A Diary Investigation of Daily Emotions, Emotional Display, and Leaders’ Authenticity in a Cohort of City Traffic Police
ISBN: 978-1-83867-202-7, eISBN: 978-1-83867-201-0
ISSN: 1746-9791
Publication date: 26 August 2019
Abstract
Keywords
Citation
Asadullah, M.A., Abdullah, U. and Siddiquei, A. (2019), "A Diary Investigation of Daily Emotions, Emotional Display, and Leaders’ Authenticity in a Cohort of City Traffic Police", Emotions and Leadership (Research on Emotion in Organizations, Vol. 15), Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120190000015002
Download as .RISPublisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019 Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
The “manufactured” display of emotions is inherent within the role of leadership. There are often emotionally charged situations in the workplace which require leaders to hide their toxic emotions. Whether it is the performance crisis within organization, failure feedback to subordinate, or the heated debate between the leader and subordinates, leaders often pretend a certain level of calmness and patience at the workplace. Such leaders are often forced to suppress their actual emotions and express socially desirable emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). In such situations, leaders are highly likely to experience emotional labor (Dasborough, 2006; Ladkin & Taylor, 2009). Emotional labor is an emotion regulation skill to adjust one’s emotional reactions (van Gelderen, Konijn, & Bakker, 2011), either by suppressing or by displaying them, or to exhibit professionalism during the leader-to-subordinate (leader-to-organization) interactions (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Hochschild, 1983). Emotional labor requires a leader to induce or suppress feelings to sustain an outward expression that produces the proper state of mind in subordinates.
Although the role of a leader requires strong authenticity to carry the organizational affairs, yet the emotional labor remains inherent within the role of leadership as leader’s regulation of emotion at the workplace poses continuous threat to the subordinates’ perception of a leader’s authenticity (Gardner, Fischer, & Hunt, 2009). Since, authenticity is the consistency between leader’s internal experiences and external expressions (Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, & Settles, 2009, p. 151), the leaders’ manufacturing and/or suppressing their real heartfelt emotions may be perceived inauthentic by themselves and by their subordinates. Particularly, the followers may consider such emotions as artificial and hence perceive the leader as insincere or inauthentic. Hence, the question that still remains unaddressed in the literature on authenticity is whether a leader displaying fake emotions or suppressing their actual emotions, despite their actual positive or negative emotional states, may still be perceived as authentic by the leaders themselves and by their subordinates. Unfortunately, the existing research has not addressed this question adequately and the need for more empirical investigation to address this research question still persists. Particularly, the studies focusing on affective states and emotional labor in conjunction with the leader’s authenticity from the perspective of both the leader as well as the followers are lacking in the literature on emotions and the leadership.
This study has contributed to the existing research on emotions, emotional labor, and leadership authenticity in different ways. First, in the current study, we have examined the role of positive and negative emotions in three distinct forms of emotional displays/labor which employees experience while performing their jobs. Second, this study has examined how the leaders themselves evaluate their authenticity in response to their emotional displays. Similarly, we have also examined the role of these emotional displays of the leaders in the authenticity perceptions of their followers. Overall, this study has contributed to the existing research on leadership authenticity (Grandey et al., 2012) by explaining how emotional labor (surface-acting, deep-acting, and genuine emotional displays) experienced by a leader, resulting from the emotions (positive and negative) experienced by leaders during the job, threaten the authenticity perceptions of the leader’s themselves as well as the authenticity perceptions of their followers. This will help to understand the extent to which leaders can “manufacture” or “manage” their emotional display without undermining their authenticity. While Gardner et al. (2009) made the first step by extending theoretical propositions, this study carries forward their framework by testing these propositions within the real-world organizational setting of policing service. The experience and display of emotions in service settings, such as police, are essential. Police officers need to interact with the public and deal with crisis situations without losing temper and control. This provides an excellent context to understand the limitations to engage in emotional without building the perception of inauthenticity.
Hypothetical Framework
Emotions and Emotional Labor
Emotions, representing an affective state of an individual distinguished from moods, are intense but short-lived mental reactions to an event or object (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Frijda, 1993) which can be categorized as positive and negative but having multiple typologies (e.g., love, joy, fear, and anger). While interacting with the employees, customers, and the public, the organizational leaders are required to regulate their frequently experienced affective states involving positive and negative emotions to abide by the emotional display norms of the organization (George, 2000). This regulation of emotions under emotionally taxing situations refers to emotional labor which may either require the leaders to suppress their actual emotions and/or to display fake emotions (Grandey, 2000). The literature on emotional labor has distinguished among three different forms of emotion regulation which include surface-acting (leader display of emotions that are appropriate for the situation but are not felt actually), deep-acting (leader trying to experience the emotions required by the situation), and genuine display of emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Since genuine-acting does not involve emotional regulation, it is normally not considered as a form of emotional labor rather represents a neutral affective state of an individual not involving faking or suppressing emotions.
This study hypothesized that different affective states involving negative emotions lead organizational leaders toward experience emotional labor (surface-acting and deep-acting) while positive emotions trigger genuine emotional displays. Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) about the emergence and expression of emotions within individuals explains that specific job events trigger affective responses in individuals which subsequently influence their job attitude and behaviors including emotional labor. Similarly, the cognitive–motivational–relational (CMR) theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991) also explains that cognitive evaluation of different positive and negative emotional states leads employees toward emotional labor (Lee & Chelladurai, 2018). The organizational leaders are highly likely to evaluate their positive affective states according to the organizational norms and may feel lesser need to regulate their emotions by either faking or suppressing them. Hence, positive emotions will lead them to genuinely display their emotions. However, the organizational leaders are highly likely to evaluate their negative emotions contrary to the organizationally desired display norms. Consequently, they are highly likely to regulate their emotions either by suppressing or by faking their emotions. Thus, negative emotions may lead them toward surface-acting or deep-acting. For instance, team conflict (a negative affective event) causing frustration and anger (negative emotions) may require a leader to express calmness and focus on solutions rather than expressing what he/she is feeling? Similarly, in the context of policing service, the effective management of traffic by a junior police officer during rush hours (a positive affective event) causes positive emotions (e.g., happiness) in a leader (senior police officer). In this situation, the leader is highly likely to use genuine-acting as an emotion regulation strategy because the display of positive situations may not require emotional labor. In sum, this research has supported the view that the organizational leaders are likely to experience emotional labor in the form of surface-acting or deep-acting when they experience negative emotions while they act genuinely in case of positive affective events (Gardner et al., 2009; Grandey, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Based on the above arguments, it is hypothesized that:
Leader’s emotions are positively associated with emotional labor such that:
Negative emotions are positively associated with leader’s emotional labor in the form of surface-acting.
Negative emotions are positively associated with leader’s emotional labor in the form of deep-acting.
Positive emotions are positively associated with leader’s emotional labor in the form of genuine-acting.
