -.12 -.11 .08 -.11 Mgr Type 2 EI -.11+ .07 -.13 .03 .13 .03 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .09 .07 .11 .06 .16 .07 Mgr Inexpressiveness .01 .05 .02 -.31 .23 -.39 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .01 .04 .06 Manager Dummy*Type 2 EI .29** .10 .47 Mgr Use of HumorType 2 EI -.07* .03 -.39 Mgr 1 EE Him/herself - 02 .16 -.01 -.03 .16 -.01 Mgr Charisma 27** .07 .24 .28** .07 .25 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm - 01 .06 -.01 -.03 .12 -.03 Mgr Calmness 04 .06 .04 .03 .06 .03 Mgr Sadness 06 .09 .04 .07 .09 .05 Mgr Nervousness 05 .08 .04 .01 .08 .01 Mgr Anger - 20** .08 -.16 -.20* .08 -.15 Mgr Type 1 EI - 12* .06 -.14 .21 .14 .24 Mgr Type 2 EI - 06 .05 -.09 -.39** .13 -.51 Mgr Emotional Authenticity 06 .05 .08 .27* .12 .35 Mgr Inexpressiveness 08+ .04 .11 .38* .15 .55 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.05* .03 -.37 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.10* .05 -.39 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .10* .04 .46 A Adjusted R2 .06 .02 Model Adjusted R2 .34 .36 F 11.29** 1.25** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.28

M3 OS Table 31. Regression Analyses for Organizational Commitment Controlling for Manager Charisma (Including Humor) (df=253) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB fi B SEB 8 Org A Dummy Variable .20 .40 .10 .17 .40 .09 Org B Dummy Variable .83** .22 .21 .71** .23 .18 Org C Dummy Variable -.05 .14 -.02 -.08 .14 -.03 Org D Dummy Variable .48* .23 .14 .42+ .24 .12 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .37 .38 .19 .35 .38 .18 Mgr Charisma .33** .07 .30 .28** .08 .25 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.01 .07 -.01 -.25 .17 -.24 Mgr Use of Humor .05 .03 .08 .24+ .12 .43 Mgr Calmness .04 .07 .04 .02 .07 .02 Mgr Sadness .03 .09 .02 .09 .09 .07 Mgr Nervousness .07 .09 .06 .00 .09 .00 Mgr Anger -.21** .08 -.17 -.22** .08 -.17 Mgr Type 1 EI -.10 .06 -.12 .20 .16 .23 Mgr Type 2 EI -.05 .06 -.07 -.39** .15 -.51 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .04 .06 .05 .16 .19 .21 Mgr Inexpressiveness .05 .04 .08 .24 .17 .35 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.03 .03 -.22 Mgr Humor*Authenticity -.03 .02 -.40 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.09+ .05 -.36 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .10* .04 .47 Mgr Enthusiasm* Authenticity .04 .02 .29 A Adjusted R2 .05 .02 Model Adjusted R2 .35 .37 F 9.64** 8.01** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.30 Table 32. Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions Controlling for Manager Charisma (Without Humor) (df=298) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable -.13 .32 -.04 -.04 .31 -.02 Org B Dummy Variable -.19 .34 -.03 -.17 .34 -.03 Org C Dummy Variable .55* .22 .18 .55* .22 .18 Org D Dummy Variable .57+ .33 .10 .59+ .32 .11 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself .00 .25 .00 -.05 .25 -.02 Mgr Charisma -.27** .10 -.17 -.34** .10 -.21 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .02 .10 .01 .01 .10 .01 Mgr Calmness -.11 .10 -.07 -.11 .10 -.08 Mgr Sadness -.26+ .14 -.13 -.25+ .14 -.12 Mgr Nervousness -.06 .13 -.03 -.01 .13 -.01 Mgr Anger .28* .12 .15 .24* .12 .13 Mgr Type 1 EI .23* .09 .18 .17+ .09 .14 Mgr Type 2 EI .04 .08 .03 .05 .08 .05 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.10 .08 -.09 -.63** .18 -.57 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.07 .06 -.07 -.78** .23 -.78 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .13** .04 .65 A Adjusted R2 .06 .03 Model Adjusted R2 .24 .27 F 7.44** 7.88** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. ]r=0.18

