Anger in Israeli Workplace the Special Place of Customer Interactions

Ravid, S., Rafaeli, A., & Grandey, A. (in press). Expressions of anger in Israeli workplaces: the special place of customer interactions. Human Resource Management Review.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expressions of Anger in Israeli Workplaces:

The Special Place of Customer Interactions

Shy Ravid Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Faculty of Industrial Engineering and

Management Haifa 32000, ISRAEL Tel.: +972-4-8292021 E-mail: [email protected]

Anat Rafaeli

Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Haifa 32000, ISRAEL Tel.: +972-4-8294421 Fax: +972-4-8295688

E-mail: [email protected]

Alicia Grandey

Department of Psychology Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 Tel.: 814-863-1867 Email: [email protected]



Abstract

We examine norms regarding displays of anger in interactions with different target

persons in Israeli organizations. Israeli university students who had been employed in the

last year were asked about displaying anger to managers, subordinates, coworkers,

customers and customer service representatives. For comparison, data about displays of

another negative emotion – fear – were also collected. Our predictions – that anger

expression is influenced by the power of the target person – were supported. There was

stronger agreement that anger should be suppressed with managers than with coworkers

and subordinates. Agreement that anger should be suppressed was also stronger regarding

displays toward customers than toward coworkers, subordinates and managers. Norms of

suppressing anger were particularly strong for displays toward customers, and far

stronger than the parallel of customers’ displays toward customer service representatives.

These finding are suggested to imply the penetration of global customer service norms to

the Israeli economy.



Introduction

Socially learned norms inform individuals whether and how to express emotions

in social interactions (Ekman, 1972; Ekman & Oster, 1979). These norms, sometimes

referred to as "display rules", vary by the type of emotion, as well as to whom and when

the emotion is felt (Ekman, 1993, p. 384; Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznetsova

& Krupp, 1998; Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama & Petrova, 2005). Norms are also culture-

specific, since they are learned in the early stages of childhood socialization (Buss &

Kiel, 2004; Saarni, 1979). Particularly important are norms about the expression or

control of felt anger, because of the possible negative social implications of anger

expressions (Saarni & von Salisch, 1993; Underwood, 1997; von Salisch & Vogelgesang,

2005).

Display rules are also relevant to organizational interactions (Hochschild, 1983;

Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; 1989), since norms for emotion displays are connected to

organizational values and goals (Martin, Knopoff & Beckman, 1998; Van Maanen &

Kunda, 1989). Both in organizations and at the culture level, not all participants

necessarily agree about emotion display rules, suggesting a need to talk about norm

strength, or “the degree to which a norm is widely shared (consensus) and deeply

internalized (potency) among a given aggregate of people” (cf. Jackson, 1965, cited in

Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993: 91).

Research on organizational emotion rules has focused on the effects and

consequences of expectations regarding displayed emotion in work roles (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1993; Elfenbein, 2008; Grandey & Brauburger, 2002; Hareli & Rafaeli,

2008; Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Van Maanen, 1992; Van Maanen &

Kunda, 1989) and has presented display rules as a function of societal norms,

occupational norms, and organizational norms (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). A separate

but complementary stream considers emotion displays as elements of a culture

(Kupperbusch et al., 1999). This line of work attempts to identify explanations for

cultural differences and similarities in emotional displays (Ekman, 1972; Friesen,

1972; Matsumoto, 1993; Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008; Suh, Diener, Oishi, &

Triandis, 1998).

The present paper, consistent with the focus of this special issue, reports on

emotion display rules in the unique culture of Israel, with a further special focus on

anger display rules. Below, we first review the merit of a focus on the display rules

regarding the specific emotion of anger. We then describe the pertinence of

hierarchical power structures in organizations to norms of anger expression, and

connect the relative power of different organizational target persons with anger display

rules. In an empirical study we then compare the perceptions of Israeli college students

who had recent or current employment experience regarding anger display rules

toward different organizational target persons. Our survey asked participants to

indicate whether they felt they should express or suppress anger in interactions with

different target persons in the work context, where the target persons varied in the

status they held in the organizational setting. Our analysis of these data identifies

similarities and differences in norms regarding anger expressions to target persons of

different work status in Israel.

Emotion Display Rules and Specific Emotions

The display of emotion in the workplace follows organizational display rules that

are manipulated through organizational selection, socialization and control processes

(Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; 1989). Thus, emotion display in organizations is subject to

simultaneous and potentially competing effects of social-cultural norms and

organizational norms (Rafaeli & Sutton; 1987; 1989). In fact, display rules tend to be

stronger in work contexts than in general social or home interactions (Bongard & al'Absi,

2003; Lively & Powell, 2006).

Importantly, little is known about how displays of specific emotions vary between

specific people and specific times. Presumably, people adjust their emotion displays to

the context, or as Ekman (1972) put it, they determine which emotions may be displayed

when and to whom. But research on organizational display rules has not specifically

explored displays of discrete emotions in the workplace, instead referring to generally

“negative” or “positive” emotions (Barsade, Brief & Spataro, 2003; Brief & Weiss,

2002). Anger is a specific negative emotion that is known to occur in the workplace

(Fitness, 2000; Glomb, 2002; Grandey et al., 2002) and that may involve a tendency to

harm or strike out at others. Anger display rules are likely to differ from display rules for

other emotions; anger expression is known to be bounded by thresholds of legitimate

expression (Geddes & Callister, 2007), probably because of the potential harm that anger

expressions can have on relationships (Averill, 1982).

