Anger

Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com/ Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Donald E. Gibson and Ronda Roberts Callister Journal of Management 2010 36: 66 originally published online 19 October 2009 DOI: 10.1177/0149206309348060 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/1/66
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/1/66.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Dec 28, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 19, 2009 What is This?
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012
Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Donald E. Gibson
Fairfield University
Ronda Roberts Callister

Utah State University
Organizations are rife with situations likely to cause employee anger, including complex relationships, chronic pressure, high stakes, and factors beyond individual control. The importance of this discrete emotion has led to a range of studies exploring the implications of anger for critical organizational phenomena, including emotion norms, leadership, gender issues, status and power, and cross-cultural differences. Despite the dramatic increase in scholarly attention over the past decade to understanding anger experience and expression in organizations, there exist few current reviews and little integration of this diverse literature. By combining a psychological perspective of anger as an episodic process with an organizational perspective emphasizing contextual effects and norms, this review will summarize current research in this vital area, provide a model for understanding and integrating this work, and propose themes for future research. Keywords: anger; workplace; organization; emotions
Affective processes have long held the interest of organizational researchers, but have largely been examined as generalized states, such as job satisfaction and positive and negative mood (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Recently, observers have called for more specificity in empirical emotions research (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003). Scholars have answered
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Shirli Kopelman, Jeanne Brett, Thomas Sy, and respondents to our Eastern Academy of ManagementInternational and International Association for Conflict Management presentations for their comments on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Deborah Rupp and two thorough reviewers for improving the quality of this work. The first author received a Dolan School of Business research grant to help support this work. Corresponding author: Donald E. Gibson, Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University, North Benson Road, Fairfield, CT 06824-5195, USA E-mail: dgibson@fairfield.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, January 2010 66-93 DOI: 10.1177/0149206309348060 2010 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
66
Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration
67
that call by exploring the antecedents and outcomes of discrete, rather than generalized emotions: the anger, fear, sadness, and happiness of working in organizations. In this review, we propose that the discrete emotion of anger is worthy of study as a distinct phenomenon in organizationsan emotion that has a theoretically rich past, the intense interest of current researchers, and critical implications for managers. Anger influences multilevel organizational phenomena. Its experience and expression is implicit in individual-level concerns such as perceptions of injustice, inequity, and dissatisfaction (see Fitness, 2000), an important aspect of hierarchical dyadic relationships (Glomb & Hulin, 1997), a factor in group conflict (Allred, 1999), a determinant of leader effectiveness (Lewis, 2000), the focus of organizational cultural norms (Stearns & Stearns, 1986), and the target of display rules that vary cross-culturally (Ohbuchi et al., 2004). The study of anger in the workplace has intrigued researchers partially because of its paradoxical nature: It has the capacity for both positive and negative consequences. Research, as this review will contend, can be characterized as changing in emphasis from an investigation of the negative, harmful effects of anger to an investigation of the conditions under which anger expressions can be functional and adaptive for organizations (Geddes & Callister, 2007). Although anger has long been of interest to organizational researchers (Stearns & Stearns, 1986), scholarly investigation of this emotion has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. Although research, primarily within psychology, has advanced our understanding of the episodic nature of anger as an emotion (Averill, 1982; Frijda, 1986), this work has not been fully integrated with organizational behavior approaches emphasizing contextual effects and norms. This article seeks to integrate these two perspectives. We propose a model of anger situating the episodic approach within the rich context of organizations. We define and provide conceptual boundaries around anger, provide a glimpse of the wide range of organizational literature that has addressed it, and suggest that this integration points us to new directions for future research.
Defining Anger
Attempts to define anger and determine its meaning for human interaction have been ongoing since at least Aristotles time, and no doubt before (Aristotle, 1992: 1109-1125). Some psychologists argue that anger is, at best, a fuzzy concept that people know when they see and feel it, but has been notoriously difficult for academics to define (Russell & Fehr, 1994). However, we suggest that the wide variety of studies on anger, increasingly focused on work settings, now allow us to draw firmer conceptual boundaries around this construct. In developing our definition, we highlight five critical aspects. First, anger is a discrete emotion, meaning that it can be differentiated from more generalized affective states such as negative affect. It is discrete in that anger is characterized by unique and recognizable expressions, relatively specific physiological components, and a relatively limited set of antecedent events. These characteristics lead some to argue that anger is one of five to eight basic emotions, citing strong evidence that individuals can reliably recognize its expression and experience across multiple situations and cultures (Ekman, 1992). The notion of being basic suggests that anger is a more fundamental concept than related concepts of aggression, revenge, or hostility.1 Second, anger is a social emotion; it tends to be a response to others
68
Journal of Management / January 2010
actions and directed toward others (Averill, 1982). More specifically, several prominent approaches conceptually link anger to an individuals blame of another person for perceived wrongdoing (Clore & Ortony, 1991). The primary causes of anger are acts by others perceived to be unjust, being attacked or treated unfairly by others, and obstructions to goal-directed behavior, all of which may evoke appraisals of responsibility for wrongdoing by others, prompting feelings of anger (Spielberger, 1999; Weiner, 1995). Third, there are two primary types of anger: state and trait. State anger is a relatively temporary emotional state consisting of feelings ranging from irritation to intense rage, physiological and cognitive reactions, behavioral tendencies, and observable verbal and motor behaviors (see Glomb, 2002). Trait anger is a longer-term disposition to perceive situations as anger provoking and to experience more frequent and more intense episodes of state anger (Spielberger, 1999). Fourth, although a range of conceptions of anger exist in the literature, this review will primarily focus on state anger as experienced by individuals in temporal episodes (Beal, Trougakkos, Weiss, & Green, 2006). This view asserts that emotions are transactions between individuals and their environment. These transactions typically involve other people and issues that have meaning for individuals and tend to be experienced as a sequence of reactions occurring over time (Frijda, 1993; Lazarus, 1986; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1999). Drawing on these aspects, we define anger as an emotion that involves an appraisal of responsibility for wrongdoing by another person or entity and often includes the goal of correcting the perceived wrong. An entity may include oneself and nonhuman entities, such as inanimate objects, social systems, and so on. We will emphasize that at the individual level, anger responses serve a social function of signaling that a perceived wrong has occurred and that approach behavior may follow. At the group, organizational, and societal level, we will emphasize that norms for controlling anger expressions are important cultural attributes.