00 Table 33. Regression Analyses for Turnover Intentions Controlling for Manager Charisma (Including Humor) (df=252) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable .67 .65 .23 .65 .64 .22 Org B Dummy Variable -.22 .36 -.04 -.22 .35 -.04 Org C Dummy Variable .46+ .23 .13 .46* .23 .13 Org D Dummy Variable .70+ .37 .14 .70+ .37 .14 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself -.74 .62 -.26 -.71 .61 -.24 Mgr Charisma -.37** .12 -.22 -.44** .12 -.26 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm -.01 .11 -.01 .00 .11 .00 Mgr Use of Humor -.04 .05 -.05 -.05 .05 -.06 Mgr Calmness -.11 .11 -.07 -.11 .11 -.08 Mgr Sadness -.28+ .15 -.14 -.27+ .15 -.14 Mgr Nervousness -.07 .15 -.04 .00 .14 .00 Mgr Anger .26* .13 .14 .23+ .13 .12 Mgr Type 1 EI .21* .10 .17 .14 .10 .11 Mgr Type 2 EI .04 .09 .03 .04 .09 .04 Mgr Emotional Authenticity -.06 .09 -.05 -.64** .21 -.57 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.05 .07 -.04 -.82** .27 -.80 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity 1/1** fK £Q A Adjusted R2 .04 .03 Model Adjusted R2 .24 .27 F 6.03** 6.40** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.20 Table 34. Regression Analyses for Procedural Fairness Judgments Controlling for Manager Charisma (df=240) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable -.66 .68 -.23 -.56 .64 -.19 Org B Dummy Variable .17 .34 .03 -.03 .32 -.01 Org C Dummy Variable -.32 .25 -.09 -.40+ .23 -.11 Org D Dummy Variable .43 .37 .08 .28 .35 .05 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself 1.15+ .65 .40 .94 .61 .33 Mgr Charisma .46** .12 .28 .35 .11 .21 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm .10 .11 .06 .01 .19 .00 Mgr Use of Humor .06 .05 .07 -.21+ .12 -.25 Mgr Calmness .07 .11 .05 .04 .10 .03 Mgr Sadness -.02 .15 -.01 .13 .14 .07 Mgr Nervousness .15 .14 .09 .04 .14 .02 Mgr Anger -.22+ .13 -.12 -.93** .29 -.50 Mgr Type 1 EI -.16 .10 -.12 .94** .25 .74 Mgr Type 2 EI -.06 .09 -.06 -.79** .22 -.69 Mgr Emotional Authenticity .08 .09 .07 .53** .20 .47 Mgr Inexpressiveness -.04 .07 -.04 .32 .27 .32 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity -.11* .04 -.54 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI -.36** .08 -.95 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 2 EI .23** .06 .70 Mgr Use of Humor*Inexpressiveness .08* .03 .42 Mgr Enthusiasm*Mgr Anger .26* .10 .43 A Adjusted R2 .06 .09 Model Adjusted R2 .30 .39 F 7.35** 8.30** p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.24 Table 35. Regression Analyses for Interactional Fairness Judgments Controlling for Manager Charisma (df=252) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB p B SEB p Org A Dummy Variable 01 .37 .00 04 .35 .02 Org B Dummy Variable 08 .21 .02 - 02 .20 -.01 Org C Dummy Variable - 23+ .14 -.08 - 25+ .13 -.09 Org D Dummy Variable 00 .22 .00 - 01 .20 .00 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself - 17 .36 -.08 - 23 .34 -.10 Mgr Charisma 41** .07 .32 34** .07 .26 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm - 11+ .06 -.09 - 19 .11 -.15 Mgr Use of Humor 14** .03 .21 48** .11 .76 Mgr Calmness 03 .06 .03 01 .06 .01 Mgr Sadness - 08 .09 -.06 - 02 .08 -.01 Mgr Nervousness 10 .08 .07 03 .08 .02 Mgr Anger - 18* .07 -.12 - 20** .07 -.14 Mgr Type 1 EI - 21** .06 -.21 33* .14 .33 Mgr Type 2 EI - 10+ .05 -.11 - 70** .13 -.80 Mgr Emotional Authenticity 14** .05 .16 48** .14 .56 Mgr Inexpressiveness - 02 .04 -.02 20 .15 .25 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity - 03 .03 -.20 Mgr Enthusiasm*Type 1 EI - 17** .04 -.58 1fl** f\A HA ivxgi xviuiiuaiabiu 1 y pc *z* -Cx 17 .Ul . /1 Mgr Use of Humor* Authenticity - 07** .02 -.65 A Adjusted R2 .20 .05 Model Adjusted R2 .58 .63 F 22.94** 22.43** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.38 Table 36. Regression Analyses for Relationship Quality with Manager Controlling for Manager Charisma (df=256) Variable Model 2: Main Effects Model 3: Main Effects + Interactions B SEB fi B SEB P Org A Dummy Variable - 05 .35 -.02 -.11 .34 -.05 Org B Dummy Variable 36 .22 .08 .28 .21 .06 Org C Dummy Variable - 09 .14 -.03 -.13 .14 -.05 Org D Dummy Variable 31 .23 .09 .24 .22 .07 S Manages > 1 EE Him/herself 16 .33 .07 .23 .32 .11 Mgr Charisma 37** .07 .30 .31** .07 .25 Mgr Expressed Enthusiasm - 10 .07 -.09 .01 .12 .01 Mgr Use of Humor 13** .03 .21 .56** .12 .93 Mgr Calmness 09 .07 .08 .06 .07 .06 Mgr Sadness 00 .09 .00 .02 .09 .01 Mgr Nervousness 16+ .09 .12 .15+ .09 .11 Mgr Anger - 08 .08 -.06 -.12 .08 -.09 Mgr Type 1 EI - 19** .06 -.20 .10 .15 .10 Mgr Type 2 EI - 03 .05 -.03 -.22 .14 -.26 Mgr Emotional Authenticity 19** .05 .23 .35* .15 .42 Mgr Inexpressiveness - 01 .04 -.02 -.15 .16 -.20 Inexpressiveness*Authenticity .03 .03 .19 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 1 EI -.10* .05 -.35 Mgr Enthusiasm* Type 2 EI .06 .04 .24 Mgr Use of Humor* Authenticity -.08** .02 -.88 A Adjusted R2 .17 .04 Model Adjusted R2 .48 .52 F 15.86** 14.68** + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; Model 1: Controls Adj. R2=0.31 103

Effects of Managers' Positive Affect as a Function of Subordinates' Regulatory Pride

To examine the potential of regulatory pride as a moderator of the effects of managers' positive affective expressions, participants were administered items from the

Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) (E. T. Higgins et al., 2001). Promotion pride was assessed via five items (a = 0.66) such as "How often have you accomplished things that got you 'psyched' to work even harder?", rated from 1 (never or seldom) to 3

(sometimes) to 5 (very often). The mean score on promotion pride in the sample was

4.06, with a standard deviation of 0.59. Prevention pride was assessed via three items (a

= 0.84). e.g. "Growing up, would you ever 'cross the line' by doing things that your parents would not tolerate?," rated as above and then reverse-coded. Prevention pride's mean in this sample was 3.73 with a standard deviation of 0.91. Previous literature has aligned a promotion focus with positive, high activation emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) and a prevention focus with positive, low activation emotions (e.g., calmness). Thus it was possible that any effects of managers' enthusiasm might particularly or even only emerge for those subordinates high in promotion pride, as those individuals' own emotional tendencies would match best. I calculated an interaction term between the promotion pride and manager enthusiasm variables and another between the prevention pride and manager calmness variables. I ran all outcome models adding the regulatory pride variables and related interactions. No significant moderation was found. Effects of managers' enthusiasm on employee outcomes did not depend on the employee's level of promotion pride; neither did effects of managers' calmness depend on the employee's level of prevention pride. 104

Chapter 5

Discussion

Overview

This dissertation was ambitious in its scope, designed that way for two reasons.