An analysis of anger cannot be complete without some comparison to another

discrete negative emotion. As a frame of comparison we therefore examine display rules

for fear. Fear is similar to anger in having a high arousal response with unpleasant

associations and causes. However, anger implies social stratification more than fear

(Tiedens, 2001), and angry agents stand out as powerful while fearful agents are viewed

as weak (Hess, Blairy & Kleck, 2000; Marsh, Adams & Kleck, 2005). From an

employment perspective, where one may want to show dominance and competence,

expressing both fear and anger may result in negative outcomes, but anger expressions

create power differences, while fear expressions convey weakness. Therefore, appearing

anxious and incompetent may be less acceptable in organizational settings than

expressing the negative yet dominant emotion of anger, consistent with Tiedens's (2001)

work.

In fact, some research has suggested that avoiding the appearance of weakness is

central to Israeli identity (Roniger & Feige, 1993). Seeming weak is often referred to as

being a “freier” (a huge insult, meaning a "sucker" in Hebrew slang); as Roniger and

Feige (1993) note, Israelis invest heavily in not looking like a “freier”. Thus, it can be

predicted:

Hypothesis 1: Stronger norms will dictate suppressing displays of fear than

displays of anger, regardless of the person to whom the emotion is

expressed.

Hypothesis 1 distinguishes between displays of fear and anger, but does not

differentiate between the targets to whom the emotion is expressed. However,

expressions of anger are likely to be considered more appropriate when they are

directed by a high-status group member toward a low-status member (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1995; Geddes & Callister, 2007) – for instance, by supervisors wishing to

motivate or discipline lower-status employees (Glomb & Hulin, 1997). Next, we

suggest that the power of the target is likely to determine the extent to which

expressing anger is viewed as legitimate.

Anger Displays toward Different Organizational Target Persons

Research on emotion displays in organizations has focused primarily on displays

required from customer service representatives in their interactions with customers

(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Brotheridge & Lee, 2002;

Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Grandey, Dickter & Sin 2004; Grandey, Fisk & Steiner,

2005; Hochschild, 1983). But some research suggests that display norms govern emotion

displays in various organizational interactions, not only those between customer service

providers and customers. A second goal of this effort, therefore, is to understand whether

in Israel there is a difference between display rules governing interactions toward

customers versus other work targets.

We begin the analysis of anger display rules toward different targets by

examining expressions of anger toward managers. Managers are critical to the

hierarchical foundation of organizations (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Brass, 1984; Pfeffer,

1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Managers typically have more power than their

subordinates, which means that they control key resources such as supplies, information,

and pay (Pfeffer, 1981; Ulrich & Barney, 1984). In comparison, coworkers generally hold

equivalent organizational power (French & Raven, 1959). Emotional expressions are

related to social power or status (Allan & Gilbert, 2002; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008;

Hecht & LaFrance, 1998; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003; Tiedens, 2000), and

people with higher power are generally more at liberty to express their anger as a way to

assert their rank, authority, and control (Allan & Gilbert, 2002: 552; Gibson & Schroeder,

2002: 198; Hochschild, 1983; Scott, 1990). Thus, it can be predicted that expressing

anger will be perceived as more acceptable toward a lower-power individual than toward

a higher-power individual (e.g., from a supervisor rather than toward a supervisor). Many

authors have provided evidence to support this status-driven prediction about anger

display rules or actual expressions, in the workplace as well as other settings (Allan &

Gilbert, 2002; Grandey et al., 2002; Gross & John, 2003; Keltner et al., 2003; Lively &

Powell, 2006; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990; Spratlen, 1995;

Tiedens, Ellsworth, & Mesquita, 2000; Tiedens, 2001; but note that Gibson’s 1997

findings seem to challenge this prediction).

These dynamics may be overpowered by the low power distance that Israel is

known to hold (Hofstede, 1991; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004). A

cultural value of low power distance suggests that cultural norms would not distinguish

between managers and other targets in terms of anger expression. However, since the

work culture in Israel has internalized many global values (e.g., Frenkel, 2008; Shokef &

Erez, 2006), we similarly expect managers in Israel to be perceived as high-power

targets, and therefore expect to find norms of anger suppression with managers more than

with other targets.

Hypothesis 2: Norms dictating suppression of anger will be stronger in

interactions with managers than in interactions with other organizational

members.

Anger Display Rules: Employees to Customers

Customers are rarely compared to organizational members in organizational

research, but the heavy focus on customer service in research on emotion display rules

demands an inclusion of customers in analyses of organizational emotion display rules.

In Israel as elsewhere customers can be critical for employees’ rewards and punishments

(e.g., tips and complaints). Customers evaluate employees in customer service follow-ups

(Bitner, Booms & Tetreault 1990), and such ratings may be used in deciding on

promotions or raises (Fuller & Smith, 1996). Customers are also often a source of

commissions or sales bonuses in Israel as elsewhere (Tidd & Lockard, 1978). As such,

customers may be viewed as having power over employees’ resources. However, the

North American mantra “the customer is always right” (Harris & Reynolds, 2003: 145)

may be less prevalent in Israel. It is therefore unclear how employees in Israel would feel

about expressing their felt negative emotions to customers.