An Episodic Model of Anger in Organizations

Drawing on the above definition, we develop an episodic model of anger as shown in Figure 1 to organize the research literature. An emotion episode is composed of four primary elements: (a) an antecedent or triggering event; (b) an emotional experience or reaction; (c) expression, determined by both the intensity of felt anger and effort at regulating expression or behavior; and (d) an outcome or consequence, which may include the individuals own reaction to the episode as well as the responses of others (Fehr, Baldwin, Collins, Patterson, & Benditt, 1999; Lazarus, 1991). We will refer to individuals experiencing anger as agents; person(s) to whom an individual expresses anger (even if they were not considered the source of the anger) as targets; and people who observe the anger expression episode as observers.
Work Event Antecedents

Focusing on workplace anger episodes, our model depicts these episodes as beginning with a work-related antecedent or triggering event. There are a wide range of possible causes of anger. Anger has been depicted as arising primarily from judgments of personal offense (Solomon, 1983: 284), inferences about responsibility for negative acts by others (Weiner,
69
Figure 1 An Episodic Model of Anger in Organizations
Anger Episode
Work Event Antecedents Fairness/Justice Goal Interference Interpersonal Conflict
Experienced Anger Subjective Physiological Cognitive
Expression or Regulation Authentic Controlled Silent
Consequences Valence Levels of Analysis
Moderators Influencing the Anger Episode Level Individual Dyadic, Group Organization Culture Research Focus Gender, Trait Anger Status Differences Organizational Emotion Norms Cultural Emotion Norms
1995: 17), and perceptions of unfairness (Folger, 1993). Although the range of antecedents to workplace anger is broad and characterized by significant individual variability (see Booth & Mann, 2005; Domagalski & Steelman, 2005), we suggest that three primary areas of organizational inquiry have explanatory power in helping us to understand the causes of workplace anger: perceptions of fairness and justice, goal interference, and interpersonal conflict. Fairness and justice. Prior equity and organizational justice research suggests that individuals will experience negative emotions when they perceive that they have been treated unfairly (Adams, 1965; Pillutla & Murnighan, 1996). The theoretical mechanism proposed by these studies draws on Adams (1965) equity theory. When the input-to-outcome ratio an individual perceives is less than the input-to-outcome ratio of a referent other, the individual feels a sense of inequity. Feelings of inequity tend to produce negative emotions, including frustration, resentment, and anger, and prior work has found that unexpected adverse outcomes can have a large emotional impact (Coughlan & Connolly, 2001). Indeed, these negative emotions may cause individuals to want to harm another person or the organization (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Several studies have confirmed the proposed linkage between feelings of injustice and the specific emotion of anger. Domagalski and Steelman (2005) in a survey study of anger triggers found that unjust treatment, particularly by supervisors, was related to subjectively felt
70
anger, angry thoughts, and altered physiological states. Fitness (2000) similarly found that unjust treatment was the most common cause of anger for individuals in the workplace, and this reaction was strongest when perpetrated by supervisors. Both perceptions of procedural (Cropanzano, Weiss, Suckow, & Grandey, 2000) and interactional (Harlos & Pinder, 2000) injustice have been associated with feelings of anger among employees. Schweitzer and Gibson (2008) found that an individuals perception of injustice, defined as violations of community standards of fairness, led to feelings of anger. They further showed that these anger feelings were related to an increased tendency to engage in unethical behavior toward the parties perceived to be unfair. The mechanisms linking justice perceptions and anger have been refined by research on fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). According to this theory, individuals form their perceptions of unfair treatment through a largely unconscious, automatic process in which they pose counterfactual questions about an encounter with another involving a perceived injustice, such as, Would the situation have been preferable if the perpetrator of the (in)justice had acted differently? Should the perpetrator have done something so that the situation played out differently? And could the perpetrator have carried out this alternative action? (Rupp, McCance, & Grandey, 2007: 212). A critical component of fairness theory is the operation of a deontic model holding that perceptions of fair treatment are also determined by the comparison of the treatment to a set of moral and ethical standards held by the individual (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). This approach suggests that not only will individuals react with anger when they are treated unfairly, they will also feel anger (deontic rage) when they perceive that the treatment of others, even strangers, is unfair. This largely automatic sense of outrage when faced with acts that violate moral codes has been suggested to have an evolutionary basis: anger is a signal indicating that deeply held societal or human values are being violated (Goldman, Slaughter, Schmit, Wiley, & Brooks, 2008). Recently, researchers have drawn on both organizational justice and emotional labor approaches to refine their hypotheses concerning employee anger. Rupp and Spencer (2006) found that anger mediates the relationship between customer interactional justice and emotional labor in a laboratory study. In a subsequent study, Rupp, McCance, Spencer, and Sonntag (2008) found that anger mediates the interaction of interpersonal justice and taking the customers perspective on whether employees would engage in surface acting. In support of the deontic model, Spencer and Rupp (2009) found that respondents emotional labor increased both when they were treated unfairly by customers, as well as when their coworkers were treated unfairly, and this tendency was partially mediated by anger and counterfactual thinking. Related to perceptions of fairness, research has also linked workplace anger with an individuals perceptions of incivility, disrespect, and condescension by another person (Domagalski & Steelman, 2005). Incivility, which involves acting rudely or discourteously, without regard for others, in violation of norms for respect in social interactions (Andersson & Pearson, 1999: 455), has been found to be a primary source of anger (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002). In Fitness (2000) study of anger episodes, disrespect, including arrogance or rude behavior, was the fourth most frequent anger-eliciting event.