Emotional Displays and Leader’s Authenticity
Authenticity is a social virtue (Nicholson & Carroll, 2013) that represents the consistency between one’s external expressions and internal psychological experiences (Roberts et al., 2009). Previous literature has shown positive consequences of leadership authenticity like psychological well-being (Ménard & Brunet, 2011). Despite the call for identification of factors that foster authenticity at the workplace (e.g., Reis, Trullen, & Story, 2016), there are still limited studies investigating ‘how organizational leaders can foster authentic behaviors at the workplace (Gardner et al. 2009; Roberts et al., 2009). In order to contribute in this line of inquiry, this study tested the effect of three different forms of emotional labor on the authenticity perceptions of the leaders themselves and their followers. within the context of emotionally charged situations. Particularly, following some previous researches (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Gardner et al. 2009; Grandey, 2003; Humphrey, Ashforth, & Diefendorff, 2015), we tested a negative association between surface-acting authenticity perceived by the leaders themselves and their followers and a positive association of deep-acting and genuine-acting with leaders’ self-perceived authenticity and followers’ perceived authenticity. This study tested these hypotheses in the context of a public sector policing service organization.
Emotional Labor and Leader’s Self-perceived Authenticity
We used self-discrepancy theory to develop the link between leaders’ emotional labor and their self-perceived authenticity. The self-discrepancy theory explains that the individuals, who compare their current “actual selves” with their “ideal selves,” may experience psychological discrepancy between their actual self and the ideal self that may lead them psychological discomfort. Based on self-discrepancy theory, we posit that when involved in emotionally taxing situations requiring some emotional labor, the leaders may compare their “actual selves” with their “ideal selves” relevant to the authenticity and may perceive a psychological discrepancy required for them to be an authentic leader. Consequently, psychological discrepancy could positively or negatively affect their self-perceived authenticity perceptions.
Our argument is that the level of a leader’s self-perceived authenticity is based on psychological discrepancy resulting from the type of emotional labor experienced by the leader. For instance, surface-acting involves faking or hiding actual feelings to deceive others through verbal (voice tone) and non-verbal (facial expressions, gestures) expressions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2000, 2003, 2012; Hochschild, 1983). Thus, surface-acting results in greater discrepancy between the emotions experienced by the leader and the emotions exhibited by the leader to comply with organizational display rules. Thus, the leader’s self-perceived authenticity in case of surface-acting will be low. Based on these arguments, Gardner’s propositions and some previous studies (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Shulei & Miner, 2006) demonstrating a negative association between surface-acting and self-perceived authenticity, we hypothesized that surface-acting is negatively associated with leader’s self-perceived authenticity. However, the psychological discrepancy will be in-existent in case of genuine emotions displayed by a leader. Thus, we hypothesized that genuine emotions will be positively associated with leader’s self-perceived authenticity. The deep-acting requires a leader to deceive himself by modifying feelings to match them with organizational display rules (Grandey, 2000, 2003; Grandey, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012; Hoschild, 1983). Since, deep-acting facilitates an individual in matching one’s feelings with display rules, the discrepancy between displayed and the required emotional display is likely to be low. However, a leaders’ psychological discrepancy between “actual” and the “ideal” self is likely to be low as the leader is suppressing personal emotions in a good faith and to comply with organizational display rules. For instance, a traffic police officer may suppress the feelings of empathy and concern toward a civilian whose car is damaged in a severe accident to stay neutral as expected from a policing official. Thus, we argue that deep-acting will be positively associated with a leader’s self-perceived authenticity(Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Shulei & Miner, 2006) because, as compared to surface-acting, deep-acting is more effective in producing favorable impressions within target audiences (e.g., Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Green, 2006; Shulei & Miner, 2006) and develops positive impressions among the followers about them (Gardner et al., 2009). Based on the above discussion, we also hypothesized that:
Emotional labor is associated with leader’s self-perceived authenticity such that:
Surface-acting by a leader is negatively related to leader felt authenticity.
Deep-acting by a leader is positively related to leader felt authenticity.
Genuine emotional displays by a leader are positively related to leader felt authenticity.
Emotional Labor and Follower’s Perceived Authenticity
Third hypothesis of the current study aimed at testing the association between three distinct forms of leader’s emotional display and the followers’ perception of leader’s authenticity. We sought theoretical support for this hypothesis from attribution theory (Heider, 2013) that deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for the events. Since attribution theory explains how individuals try to understand the causes and consequences of daily events they experience, we can utilize attribution theory to explain the relationship between emotional display and follower’s perceived authenticity of leader.
We contend that surface-acting is negatively associated with leaders’ authenticity perceived by the followers. Surface-acting requires leaders to modify their emotional display without changing their feelings (Grandey, 2003) which represents “faking in bad faith” (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989, p. 32). The followers interacting with the leaders may interpret it emotional manipulation which has been reported to negatively affect the leader–follower relationship (Lin, Mainemelis, & Kark, 2016). The followers are also highly likely to attribute this contradiction in emotional display to the hypocritic and deliberate violation of values (Kipfelsberger & Kark, 2018). Since people do not like faking which requires (Humphrey et al., 2015), the followers are less likely to perceive their leaders authentic. However, we hypothesized a positive association between deep-acting and leaders’ authenticity perceived by the followers. Although deep-acting also involves faking emotions (Grandey, 2003), yet it is perceived as “faking in good faith” (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989, p. 32) because it involves deceiving oneself not the others (Grandey et al., 2012; Hoschild, 1983). Yet the followers are highly likely to perceive deep-acting in accordance with the organizational display norms because they observe their leaders attempting to comply with the organizational display norms despite in case of deep-acting. This is also because deep-acting requires less monitoring of words, tone and facial expressions and depletion of resources as compared to the surface-acting (Humphrey et al., 2015). Thus, the followers are highly likely to attribute leaders’ authenticity to their emotional display in the form of deep-acting. However, genuine-acting does not involve any kind of emotional faking neither in good faith nor in bad faith. Thus, the followers are more likely to attribute leaders’ authenticity to genuine display of emotions by the leader and they are highly likely to perceive their leaders authentic. The existing research has also shown that genuine-acting has positive effects for the employees (Humphrey et al., 2015). Thus, we hypothesized a negative association between surface-acting and leaders’ authenticity perceived by the followers and a positive association of deep-acting and genuine-acting with leaders’ authenticity perceived by the followers (Fig. 1).
There is a positive association between three forms of emotional labor and followers’ perceptions of leaders’ authenticity such that:
Surface-acting by a leader is negatively related to follower perception of leader authenticity.
Deep-acting by a leader is positively related to follower perception of leader authenticity.
Genuine emotional displays by a leader are positively related to follower perception of leader authenticity.