If Israel has accepted North American customer service norms, whereby

customers are considered higher in power than employees, then Israelis should also have

adopted norms regarding suppression of anger toward customers. In fact, we might

expect norms vis-à-vis customers to be similar to those vis-à-vis the other high-status

target, managers. Such norms would follow the US “service with a smile” premise where

any negative emotion toward customers should be suppressed (Fisk & Grandey, 2003;

Mattila, Grandey, & Fisk, 2003; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000).

Very limited work has examined Israel’s customer service culture, and several of the few

existing studies from over 15 years ago suggested that customer service employees were

indeed willing to express negative emotions toward customers (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1990,

and Rafaeli, 1989). We suggest that since that work was conducted, customer service

norms have penetrated Israel's economy, such that display rules prohibiting displays of

anger will be stronger with regard to customers than with regard to equal or lower-status

organizational members:

Hypothesis 3: Norms dictating suppression of anger will be stronger in interactions

with customers than with equal or lower-status organizational members, but

similar to norms vis-à-vis other high status members.

Anger Display Rules: Customers to Customer Service Reps

The relatively high power of customers is paralleled by the relatively low power

of customer service employees (Rafaeli, 1993). The people who hold these entry-level,

boundary-spanning positions are often viewed as lower in status than other organizational

members, as well as lower in status than the customers they are serving. The low status of

customer service representatives is taken for granted in organizational research. For

example, researchers wishing to test the effect of power and status unquestioningly create

low status in a vignette study by referring to a “sales clerk in a retail store” (Cote &

Moskowitz, 2002). The “service with a smile” maxim conveys expectations regarding

acceptable customer service, but also communicates the deference and submission

expected from customer service personnel as lower-status individuals (Hecht &

LaFrance, 1998; LaFrance & Hecht, 1999; Tiedens et al., 2000). As Shamir (1980) noted,

service is close to servility. Given that ‘the customer is king’, the customer has the power

to act angrily, and the employee does not (Hochschild 1983). Presumably, the wages paid

to service personnel are a mechanism for balancing out this uneven exchange, so that

employees will be willing to take whatever the customer doles out. This status

differential suggests that anger expression toward customer service representatives is

much more likely than the reverse.

However, the extent to which this assumption is valid in Israel has not been

tested. Do people in Israel believe they are free to express anger to service

representatives? And do they believe that employees will not express anger back toward

customers? Since we believe that global economic norms and practices have been

integrated into the Israeli economy, we believe this duality of norms will be apparent

with Israeli service employees and customers as well. Hence our next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Norms regarding anger displays will allow expression of anger by

customers to customer service representatives, but not by customer service

reps to customers.

Methods

To measure perceptions of emotion display norms we adapted a tool described by

Matsumoto et al. (2005; 1998), which was developed to examine norms of emotion

expression in general social interactions. Our adaptation created a tool that assesses

norms regarding displays of emotions by employees to co-workers, supervisors or

customers and by customers to customer service representatives. Our study is a first

attempt to document norms for displaying emotion toward work targets in Israeli

organizations.

Context: Norms of Emotion Expression in Israel

Emotion display rules and in particular anger display rules are a cultural

attribute (Ekman, 1972; Friesen, 1972; Matsumoto et al., 2005; 1998), and

Trompenaars and Hanmpden-Turner (1998) found Israeli employees to be more

emotionally expressive at work than employees in other countries (e.g., the USA, UK,

Canada, Japan, and China). A majority of Israeli respondents told Trompenaars and

Hanmpden-Turner (1998) that they would express emotions they felt at work. This

finding is consistent with other descriptions of Israeli culture. Mayseless and Salomon

(2003) as well as Katriel (1986) mention "frankness" as a unique character of Israeli

behavior.

"Dugri" in Israeli slang is a popular descriptor of Israelis, conveying people as

frank and direct in social interactions. This cultural tendency legitimates open

communication and places particular value on the open expression of anger (Margalit

& Mauger, 1984). In a similar vein, Israel has been described as having weak

"expressive boundaries" (Shamir & Melnik, 2002), meaning that people easily carry

over their thoughts and feelings into their overt behavior. Shamir and Melnik (2002)

describe Israelis as open, candid and direct, freely disclosing their opinions and

emotions. Accordingly, North Americans who work with Israelis are argued by Shamir

and Melnik (2002) to characterize Israelis as genuine and transparent, so that "what

you see is what you get".

In short, social expectations in Israel do not assume high levels of politeness.

However, it is unclear whether or how this norm manifests in interactions with

authority figures. In this culture noted for frankness, we are looking specifically at

norms for open expression of anger toward people of higher organizational status, and

toward customers.

Participants

A sample of 108 undergraduate and graduate business and engineering students

completed the survey in return for partial course credit. Table 1 reports the demographic

profile of the sample, which included 51 males, and had an average age of 24.84,

(SD=2.54). All respondents were at least 18 years old, most (79%) had held a steady job

during the past year, and a large number had experience in customer service positions

(65.7%). Some of the participants had previous managerial experience (52.8%). This

sample was selected to represent the future workforce of Israeli businesses. Their

perceptions were presumed to represent a desirable combination of some work

experience (which would often involve customers) and observations of the work

environments through their own experience as customers.