71
Goal interference. Following (in)justice perceptions, interference with an individuals execution of plans or attainment of goals is a common source of anger (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & OConnor, 1987). Given the focus on goal achievement in organizations, this aspect is central to understanding when anger is likely to occur. The notion of goal interference as a source of anger has a long history, initially associated with Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Searss (1939) work on the frustrationaggression hypothesis. This work suggested that when an individuals instigated goal-response was interrupted or interdicted, aggression was the likely result (depending on whether punishment was expected for overt aggressive acts). Berkowitz (1993) later critiqued this work to show that mediating the frustrationaggression sequence was an emotional reaction: anger. More recent applications of the frustrationaggression hypothesis have confirmed that employees experience of situational constraints that are felt to frustrate their personal and organizational goals lead to counterproductive behavioral responses mediated by affective reactions, especially anger (Chen & Spector, 1992). Fox and Spector (1999) found that situational constraints that block employees achievement of goals are associated with counterproductive behaviors in the workplace, mediated by feelings of frustration. Interpersonal conflict. Emotions are evoked in conflict situations when people imbue issues with meaning (Davidson & Greenhalgh, 1999; Lazarus, 1991), and when this meaning is construed negatively, it can lead to anger. In conflict management research, expressing anger has been associated with spirals of increasing conflict, with an increasing potential for retaliation, a tendency to reduce trust, and for both parties to a conflict to focus on the anger-producing behavior rather than the goal of reaching agreement (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997). Glomb (2002) found that job-related conflicts were cited by 80% of her respondents as sources of workplace anger and aggression. Drawing on attribution theory, Allred (1999) provides a theoretical model suggesting that interpersonal conflict leads to anger and retaliation when an individual holds another party responsible for harmful behavior toward him or her.
Experienced Anger
These work-event antecedents create the potential for individuals to experience anger. The path from antecedents to experience, mapped by cognitive appraisal theorists (e.g., Roseman, 1984) and applied to organizations (see affective events theory; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1999), suggests that meaningful events are first evaluated by individuals as positive or negative. Following this primary appraisal, a secondary appraisal of relevance, attributions, possible outcomes, goals, and so on is undertaken, and if an appraisal of responsibility for wrongdoing by another is made, the individual experiences the discrete emotion of anger. Experienced anger is a multidimensional construct containing cognitive appraisals, action tendencies, somatic or physiological reactions, and a subjective feeling of being angry (Frijda, 1986). Subjective anger varies in intensity based on the importance attributed by the agent to the antecedent event (Domagalski & Steelman, 2005). This experienced or felt anger can be distinguished from expressed anger. Experienced anger is internal to the individual, and although it varies in intensity, the level of intensity expressed may not match the intensity felt. Expressed anger is observable by others, and takes the form of facial expressions, physical gestures, tone of voice, and language (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989).
72
Expression or Regulation
Regulation of our emotional experiences, which consist of attempts to influence which emotions we have, when we have them, and how these emotions are experienced or expressed (Gross, 1998: 224) operates to varying degrees throughout the anger episode. Broadly speaking, emotions may be regulated through two processes: deep acting or antecedent-focused emotion regulation, in which individuals seek to select, modify, or cognitively change aspects of situations in anticipation of reducing or enhancing their emotional impact; and surface acting or response-focused emotion regulation, in which individuals seek to intensify, diminish, prolong or curtail their emotional experience and/or expression (Grandey, 2000; Gross, 1998; Hochschild, 1983). As we demonstrate below in our discussion of anger norms, understanding the regulation process is especially critical to organizational settings, because cultural, organizational, and group norms delineate the degree to which anger expression is appropriate and the sanctions possible if these norms are violated (see Geddes & Callister, 2007). We suggest that individuals regulate their anger expression through a range of possible responses, depending on their assessment of the dynamics of the organizational situation, their own personal tendencies, and their understanding of emotion norms operating. Callister, Gray, Gibson, Schweitzer, and Tan (2007) conceive of authentic anger expressions as occurring when the intensity of anger expression matches the intensity of felt anger. The individual expresses anger without trying to reduce or control the emotion. Controlled expression includes anger that is expressed at a lower intensity than the level at which it is felt. Controlling emotions, especially negative emotions such as anger, has been a common focus of prescriptions for individual effectiveness (see Gross, 1998), for group cohesiveness and productivity (Kelly & Barsade, 2001), and for organizational harmony (Stearns & Stearns, 1986). Individuals may control their anger expression by raising an issue while restraining the emotion in their voice and modulating their behavior, or they may delay its expression. People often choose to control anger expression because they believe it will reduce the adverse effects of anger episodes. Silent anger occurs when individuals experience anger, but do not verbally express it to those involved or those who can address the issue (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Silent anger can be thought of as expression in the sense that the emotion is often visible in individuals nonverbal behavior. Callister et al.s (2007) typology of anger expressions is consistent with a commonly used methodological approach depicting three types of anger expression: anger-out (anger expressed through aggressive verbal or physical forms), anger-control (experienced anger mitigated by strategies aimed at calming down and exhibiting patience and tolerance with others), and anger-in (anger directed inward at the self, characterized by inhibition of outward expression; Spielberger, 1999).