First, many of the ideas were without much precedent in existing organizational change

research, and I wanted to use this study to assess the general promise of this line of

research. As part of fulfilling the latter goal, the comprehensive design was aimed at

protecting against the possibility that I would not find any interesting significant effects

to discuss. The results instead present a different (and admittedly, preferred) type of

challenge. There are so many significant findings across different outcomes that it will

take much further theoretical and empirical work to be able to fully synthesize the current

analyses. One conclusion seems fairly safe to make though, and coming up with this

answer was the ultimate goal of this dissertation. Further inquiry into the influence of

dimensions of managers' emotional expressions on subordinate responses to change

looks to be a worthy enterprise, in terms of potential for contributions to both theory and practice.

Results Highlighted

Notable results are as follows. First, there was consistent evidence across models that managers' positive, high activation emotions may indeed have beneficial effects on

subordinates, but typically conditionally so, i.e., when those managers were not perceived as inappropriate or inauthentic overall in their emotional expressions (the models of helping behaviors were an exception to the conditional nature of the effects). The results regarding the use of humor are noteworthy as well. In debriefs, many managers who 105

participated in this study marveled at the inclusion of this measure. They said things like,

"at home, I can actually be really funny, but here at work right now, I'm usually just too

stressed out to even think about making jokes. This project and seeing my scores on

humor is a good reminder that I can lean on humor more to lighten the mood with my team sometimes." In interpreting the results involving humor, one must be cognizant of

content of the items in the measure, however. This scale does not measure attempts at humor. Rather, high scores on this scale reflect the successful (and therefore, appropriate) use of humor as a strategy to diffuse stress. Taking this into consideration, it becomes less surprising that no significant interactions were found between the humor variable and emotional inappropriateness. One would certainly not expect to find beneficial effects of inappropriate joking (i.e., those politically incorrect or contextually

insensitive). In hindsight, however, it seems that this measure of humor precluded an

adequate capture of the latter type of humor.

The significant interactions between humor and authenticity or inexpressiveness that were found in models of six outcome variables do stand out. They were mostly not as predicted. I believe this is because, once again, the interaction term between humor and authenticity did provide a precise test of the effects of genuine laughter resulting from a specific type of "authentic" humor. The interaction instead captured the successful use of humor (which may again fold authenticity into high scores on this measure to begin with) in conjunction with authenticity in all other types of emotional displays overall. The current results, along with Keltner and Bonanno's (1997) previous findings distinguishing correlates of genuine laughter from those of genuine smiling 106 suggest that future research ought to retest the hypothesis involving the interactive effect of managerial authenticity and humor on subordinate outcomes.

Despite not adequately testing the stated hypothesis, though, the current data and analyses do suggest another interesting finding: that humor may at times be most impactful for managers who are not perceived as authentic and/or expressive in their other emotional expressions overall. It seems that managers who cannot or will not be genuine and/or forthright with their subordinates in this way may be able to make up for these shortcomings through at least being funny. Anecdotally, we can all probably think of people in our lives that follow this pattern, those who are not particularly communicative about personal issues, especially when it comes to sharing emotions, but who garner our admiration and influence us anyway because they make us laugh.

There was also an interesting pattern of results in the interactions of managers' enthusiasm and Type 2 EI (being inappropriately low in overall emotional intensity) that were found in models of organizational commitment, sleep difficulties, procedural and interactional fairness, and manager relationship quality. A similar interaction between enthusiasm and inexpressiveness emerged in the model of general life satisfaction. These interactions were also not as predicted by H4. The nature of the interactions suggest that having a manager who is too stoic overall may be most problematic when the manager is not seen as enthusiastic specifically. Such a manager's subordinates may be particularly worried about what information she or he is not sharing with them.

The effects of emotional inappropriateness in content or intensity (Type 1 EI) were considerable, both in terms of main effects and interactions. These findings point to the importance of emotional intelligence as a leader, including being self-aware of one's 107 own emotions and being sensitive to the reactions one is receiving from others and the overall emotional display rules in the social environment within one's team. The current scale measuring this construct was broad intentionally as a starting point. The inappropriateness of discrete emotional expressions will likely vary dramatically across contexts (e.g., specific situations at work, organizational, industry, and national cultures, and perhaps even across genders).

While main effects of managers' emotional authenticity were found in models of four of the outcome variables, further support for the importance of this variable comes from the significant interactions with inexpressiveness. Tallying all these effects, the only outcome variable that did not show a significant benefit from authenticity in some form was helping behaviors.

The interactions between authenticity and inexpressiveness suggest an additional interesting pattern of effects related to emotional regulation strategies. Based on existing psychological literature, this dissertation had formally predicted only that managers' emotional suppression would be associated with worsened employee outcomes as compared to authentic emotional expressiveness. Managers participating in this study also expressed great interest in what would be found here. One comment heard repeatedly, from practitioners and scholars alike was, "what about the old 'fake it until you make it' strategy?". Prior literature did not set up any confident projections about how surface acting would play out as compared to suppression and authentic expression.

The current results, however, indicate that surface acting may be the worst emotional regulation strategy a manager could adopt, at the very least to the extent that the manager is not skilled enough at acting to go undetected by his or her subordinates. 108

With regard to the supplementary analyses, the following conclusions are supported. First, the mediation analyses suggest initial support of the overall arguments presented in the theoretical framework. Assessments of fairness and trust in management accounted for only part of the effects of managers' emotional expressions on outcomes.

