Myth or Science?
“Smile, and the Work World Smiles with You”
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Differentiate between emotions and moods
Learning Outcome: Discuss the importance of individual moods and emotions in the workplace
AACSB: Written and oral communications; Reflective thinking
It is true that a smile is not always an emotional expression. Smiles are used as social currency
in most organizations to create a positive atmosphere, and a smile usually creates an unconscious
reflexive return smile. However, anyone who has ever smiled at an angry manager knows this
doesn’t always work. In truth, the giving and withholding of smiles is an unconscious power play
of office politics.
Research on the “boss effect” suggests that the amount of power and status a person feels over
another person dictates who will smile. Subordinates generally smile more often than their
bosses smile back at them. This may happen in part because workers are increasingly expected to
show expressions of happiness with their jobs. However, the perception of power is complex and
varies by national culture. In a recent study, Chinese workers, for instance, reflexively smiled
only at bosses who had the power to give them negative job evaluations, while U.S. participants
smiled most to managers perceived to have higher social power. Other researchers found that
when individuals felt powerful, they usually didn’t return even a high-ranking individual’s smile.
Conversely, when people felt powerless, they returned everyone’s smiles.
The science of smiling transcends the expression of emotion. While an angry manager may not
smile back, a happy manager might not as well, according to the “boss effect” research. “The
relationship of what we show on our face and how we feel is a very loose one,” acknowledged
Arvid Kappas, a professor of emotion research at Jacobs University Bremen in Germany. This
suggests that, when we want to display positive emotions to others, we should do more than
smile, such as when service representatives try to create happy moods in their customers with
excited voice pitch, encouraging gestures, and energetic body movement.
The science of smiling is an area of current research, but it is clear already that knowing about
the “boss effect” suggests many practical applications. For one, managers and employees can be
made more aware of ingrained tendencies toward others and, through careful self-observation,
change their habits. Comprehensive displays of positive emotion using voice inflection, gestures,
and word choice may also be more helpful in building good business relationships than the
simple smile.
Sources: R. L. Hotz, “Too Important to Smile Back: The ‘Boss Effect’,” The Wall Street Journal (October 16, 2012), p. D2; E. Kim
and D. J. Yoon, “Why Does Service With a Smile Make Employees Happy? A Social Interaction Model,” Journal of Applied
Psychology 97 (2012), pp. 1059–-1967; and K. Weintraub, “But How Do You Really Feel? Someday the Computer May Know,” The
New York Times (October 16, 2012), p. D3
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into groups of three to five students.
2. Have each group discuss situations in which students experienced the “boss effect”
either as the superior in the relationship or as the subordinate.
3. Have students try to remember how they felt about the other person in this situation.
4. Ask students whether they think their expression or that of the other individual really
reflected how they each felt.
5. Have the group write down the results.
6. Have the groups present to the class their perceptions about smiling in the workplace
and whether smiling accurately conveys what people feel.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
Ethical Choice
Should Managers Use Emotional Intelligence (EI) Tests?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Describe emotional intelligence
Learning Outcomes: Discuss the importance of individual moods and emotions in the workplace
AACSB: Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking
As we discussed in this chapter, the concept of emotional intelligence has raised some debate.
One of the topic questions for managers is whether to use EI tests in the selection process. Here
are some ethical considerations:
There is no commonly accepted test. For instance, researchers have recently used the
Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire, and the newly developed Situational Judgment Test of Emotional
Intelligence (SJT of EI) in studies. Researchers feel EI tests may need to be culturally
specific because emotional displays vary by culture; thus, the interpretation of emotional
cues differs. For example, a recent study in India comparing the emotional intelligence scores
for Indian and North American executives using the Emotional Competence Inventory test
(ECI-2) found the results similar but not the same, suggesting the need for modification.
Applicants may react negatively to taking an EI test in general, or to parts of it. The face
recognition test, for example, may seem culturally biased to some if the subject photos are
not diverse. Also, participants who score high on EI tests tend to consider them fair;
applicants who score lower may not perceive the tests to be fair and can thus consider the
hiring organizations unfavorably—even if they score well on other assessments.
EI tests may not be predictive of performance for all types of jobs. In a study of 600
Romanian participants, results showed that EI was valid for salespeople, public servants, and
CEOs of public hospitals, but these were all roles requiring significant social interaction. EI
tests may need to be tailored for each position category or not be used when the position
description does not warrant.