Consequences of Experienced and Expressed Anger

Assessing the degree of anger regulation in an episode is essential because the intensity of anger expression has been shown to affect anger outcomes, with greater intensity leading to more negative consequences (Gibson, Schweitzer, Callister, & Gray, 2009). As noted, there has been a substantial shift in the research literature from identifying ways in which anger expressions primarily
73
lead to harmful effects (e.g., Glomb, 2002) to emphasizing the utility of emotions in responding and adapting to events and circumstances, a social functional approach (Frijda, 1986; Keltner & Gross, 1999). Determining whether anger expressions are primarily dysfunctional or functional implies an understanding of consequences; however, researchers have only recently begun to focus on consequences of anger episodes in the workplace (Booth & Mann, 2005). Consequences can be categorized in terms of valence and the level of analysis at which the consequence resides. Valence is a continuum ranging from positive, meaning that agents, targets, or observers of an anger expression perceive that the episode serves adaptive or beneficial purposes (this perception may be immediate or retrospective), to negative, when the episode is perceived to be maladaptive or serves to harm the interacting parties. Consequences may occur at the individual, dyadic, group, or organizational level. In terms of research on negative consequences, anger has been linked to elevated blood pressure, heart disease, and feelings of hostility (Begley, 1994), interpersonal revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1998), blame (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001), harmful organizational climates (Aquino, Douglas, & Martinko, 2004), decreased job satisfaction (Glomb, 2002), increased organizational incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), and at the extreme, aggression and violence (Fox & Spector, 1999). However, research has also identified a range of positive consequences from anger expressions. At the individual level, anger can provide a potent internal signal that goals are being blocked, can communicate to others that they are hindering an individuals freedom or resources, and can mobilize protective physiological changes and behaviors to deal with perceived threat (Frijda, 1986). At the interpersonal level, expressed anger can help interactants clarify their needs and signal boundaries of appropriate behavior. Indeed, recent empirical studies using community respondents suggest that about half the time, individuals perceive that their anger expressions lead to positive outcomes for dyadic relationships (Tafrate, Kassinove, & Dundin, 2002). At the organizational level, expressions of anger have long been considered vital to motivating individuals to address issues of injustice and inequity in their institutions (Bies, 1987). Overall, from a social functional perspective, anger expressions are viewed as adaptive for reaching interpersonal and intrapersonal goals (Keltner & Gross, 1999). Whereas most of the previous work cited focused on one level, recent work suggests that the valence of anger and the various levels of analysis at which consequences may reside can and should be jointly examined (Callister et al., 2007). Recent work in conflict and negotiation offers new insights into how anger expressions can be functional. Initial research in this area focused on the intrapersonal effects of anger: the notion that a negotiators mood or emotional response would affect negotiation style and outcomes (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004). For example, research identified negotiator felt anger as decreasing joint gains and reducing the desire to work together in the future (Allred et al., 1997), leading to the rejection of ultimatum offers (Pillutla & Murnighan, 1996), and increasing the tendency to use competitive strategies (Forgas, 1998). Current work has turned to the more complex question of the interpersonal effects of anger on negotiations: the influence of one negotiators anger on his or her counterparts behavior (Van Kleef et al., 2004). In negotiations, anger displays may evoke complementary emotions in others, such as fear, which may be advantageous to the negotiator (Keltner & Kring, 1998). Anger display may thus serve a signaling function: Negotiators tend to use others emotions as signals of their opponents limits, and modify their demands accordingly. Consistent with this theory, negotiators tend to concede more to an angry opponent than to
74
a happy one (Van Kleef et al., 2004) and this especially occurs when the recipients of angry expressions have poor alternatives (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006). The notion that anger provides essential emotional information has led other researchers to posit that strategically displaying anger may lead to desired results (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002). However, they caution that strategically displaying negative emotions such as anger can cause negotiation counterparts to make more extreme demands (Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006). Other studies have begun to explore when expressing anger in conflict is effective and when it is ineffective (van Dijk, van Kleef, Steinel, & van Beest, 2008). A negotiators level of power vis--vis a counterpart and the perceived appropriateness of anger expressions in specific situations have been shown to jointly determine whether a negotiator uses competitive or cooperative strategies (Friedman et al., 2004; Van Kleef & Ct, 2007). In terms of organizational research, Gibson et al. (2009) found that consequences are more likely to be functional when anger expressions are of low intensity, expressed verbally rather than in a physical way, and expressed in settings where anger expressions are considered normatively appropriate. They also found that anger expressions by women are associated with less positive organizational outcomes (see discussion of gender issues below). Fitness (2000) found that although many respondents thought their anger episodes were successfully resolved, respondents angered by superiors were much less likely than those angered by subordinates to think that the anger-eliciting event had been resolved. Glomb (2002) found that the outcomes of anger incidents with greater severity were associated with lower perceived job satisfaction, lower performance, and higher job-related stress.
Moderators Influencing the Anger Episode

Given the potential for anger experience and expression to result in both good and evil, it is imperative for organizational behavior research to explore the conditions under which anger can lead to positive consequences (Gibson et al., 2009). In this section, we propose moderators that influence the relationship between anger and the valence of consequences in organizations. In reviewing the literature, it is clear that the level of analysis at which anger is examinedindividual, dyadic, group, organization, culturehighlights different aspects of this multifaceted emotion. While the psychological literature has extensively examined individual tendencies in terms of experience and expression of anger (see, e.g., Frijda, 1986), the contribution of an organizational approach is the identification of normative influences that dramatically influence each linkage in the process.
Individual Level: Gender

Gender has long been considered an important factor in the assessment and interpretation of angry displays (Davis, LaRosa, & Foshee, 1992). In terms of the episodic model, research has primarily focused on whether women and men differ (a) in their actual experience and expression of anger, (b) in the normative standards guiding their anger expression, and (c) in the consequences of their anger expression.