Insert Table 1 about Here

In completing the survey, participants were asked to focus on their most recent

job experience. Participants without experience with a particular target person were asked

for their understanding of what they thought they should do with such a target person.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through class lists, asked to read and sign a consent

form and then given a copy of a 4-page survey. They were told that the purpose of the

study was to identify perceptions of acceptable emotional displays in organizations, and

were promised that all responses would remain anonymous and confidential and would

be used only for research purposes. Survey completion took approximately 20 minutes.

Control Variables

Employment experience: Three experience indicators were collected at the end

of the survey: (1) whether respondents had held a paid job during the past year; (2)

whether they had ever worked or currently worked in a service job; (3) whether they had

ever held or currently held a managerial position.

Demographic attributes: Respondents were also asked to indicate their sex and

age.

Dependent Variables

Perceived norms of emotional display were assessed through an adapted version

of Matsumoto et al.'s (2005) DRAI (Display Rules Assessment Inventory). The original

measure addressed six social targets (e.g., parent, older sibling, close friend) and 7

emotions (anger, contempt, disgust, sadness fear, happiness, surprise). We adapted the

measure to include five organizational targets (manager, co-worker, subordinate,

customer, customer service representative) and two emotions (anger and fear). To avoid

confusion each of the emotions and each of the targets were defined in the survey, as

summarized in Table 2.

Insert Table 2 about here

The survey included separate sections for each target person, and each section

opened with instructions for the relevant target person. For example, the section assessing

displays with customer service representatives opened as follows:

Please think of a specific CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE that you

have interacted with as a customer …[definition of Customer Service

Representative as in Table 2…]. What do you believe you should do if you are

interacting with a customer service representative and you feel each of the

emotions listed below?

For each pair (target person and emotion) participants were asked to choose one

of the following responses: (A) Show it more than I feel it; (B) Show it as I feel it ; (C)

Show it less than I feel it ; (D) Show it but with another expression; (E) Hide it by

showing nothing (F) Hide it by showing something else; (G) Other. These responses

indicate five expressive modes: expression, de-amplification, amplification, qualification,

and masking of emotion. Participants also indicated the gender of the person they thought

of while responding, and the frequency of the interactions they had with this person,

except for the case of a customer service representative where the frequency question was

worded: "How often do you interact with customer service reps in general?"

Findings

Data Coding: Emotion Suppression vs. Emotion Expression

Analyzing the full set of responses with the five targets and two emotions created

too much complexity, making it difficult to test our hypotheses. The responses to the

survey were categorical in nature, and therefore could not be averaged. (i.e., it does not

make sense to average “Show it more than I feel it, Show it as I feel it and Show it but

with another expression.”) We therefore recoded the responses into two categories that

made it possible to address our primary research questions. We created a dichotomous

dependent variable, whereby responses were coded either as suppression or as genuine

expression of the emotion. Suppressing the emotion (coded 1) included responses C, D, E

or F in the original scale; expressing the emotion (coded 0) included responses A and B

in the original scale.1

This recode process means that our findings describe norms

regarding the extent to which anger and fear should be suppressed or expressed.


Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 summarizes the reported frequency of suppressing anger and fear in

interactions with customers, customer service reps, managers, subordinates and

coworkers. The pattern of frequencies shows that suppressing anger varied widely across

targets, ranging from 30.56% to 95.37%, while suppression of fear was quite uniform,

ranging only between 87.85% and 99.07%.

Data Analysis

We used a generalized linear model with the Logit link function to test the

distribution of the dichotomous dependent variable. Each participant provided responses

regarding more than one target person, so we applied a model based on the GEE

(Generalized Estimating Equations) methodology, which fits an analysis of correlated

observations (Liang & Zeger, 1986). The demographic variables listed in Table 1 were

included as control variables in all of the analyses.

1 A potential concern of this recode is that the aggregation of four categories into a value of 1 and only two categories to value of 0 would create unbalanced results, and more responses would fall into the "suppression norms" value that represents four original categories. However, the frequencies reported in Table 3 rule out this bias since the aggregated variable varied widely across targets. It is clear from Table 3 that the recode process did not create a systematic bias in the results.

Anger Displays to Different Target Persons

A first set of analyses tested whether suppression norms varied between

interaction targets. Emotion suppression was the dependent variable regressed on target

person as the independent (dummy) variable. Score statistics for type 3 GEE analysis are

presented in Table 4, and show a significant effect of type of emotion (χ2(X)=5.01,

p<.01), meaning that suppression rules differentiate between the emotions. Target person

also had a significant effect (χ2(X)=23.79, p<.0001), indicating differences in the

suppression norms with different target persons. The interaction of emotion and target

person was also significant (χ2(X)=10.13, p<.05), suggesting differences in suppression

norms for different emotions with different target persons.


Displays of Anger versus Displays of Fear

Hypothesis 1, based on the premise that people want to avoid an appearance of

weakness, predicted that expressions of fear will be viewed as less acceptable than

expressions of anger, regardless of the target to whom the emotion is expressed. Tables 3

and 5 show that this prediction was largely supported. It was supported with customer

service representative (CSR) (Panger=30.56%, Pfear=95.24%, OR=48.85, χ2

(1)=51.67,

p<.0001), manager (Panger=82.41%, Pfear=99.07%, OR=23.07, χ2

(1)=10.15, p<.01),

subordinate (Panger=42.59%, Pfear=98.10%, OR=73.74, χ2

(1)=33.06, p<.0001) and

coworker (Panger=39.81%, Pfear=87.85%, OR=11.57, χ2

(1)=45.94, p<.0001). Only the

results regarding expressions of anger and fear toward customers did not show a

significant difference (Panger=95.37%, Pfear=99.07%, OR=5.17, χ2

(1)=2.17, p>.10).Thus,

Hypothesis 1 was largely supported.