Additionally, results do not suggest that effects of managers' emotional expressions are merely due to correlations with managers' cognitive risk/benefit assessments. Neither may all of the effects of managers' emotional expressions be captured by effects of managers' charisma.

Finally, while this dissertation was not focused on the role of managers' negative emotions, considerable significant effects were found, particularly for anger and secondarily for sadness. Managers' expressions of anger were related to worsened outcomes. Managers' expressions of sadness, by contrast, were related to enhanced subordinate outcomes. Note that this pattern of results seems to call for refinement to previous findings by Tiedens (2001), which argued for the opposite: benefits to leaders for expressing anger and negative consequences for expressing sadness. One potential way to make sense of the current results regarding managers' expressions of sadness is that this measure may have been tapping the construct of empathy in a way that was not part of Tiedens' experimental design.

Implications for Theory and Practice

The theoretical framework and related empirical findings thus far may make several contributions of both theoretical and practical value. To begin with, this perspective may advance the study of employee and team responses to workplace shocks such as organizational change through continuing to help shift scholarly focus toward the 109 crucial role of emotions in this context (e.g., Seo et al., 2007). Indeed, in doing so, the dissertation contributes to a recently burgeoning literature highlighting the influence of affect across a wide swath of organizational phenomena (see, for example, Brief &

Weiss, 2002; J. M. George & Brief, 1996; Seo et al., 2004; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky,

Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Even more specifically, though, this work implies that more theory in this growing area ought to attend to the important role that managers' emotional expressions, use of humor, social perceptions of those expressions, and emotional regulation strategies may play in shaping their subordinates' responses to uncertain and stressful work environments. The data alone make a valuable contribution to the literature, as well. Despite considerable theorizing in both popular and academic literatures and some qualitative work, we are still in need of much more quantitative evidence to support arguments involving leaders' needs for emotional intelligence.

There has been very little scholarly work to date on the topic of managers' use of humor in general, let alone the role of such a tool in the context of organizational change.

While at first pass, such a topic may seem frivolous, the results of this dissertation suggest otherwise. Particularly for those managers who are not authentically expressive, humor may be an important means of diffusing stress and connection and subtle communicating with subordinates. More theoretical development and empirical examination is needed to fully understand how and when humor works in the organizational change setting.

The dimensions of the perceived appropriateness and authenticity of managers' emotional expressions, in particular, are also still underexplored in the organizational literature, both theoretically and empirically. The numerous associated results in this 110 study underscore the need for us to build our understanding of dimensions beyond mere emotional content. The emotional labor literature (for a review see Morris & Feldman,

1996) has examined both explicit and implicit rules for the emotional expressions of workers such as flight attendants (Hochschild, 1983), bill collectors (Sutton, 1991), and customer service representatives (Wilk & Moynihan, 2005), as examples. Yet, managers' performance on the job may also be affected by how appropriate their emotional expressions are perceived to be. Meanwhile, the concept of "authentic leadership" has been introduced recently in the popular press by former Medtronic CEO and current Harvard Business School professor Bill George (2003), as well as in several theoretical models published in a recent issue of Leadership Quarterly (for the introduction to this special issue, see Avolio & Gardner, 2005). These theories tend to focus on authenticity in terms of a leader's values, though. This dissertation suggests that managers' emotional expressions are another important facet of authenticity.

Additionally, this dissertation contributes to our understanding of the antecedents of perceptions of justice, an area of work that is only now being fully explored as the consequences of justice assessments have been firmly established. Recent literature

(Barsky & Kaplan, 2007; van den Bos, 2003) has demonstrated that the content of one's own emotions (i.e., positive vs. negative) may shape one's judgments regarding procedural and interactional fairness. This study extends this finding to show that others' affect, and dimensions beyond mere valence of emotion, may also be influential in this regard.

In considering the broader contributions of my framework, I note that one of the major current debates in the trauma literature is whether a resilient response trajectory is Ill something that can be cultivated (Bonanno, 2005). In much of the literature, including at least one article within management circles (Judge et al., 1999), predictors of positive outcomes in this domain have been construed as stable individual differences. This dissertation presents a more interpersonal theory than has been previously advanced; suggesting that in addition to being driven by a trait, positive individual change-related outcomes may also result from natural social processes within work teams.

Supplementary analyses involving perceptions of managers' risk/benefit judgments may also be construed as new support and extension of the "risk as feelings" hypothesis (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001). This theoretical perspective posits that, more than being mere complements to cognitive assessments, emotional reactions may be distinct from cognitive assessments and, in those cases, play more of a causal role in determining behavior. In the current results, the majority of the outcome models did not even yield significant results for perceptions of managers' risk/benefit judgments. In eighty percent of the other models, the emotion variables mediated the effects of the cognitive ones, rather than the other way around. In the remaining model

(of procedural fairness), there were independent effects of cognitive and emotional variables, but the cognitive variables were never significant mediators of the emotional ones. In this general pattern's support of the "risk as feelings" perspective, it also suggests a new theoretical twist: not only may one's own feelings diverge from cognitive assessments and directly drive behavior but one's perceptions of important others' feelings may also do so.

This dissertation suggests several practical implications too. The many interactive effects found here warn against simple managerial prescriptions. 112

Unfortunately, we cannot simply instruct managers in change situations to just act happy and enthusiastic. The effects of displays of enthusiasm seem to depend heavily on whether managers are perceived as inappropriate and as authentic in their expressions overall. Neither may we read this dissertation and encourage all managers to go out and try to be funny. The evidence here rather implies that those managers who are naturally comfortable and skilled at using humor might want to keep that in mind in times of stress,

For those who already have the skill in their managerial toolbox, humor may be an effective tool for influencing subordinates.