75
Gender and anger experience and expression. Studies examining this relationship have found mixed results, with most finding minimal or no differences between women and men (Averill, 1982; Fabes & Martin, 1991; Kopper & Epperson, 1991; Kring & Gordon, 1998). For example, Gianakos (2002) found no gender differences in either the number or types of issues prompting anger or in the methods of coping with anger reported by workers. Averill (1982) found that women and men did not differ in the issues that caused anger, or in the level, frequency, intensity, or tendency to express their anger, though women reported crying more often when angry. Krings (2000: 222) review of the emotions literature finds that the accumulated evidence does not allow us to conclude that men are more angry than women or that women are more angry than men or that men and women do not differ. A recent large sample survey of U.S. adults confirms this finding (Simon & Nath, 2004). Normative beliefs about gender and anger. Despite empirical evidence that there are few gender differences with regard to actual experience and expression of anger, widely held stereotypes exist holding that men express anger more frequently and with more vehemence than women (Fabes & Martin, 1991; Sharkin, 1993). One reason postulated for these beliefs is a perceived difference in motivation; women are thought to be less likely to express anger because of the perception that it will lead to negative consequences for interpersonal relationships (Gianakos, 2002). Men are thought to express more anger because they are less concerned with consequences to relationships (Timmers, Fischer, & Manstead, 1998) and believe that expressing anger will help to maintain status and power. Some studies suggest that they have good reason to hold this belief (Tiedens, 2001). Evidence that gender differences in anger norms are embedded in societal expectations rather than biological determinants is found in gender-role studies. Fischer, Rodriguez Mosquera, van Vianen, and Manstead (2004) found that women in high gender equality countries express more anger than women in low gender equality countries, suggesting that women are less constrained in their expressions when high gender equality is present. Studies examining gender roles have found that gender-role identity rather than sex predicted differences in anger expression (Gianakos, 2002; Kopper & Epperson, 1991; Kring & Gordon, 1998). However, one strongly supported gender difference is that men are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior, and because these behaviors are so visible, this may partially account for the more general belief that it is more acceptable for men to express anger (Hershcovis et al., 2007) Gendered outcomes of anger expressions. These normative beliefs are likely to be a critical factor in explaining gendered outcomes following anger expressions in organizations. Organizations are an achievement context and societal norms for anger expression are consistent with the perceived association between masculinity (represented by aggressiveness, self-confidence, and status awareness) and effective leadership in organizations (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). The stereotypical belief that women should not express anger, then, may be even stronger in organizations than other social contexts, and especially for leaders. As Gianakos (2002: 156) notes (citing Payne & Cangemi, 1997), women leaders have reported the need to control anger because they believed displays of anger would be costly to their interpersonal relationships.
76
Empirical studies have confirmed that anger expression is more acceptable for men in organizations than it is for women. In a study showing videotapes of men and women leaders, women leaders who express anger (a non-gender endorsed emotion) are rated as less effective than women who express no emotion (Lewis, 2000). In another study assessing videotapes of male and female actors, adults evaluated women as having lower status, lower competence, and deserving lower salaries following anger expressions compared with both women that expressed no emotion or men that expressed anger (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). Gibson et al. (2009) found that outcomes from anger episodes were perceived (by both men and women respondents) to be less positive for women than when men expressed anger, suggesting that women are sanctioned to a greater degree than men when they express anger.
Individual Level: Trait Anger

Research has demonstrated the effect of individual affective disposition (primarily measured as positive affectivity [PA] and negative affectivity [NA]) on key organizational variables, such as job satisfaction, performance, and decision making (see summary in Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1999). Extant anger and aggression studies have more frequently examined NA, which is a general tendency to be distressed, upset, and have a negative view of self over time and across situations, rather than trait anger, which is the more specific tendency to experience and express anger. We contend that trait anger is likely to have effects on each link in the episodic model, including the degree to which individuals evaluate work events negatively, the intensity of anger felt in response to these antecedents, the likelihood of anger expression and the valence of consequences, and that these effects are likely to be distinct from NA. But research testing this moderation effect is limited. Work has focused on the relationship between trait anger and interpersonal and organizational aggression, with most studies finding a significant effect (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Inness, LeBlanc, & Barling, 2008). Supporting a distinction between trait anger and NA, Douglas and Martinko (2001) found an effect of trait anger but not NA on aggression, speculating that individuals high in NA are more likely to be targets of aggression rather than aggressors. In the single study, we find examining trait anger as a moderator of experienced and expressed anger in organizations, Domagalski and Steelman (2005) found that trait anger was significantly related to outward expression of anger when in the presence of supervisors and coworkers (but not subordinates). They also found that those with trait anger were more likely to feel anger in response to perceived unjust work events.
Dyadic and Group Level: Status

Assessing agent, target, and observer power and status is essential to understanding the valence of anger expression outcomes (Sloan, 2004). Research suggests that status differences (distinctions based on a persons social structural position or their power to control resources) between agent and target influence how anger is experienced, expressed, and perceived, and thus are potential moderators of each aspect of the episodic model. First, in terms of antecedents, lower status employees are more likely than high-status employees to experience anger because
77
of bad or unjust treatment by others, particularly superiors (Fitness, 2000; Lively, 2000). Second, Stets and Tsushima (2001) found that agents lower in status than their targets reported more intense and longer lasting anger than those of higher status agents. Third, lower status individuals are less likely to express anger (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Sloan, 2004). Specifically, individuals in lower status positions are more likely to inhibit overt anger expressions to higher status targets, whereas individuals in higher status positions are likely to be less inhibited in expressing anger toward lower status targets (Kuppens, Van Mechelen, & Meulders, 2004). Ridgeway and Johnson (1990) propose that high-status members are more likely to feel mastery of situations, take responsibility for successful outcomes, and feel pride and express positive emotions. If they encounter disagreement from lower status group members, they are freer to express anger or other negative emotions than lower status members. This power produces an asymmetry in the kinds of emotional behavior allowed. Fitness (2000) found that high-power respondents were likely to be angered by different eliciting events, likely to express their anger to a greater degree than low-power respondents, and more likely to think that anger incidents had been successfully resolved. These differences in experience and expression affect individuals beliefs about the relationship between status and anger. Specifically, individuals judge low-status relative to high-status individuals as more likely to experience anger (and other negative emotions), less likely to experience happiness, and less likely to display their anger and disgust than high-status individuals (Conway, Di Fazio, & Mayman, 1999). Tiedens (2001) showed that in the absence of relative status information, an individual who expresses anger is seen as more competent and powerful than when they express sadness. This intriguing finding that expressing anger confers status on the agent has been shown to have limits, however. Lewis (2000), in a study of leaders and emotional expression, shows that anger expressions by leaders tend to reduce, rather than enhance subordinates perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Not all empirical studies, however, show significant status effects. Domagalski and Steelman (2007) find that regardless of gender, the most frequent method for handling experienced anger by superiors in the presence of a subordinate was anger control rather than anger expression. Contradicting the predictions of status research, supervisors did not express their anger in the presence of subordinates more frequently than did subordinates in the presence of supervisors. They point out that the norm that allows higher status members to express anger may be counteracted by norms for managers in high-status positions to exercise self-control and emotional neutrality. Similarly, Gibson et al. (2009) found that status of agent and target was not a predictor of whether anger expressions led to positive outcomes in a variety of organizational settings. Clearly, the relationship of status and anger in the workplace warrants further research.