Displays of Anger to Managers versus Subordinates and Coworkers

Hypothesis 2 recognized differences in expressions of anger toward different

targets, and suggested that stronger norms would compel suppressing anger toward

managers than toward other organizational targets. To test this prediction we contrasted

anger suppression toward managers and toward subordinates and coworkers. As

presented in Tables 3 and 6, Hypothesis 2 was supported: 82.41% of the respondents

indicated that they would suppress anger toward managers – significantly more than

toward subordinates (Psub=42.59%, OR=.15, χ2

(1)=37.54, p<.0001) and coworkers

(Pco=39.81%, OR=.13, χ2

(1)=45.75, p<.0001).

These findings thus suggest that Israeli norms indeed dictate greater suppression

of anger expressions toward people with greater power (i.e., managers) than toward

people with less power (i.e., subordinates) or equal power (i.e., coworkers). The

alternative, that Israel’s low power distance would reduce this effect, was not found.

Anger suppression in Israel appears in our data to follow a norm of suppression with

higher power targets (managers) to a greater degree than with lower power targets

(subordinates), fully supporting our Hypothesis 2.

Displays of Anger to Customers versus Subordinates and Coworkers

Hypothesis 3 predicted greater suppression of anger toward customers relative to

equal or lower-status organizational members. As presented in Tables 3 and 6,

Hypothesis 3 was fully supported: 95.37 % of respondents reported that anger toward a

customer should be suppressed, a proportion significantly higher than that calling for

suppression of anger toward a subordinate (Psub=42.59%, OR=.03, χ2

(1)=49.61, p<.0001)

and a coworker (Pco=39.81%, OR=.03, χ2

(1)=56.59, p<.0001). Indeed, the proportion of

respondents reporting that anger toward a customer should be suppressed was even

greater than that calling for suppression of anger toward a manager (Pmgr=82.41%,

OR=.22, χ2

(1)=9.07, p<.01). Thus, our data suggest that customers in Israel can expect to

be treated with greater politeness and fewer anger displays than all other targets.


Displays of Anger by Employees to Customers versus by Customers to Customer Service Reps.

Hypothesis 4 suggested an inequality regarding expressions of anger, predicting

that employees are more limited in how they may express felt anger toward customers

than the reverse. The results of this analysis, as summarized in Tables 3 and 6, clearly

support Hypothesis 4. The proportion of people who indicated that a CSR should

suppress anger toward a customer was significantly greater than the proportion saying

that a customer should suppress anger toward a CSR (Pcust=95.37 % , Pcsr=30.56%,

OR=.02, χ2(1)=67.20, p<.0001). Indeed, almost all participants (95%) noted that CSRs

need to avoid expressing anger toward customers, while only 30% of our respondents

thought that customers should suppress anger toward CSRs.

Our data confirmed that people in Israel are generally more reluctant to

express fear than to express anger (Hypothesis 1). The results also suggest that

Israelis view the suppression of anger as more important with higher-status

individuals (managers) than with lower or equal status individuals (co-workers or

subordinates) (Hypothesis 2). One particular group to which Israelis do not believe

that anger should be displayed is customers (Hypothesis 3), and Israeli norms

prescribe suppression of anger by employees toward customers significantly more

than by customers toward employees (Hypothesis 4).

Discussion

Our study examines norms about expressing anger and fear in organizational

interactions in Israel. Our findings show that in Israel, norms against displaying feelings

of anger are weaker than norms against displaying fear. However, norms regarding anger

suppression differentiate between targets. In Israel, anger display norms strongly prohibit

expressing anger toward managers, far more so than toward subordinates, and the greatest

suppression appears to be toward customers. Expressing anger toward customers is far

less normative than toward coworkers, subordinates and even managers.

We also show that uneven norms govern anger expressions in interactions

between customers and customer service representatives. In Israel, customer service

employees are very limited in their ability to display their genuine feelings toward

customers as has been shown to be the case in other countries (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987,

1989), while customers are free to express their anger toward customer service

employees. These expectations from customer service employees are however unique for

the expression of anger, and do not hold for the other negative emotion we examined –

fear.

Our data are of course somewhat limited, in that they reflect only self-

reported perceptions of students. However, our participants were working in a

wide range of organizations, and they represent the forthcoming community

of organizational employees. So we presume these responses to be indicative

of the Israeli workforce.

It is also problematic that we could not assess the intensity of the

anger imagined by the participants. For example, if the intensity of anger

imagined in interactions with managers was lower than with other target

persons, it might be less necessary to suppress its display. Reported

observations of real-life customer service interactions seem consistent with

our analysis (cf. Rafaeli, 1989), so our findings do seem to capture the real

nature of emotion displays in Israel. But self-reports may differ from actual

behavior, so additional observation studies such as Rafaeli (1989) may be an

appropriate complement to the picture that we have drawn.