Method
Context
Although effective leadership practices increase commitment in policing officials, yet such practices have not been sufficiently adapted by law enforcement agencies (Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008). This calls for developing leadership skills in the policing officials (Flynn & Herrington, 2015) to serve as a leader “with all the answers” (Flynn & Herrington, 2015). The conflicting job demands of “professional” vs “community-oriented” policing require them to enforce law and order by becoming authoritative and commanding (Ransley & Mazerolle, 2009; Sklansky, 2013) as well as remaining respectful, empathetic, and comforting to the citizens and the colleague of police officials (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). This “professional” vs “community-oriented” policing dichotomy poses challenge for policing service in developing nations (Davis, Henderson & Merrick, 2010) to identify new mechanisms of policing (Ranseley & Mozerolle, 2009). This paradoxical context of policing service (Casey & Mitchell, 2007) exposes policing officials to emotional labor that requires essential leadership skills (Meaklim & Sims, 2011) to leave a favorable impression on public during public–service interactions (Lu & Guy, 2014). Unfortunately, policing officials remain confused about which set of moral behaviors need to be displayed due to the conflicting roles (Hunt et al., 1983; Kelling & Pate, 1973) and they continue experience a significant level of emotional labor to comply with organizational display rules by suppressing, hiding, or faking their emotions (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Humphrey et al., 2008). Since the policing officials must deal with emotionally taxing situations in the policing context (van Gelderen et al., 2011), we contend that investigating the effect of emotional labor experienced by policing officials on authenticity perceptions of both the leader himself and their followers can provide useful insights because authenticity has positive effect on followers performing in vibrant situations (Peterson, Walumbwa, Avolio, & Hannah, 2012).
Design and Procedure
Diary study method is an experience sampling method that facilitates researchers in capturing the events, moods, reflections, or interactions near the time (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). This study used diary method to collect data in the form of repeated measures from traffic police wardens. This method allowed us to measure the constructs during the duty hours in natural settings (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). The diary study design is used to investigate the process of systematic change underlying the experience of an individual. We used diary study design to investigate the mechanism underlying the change within a person’s perception about the leadership authenticity. Diary study designs are divided into two categories, that is, time-based and event-based designs (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). This study employed time-based design as we wanted to capture the effect of variation in emotions and the emotional displays of the police officers on leadership authenticity.
The respondents were provided a diary containing a questionnaire guide and four copies of the questionnaire containing the items for positive and negative emotions and emotional labor. The respondents were trained about how and when to fill the questionnaires. One of the authors, serving the city traffic police Multan as a Senior Traffic Warden, pursued the participants telephonically to ensure the timely completion of the questionnaires. The list and schedule of traffic wardens’ duty was obtained from the traffic police department upon the formal approval of Regional Police Office (RPO) of Multan District. The data were collected from a cohort of 69 police officers (Senior Traffic Wardens). Further, 69 Junior Traffic Wardens provided ratings for authenticity about their supervisors/leaders (Senior Traffic Wardens). A total number of 600 traffic police officers are serving in a main city (Multan) situated in South of Punjab Province (Pakistan) in three different work shifts (first shift: from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., second shift: from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., and third shift: from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The response rate was 69% as 69 out of 100 requested senior traffic wardens returned the completed diaries. All the respondents have a minimum qualification of graduation as it is the minimum qualification criteria for the appointment of a traffic police officer in Pakistan.
The emotions of a respondent at the beginning of the shift and at the end of the shift could be different as the psychological strain at the start of a work shift positively affects the psychological strain at the end the work shift (van Gelderen, Konijn, & Bakker, 2017). Thus, we measured the emotions and emotional labor of the policing officials at two different times (after the start of the shift and before the end of the shift) in a day to capture the emotional variations. The respondents were requested to fill the questionnaire, provided in the form of a diary, at two times in a day over two consecutive days (i.e., Day 1: one hour after the start of shift (time 1) and one hour before the end of the shift (time 2); Day 2: one hour after the start of shift (time 3) and one hour before the end of the shift (time 4)). At the time of receiving the questionnaire (time 4), the police officials were required to provide ratings for their perceived authenticity. At the same time (time 4), one of the subordinate working in supervision of the police official was also requested to provide the ratings about the authenticity of their supervisors. Thus, at the time of receiving questionnaire, we received ratings about the authenticity of the leaders from the police officials (leader) as well as one of their subordinate (follower). The senior traffic wardens served as the leaders while junior traffic wardens working under the supervision of senior traffic wardens served as followers.
Measures
Positive and Negative Emotions
Positive and negative emotions of the respondents were measured using Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegan (1988). This scale contains 20 different words representing the feelings and emotions which are categorized either as positive or as negative emotions. The respondents were requested to provide the ratings on a five-point rating scale ranging from 1(very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely) with respect to their actual feelings during the job.
Emotional Labor
Following Diefendorff, Croyle, and Gosserand (2005), we measured emotional labor by combining the scales developed by Grandey (2003) and Kruml and Geddes (2000). This scale contained seven items for surface-acting, seven items for deep-acting, and four items for genuine-acting. Surface-acting was measured by combining five items of surface-acting developed by Grandey (2003) and two items of surface-acting developed by Kruml and Geddes (2000). Deep-acting was measured by combining three items developed by Grandey (2003) and four items developed by Kruml and Geddes (2000). Similarly, genuine-acting was measured by combining three items developed by Grandey (2003) and one item developed by Kruml and Geddes (2000). The sample items for surface-acting, deep-acting, and genuine-acting included the following: “I am putting on an act in order to deal with my subordinates in an appropriate way,” “I try to actually experience the emotions that I must show to citizens,” and “the emotions I am expressing are genuine.” The overall reliabilities of the scales across four times are given in Table 1:
Reliability Estimates (Cronbach α) of the Scales across Four Times.
| Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive emotions | 0.745 | 0.885 | 0.902 | 0.898 |
| Negative emotions | 0.945 | 0.951 | 0.962 | 0.958 |
| Surface-acting | 0.911 | 0.907 | 0.886 | 0.907 |
| Deep-acting | 0.782 | 0.842 | 0.790 | 0.840 |
| Genuine-acting | 0.840 | 0.846 | 0.827 | 0.829 |
| Leaders’ perceived authenticity | – | – | – | 0.898 |
| Followers’ perceived authenticity | – | – | – | 0.838 |
Leaders’ Perceived Authenticity and Followers’ Perceived Authenticity
This study used 16-item scale of Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) developed by Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) to measure Authentic Leadership (AL). This self-assessment questionnaire consists of four subdimensions: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. The scores obtained on this scale were aggregated. The responses were obtained on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The sample item is: “My morals guide what I do as a leader.” The same scale was adapted to measure leadership authenticity perceived by the follower. The sample item is: “The morals of my leader guide him what he does as a leader.”
Control Variables
We controlled for the effect of demographic characteristics of the leaders due to their potential effect on the dependent variables. These control variables included the following: gender, rank, experience, age, and education. The male respondents accounted for 84% of the total sample whereas female respondents accounted for 16% of the total sample. About 9% respondents held 18 years of qualification, 56% held 16 years of education, and 35% held 14 years of education. About 65% respondents had 7–10 years of experience; 12% had 10–15 years of experience; 10% respondents had 16–20 years of experience; and 9% of the respondents had 21–30 years of experience.