Organization Level: Organizational Emotion Norms

Normative approaches suggest that one determinant of anger consequences are individual and group beliefs about the appropriateness of anger experience and expression: norms about how anger ought to be felt and displayed in a particular organizational context. These beliefs are important, this approach suggests, because they influence how observers will
78
react to expressions of anger, and thus make more or less likely sanctions that may occur when norms are violated (Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008). The proposition underlying this approach is an emphasis on congruence: the closer individuals anger expressions match with group and organization norms for appropriateness, the more potential there is for positive consequences (Callister et al., 2007). We expect, then, that an important moderator of anger expression consequences is the strength and content of organizational anger norms. Organizational anger norms. Researchers of emotion have long argued that specific cultural norms develop for how and when individuals should express particular emotions, called display rules (Ekman & Friesen, 1974). Analogously, within organizations, theorists have argued that a critical aspect of organization culture is that it frequently involves specific norms governing the feeling and expression of emotion (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989), and organization members are likely to be socialized to understanding these specific emotion norms (Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). Norm content includes the when, where, why, and to whom it is or is not appropriate to express anger. For example, some organizations have normative rules such that anger is never appropriate in front of customers/patients/clients and so on, whereas others judge anger as appropriate on behalf of a patient or client. Organizations vary to the degree that leaders openly express their anger and the amount of anger expression allowed from lower status employees. Norm strength is the degree to which participants agree on these norms and the level of sanctions possible when norms are violated (see Gibson et al., 2009). Stronger anger norms are likely to make it easier for observers to assess when norms have been violated and to judge anger expressions as dysfunctional. Although empirical evidence for differences in anger expression norms across organizational cultures is scant, the above studies suggest that organizations are likely to develop unique norms governing the expression of anger. Sutton (1991) demonstrated that organizations often generate feeling and display norms for specific emotions, and that employees may be trained to regulate their own anger displays as well as the anger displays of others. Consistent with the congruence model noted above, Aquino et al. (2004) found that people who perceive that their workplace norms encourage confrontation are more likely to express anger in response to provocation, because they believe that expressing anger may have some utility. Van Kleef and Ct (2007) argued that differing negotiation contexts cause anger expressions to be considered more or less appropriate, showing that perceived appropriateness norms affect the perceptions and behaviors of high-power negotiators. Work by Callister et al. (2007) finds two polarities of anger norms within organizations, from suppressing to legitimating, and note that a full range of anger norms may exist across different organizations. More theoretical specificity is offered by Geddes and Callisters (2007) dual threshold model of anger in organizations, depicting the valence of anger expression outcomes as determined by whether individuals cross the expression threshold where felt anger is displayed, and/or the impropriety threshold, where an organizational member is considered to have gone too far in expressing their anger, such that observers . . . find their actions socially and/or culturally inappropriate (Geddes & Callister, 2007: 722). Processes of anger regulation. A second normative factor influencing consequences of anger expression is how an individuals anger is regulated in response to organization
79
norms. As noted above, anger regulation can be broadly divided into two forms: changes made early in the response sequence that serve to alter an individuals appraisal or experience of anger (deep acting, or antecedent-focused emotion regulation) and actions taken later in the emotion response sequence, such as changing ones facial expression in an effort to conform to anger norms (surface acting, or response-focused emotion regulation). Anger regulation may also be in two directions: changes to amplify or enhance the anger felt and changes to suppress it by reducing or eliminating it (Ct, Moon, & Miners, 2008; Hochschild, 1983). In the organizational context, anger regulation has primarily been examined in the customer service interface. Here, display rules that prescribe expression of positive emotions mean that anger expressions should be suppressed, rules that are often at odds with employees felt response to customers. Grandey et al. (2002) found customers to be the most frequent source of anger events reported by part-time workers (50% in service positions). Goldberg and Grandey (2007) found that experiencing a hostile customer led customer service representatives in a call center to feel more irritation, engage in more surface acting, and experience more exhaustion than if the customer was not hostile. Diefendorff and Greguras (2009) found that display rules for customer service interactions primarily involved neutralizing or deamplifying their felt anger, whereas display rules for happiness called for expressing the emotion as felt. Studies have noted, however, that some specific settings encourage the enhancement of anger experience to increase the possibility for positive outcomes. For example, Pierces (1995) ethnographic study demonstrates that lawyersand particularly male lawyersuse anger displays strategically to encourage compliance in adversaries. Both Hochschilds (1983) and Suttons (1991) work show how bill collectors use positive emotions initially and then negative emotions such as anger later in order to alternately calm or browbeat debtors. Rafaeli and Sutton (1991) argue that strategic anger is used in police officers good copbad cop strategies to wear down possible informants. As noted above, negotiation research has shown positive and negative outcomes from strategically enhancing ones anger: Negotiator anger expressions may lead to greater concessions by a counterpart (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006), but they may also cause their counterpart to make more extreme demands, and to be less willing to engage in future negotiations (Kopelman et al., 2006). Hochschilds (1983) initial conceptualization of emotional labor predicted that increased regulation, especially using deep acting, would result in increased emotional dissonance that would be related to work strain. Recent research has refined this proposed relationship. Contrary to Hochschilds prediction, surface acting, but not deep acting, has been consistently related to high work strain (see summary in Ct et al., 2008). More specifically, emotion norms that cause employees to amplify pleasant emotions tend to lead to low strain, whereas emotion norms causing employees to suppress unpleasant emotions such as anger lead to high strain (Ct, 2005). In terms of anger, Ct (2005) predicts that as an employee amplifies anger through deep acting, receivers of this anger will respond more unfavorably, increasing the employees work strain. Suppressing anger through deep acting, on the other hand, may reduce work strain. Beal et al. (2006) discovered that instructors engaged in both surface and deep acting to regulate their negative emotions (including anger, anxiety, sadness, and shame), and that efforts at regulation generally paid off in terms of their supervisors judgments of their affective delivery.