Theoretical Contributions

Our analyses connect two broad streams of research: research on emotion and

emotion displays in organizations (Ashforth and Humphry, 1993; Grandey et al., 2005;

Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1989), and research on status and power

relations in organizations (French & Raven, 1959; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). This

connection is tested in light of the unique Israeli culture and context, where open

communication (“Dugri”) and the avoidance of weakness (“Freier”) are key values

(Katriel, 1986; Margalit & Mauger, 1984; Mayseless & Salomon, 2003; Roniger & Feige,

1993; Shamir & Melnik, 2002; Trompenaars & Hanmpden-Turner, 1998).

By focusing on two specific emotions in a specific culture and with specific target

persons we offer a novel direction for research on emotion in organizations. In a way, our

findings refine former claims about Israel as being affectively expressive, as proposed by

Trompenaars and Hanmpden-Turner (1998), by showing that there is no overarching

norm of emotion expression. Rather, norms seem to vary in the extent to which they

restrict the expression of certain emotions toward certain target persons.

Few researchers have looked at norms of emotion display outside the customer

service setting (Tschan, Rochat & Zapf, 2005). We show this idea to be important in the

diverse and emotionally “open” culture of Israel. By distinguishing between different

target persons we implicitly distinguish between different roles that individuals may hold

in organizations. By focusing on emotion suppression we also offer a novel direction,

since previous empirical research has primarily focused on the idea of "service with a

smile" or “manufactured emotion” (Grandey & Brauburger, 2002; Grandey et al., 2005;

Hochschild, 1983; Pugh, 2001; Van Maanen, 1992). We suggest that it is also important

to look at norms for “service without a frown” as a form of emotion display rules.

Customers as High-Status Organizational Members

Our findings can be argued to suggest that customers have become high-status

targets of Israeli organizations, since we show that employees are expected to restrain

themselves from showing anger to customers. It appears that people in Israel perceive

that "the customer is always right", inasmuch as expressing anger is a form of telling

someone they are wrong. The anger suppression norms of employees toward customers

may help explain the high burnout rate of service employees in Israel (Rafaeli, 2004), and

is consistent with high burnout rates for service employees elsewhere (Deery, Iverson, &

Walsh, 2002; Dormann, Zapf , & Isic, 2002; Grandey et al., 2004). Israeli customer

service representatives are shown here to be targets of customer anger but to be unable to

show their own anger, and this combination is likely to create high stress and burnout

(Grandey et al., 2004).

This gap between norms governing customer behavior and norms governing the

behavior of service reps joins emerging criticism regarding blind global adoption of

service management practices (Strudy, 2000). The problem may be particularly acute in

Israel, where people expect relative freedom of emotional expression (Shamir and

Melnik, 2002). Nevertheless our findings nicely illustrate anger suppression norms as

elements of a customer service culture. We describe this role of anger suppression in

Israel, and report it here in a special issue dedicated to understanding unique HR issues in

Israel. It seems that Israel has absorbed the competitive conditions characterizing the

global – in the words of Thomas Friedman, the "flat" – economy (Friedman, 2005) – and

embraced customer service norms regarding the expression of anger.

References

Allan, S., & Gilbert, P. (2002). Anger and anger expression in relation to perceptions of

social rank, entrapment, and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual

Differences, 32, 551-565.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The

influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.

Human Relations, 48, 97-125.

Astley, J. A., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power:

A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104-113.

Averill, J. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in

organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),

Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bitner, M., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing

favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71-84.

Bongard, S., & al'Absi, M. (2003). Domain-specific anger expression assessment and

blood pressure during rest and acute stress. Personality and Individual

Differences, 34, 1381-1402.

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence

in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518-539.

Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status

conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological

Science, 19(3), 268-275.

Brief, A., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.

Brotheridge, C., & Grandey, A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two

perspectives of "people work". Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.

Brotheridge, C., & 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.

Buss, E. K., & Kiel, J. E. (2004). Comparison of sadness, anger, and fear facial

expressions when toddlers look at their mothers. Child Development, 75(6), 1761

– 1773.

Cote, S. and D. S. Moskowitz (2002). How are moods instigated at work? The influence

of relational status on mood. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel

(Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 111-134). Armonk, NY: M.E.

Sharpe.

Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centers:

Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. The Journal of

Management Studies, 39(4), 471-495.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional

display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 284-294.

Dormann, C., Zapf , D., & Isic, A. (2002). Emotional requirements at work and their

consequences for call-center jobs. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und

Organisationspsychologie, 46(4), 201-215.

Ekman, P. (1972). Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In

J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384-392.

Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1979). Facial expressions of emotion. Annual Review of

Psychology, 30, 527-554.

Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration.

Academy of Management Annals, 1, 371-457.

Fisk, G., & Grandey, A. (2003). Service with a scowl: Can social accounts mitigate

customers' reactions? Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle,

WA.

Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes

between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 147-162.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),

Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social

Research.

Frenkel, M. (2008). Reprogramming femininity? The construction of gender identities in

the Israeli high-tech industry between global and local gender orders. Gender,

Work and Organization, 15(4), 352-374.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A short history of the 21st century. New York:

Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural differences in facial expressions in a social situation: An

experimental test of the concept of display rules. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. University of California, San Francisco.