The managers participating in this study were extremely interested in learning what emotional regulation strategy would emerge looking best. Certainly more work is needed, but the preliminary evidence suggests that at least those who are not convincing actors when they feign emotions should not attempt to do so. Artificially suppressing emotions does not seem to be the ideal strategy, either. Instead, managers' on the whole appear to be best served by expressing emotions, and being careful about doing so in a way that gives their subordinates the impression that those expressions reflect their genuine feelings. The best scenario to hope for here is that managers will authentically experience the appropriate and ideal emotions (e.g., positive ones, or, if negative, sadness) for influencing their teams favorably. Any attempts at strategic manipulation of emotion run the risk of being detected and therefore may not be as effective in the course of interpersonal processes as naturally occurring ones. For certain organizations that are going through radical change or are in industries marked by turbulence, it might make sense to explicitly select managers who are likely to naturally experience the right emotions (e.g., those high in hardiness and/or optimism) and who will have the required 113 emotional intelligence to know how and when it is appropriate to express such emotions.

Where that is not possible, a secondary option may be to teach managers the powerful emotional regulation tool of reappraisal. Using reappraisal, managers may be able to work on themselves when faced with tough circumstances and then authentically feel more positively and optimistically before expressing anything with their teams.

Emotional intelligence training more broadly may also be benefical, especially that customized for the organizational and/or industry culture.

Study Limitations

Like all others, this study has its limitations, and future work will have to verify certain assumptions made by this design. The most significant limitation of the current analyses is that they are based on cross-sectional survey data. I tried to get at least some longitudinal data to be able to examine pre- and post-change event levels of the outcome variables. I also wanted to get access to more objective measures of performance and turnover. I unfortunately found it extremely difficult to get access even to the data that I was able to obtain, however. My partners within the organizations tended to be too distracted by the change events themselves to help any more than they already were by giving me access to survey their people once. They were also fearful of taking up too much of their managers' and employees' time (with multiple, spaced out surveys, for example). Finally, they were very wary about sharing individual performance data out of privacy concerns. As a result, this study alone is limited in its ability to argue for the proposed causality. Still, the number of interactive effects observed help somewhat in arguing against reverse causality. It is difficult to reason that sleep difficulties would cause subordinates to perceive their managers as faking their emotional expressions more 114 so than they would cause subordinates to perceive their managers as suppressing their emotions, as just one example. It is also hard to argue that a common methods bias would account for such interaction effects. Nevertheless, my plan is that future field study designs will find ways to incorporate longitudinal data, and data supplied from outside surveys altogether. Experimental studies will be able to further ascertain the direction of causality as well.

The measures of the predictors used in the current analyses are also subordinates' individual-level perceptions of their managers. I make an assumption that these perceptions are correlated with a more objective reality outside the perceiver, but we know from previous social cognition literature that our impressions of others are subject to some bias. Subordinate perceptions of managers' emotional expressions and general emotional inappropriateness and authenticity may be interesting in their own right, but they may or may not always adequately represent the nature of the actual expressions of managers, which was the ultimate theoretical construct of interest. Future analysis of the current dataset will begin to address this issue. As part of this study, I did collect managers' self-reports regarding their emotional expressions, authenticity, and overall inexpressiveness. Though many managers are not particularly self-aware of what they are expressing or how others are experiencing them, self-reports may be combined with subordinate perceptions to create measures even closer to the intended constructs. I also have team members linked together so that in many cases I have data from multiple subordinates rating a single manager. Thus, team-level agreement in manager perceptions will be calculated and, if adequate agreement exists, used as another measure of the independent variables. Future studies altogether may employ non-survey-based 115

approaches to measuring the independent variables as well. Experimental designs using

trained actors in the role of managers could be used to better ensure levels of the

independent variables. Informal team meetings could be videotaped discreetly, and

managers' non-verbal expressions could be later coded for emotional content and

authenticity (the latter is a possibility at least for smiles), using the Facial Action Coding

System (Ekman, Friesen, & Hager, 2002). Such facial analysis might be interesting to

consider alongside managers' self-reports as well, particularly those around authenticity.

The current analyses indicate that faking emotions is not associated with good outcomes,

at least as long as the faking is detected by subordinates. However some managers who

report faking themselves may have been convincing actors and reaped benefits

accordingly. New designs will better illuminate the boundaries of this initial finding

regarding the feigning of emotions.

Another limitation of the current data is that, for many study participants, it

involved some degree of recall of overall patterns of managers' expressions. The

cognitive literature warns us that recall can be imperfect. This issue was hopefully

mitigated by the fact that only organizations that had gone through significant change

within the previous three months were accepted for participation in the study.

Additionally, one of the organizations supplying a relatively large portion of the overall

sample completed their surveys one to two weeks following a radical announcement of

change, so recall was less of an issue here. However, future field research might

attenuate this potential bias through involving a series of brief, but frequent surveys through the course of a change process. One idea is to have study participants carry a 116

PDA with them for a series of weeks to ensure that prompts for impression tallying and self-reporting are received and answered regularly.

A final limitation of this study is that the measures of managers' inappropriateness, authenticity, and inexpressiveness are worded to capture overall patterns across all types of emotional content. Discrete emotional expressions emitted by a manager, however, may vary in their levels of inappropriateness and authenticity

(even within the category of positive, high activation affect, e.g. in terms of smiling versus humor/laughter (Keltner & Bonanno, 1997) and within one type of emotional expression across very specific contexts (Bonanno et al., 2007). A manager might also keep certain emotions to himself altogether while being more expressive when it comes to other emotions. Future research would benefit from using more state-based measures of these variables, especially those that can be mapped to specific instances of emotional expression. Again, experimental designs will be useful in this regard.