80
Culture Level: Cultural Emotion Norms

As the frequency of cross-cultural interactions increase, it becomes more important to understand both the cultural similarities and differences in anger experiences, expressions, and consequences. It should also be noted that the empirical research on anger and other emotions has been dominated by studies conducted in North America and Europe; future research should be expanded to be more inclusive. Probably the most definitive finding in this research is that anger is universally recognized across cultures at better-than-chance levels (Ekman, 1994), but accuracy is higher when emotions are expressed and recognized by members of the same national or ethnic group, suggesting an in-group advantage (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). Although empirical data are quite limited, it appears that anger antecedents, experience expression/regulation, and consequences can all vary significantly across cultures (Fischer, Manstead, & Mosquera, 1999). For example, recognizing that cognitive appraisals of antecedent events can affect the intensity of the anger experience (Roseman, 1984), Ohbuchi et al. (2004) found that Eastern and Western cultures appraised the seriousness of interpersonal and societal norm violations differently. This is likely to influence differences in felt anger intensity. Variability in cultural display rules and norms are also likely to influence the level of anger expression/regulation, which can then subsequently affect consequences, because observers will judge the appropriateness of anger expressions compared with their own culturally normative behavior (Eid & Diener, 2001; Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003). This suggests, for example, that collectivist countries with strong constraints on anger expression (such as Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand) are more likely to use anger regulation strategies that involve using third party meditation (Wall et al., 1998). In a summary of justice research related to culture and emotions, Breugelmans and De Cremer (2007) argue that emotions such as anger can be used to both diagnose when justice violations occur by signaling that a justice appraisal has taken place, and help to explain how people feel about and react to justice issues. They argue that at the construct level, the experience of anger in response to injustice in the U.S. is similar to the anger felt in Kenya or in Japan (Breugelmans & De Cremer, 2007). However, they note that researchers must take into account that (a) individuals from different cultures may differ to the degree that they are prone to experience anger, (b) cultural differences in self-construals (construing the self as relatively more independent or interdependent) may cause a different focus of emotional experience, and (c) cultural display rules or response styles may cause differences in how individuals respond to scholars emotion measures that are not indicative of actual emotional experience.
Integration: Assessing Current and Future Directions in Anger Research

We have identified a trend in current research toward a social functional approach to anger expressions, which is less focused on diagnosing the causes of negative consequences and more focused on determining the conditions under which anger expressions can lead to positive consequences in organizations. We have identified key moderators influencing the relationships leading to consequences of anger expression as derived from our episodic
81
model. Although the list of moderators identified is not exhaustive, it represents those that have been most frequently examined in the extant literature. Drawing on this literature, we provide a summary of findings and propose ideas that may serve to guide future research.
Individual-Level Factors
In terms of process variables, from an episodic approach, this review shows that substantial work has been done on the primary antecedents to anger in organizations and on expression and regulation processes. Fewer works have focused on the nature of experienced anger and its intensity, and the consequences of the anger regulatory process. Researchers have posited a relationship wherein higher levels of felt anger intensity are related to increased likelihood of norm violation (Geddes & Callister, 2007) and thus negative consequences (Gibson et al., 2009), but more research is needed. Specifically, future studies need to control for the magnitude of the underlying problem leading to the anger episode and isolate the effects of anger intensity, rather than assume that intense experiences tend to lead to negative outcomes. Similarly, researchers have proposed an anger control hypothesis arguing that at one extreme, fully muted or silenced anger leads to negative outcomes, as does the other extreme, fully expressed anger (see Geddes & Callister, 2007). This implies an optimal level of controlled anger that is most likely to meet normative constraints as well as accomplish angers function of signaling that something is amiss. Determining what that controlled level is, however, remains to be explored. In terms of individual difference variables, we have argued that although there is little evidence of gender differences in the antecedents, intensity level of experienced anger, or frequency of expression, there is substantial evidence that stereotypical emotion norms pertaining to gender influence the consequences of anger expression. Currently, research supports the notion that anger expressions by men and women that are closer to the normative gender expectations for their organization and culture are more likely to lead to positive consequences (see Geddes & Callister, 2007). Gender, then, has primarily been examined as a moderator in the relationship between anger expression/regulation and consequences. As women make up an increasing proportion of leadership positions in organizations, however, studies will need to examine whether norms for anger expression begin to shift the traditional constraints on womens anger expressions that may lead observers to judge these expressions more harshly than they do mens. It may be that the link between experienced anger and expression for women will begin to look more like mens, with greater authenticity and somewhat less control. Moreover, as this review has shown, gender issues cannot be neatly separated from contextual variables such as power and status. Future gender studies will need to involve a more complex investigation of these moderators simultaneously (see Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). Apart from gender, the extant literature has primarily focused on trait anger, but virtually all existing studies of trait anger in organizations have examined its association with aggressiveness (see Hershcovis et al., 2007). This narrow focus on one kind of negative outcome leaves many questions unanswered. Additional research should examine the effect of trait anger on each link in the episodic model, including high- versus low-trait anger individuals appraisal of work event antecedents, their tendency to experience and express anger, the normative responses to these expressions, and perceived consequences of the episode. It is
82
our proposition that episodes involving high-trait anger individuals as agent or target are less likely to lead to positive consequences. Our rationale for this is that high-trait anger individuals will tend to experience more work events as anger-causing, express anger more frequently and gradually lose credibility by observers that their anger is justified. A range of other individual-level factors should be examined in relation to the episodic model, including PA/NA, emotional expressivity (Kring & Gordon, 1998), and Big Five personality dimensions such as agreeableness and emotional stability. How these potential trait differences interact with how individuals express or regulate their anger is an important area to explore. For example, are highly expressive individuals allowed more latitude in terms of emotion norm violations than are less expressive individuals? Are high NA individuals given less latitude in normative expectations in terms of how they express their anger, or more latitude, because they feel and express anger more often than others?