Fuller, L., & Smith, V. (1996). Consumers' reports: Management by customers in a

changing economy. In C. L. Macdonald & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Working in the

service society (pp. 29-49). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Geddes, D., & Callister, R.R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): A dual threshold model of

anger in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 721-46.

Gibson, D. E. (1997). The struggle for reason: The sociology of emotions in

organizations. Social perspectives on emotion, 4, 211-256.

Gibson, D. E., & Schroeder, S. J. (2002). Grinning, frowning, and emotionless: Agent

perceptions of power and their effect on felt and displayed emotions in influence

attempts. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Managing

emotions in the workplace (pp. 184-211). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Glomb, T. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with

data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1),

20-36.

Glomb, T., & Hulin, C. (1997). Anger and gender effects in observed supervisor-

subordinate dyadic interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 72, 281-307.

Grandey, A., & Brauburger, A. (2002). The emotion regulation behind the customer

service smile. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski & R. Kanfer. (Eds.), Emotions in the

workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational

behavior (pp. 260-294). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grandey, A., Dickter, D., & Sin, H.-P. (2004). The customer is not always right:

Customer verbal aggression toward service employees. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25(3), 397-418.

Grandey, A., Tam, A., & Brauburger, A. (2002). Affective states and traits of young

workers: A diary study. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 31-55.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must "service with a smile" be

stressful? The moderating role of personal control for U.S. and French employees.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 893-904.

Gross, J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.

Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35-59.

Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer

behavior. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 144-161.

Hecht, M. A., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effects of

power and gender on amount and type of smiling. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1332-1342.

Hess, U., Blairy, S., & Kleck, R. E. (2000). The influence of facial emotion displays,

gender, and ethnicity on judgments of dominance and affiliation. Journal of

Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 265_283.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:

McGraw Hill.

House, R., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).

Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

Kupperbusch, C., Matsumoto, D., Kooken, K., Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Wilson-Cohn,

C., Yrizarry, N. (1999). Cultural influences on nonverbal expressions of emotion.

In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman & E. J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of

nonverbal behavior (pp. 17-44). New York: Cambridge.

LaFrance, M., & Hecht, M. A. (1999). Option or obligation to smile: The effects of

power and gender on facial expression. In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman & E. J.

Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 45-70). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear

models. Biometrika, 73, 13-22.

Lively, K. J., & Powell, B. (2006). Emotional expression at work and at home: Domain,

status or individual characteristics?" Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 17-38.

Margalit, B. A., & Mauger, P. A. (1984). Cross-cultural demonstration of orthogonality

of assertiveness and aggressiveness - Comparison between Israel and the United

States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1414-1421.

Marsh, A. A., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Why do fear and anger look the

way they do? Form and social function in facial expressions. Personality & Social


Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic

impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 429-469.

Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display

rule attitudes, and self reported emotional expression in an American sample.

Motivation and emotion, 17(2).

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences

around the world. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 55-74.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Development and validation of

a measure of display rule knowledge: The display rule assessment inventory. Emotion,

5(1), 23-40.

Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). The

contribution of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display

rules. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 1(2), 147-165.

Mattila, A., Grandey, A., & Fisk, G. (2003). The interplay of gender and affective tone in service

encounter satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 136-143.

Mayseless, O., & Salomon, G. (2003). Dialectic contradictions in the experiences of Israeli

Jewish adolescents: Efficacy and stress, closeness and friction, and conformity and non-

compliance. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and Education (Vol. 3, pp.

149-171). Greenwich, CT: nformation Age Publishing.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace

incivility: Not time for "nice'? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1),

7-18.

Pfeffer. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy

of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018-1027.

Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of the supermarket

cashier. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 245-273.

Rafaeli, A. (1993). Dress and behavior of customer contact employees: A framework for

analysis. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 2, 175-211.

Rafaeli, A. (2004). Call center industry: operations and human resource management. Technion -

Israel Institute of Technology. Technical Report.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of

Management Review, 12(1), 23-37.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 11, 1-42.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. (1990). Busy stores and demanding customers: How do they affect the

display of positive emotion? Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 623-637.

Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior

and status in task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1189-1212.

Roniger, L. and M. Feige (1993). The Freier culture and the Israeli identity. Alpayim (2000) (in

Hebrew) 7: 118-136.

Saarni, C. (1979). Childrens' understanding of display rules for expressive behavior.

Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 424-429.

Saarni, C., & Von Salisch, M. (1993). The socialization of emotional dissemblance. In C. Saarni

(Ed.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 106-125). New York: Guilford Press.

Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions

and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 21, 163-183.

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shamir, B. (1980). Between service and servility: Role conflict in subordinate service roles.

Human Relations, 33(10), 741-756.

Shamir, B., & Melnik, Y. (2002). Boundary permeability as a cultural dimension: A study of

cross cultural working relations between American and Israelis in high-tech

organizations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2(2), 219-238.

Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a

shared understanding in multicultural teams. In E. A. M. Mannix, M. Neale & Y. Chen

(Eds.), Research in managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. Oxford:

Elsevier Science Press.

Spratlen, L. P. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university

workplace. Violence and Victims, 10, 285-297.

Strudy, A. (2000). Training in service – Importing and imparting customer service culture as an

interactive process. Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(6), 1082-1103.

Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction

judgements across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 482-493.