Other Future Research

This dissertation suggests other future work besides that related to the current data's limitations too. Indeed, the existing dataset itself has the potential of testing several additional hypotheses. First, I would like to take advantage of the structure of this dataset to do some multi-level work assessing the extent to which the current hypotheses apply at the team-level of analysis. Many exposed to the current findings have also asked about gender differences. I have not yet examined gender differences systematically, but the dataset will enable me to test effects of both subordinate and manager gender. I imagine that manager gender, in particular, may be a significant moderator of the effects of managers' emotional expressions on subordinate outcomes. 117

For example, gender stereotypes research suggests that women aire expected to be more emotionally expressive (Plant, Hyde, Keltner, & Devine, 2000) and more emotionally intelligent (Petrides, Furnham, & Martin, 2004) than men, and additional research suggests that the stereotypes may be based in real differences (e.g., Brackett, Rivers,

Shiftman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). Due to these different expectations, it could be that female managers perceived as emotionally inappropriate, inauthentic, and inexpressive may be associated with worse employee change-related outcomes than male managers perceived the same way. One next step is to more fully develop theory of this and other potential forms of gender differences in these patterns and then to test related hypotheses.

There are several other types of moderating effects that I will be able to test with these data also. I have five organizations represented in this dataset, so at least an initial examination of organizational culture boundaries on these findings may be possible. One potential dimension of culture that I am interested in testing involves organizational-level regulatory pride. If analyses support the notion that regulatory pride exists at the organizational level, I will construct an aggregated measure at that level and be able to examine whether managers' positive, high activation emotions are associated with more beneficial subordinate outcomes within higher as compared to lower promotion-pride organizations. At the individual-level too, more analysis can be done on the potential moderating effect of regulatory pride. Thus far, only two-way interactions with managers' positive emotions were tested. Given the interactive effects found between managers' enthusiasm and their inappropriateness and authenticity, it is possible that three-way interactions involving regulatory pride may make sense. Further thought needs to be invested in developing hypotheses and then associated tests may be run. 118

Additionally I would like to think more about predictions involving interactive effects of the current predictors with charisma, risk/benefit perceptions, and whether or not the focal subordinate in analyses is also a manager of others him or herself. A significant number of subordinates included in this study were also managers of at least one employee themselves. It is possible that those with the experience of managing others themselves are differentially affected by these predictors. Contagion effects should hold regardless of level. However, perhaps embodying the manager role oneself may involve a greater internalization of the culturally traditional conceptions of professionalism. Another possibility is that subordinates at lower levels in the hierarchy may look to their managers' emotional expressions more urgently in attempts to reduce higher levels of uncertainty. Therefore, in comparison with subordinates at higher hierarchical levels, they may react more negatively when they perceive their managers to be artificially hiding their emotions. Three-way interactions may be constructed to examine the possibility that suppression varies in its effects as a function of the subordinate's level in the organization.

Results indicate a need for more attention to the effects of negative emotions, especially managers' expressions of anger and sadness. Such work should consider the conditions under which related effects should hold. For example, expressions of sadness

(potentially tapping the construct of empathy), may very well have stronger effects when the managers delivering them are perceived as authentic in their expressions. Likewise, managerial anger may be associated with worsened outcomes when it is considered inappropriate (e.g., a boss screaming at an unsuspecting employee out of stress), but 119 enhanced outcomes when it is considered appropriate (e.g., a boss being assertive in defending his team's value to a more senior executive proposing workforce reductions).

More theoretical work is also needed to help us synthesize what these findings tell us about why one interaction significantly predicts one outcome but not another.

Relatedly, future studies ought to be designed intentionally to further assess other meditational paths not measured here. For example, measures of perceived control and self-efficacy as well as more direct measures of trust should be employed to test the viability of these mechanisms explaining the relationships observed here. Measures of subordinates' own emotional experience should also be included in future research, ideally along with some of the other posited mediators, to assess the role of contagion in this story both absolutely and relatively. Using structural equation modeling instead of linear regression may be helpful here, to enable shared variance across the dependent variables and more natural path analysis.

Conclusion

Exploring the role of managers' affective expressions holds significant promise for deepening our understanding of subordinate responses to organizational change and other potentially traumatic work environments. Managers' positive, high activation emotions and their use of humor may be influential under certain conditions. The host of significant results found for the less commonly examined dimensions of emotional inappropriateness and authenticity underscore the need for us to more frequently and deeply consider dimensions beyond mere emotional content. Better understanding of emotional authenticity and inappropriateness, in terms of construct development and definition as well as antecedents and consequences, ought to be useful for expanding both 120 theory and practice. Finally, I hope this dissertation further encourages researchers interested in resilience across organizational behavior and psychology to think more about social drivers of resilient responses to potentially traumatic events, in addition to purely trait-based effects. 121

References

Adam, K., Tomeny, M., & Oswald, I. (1986). Physiological and psychological differences between good and poor sleepers. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 20(4), 301-316.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.

Anderson, C, & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362-1377.

Anderson, C, Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1054-1068.

Ashby, F., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529-550.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1), 19-36.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bottom Line: Humor as a Moderator of Leadership Style Effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 219-227.

Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(\), 87-99.

Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C, Barbaranelli, C, & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 258-269.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. 122

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.

Barsky, A. P., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: A quantative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286-295.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range of leadership: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Gardens.

Bauer, J. J., & Bonanno, G. A. (2001). I can, I do, I am: The narrative differentiation of self-efficacy and other self-evaluations while adapting to bereavement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 424-448.

Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M, & Green, S. G. (2006). Episodic processes in emotional labor: Perceptions of affective delivery and regulation strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1053-1065.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20-28.

Bonanno, G. A. (2005). Resilience in the face of potential trauma. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 135-138.

Bonanno, G. A., Colak, D. M., Keltner, D., Shiota, M. N., Papa, A., Noll, J. G., et al. (2007). Context matters: The benefits and costs of expressing positive emotion among survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Emotion, 7(4), 824-837.