Results
Analytical Strategy and Descriptive Statistics
The data analysis procedure began with testing of basic assumptions, including normality, outlier analysis, multicollinearity, and reliability analysis. The descriptive statistics of the variables at four points in time are given in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Then, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis to determine the validity of the scales. In the next step, the researchers tested latent growth curve (LGC) model for each variable to examine variations in the variables at different points in time. LGC models belong to the family of random effect models (Hox, Moerbeek, & Van de Schoot, 2017) which are used to draw causal inferences from longitudinal data. Finally, we used conditional growth curve models for testing the hypotheses which contained independent variables as time-variant covariates and demographics (rank, age, education, experience, and experience under a current supervisor) as time-invariant covariates (Figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Model Fit Indices, Convergent Validity at Different Times.
| χ 2 | df | C min/df | IFI | TLI | CFI | RMR | RMSEA | P close | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET1 | 18.059 | 13 | 1.392 | 0.993 | 0.988 | 0.993 | 0.023 | 0.038 | 0.657 | 0.86 | 0.47 |
| PET2 | 12.149 | 13 | 0.935 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.665 | 0.88 | 0.51 |
| PET3 | 16.933 | 13 | 1.303 | 0.983 | 0.971 | 0.982 | 0.051 | 0.067 | 0.342 | 0.89 | 0.53 |
| PET4 | 16.842 | 13 | 1.296 | 0.981 | 0.968 | 0.980 | 0.047 | 0.066 | 0.347 | 0.86 | 0.47 |
| NET1 | 42.866 | 31 | 1.383 | 0.983 | 0.969 | 0.983 | 0.066 | 0.075 | 0.222 | 0.94 | 0.61 |
| NET2 | 46.852 | 32 | 1.464 | 0.979 | 0.963 | 0.978 | 0.067 | 0.083 | 0.153 | 0.94 | 0.60 |
| NET3 | 49.514 | 34 | 1.456 | 0.978 | 0.964 | 0.978 | 0.057 | 0.082 | 0.153 | 0.96 | 0.63 |
| NET4 | 56.45 | 37 | 1.526 | 0.975 | 0.961 | 0.974 | 0.044 | 0.088 | 0.10 | 0.96 | 0.68 |
| GAT1 | 8.020 | 5 | 1.604 | 0.982 | 0.963 | 0.982 | 0.038 | 0.094 | 0.232 | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| GAT2 | 4.140 | 5 | 0.828 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.027 | 0.00 | 0.621 | 0.85 | 0.55 |
| GAT3 | 3.965 | 3 | 1.322 | 0.994 | 0.979 | 0.994 | 0.031 | 0.069 | 0.373 | 0.83 | 0.51 |
| GAT4 | 5.080 | 3 | 1.693 | 0.986 | 0.951 | 0.985 | 0.041 | 0.101 | 0.227 | 0.81 | 0.48 |
| SAT1 | 19.065 | 12 | 1.589 | 0.977 | 0.958 | 0.976 | 0.056 | 0.093 | 0.177 | 0.91 | 0.59 |
| SAT2 | 14.537 | 11 | 1.332 | 0.988 | 0.977 | 0.988 | 0.042 | 0.069 | 0.333 | 0.89 | 0.55 |
| SAT3 | 11.054 | 10 | 1.105 | 0.995 | 0.990 | 0.995 | 0.038 | 0.039 | 0.492 | 0.86 | 0.47 |
| SAT4 | 13.269 | 12 | 1.106 | 0.995 | 0.991 | 0.995 | 0.045 | 0.039 | 0.502 | 0.89 | 0.53 |
| DAT1 | 2.208 | 2 | 1.104 | 0.997 | 0.991 | 0.997 | 0.039 | 0.039 | 0.391 | 0.78 | 0.48 |
| DAT2 | 0.310 | 2 | 0.155 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.877 | 0.84 | 0.57 |
| DAT3 | 1.073 | 1 | 1.073 | 0.999 | 0.994 | 0.999 | 0.025 | 0.033 | 0.340 | 0.75 | 0.47 |
| DAT4 | 2.764 | 2 | 1.382 | 0.993 | 0.979 | 0.993 | 0.029 | 0.079 | 0.305 | 0.82 | 0.55 |
| LPA | 46.135 | 35 | 1.318 | 0.976 | 0.960 | 0.975 | 0.058 | 0.068 | 0.277 | 0.92 | 0.51 |
| FPAL | 3.248 | 2 | 1.624 | 0.985 | 0.954 | 0.985 | 0.027 | 0.096 | 0.251 | 0.80 | 0.51 |
Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations at Time 1.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.16 | 0.379 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 2 | 2.49 | 0.797 | 0.029 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2.71 | 1.09 | 0.007 | 0.786** | 1 | |||||||||
| 4 | 1.65 | 1.01 | −0.007 | 0.853** | 0.926** | 1 | ||||||||
| 5 | 2.50 | 0.778 | −0.030 | 0.799** | 0.947** | 0.936** | 1 | |||||||
| 6 | 4.73 | 0.610 | 0.188 | −0.125 | −0.31** | −0.24* | −0.30* | 1 | ||||||
| 7 | 3.52 | 0.536 | −0.007 | 0.152 | 0.095 | 0.105 | 0.102 | −0.101 | 1 | |||||
| 8 | 2.23 | 0.969 | −0.038 | −0.202 | −0.151 | −0.189 | −0.128 | −0.052 | −0.792** | 1 | ||||
| 9 | 2.62 | 0.974 | −0.085 | −0.209 | −0.013 | −0.095 | −0.033 | −0.229 | −0.718** | 0.808** | 1 | |||
| 10 | 2.89 | 0.863 | −0.037 | −0.145 | 0.009 | 0.015 | −0.048 | −0.173 | 0.500** | −0.552** | −0.453** | 1 | ||
| 11 | 3.34 | 0.654 | 0.019 | 0.193 | 0.062 | 0.107 | 0.109 | 0.100 | 0.656** | −0.664** | −0.745** | 0.514** | 1 | |
| 12 | 3.42 | 0.639 | 0.079 | 0.298* | 0.316** | 0.356** | 0.326** | −0.113 | 0.657** | −0.740** | −0.649** | 0.477** | 0.588** | 1 |
| 13 | 3.39 | 0.471 | −0.036 | −0.041 | −0.017 | −0.094 | −0.093 | 0.159 | 0.117 | −0.014 | −0.041 | 0.107 | 0.050 | 0.02 |
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
1 = gender, 2 = rank, 3 = job experience, 4 = immediate supervisor, 5 = age group, 6 = education, 7 = positive emotions, 8 = negative emotions, 9 = surface-acting, 10 = deep-acting, 11 = genuine-acting, 12 = leaders’ self-perceived authenticity, and 13 = followers’ perceived authenticity of leader.
Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations at Time 2.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.16 | 0.369 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 2 | 2.49 | 0.797 | 0.029 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2.71 | 1.09 | 0.007 | 0.786** | 1 | |||||||||
| 4 | 1.65 | 1.01 | −0.007 | 0.853** | 0.926** | 1 | ||||||||
| 5 | 2.50 | 0.778 | −0.030 | 0.799** | 0.947** | 0.936** | 1 | |||||||
| 6 | 4.73 | 0.610 | 0.188 | −0.125 | −0.31** | −0.24* | −0.30* | 1 | ||||||
| 7 | 3.23 | 0.760 | −0.277* | 0.099 | 0.146 | 0.075 | 0.128 | −0.203 | 1 | |||||
| 8 | 2.22 | 0.954 | 0.288* | −0.239* | −0.271* | −0.265* | −0.255* | 0.066 | −0.485** | 1 | ||||
| 9 | 2.84 | 0.885 | 0.359** | −0.198 | −0.051 | −0.063 | −0.084 | −0.095 | −0.484** | 0.793** | 1 | |||
| 10 | 2.93 | 0.918 | −0.316** | 0.009 | 0.123 | 0.054 | 0.057 | −0.103 | 0.684*** | −0.679** | −0.613** | 1 | ||
| 11 | 3.31 | 0.675 | −0.321** | 0.142 | 0.097 | 0.041 | 0.106 | −0.004 | 0.623** | −0.629** | −0.733** | 0.666** | 1 | |
| 12 | 3.42 | 0.639 | 0.079 | 0.298* | 0.316** | 0.356** | 0.326** | −0.113 | −0.126 | −0.269* | −0.026 | −0.056 | 0.074 | 1 |
| 13 | 3.39 | 0.471 | −0.036 | −0.041 | −0.017 | −0.094 | −0.093 | 0.159 | 0.267* | −0.103 | −0.157 | 0.179 | 0.172 | 0.02 |
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
1 = gender, 2 = rank, 3 = job experience, 4 = immediate supervisor, 5 = age group, 6 = education, 7 = positive emotions, 8 = negative emotions, 9 = surface-acting, 10 = deep-acting, 11 = genuine-acting, 12 = leaders’ self-perceived authenticity, and 13 = followers’ perceived authenticity of leader.
Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations at Time 3.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.16 | 0.369 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 2 | 2.49 | 0.797 | 0.029 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2.71 | 1.09 | 0.007 | 0.786** | 1 | |||||||||
| 4 | 1.65 | 1.01 | −0.007 | 0.853** | 0.926** | 1 | ||||||||
| 5 | 2.50 | 0.778 | −0.030 | 0.799** | 0.947** | 0.936** | 1 | |||||||
| 6 | 4.73 | 0.610 | 0.188 | −0.125 | −0.31** | −0.24* | −0.30* | 1 | ||||||
| 7 | 3.65 | 0.767 | −0.124 | 0.010 | 0.097 | 0.087 | 0.074 | −0.016 | 1 | |||||
| 8 | 1.91 | 0.920 | 0.168 | −0.151 | −0.215 | −0.193 | −0.177 | −0.176 | −0.640** | 1 | ||||
| 9 | 2.57 | 0.849 | 0.144 | −0.119 | −0.048 | −0.051 | −0.052 | −0.228 | −0.644** | 0.735** | 1 | |||
| 10 | 3.38 | 0.841 | −0.178 | −0.037 | 0.163 | 0.074 | 0.088 | −0.051 | 0.712** | −0.722** | −0.622** | 1 | ||
| 11 | 3.58 | 0.612 | −0.102 | 0.120 | 0.075 | 0.054 | 0.128 | 0.046 | 0.490** | −0.593** | −0.546** | 0.653** | 1 | |
| 12 | 3.42 | 0.639 | 0.079 | 0.298* | 0.316** | 0.356** | 0.326** | −0.113 | −0.063 | −0.247* | −0.028 | 0.078 | 0.084 | 1 |
| 13 | 3.39 | 0.471 | −0.036 | −0.041 | −0.017 | −0.094 | −0.093 | 0.159 | 0.003 | −0.135 | −0.067 | 0.223 | 0.079 | 0.02 |
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
1 = gender, 2 = rank, 3 = job experience, 4 = immediate supervisor, 5 = age group, 6 = education, 7 = positive emotions, 8 = negative emotions, 9 = surface-acting, 10 = deep-acting, 11 = genuine-acting, 12 = leaders’ self-perceived authenticity, and 13 = followers’ perceived authenticity of leader.
Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations at Time 4.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.16 | 0.369 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 2 | 2.49 | 0.797 | 0.029 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2.71 | 1.09 | 0.007 | 0.786** | 1 | |||||||||
| 4 | 1.65 | 1.01 | −0.007 | 0.853** | 0.926** | 1 | ||||||||
| 5 | 2.50 | 0.778 | −0.030 | 0.799** | 0.947** | 0.936** | 1 | |||||||
| 6 | 4.73 | 0.610 | 0.188 | −0.125 | −0.31** | −0.24* | −0.30* | 1 | ||||||
| 7 | 3.38 | 0.802 | 0.085 | 0.221 | 0.306* | 0.244* | 0.252* | −0.043 | 1 | |||||
| 8 | 2.08 | 0.952 | 0.045 | −0.296* | −0.329** | −0.275* | −0.256* | −0.112 | −0.594** | 1 | ||||
| 9 | 2.72 | 0.884 | 0.073 | −0.200 | −0.093 | −0.069 | −0.049 | −0.26* | −0.485** | 0.811** | 1 | |||
| 10 | 3.13 | 0.880 | −0.023 | 0.112 | 0.187 | 0.097 | 0.117 | 0.149 | 0.745** | −0.689** | −0.655** | 1 | ||
| 11 | 3.38 | 0.627 | −0.083 | 0.123 | 0.146 | 0.081 | 0.096 | 0.177 | 0.686** | −0.683** | −0.701** | 0.862** | 1 | |
| 12 | 3.42 | 0.639 | 0.079 | 0.298* | 0.316*** | 0.356** | 0.326** | −0.113 | −0.155 | −0.122 | 0.024 | −0.137 | −0.104 | 1 |
| 13 | 3.39 | 0.471 | −0.036 | −0.041 | −0.017 | −0.094 | −0.093 | 0.159 | 0.051 | −0.151 | −0.088 | 0.165 | 0.036 | 0.02 |
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). 1 = gender, 2 = rank, 3 = job experience, 4 = immediate supervisor, 5 = age group, 6 = education, 7 = positive emotions, 8 = negative emotions, 9 = surface-acting, 10 = deep-acting, 11 = genuine-acting, 12 = leaders’ self-perceived authenticity, and 13 = followers’ perceived authenticity of leader.
Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis H1 (a): Association between Negative Emotions and Surface-acting
The results of LGC model (Fig. 2) tested to determine the effect of negative emotions on surface-acting demonstrated adequate fit (x² = 74.751; df = 59; C min/df = 1.267; CFI = 0.978; TLI = 0.965; IFI = 0.977; RMSEA = 0.063; P Close = 0.308). The effect of negative emotions on surface-acting was positive and significant at time 1 (β = 0.834; p < 0.001), time 2 (β = 0.813; p < 0.001), time 3 (β = 0.678; p < 0.001), and time 4 (β = 0.822; p < 0.001). These results demonstrated statistical support for H1a.
Hypothesis H1 (b): Association between Negative Emotions and Deep-acting
The results of LGC model (Fig. 3) tested to determine the effect of negative emotions on deep-acting demonstrated adequate fit (x² = 95.055; df = 66; C min/df = 1.440; CFI = 0.964; TLI = 0.940; IFI = 0.962; RMSEA = 0.080; P Close = 0.096). The effect of negative emotions on surface-acting was negative and significant at time 1 (β = −0.635; p < 0.001), time 2 (β = −0.739; p < 0.001), time 3 (β = −0.631; p < 0.001), and time 4 (β = −0.764; p < 0.001). These results demonstrated statistical support for H1b.
Hypothesis H1 (c): Association between Positive Emotions and Genuine-acting
The results of LGC model (Fig. 3) tested to determine the effect of positive emotions on genuine-acting demonstrated adequate fit (x² = 115.018; df = 73; C min/df = 1.576; CFI = 0.948; TLI = 0.922; IFI = 0.946; RMSEA = 0.092; P Close = 0.025). The effect of positive emotions on genuine-acting was positive and significant at time 1 (β = 0.621; p < 0.001), time 2 (β = 0.747; p < 0.001), time 3 (β = 0.562; p < 0.001), and time 4 (β = 0.772; p < 0.001). These results demonstrated statistical support for H1c.
Hypothesis H2: Surface-acting, Followers’ Perceived Authenticity, and Leaders’ Perceived Authenticity
Based on the results of LGC model (Fig. 2), we found that the intercept of surface-acting was positively and significantly associated with leaders’ self-perceived authenticity (β = 0.449; p > 0.05). This positive association was contradictory to our hypothesized relationship and demonstrated lack of statistical support for H2a. Similarly, LGC results also demonstrated lack of statistical support for H3a as we observed a negative but insignificant association between surface-acting and followers’ perceived authenticity of leader (β = −0.165; p > 0.05).
Hypothesis H3: Deep-acting, Followers’ Perceived Authenticity, and Leaders’ Perceived Authenticity
The results of LGC model (Fig. 3) demonstrated statistical support for H2b as the intercept of deep-acting was negatively and significantly associated with leaders perceived authenticity (β = −0.789; p < 0.001). However, the intercept of deep-acting was positively but insignificantly associated with followers perceived authenticity of the leader (β = 0.317; p > 0.05). Thus, H3b was not supported.
Hypothesis H4: Genuine-acting, Followers’ Perceived Authenticity, and Leaders’ Perceived Authenticity
The statistical results of LGC model (Fig. 4) demonstrated that the intercept of genuine-acting was negatively and significantly associated with leaders self-perceived authenticity (β = −0.536; p < 0.01). This demonstrated statistical support for H2c. However, the intercept of deep-acting was negatively but insignificantly associated with follower’s perceived authenticity of leader (β = −0.161; p > 0.05). This statistical result did not support H3c.
Discussion
Based on repeated measures data collected from policing officials through diary study method, this study analyzed the effect of positive and negative emotions on emotional labor strategies used by policing officials. The positive association of positive emotions with genuine-acting and the positive association of negative emotions with surface-acting and deep-acting hypothesized in this study seem obvious. Yet, the results of this study provide mixed results. This study found positive association between positive emotions and genuine-acting and negative emotions and surface-acting and negative association between negative emotions and deep-acting. This finding is in accordance with the results of meta-analytic study conducted by Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) but contradictory to the propositions offered by Gardner et al. The affective events require leaders to display the diverse type of emotions based on their judgements about the type of emotions which are appropriate to display in response to an external affective event to effectively manage their employees and/or the followers (Humphrey, Pollack, & Hawver, 2008). Thus, the leaders are less likely to display deep-acting to regulate their followers, particularly, when they evaluate that the affective events are negative. Such findings are sense-making policing context because policing officials may be required regulate their emotions to control crisis situations through surface-acting rather than deep-acting. Hence, the findings of this study conducted in policing context can be positioned in support of the findings of Kammeyer-Mueller et al. and Humphrey et al. to provide empirical support for affective events theory and supports. This finding also suggests that negative emotions are less likely to lead policing officials to fake the emotions in “good faith (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989).”
Where the existing literature has highlighted three distinct forms of emotional labor (surface-acting, deep-acting, and genuine-acting), some researchers do not consider genuine-acting as a form of emotional labor because it does not require emotional labor (Troth, Lawrence, Jordan, & Ashkanasy, 2018). This view may discourage many interesting future investigations on “automatic emotion regulation” or “genuine-acting.” Thus, in favor of Humphrey et al.’s (2015) effort to shift this perspective, this study investigated the effect of all three forms of emotional labor, also including genuine-acting, on authenticity perceived by the leaders as well as the followers. Although various positive effects of genuine-acting on the followers such as inspiring the followers (Humphrey et al., 2008), creating optimistic feelings (Newman, Guy, & Mastracci, 2009), and positive interpersonal relationships (Fisk & Friesen, 2012) have been reported in previous studies, yet we have found that genuine emotional display does not leave any positive significant effect on followers in policing service. This study has not found any statistical evidence supporting existing views related to the positive and significant effects of emotional labor strategies on followers’ perceptions of leaders’ authenticity. The identification of the underlying reasons behind such finding requires future investigations, yet a possible explanation may be based on emotional contagion. Emotional contagion may help observe emotional congruence between followers and leaders under emotionally taxing situations. This means that a higher emotional congruence between leader and follower may be more likely to develop similar perceptions about authenticity of the leader. Further, due to consistent and close collaboration with leaders, the followers may become immune to the leaders’ emotional displays and develop an intelligence to predict the underlying reasons for a specific type of emotional display experienced by a leader. This means the followers may attribute their leaders’ authenticity not merely to the emotional displays rather to some other factors (actions and attitudes) as well. This requires future investigations by incorporating the perspective of public to examine the authenticity of policing leaders in response to the emotion regulation strategies used by the leaders.