Tidd, K. L., & Lockard, J. S. (1978). Monetary significance of the affiliative smile: A case for

reciprocal altruism. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 344-346.

Tiedens, L. Z. (2000). Powerful emotions: The vicious cycle of social status positions and

emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the

workplace: Research, theory and practice. (pp. 71-81). Westport, CT: Quorum.

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.

Tiedens, L. Z., Ellsworth, P., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Stereotypes about sentiments and status:

Emotional expectations for high- and low-status group members. Personality and Social


Trompenaars, F., & Hanmpden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding

cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill

Tschan, F., Rochat, S., & Zapf, D. (2005). It's not only clients: Studying emotion work with

clients and co-workers with an event sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 78, 1-27.

Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations - Resource dependence,

efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471-481.

Underwood, M. K. (1997). Peer social status and children's understanding of the expression and

control of positive and negative emotions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 610-634.

Van Maanen, J. (1992). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. L.

Louis, C. C. Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture. London:

Sage.

Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational

culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103.

von Salisch, M., & Vogelgesang, J. (2005). Anger regulation among friends: Assessment and

development from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 22(6), 837-855.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.

D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology

(2 ed., Vol. 3, pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Table 1: Demographic attributes of research sample Item no

Attribute

1. Held paid job during last year or currently holds paid job 78.8% 2. Ever held or currently holds a service job 65.7% 3. Ever held or currently holds managerial position 52.8%

Male

47.2% (51)

4. Gender Percentage (N)

Female 52.8% (57)

5. Age Mean (SD)

24.84 (2.54)

Freshman 0% Sophomore 2.8% Junior 49.1% Senior 38.7% Grad MA 5.7%

6. Education

Grad Ph.D. 3.8% Israeli 81.6% Former USSR 16.8%

7. Race/ Ethnicity

Other 1.6%

Percent lived outside Israel 38.9% (42)

8. Ever lived outside of Israel

Number of months (for those who did)

77.92

Table 2: Definitions of target persons and emotions

Target

Definition

Manager A person with whom you interact regularly at your place of

employment and who is responsible for supervising or evaluating your

work.

Colleague A person with whom you interact regularly and who is similar to you in

status.

Subordinate Someone with whom you interact regularly at work and whose work

you are responsible for supervising.

Customer A person with whom you might interact if you worked as a customer

service representative; for example, a customer in a cell phone

company or a retail store.

Customer service

representative

An employee with whom you interact when you need

services – such as a cell phone assistant, or sales – such as a retail clerk

Emotion

Definition

Anger A feeling of displeasure caused by injury, mistreatment, opposition and

usually manifesting itself in a desire to fight back the cause of the

displeasure.

Fear A feeling of anxiety and agitation caused by the presence or nearness

of danger, evil or pain.

Table 3: Percent of people who indicated emotion suppression toward different target persons Target person

Anger Fear

Customer 95.37 (103)

99.07 (106)

CSR 30.56 (33)

95.24 (100)

Manager 82.41 (89)

99.07 (106)

Subordinate 42.59 (46)

98.10 (103)

Coworker 39.81 (43)

87.85 (94)

Numbers in parentheses are actual frequencies.

Table 4: Score statistics For type 3 GEE analysis of emotion expression toward different target persons

Source DF Chi-Square

Subj. is working 1 .11

Subj. is/was service employee 1 .47

Subj. is/ was supervisor 1 4.95*

Age 1 .37

Sex 1 1.53

Emotion 3 5.01*

Target person 4 23.79***

Emotion X Target person 12 10.13* *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.0001

Table 5: Anger versus fear: Least square means analysis of differences in emotion suppression toward different target persons. Customer CSR Manager Subordinate Coworker 5.17 (2.17)

48.85*** (51.67)

23.07** (10.15)

73.74*** (33.06)

11.57*** (45.94)

**p<.01 ***p<.0001 Values are odds ratios. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that suppression is equally likely with both anger and fear. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that suppression is more likely with fear; an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that suppression is more likely with anger. Significance was examined by chi-square test. Values in parentheses are chi-square values with 1 df.

Table 6: Least square means analysis of differences in emotion suppression toward different target persons.

1 2 3 4 1. Customer . 2. CSR .02***

(67.20) .

3. Manager .22** (9.07)

11.32*** (60.42)

.

4. Subordinate .03*** (49.61)

1.71* (4.62)

.15*** (37.54)

.

Ang

er

5. Coworker .03*** (56.59)

1.52+ (2.79)

.13*** (45.75)

.89 (0.31)

1. Customer . 2. CSR .19

(2.26) .

3. Manager 1.0 (0.0)

5.34 (2.30)

.

4. Subordinate .48 (.34)

2.58 (1.70)

.48 (.34)

.

Fear

5. Coworker .07** (7.72)

.36+ (3.63)

.07* (6.48)

.14** (7.28)

+p<.1 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.0001 Values are odds ratios. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that emotion suppression is equally likely with both row and column targets. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that emotion suppression is more likely with the row target. An odds ratio less than 1 indicates that emotion suppression is more likely with the column target. Significance was examined by chi-square test. Values in parentheses are chi-square values with 1 df.

Anger in Israeli Workplace the Special Place of Customer Interactions

Documents

Transcript of Anger in Israeli Workplace the Special Place of Customer Interactions