Bonanno, G. A., Moskowitz, J. T., Papa, A., & Folkman, S. (2005). Resilience to loss in bereaved spouses, bereaved parents, and bereaved gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 827-845.

Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004). The importance of being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychological Science, 15(7), 482-487.

Bonanno, G. A., Rennicke, C, & Dekel, S. (2005). Self-enhancement among high- exposure survivors of the September 11th terrorist attack: Resilience or social maladjustment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 984-998.

Bonnet, M. H., & Arand, D. L. (1998). Heart rate variability in insomniacs and matched normal sleepers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60(5), 610-615. 123

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lemer, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(4), 780-795.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rother, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35,307-311.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.

Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66.

Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C, & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 397-409.

Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. (2004). Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors' organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 76-100.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189-208.

Brower, H. H., Schoorman, D. F., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250.

Burns, A. B., Brown, J. S., Sachs-Ericsson, N., Plant, E. A., Curtis, J. T., Fredrickson, B. L., et al. (2008). Upward spirals of positive emotion and coping: Replication, extension, and initial exploration of neurochemical substrates. Personality & Individual Differences, 44, 360-370.

Butler, E. A., & Egloff, B. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 5(1), 48-67.

Chartrand, T. L., Maddux, W. W., & Lakin, J. L. (2005). Beyond the perception-behavior link: The ubiquitous utility and motivational moderators of nonconscious mimicry. In The new unconscious (pp. 334-361). New York: Oxford University Press.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. 124

Depaulo, B. M, & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4th, pp. 3-40). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Dinges, D. F., Pack, F., Williams, K., Gillen, K. A., Powell, J. W., Ott, G. E., et al. (1997). Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4-5 hours per night. Sleep, 20(4), 267-277.

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736-748.

Ekman, P. (1992). Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions. Psychological Science, 3(1), 34-38.

Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology: II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 342-353.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1982). Felt, false, and miserable smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6(4), 238-258.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial Action Coding System: The Manual (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City, UT: A Human Face.

Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1055-1067.

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making(l3), 1-17.

Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend Me Your Wallets: The Effect of Charismatic Leadership on External Support for an Organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 309-330.

Frank, M. G., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1993). Behavioral markers and recognizability of the smile of enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(\), 83-93.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. E. (2002). Positive Emotions Trigger Upward Spirals Toward Emotional Well-Being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172-175. 125

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686.

Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C, & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237-258.

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(2), 365-376.

Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,1001-1013.

George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling Good Doing Good: a Conceptual Analysis of the Mood at Work Organizational Spontaneity Relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 75-109). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

Gomez, C, & Rosen, B. (2001). The Leader-Member Exchange as a Link between Managerial Trust and Employee Empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 53-69.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is "service with a smile" enough? - Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(\), 38- 55.

Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing Sleep Over Organizational Injustice: Attenuating Insomniac Reactions to Underpayment Inequity With Supervisory Training in Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 58-69. 126

Gross, J. J., & John, 0. P. (2003a, 9/03). Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~psyphy/erq_final.pdf

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003b). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.

Gump, B. B., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Stress, Affiliation, and Emotional Contagion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 305-319.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16(2), 250- 279.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambrige University Press.

Henman, L. D. (2001). Humor as a coping mechanism: Lessons from POWs. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 83-94.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are all smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 58-73.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.

Hess, U., Adams, J., Reginald B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Who may frown and who should smile? Dominance, affiliation, and the display of happiness and anger. Cognition & Emotion, 19(4), 515-536.

Hess, U., Philippot, P., & Blairy, S. (1999). Mimicry: Facts and fiction. In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman & E. J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 213-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280- 1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93-136). New York: Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C, Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3- 23. 127

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. The American Journal of Sociology, ^5(3), 551-575.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: the commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122- 1131.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257-268.

Judge, T. A., & Hies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: a study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661-673.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Hies, R. (2006). Hostility, Job Attitudes, and Workplace Deviance: Test of a Multilevel Model. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 91(1) Jan 2006, 126-138.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: a dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107-122.

Keltner, D., & Bonanno, G. A. (1997). A study of laughter and dissociation: Distinct correlates of laughter and smiling during bereavement. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73, 687-702.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.

Kernan, M. C, & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916-928.

Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334-339.

Levenson, R. W., & Ruef, A. M. (1997). Physiological aspects of emotional knowledge and rapport. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 44-72). New York: Guilford Press.

Levine, D. W., Kaplan, R. M., Kripke, D. F., Bowen, D. J., Naughton, M. J., & Shumaker, S. A. (2003). Factor Structure and Measurement invariance of the Women's Health Initiative Insomnia Rating Scale. Psychological Assessment, 15(2), 123-136. 128

Liden, R. C, & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation - a 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.

Maas, J. B. (1998). Power Sleep : The Revolutionary Program That Prepares Your Mind for Peak Performance. New York: Villard.

Montgomery, A. J., Panagopolou, E., de Wildt, M., & Meenks, E. (2006). Work-family interference, emotional labor and burnout. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(1), 36-51.

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

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Papa, A., & Bonanno, G. A. (2008). Smiling in the face of adversity: The interpersonal and intrapersonal functions of smiling. Emotion, 8(1), 1-12.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.

Petrides, K., Furnham, A., & Martin, G. (2004). Estimates of Emotional and Psychometric Intelligence: Evidence for Gender-Based Stereotypes. Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2), 149-162.

Philibert, I. (2005). Sleep loss and performance in residents and nonphysicians: A meta- analytic examination. Sleep, 28(11), 1392-1402.

Plant, E., Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G. (2000). The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 81-92.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142 129

Provine, R. R. (1992). Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 1-4.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of Emotion in Organizational Life. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 1 -42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154-1162.

Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework: Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions. Journal of Management, 32(2), 299-322.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). Social information-processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.

Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002). Protestant relational ideology and (in)attention to relational cues in work settings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 919- 929.