It remains somewhat unclear what EI tests are actually measuring. They may reflect
personality or intelligence, in which case, other measures might be better. Also, mixed EI
tests may predict job performance, but many of these tests include personality constructs and
measures of general mental ability.
There is not enough research on how emotional intelligence affects, for instance,
counterproductive work behaviors. It may not be prudent to test and select applicants who are
rated high on EI when we aren’t yet certain that everything about EI leads to desired
workplace outcomes.
These concerns suggest EI tests should be avoided in hiring decisions. However, because
research has indicated that emotional intelligence does predict job performance to some degree,
managers should not be too hasty to dismiss the tests. Rather, those wishing to use EI in hiring
decisions should be aware of these issues in order to make informed and ethical decisions about
not only whom to hire, but how.
Sources: D. Iliescu, A. Ilie, D. Ispas, and A. Ion, “Emotional Intelligence in Personnel Selection: Applicant Reactions, Criterion, and Incremental
Validity,” International Journal of Selection and Assessment (September 2012), pp. 347–-358; R. Sharma, “Measuring Social and Emotional
Intelligence Competencies in the Indian Context,” Cross Cultural Management 19 (2012), pp. 30–-47; and S. Sharma, M. Gangopadhyay, E.
Austin, and M. K. Mandal, “Development and Validation of a Situational Judgment Test of Emotional Intelligence,” International Journal of
Selection and Assessment (March 2013), pp. 57–-73.
Class Discussion
Ask students whether they have ever taken an EI test. If they have, did they think it provided an
accurate assessment of their EI? Did the results of the test prevent them from getting a position
they wanted? Then, ask students whether they would rely on EI tests when making hiring
decisions.
Personal Inventory Assessments
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
Have you ever been able to “read” others well? Do people say you seem to have “the right thing
to say” for every occasion? Complete this PIA to determine your emotional intelligence (EI).
Career OBjectives
How do I turn down the volume on my screaming boss?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Apply concepts about emotions and moods to specific OB issues
Learning Outcome: Discuss the importance of individual moods and emotions in the workplace
AACSB: Written and oral communications; Reflective thinking
My boss is a yeller. One time, he kicked my chair and yelled for me to get out of the office just
because I’d forgotten to tell him that lunch had been delivered. His rage makes me so mad I want
to yell back, but I don’t because it isn’t professional. Is there a way to get him to think before he
fumes? —Leslie
Dear Leslie:
We feel for you! Actually, your internal anger response is perfectly normal. Almost everyone has
an emotional reaction to screaming and other situations of workplace incivility like swearing and
rude behavior, and a majority of employees react somehow. For example, 66 percent of
participants in a recent study reported their performance declined when they were the recipients
of incivility, and 25 percent admitted they took their frustration out on customers. Another study
found that verbal aggression reduces victims’ working memory, making even simple instructions
difficult to follow. So you’re right to want to strategize how to calm the situation since it hurts
you, your coworkers, and the company.
The good news is that you can work on your reactions to de-escalate an episode. Experts suggest
empathizing with your boss (often we find if we try to understand where someone is coming
from, it helps us deal with the emotions more effectively), apologizing if you’ve done something
wrong, and not talking back (incivility is never cured by payment in kind). Find situations where
you can laugh over mutual frustrations and don’t take his outbursts personally.
The bad news is that you probably can’t change his emotional response to incidents, but you may
be able to help him see the error of his ways by modeling better behavior. Of course, there are
situations in which you cannot and should not tolerate uncivil behavior (such as when you are
being threatened or when the behavior becomes truly abusive). In those cases, you may need to
deal with the situation more directly by first calmly confronting your boss or, if that fails, seeing
someone in human resources. But short of that breaking point, our experience and the research
suggest that your best response is not to respond outwardly but rather to rethink the way you are
responding inwardly.
As the British poster says, “Keep calm and carry on!”
Sources: C. Porath and C. Pearson, “The Price of Incivility,” Harvard Business Review (January–February 2013): 114–21; A. Rafaeli et al.,
“When Customers Exhibit Verbal Aggression, Employees Pay Cognitive Costs,” Journal of Applied Psychology (September 2012): 931–50; S.
Shellenbarger, “’It’s Not My Fault!’ A Better Response to Criticism at Work,” The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2014, D1, D4; and S.
Shellenbarger, “When the Boss Is a Screamer,” The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2012, D1, D2.