The more interesting finding of this study conducted in policing context is the negative and significant effect of genuine-acting on leaders’ self-perceived authenticity. These findings contradict with propositions offered by Gardner et al. (2009) and the findings of Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, and Gremler (2006). This finding represents that policing leaders may still feel psychological discrepancy between their genuine-acting and their self-perceived authenticity, perhaps because they might not find genuine-acting is an appropriate expression expected from policing officials. While dealing with emotionally taxing situations, the police officers may find genuine-acting (e.g., crying when a death is observed resulting from a roadside an accident) more resource depleting (Bakker & Heuven, 2006). Since they need to exercise authority for maintaining law and order, genuine emotional displays may present their softer image to the target audience, who may, in turn, find them emotionally more vulnerable and may attempt manipulate the situation.
The reason above also complies with the positive association between surface-acting and leaders’ self-perceived authenticity found in this study. This means that the policing officials perceive themselves more authentic in case of surface-acting rather than genuine-acting or deep-acting because they may experience a low level of self-discrepancy by suppressing or faking their emotions (e.g., smile) while dealing with emotionally taxing situation during their interaction with the followers. However, the deep-acting may make them feel a high level of psychological discrepancy because deep-acting requires a greater effort to match felt emotions with the emotions expressed (Hoschild, 1983; Troth et al., 2018). Although this finding contradicts to the propositions offered by Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) that surface-acting may lead to the loss of one’s authentic self (Humphrey et al., 2015), yet it seems plausible that in policing context, policing officials may find surface-acting as an easier solution to maintain their authentic to deal with emotionally taxing situations as compared to genuine-acting or deep-acting. This is also plausible because in surface-acting, the people don’t feel the emotions (like faking smile) which they want to display. Further, the self-discrepancy resulting from emotional labor may disappear if the leaders can convince themselves that they feel required emotions, as stated by Shulei and Miner (2006). The findings of this study demonstrate that the policing officials may feel themselves more authentic in case of surface-acting because they may find easier to convince themselves in case of surface-acting as compared to deep-acting. Humphrey et al. (2015) reported that surface-acting requires more monitoring as compared to deep-acting. However, the findings of this study have left an important question mark for future investigations to examine which kind of emotional labor leaves more self-discrepancy and requires more monitoring?
Managerial Implications
The findings of this study stressed on the importance of emotion regulation by highlighting emotional vulnerability of traffic police officials during the police practice. The findings imply that negative emotions are highly likely to trigger surface-acting rather than deep-acting emotion regulation strategy in police officials. While the positive association between surface-acting and leaders’ self-perceived authenticity as compared to the negative association between deep-acting and leaders’ self-perceived authenticity offers quite different implication. Such findings offer some important practical implications. Particularly, such findings imply that the police officials may find it easier to involve in surface-acting in case of negative emotions. Since surface-acting is more resource depleting and requires more monitoring as compared to deep-acting (Humphrey et al., 2015), the police officials (particularly the new-hired) may be provided training on emotion regulation strategies, particularly on surface-acting, to enhance their emotion regulation skills under emotionally taxing organizational situation. This is equally important to foster a sense of authenticity within the leaders in case of surface-acting emotional display.
This study also found that none of the emotion regulation strategy significantly affects followers’ perceptions about leaders’ authenticity. Thus, this study encourages the use of surface-acting for regulating negative emotions only based on its positive consequences for authenticity perceptions of the leaders themselves but not the followers. Perhaps, future research may help more in identifying the mechanisms explaining the positive consequences of emotional labor strategies on followers’ perceptions of leaders’ authenticity. This implies that the leaders may to choose an appropriate emotion regulation strategy based on its consequences for authentic sense of either the leaders themselves or their followers. Although the effect of deep-acting on follower’s perception of leaders’ authenticity was not significant, yet positive beta coefficients imply that deep-acting is more effective in situations when the leaders feel a need to develop positive perceptions of their followers about their authenticity.
Limitations of the Study
This study also offers some future research recommendations. First, this study collecting data through diary investigation from a highly complex and largely ignored organizational context. Although the repeated measures strategy facilitated us in collecting enough observations (69 * 4 = 276), yet the findings may be replicated using a large sample size. Second, we adapted repeated measures strategy to capture the real-life emotions felt by policing officials in a quasi-experimental way to avoid common-method variance, yet the common-method variance may persist due to the diary study method. This can be overcome in future research through some more control conditions and more technical devices (e.g., Activa device used for EEG, pulse monitoring through watches) to capture the emotions. Third, the data were collected from traffic police officials serving at middle management-level positions, but future investigations may incorporate data collected from senior leadership of traffic police as well as other policing departments of the country. These findings may also be replicated in those developed countries which are encouraging community-oriented policing strategies. The researchers used LGC modeling, an advanced form of structural equation modeling used to examine the data collected through repeated measures. However, the researchers may use multi-level models for analyzing data in future investigations. Finally, future research may incorporate some intervening variables (perceived self-discrepancy, emotional congruence, and emotional contagion) as well as the moderators (emotional intelligence and emotional dissonance) to explain the mechanism through which the emotion regulation strategies may affect perceptions of leaders and followers.
Conflict of Interest
There is no conflict of interest among the authors of this manuscript regarding any aspect.
Funding
We are pleased to declare that we have not received any funding from any external body to carry out this research.
References
Ashforth & Humphrey (1993) Ashforth, B. E. , & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88–115.
Ashkanasy & Tse (2000) Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy , C. E. J. Hartel , & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (pp. 221–235). Westport, CT: Quorum.
Bakker & Heuven (2006) Bakker, A. B. , & Heuven, E. (2006). Emotional dissonance, burnout, and in-role performance among nurses and police officers. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 423.
Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Green (2006) 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.
Brotheridge & Lee (2002) Brotheridge, C. M. , & Lee, R. T. , (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 57–67.
Casey & Mitchell (2007) Casey, J. , & Mitchell, M. (2007). Requirements of police managers and leaders from sergeant to commissioner. In M. Mitchell & J. Casey (Eds.), Police leadership and management in Australia (pp. 4–20). Sydney: Federation Press.
Dasborough (2006) Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 163–178.
Davis, Henderson, & Merrick (2010) Davis, R. , Henderson, N. , & Merrick, C. (2010). Community policing: Variations on the western model in the developing world. Police Practice and Research, 4(3), 285–300.
Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand (2005) Diefendorff, J. M. , Croyle, M. H. , & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339–357.
Fisher & Ashkanasy (2000) Fisher, C. D. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(2), 123–129.
Fisk & Friesen (2012) Fisk, G. M. , & Friesen, J. P. (2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as predictors of followers’ job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 1–12.
Flynn & Herrington (2015) Flynn, E. A. , & Herrington, V. (2015). Toward a profession of police leadership. New Perspectives in Policing. Boston: Harvard Kennedy School/National Institute of Justice.
Frijda (1993) Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381–403). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gardner, Fischer, & Hunt (2009) Gardner, W. L. , Fischer, D. , & Hunt, J. G. J. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 466–482.
George (2000) George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.
Grandey (2000) Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95.