Sanchez-Burks, J. (2005). Protestant relational ideology: The cognitive underpinnings and organizational implications of an american anomaly. In R. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 267-308). New York: JAI Press.

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 296-303.

Seo, M. G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy Of Management Review, 29(3), 423-439.

Seo, M. G., Taylor, M. S., & Hill, N. S. (2007). The role of affect and leadership during radical organizational change. In G. T. Solomon (Ed.), Best Paper Proceedings of the Sixty-Sixth Meeting of the Academy of Management.

Spreitzer, G., & Mishra, A. K. (2002). To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 707-729. 130

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.

Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. (2007). What's so funny about not having money? The effects of power on laughter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(11), 1547-1558.

Sutton, R. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 245-268.

Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305.

Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64(A), 873-898.

Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55(1), 99-109.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 914-945.

Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 86-94.

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320-333. van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 482-498.

Vandenberghe, C, Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64( 1), 47-71.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Walker, M., & Stickgold, R. (2006). Sleep, Memory, and Plasticity. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 139-166. 131

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.

Warren, J. E., Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Wiland, J., Dresner, M. A., Wise, R. J. S., et al. (2006). Positive Emotions Preferentially Engage an Auditory-Motor "Mirror" System The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(50), 13067-13075.

Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34(4), 406-422.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999, 8/99). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Expanded Form. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from University of Iowa, Department of Psychology Web site: www.psvchologv.uiowa.edu/facultv/watson/watson.html

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.

Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner's Press.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Brockner, J., & Martin, C. (1999). A self-affirmation analysis of survivors' reactions to unfair organizational downsizings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(5), 441-460.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Brockner, J., Petzall, B., Wolf, R., & Bailey, J. (2001). Stress and coping among layoff survivors: A self-affirmation analysis. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An International Journal, 14(1), 15-34.

Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display Rule "Regulators": The Relationship Between Supervisors and Worker Emotional Exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 90(5) Sep 2005, 917-927.

Yoo, S., Gujar, N., Hu, P., Jolesz, F., & Walker, M. (2007). A deficit in the ability to form new human memories without sleep. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 385-392.

Zammunier, V., & Galli, C. (2005). Wellbeing: Causes and consequences of emotion regulation in work settings. International Review of Psychiatry, 17(5), 355-364. 132

Appendix A

Sample Initial E-mail to Contacts at Targeted Organizations

Dear Mr. XXXX,

I am a researcher at Columbia Business School. I heard about the sale of XXX to XXXX, and I am writing to invite your team to participate in a study that Professor Joel Brockner and I are conducting on organizational change. As an HBS alum, I thought you might be particularly interested in participating. We are focusing on organizations in which a significant change has occurred or been announced within the past 3 months (e.g., reorganization/restructuring, announcement of a major sale of equity, merger/acquisition, strategic shift, new senior leadership, etc.).

What We Are Asking of You & Your Team:

• A small amount of time completing confidential online survey questions - no more than 15 minutes for team leaders; no more than 20-30 minutes for direct reports

What's In It for You:

• Reports on your team(s) survey results. These reports may be useful for both getting a gauge on a team or unit's present state, as well as informing the management of similar situations in the future. They will offer an early warning system for identifying current challenges related to the change process, of which you may not already be aware. They can also confirm things that you anticipate are going well. • A report on the overall research findings, across numerous teams and organizations. We have just begun reaching out to eligible teams but have already secured a C-level sponsor from a Fortune 500 internet company, amongst others. • Confidentiality: For our research purposes, we will be analyzing the data in aggregate. Your survey responses will be kept completely confidential, and any information derived from the study that could in any way lead to your personal identification (as a person, as a team, or as a company) will not be disclosed. Confidentiality is something that we, as researchers, take very seriously. • Of course, in addition to the above, we also hope you will enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping to advance management science. • Our aim is to make this project a win-win for everyone involved - you'll get useful information based on Columbia analyses & total confidentiality, and we'll get aggregated data to analyze for our research program.

Our Purpose in This Research:

• To date, most research has focused only on formal management practices and communications in the management of change. The current study aims to expand the view on the potential for leaders' positive influence on employee responses to workplace change, focusing more on what managers communicate in the day-to-day, informally and even nonverbally. • Once data collection is complete across all participating teams & companies, we will be writing up empirical results, based on aggregated data, for eventual publication in an academic journal. We are not writing up case studies for use in popular press outlets; any presentation of data you help produce will disguise your identity. If for any currently unanticipated reason we would want to draw on your team or organization's responses as a specific example, we would come back to you to ask for express permission. I hope you will consider getting your team involved. I'd certainly be happy to answer any questions you might have about participation.

Thanks very much.

Best regards,

Rachael Wells

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD IRB#: AAAC4913 Approval Date: 03/24/07 IRB Initials: j/CB Expiration Date: 03/23/08 134

Appendix B

Original Scale: Employee Perceptions of the Appropriateness of Managers' Emotional Displays

"Considering these feelings and emotions your manager has been expressing since the current workplace change situation was announced, to what extent would you agree with the statements below. Please don't think too long or hard about the answers you provide; we are interested in your automatic reactions to this question. Use the following scale to record your answers."

12 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Neither agree Strongly Disagree nor disagree agree

In light of the context, my supervisor has expressed exactly the right

sentiments. (Reverse-coded; Tl EI: Inappropriateness in Content/High

Intensity)

My manager has had the tendency of expressing more intense emotions than

the situation really called for. (Tl EI: Inappropriateness in Content/High

Intensity)

My manager has shown a lack of awareness about when it's appropriate to

express certain emotions and when it's not. (Tl EI: Inappropriateness in

Content/High Intensity)

My manager has erred on the side of being not emotionally expressive

enough, at times when the situation called for more emotion. (T2 EI:

Inappropriateness in Low Intensity)

My manager really ought to have expressed stronger emotions about what's

going on. (T2 EI: Inappropriateness in Low Intensity)