Point/Counterpoint
Sometimes Yelling is for Everyone’s Good
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objectives: Differentiate between emotions and moods; Show the impact emotional labor has on
employees; Identify strategies for emotion regulation; Apply concepts about emotions and moods to specific OB
issues
Learning Outcome: Discuss the importance of individual moods and emotions in the workplace
AACSB: Written and oral communications; Reflective thinking
Point
Anger is discussed throughout this chapter for a reason: It’s an important emotion. There are
benefits to expressing anger. For one, research indicates that only employees who are
committed to their organizations tend to express their anger, and generally only to leaders who
created the situation. This type of expression of anger could lead to positive organizational
change. Second, suppressed anger can lower job satisfaction and lead to a feeling of hopelessness
that things will improve.
Even with these findings, we hear a lot about not responding emotionally to work challenges.
Work cultures teach us to avoid showing any anger at all, lest we be seen as poor workers or,
worse, unprofessional, or even deviant or violent. While, of course, there are times when the
expression of anger is harmful or unprofessional, we’ve taken this view so far that we now teach
people to suppress perfectly normal emotions, and to ignore the effectiveness of some emotional
expression.
Emerging research shows that suppressing anger takes a terrible internal toll on individuals. One
Stanford University study found, for example, that when individuals were asked to wear a poker
face during the showing of a movie clip depicting the atomic bombings of Japan during World
War II, they were much more stressed in conversations after the video. Other research shows that
college students who suppress emotions like anger have more trouble making friends and are
more likely to be depressed, and that employees who suppress anger feel more stressed by work.
For the good of organizations and their employees, we should encourage people not to hold back
their emotions, but to share them constructively.
Counterpoint
Yes, anger is a common emotion. But it’s also a toxic one for the giver and the receiver. Angry
outbursts can compromise the heart and contribute to diabetes, among other ill effects. The
experience of another’s anger and its close correlate, hostility, is also linked to many
counterproductive behaviors in organizations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 16
percent of fatal workplace injuries result from workplace violence. That is why many
organizations have developed counteractive techniques—to blunt the harmful effects of anger in
the workplace.
To reduce outcomes, many companies develop policies that govern conduct such as yelling,
shouting profanities, and making hostile gestures. Others institute anger management programs.
For example, one organization conducted mandatory in-house workshops that showed
individuals how to deal with conflicts in the workplace before they boil over. The director who
instituted the training said it “gave people specific tools for opening a dialogue to work things
out.” MTS Systems, a Minnesota engineering firm, engages an outside consulting company to
conduct anger management programs for its organization. Typically, MTS consultants hold an
8-hour seminar that discusses sources of anger, conflict resolution techniques, and organizational
policies. This is followed by one-on-one sessions with individual employees that focus on
cognitive behavioral techniques to manage their anger. The outside trainer charges around
$10,000 for the seminar and one-on-one sessions. The financial cost, though, is worth it for the
emotional benefits the participants receive. “You want people to get better at communicating
with each other,” says MTS manager Karen Borre.
In the end, everyone wins when organizations seek to diminish both the experience and the
expression of anger at work. The work environment becomes less threatening and stressful to
employees and customers. Employees are likely to feel safer, and the angry employee is often
helped as well.
Sources: B. Carey, “The Benefits of Blowing Your Top,” The New York Times, July 6, 2010, D1; R. Y. Cheung and I. J. Park,“Anger Suppression,
Interdependent Self-Construal, and Depression among Asian American and European American College Students,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology 16, no. 4 (2010): 517–25; D. Geddes and L. T. Stickney, “The Trouble with Sanctions: Organizational Responses to Deviant
Anger Displays at Work,” Human Relations 64, no. 2 (2011): 201–30; J. Fairley, “Taking Control of Anger Management,” Workforce
Management (October 2010): 10; L. T. Stickney and D. Geddes,“Positive, Proactive, and Committed: The Surprising Connection Between Good
Citizens and Expressed (vs. Suppressed) Anger at Work,” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 7, no. 4 (November 2014): 243–64;
and J. Whalen, “Angry Outbursts Really Do Hurt Your Health, Doctors Find,” The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2015, D1, D4.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into two groups—one group to take on the issues raised in Point, the
other group to take on the issues raised in Counterpoint. You may want to divide each
half into smaller groups to enable all class members to participate in the group’s
discussions.
2. Ask the class to act as an organization’s management team. Their job is to make
recommendations for a company policy on displays of anger in the work place.
3. Have students present their recommendations to the class and make a decision as to what
the best arguments are and why. What gains do they expect as a result of the criteria that
they used?
4. Have them list the recommendations and benefits on the board for the class to evaluate
during the discussion.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.