Grandey (2003) 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, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin (2012) Grandey, A. , Foo, S. C. , Groth, M. , & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free to be you and me: a climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 1.
Heider (2013) Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, & Gremler (2006) 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.
Hochschild (1983) Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hox, Moerbeek, & Van de Schoot (2017) Hox, J. J. , Moerbeek, M. , & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge.
Humphrey, Ashforth, & Diefendorff (2015) Humphrey, R. H. , Ashforth, B. E. , & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). The bright side of emotional labor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 749–769.
Humphrey, Pollack, & Hawver (2008) Humphrey, R. H. , Pollack, J. M. , & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 151–168.
Hunt et al. (1983) Hunt, R. G. , McCadden, K. S. , & Mordaunt, T. J. (1983). Police roles: Content and conflict. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11, 175–184.
Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. , Rubenstein, A. L. , Long, D. M. , Odio, M. A. , Buckman, B. R. , Zhang, Y. , & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. (2013). A meta-analytic structural model of dispositional affectivity and emotional labor. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 47–90.
Kelling & Pate (1973) Kelling, G. , & Pate, A. (1973). The person-role fit in policing: The current knowledge and future research. In Snibbe & Snibbe (Eds.), The urban policeman in transition. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Kipfelsberger & Kark (2018) Kipfelsberger, P. , & Kark, R. (2018). ‘Killing me softly with his/her song’: How leaders dismantle followers’ sense of work meaningfulness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 654.
Kruml & Geddes (2000) Kruml, S. M. , & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of emotional labor: The heart of Hochschild’s work. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 8–49.
Ladkin & Taylor (2009) Ladkin, D. , & Taylor, S. S. (2009). Understanding arts-based methods in management development. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 55–69.
Larson & Csikszentmihalyi (1983) Larson, R. , & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. In H. T. Reis (Ed.), Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction. New directions for methodology of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 41–56). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lazarus (1991) Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819.
Lee & Chelladurai (2018) Lee, Y. H. , & Chelladurai, P. (2018). Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, coach burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in sport leadership. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(4), 393–412.
Lin, Mainemelis, & Kark (2016) Lin, B. , Mainemelis, C. , & Kark, R. (2016). Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 537–556.
Lu & Guy (2014) Lu, X. , & Guy, M. E. (2014). How emotional labor and ethical leadership affect job engagement for Chinese public servants. Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 3–24.
Meaklim & Sims (2011) Meaklim, T. , & Sims, J. (2011). Leading powerful partnerships – A new model of public sector leadership development. The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 7(1), 21–31.
Ménard & Brunet (2011) Ménard, J. , & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 331–346.
Newman, Guy, & Mastracci (2009) Newman, M. A. , Guy, M. E. , & Mastracci, S. H. (2009). Beyond cognition: Affective leadership and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 6–20.
Nicholson & Carroll (2013) Nicholson, H. , & Carroll, B. (2013). 26. Essay: so you want to be authentic in your leadership: To whom and for what end? In D. Ladkin , & C. Spiller (Eds.), Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 286–301). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Peterson, Walumbwa, Avolio, & Hannah (2012) Peterson, S. J. , Walumbwa, F. O. , Avolio, B. J. , & Hannah, S. T. (2012). The relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance: The mediating role of follower positivity in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 502–516.
Rafaeli & Sutton (1989) Rafaeli, A. , & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ransley & Mazerolle (2009) Ransley, J. , & Mazerolle, L. (2009). Policing in an era of uncertainty. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 10(4), 365–381.
Reis, Trullen, & Story (2016) Reis, G. , Trullen, J. , & Story, J. (2016). Perceived organizational culture and engagement: The mediating role of authenticity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1091–1105.
Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, & Settles (2009) Roberts, L. M. , Cha, S. E. , Hewlin, P. F. , & Settles, I. H. (2009). Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In L. M. Roberts , & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 149–169). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shulei & Miner (2006) Shulei, M. , & Miner, H. (2006). Emotional labor; surface-acting and deep-acting, which one is better? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 262–270.
Sklansky (2013) Sklansky, D. A. (2013). The promise and the perils of police professionalism. In Jennifer M. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 373–384). New York, NY: Routledge.
Steinheider & Wuestewald (2008) Steinheider, B. , & Wuestewald, T. (2008). From the bottom-up: Sharing leadership in a police agency. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 9(2), 145–163.
Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux (1990) Trojanowicz, R. , & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). The privatization of public justice: What will it mean to the police? The Police Chief, 57(10), 131–135.
Troth, Lawrence, Jordan, & Ashkanasy (2018) Troth, A. C. , Lawrence, S. A. , Jordan, P. J. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation in the workplace: A conceptual and operational review and future research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 523–543.
van Gelderen, Konijn, & Bakker (2011) van Gelderen, B. R. , Konijn, E. A. , & Bakker, A. B. (2011). Emotional labor among trainee police officers: The interpersonal role of positive emotions. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 163–172.
van Gelderen, Konijn, & Bakker (2017) van Gelderen, B. R. , Konijn, E. A. , & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Emotional labor among police officers: A diary study relating strain, emotional labor, and service performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(6), 852–879.
Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson (2008) Walumbwa, F. O. , Avolio, B. J. , Gardner, W. L. , Wernsing, T. S. , & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure† . Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.
Watson, Clark, & Tellegan (1988) Watson, D. , Clark, L. A. , & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Weiss & Cropanzano (1996) Weiss, H. M. , & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Corresponding author
- Prelims
- Part I Leaders and Members
- Chapter 1 Power and Emotion Recognition: The Moderating Role of Work Stress
- Chapter 2 A Diary Investigation of Daily Emotions, Emotional Display, and Leaders’ Authenticity in a Cohort of City Traffic Police
- Chapter 3 A Multilevel Study of Leaders’ Emotional Labor on Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction
- Chapter 4 Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator of Emotional Responses to Leadership
- Chapter 5 Entrained Engagement? Investigating If Work Engagement Follows a Predictable Pattern across the Work Week and the Role of Personality in Shaping Its Pattern
- Part II Leaders and Teams
- Chapter 6 Identifying with the In-group Increases Aggressive Tendencies against the Out-group: The Mediating Role of Schadenfreude
- Chapter 7 Is Support Always Good? Exploring whether Supervisory Support Enhances or Attenuates the Beneficial Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team and Individual Creativity
- Chapter 8 The Importance of Empathy as a Distal Leadership Attribute in the Emergence of Leaders in Small Groups
- Part III Leaders, Organizations, and Culture
- Chapter 9 The Role of Angel Investors’ Emotions in Socially Situated Investment Opportunity Evaluations
- Chapter 10 Self-uncertainty and Emotional Well-being across Cultures: The Mediating Roles of Social Comparison
- Chapter 11 Developmental Factors Influencing Effective Leaders: A Life Story View of Executive Leadership Development
- Appendix
- Index