Dyadic- and Group-Level Factors

Research has only begun to examine the emotional implications of organizational leadership and status (see Barsade & Gibson, 2007). However, findings in this area are mixed, and future research will need to address the apparent contradictions in current research. Although there has been rapidly increasing interest in the emotional implications of leadership, the focus of leadership studies has overwhelmingly been on the influence of leader positive emotions on followers their affective responses and their perceptions of leader effectiveness (see review in van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & Damen, 2008). The few studies that have examined negative emotions such as anger have found that leaders anger expressions tend to reduce subordinate perceptions of leader effectiveness (e.g., Lewis, 2000) and that followers may catch the negative moods of their leaders (Sy, Ct, & Saavedra, 2005). However, Tiedens (2001) work suggests that expressions of anger by individuals may increase perceptions of their status by others (although this may not work for women, see Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). Domagalski and Steelmans (2007) work suggests that despite the freedom to express anger conferred on high-status mangers, they tend to predominantly control their anger with subordinates. Consistent with the emphasis on social functionality of our model, there has been little investigation of when leader anger can motivate positive behavior, for example, when an angry coach goads a basketball team at half-time, or a manager uses anger to motivate employees to meet critical deadlines. This raises a critical question for future research: Under what conditions do leader expressions of anger lead to positive outcomes? The literature reviewed here suggests testable propositions. Drawing on the status conferral literature, we can theorize that status of an agent is likely to interact with emotion norms such that to the degree that low-status individuals express anger that is consistent with emotion norms, their expression is more likely to lead to positive consequences. High-status individuals have more latitude in violating emotion norms, and thus the relationship between norm adherence and positive consequences will be less strong for high-status individuals. More work on the interaction of status, emotion norms, and outcomes, however, is needed. For example, there may be no immediate visible negative consequence when a high-status individual violates norms for anger expressions, but there may be more subtle erosions in respect that undermine influence and effectiveness over time.
83
Organization-Level Factors
Several factors that influence anger episodes have been identified for future work at the organizational level, including the context surrounding anger expressions, norm strength, and content. Exploring the circumstances that produce differing outcomes requires understanding the organizational context where anger episodes take place. We have argued that the extant literature does not adequately account for the socially constructed nature of anger: the fact that anger is defined by cultural norms and sanctions that shape how it is felt and expressed. Work on the effect of anger appropriateness norms on consequences for individuals and groups is in its infancy. There have been almost no systematic efforts to demarcate differences in organizational anger contexts or a focus on how these differences influence the impact of anger episodes on individuals and their work units. Toward this end, future research should address key questions such as the following: What variables influence the development of anger expression norms in organizations? What variables affect the variations in the types of norms (e.g., suppressing to legitimating) found in different organizations and the strength and clarity of display prescriptions? Discovering answers to these questions will likely involve a broader set of research methodologies than have currently been used, particularly qualitative studies using rich descriptions of employees perceptions of norms and their effect on anger expression. Research should also address how and why norm content and strength varies across types of organizations. The congruency theoremproposing that anger expressions that are more congruent with organizational anger norms are likely to result in more beneficial consequencesalso remains to be tested.
Cross-Cultural-Level Factors
There are numerous gaps in research involving culture and anger. For example, no research exists on the effects of culture with both justice and emotions in the same study (Cohen-Charash & Byrne, 2008). We propose that cultural norms will affect the degree to which an antecedent such as injustice/fairness is determined to be offensivewith the likely result that the greater the perceived offense the more intense the experienced anger. Adding to the complexity of normative perspectives on anger experience and expression, recent studies have begun to outline how appropriateness norms vary crossculturally (Cooper, Doucet, & Pratt, 2007; Liu, 2009). We propose that these cultural appropriateness norms will influence the amount of anger regulation that occurs. Building on the work by Geddes and Callister (2007), we also propose that cultural norms will influence the assessment of the appropriateness of the anger expression and the congruence theorys contention that the more appropriate the expression, the more functional the consequences. For example, how do collectivist (in which conflict is viewed negatively) versus individualistic cultures affect our findings on the possible functionality of anger consequences (cf. Tjosvold & Su, 2007)?
84
Cultural dimension research (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dofman, & Gupta, 2004) may be useful in stimulating future research on anger and culture. Hofstede (2001) has argued that cultural norms constrain organizational norms, whereas House et al. (2004) have similarly suggested that organizational norms mirror national cultural norms. However, Gerhart (2009) reviews the extant literature and argues that organizational norms will have greater impact when within-country variance in culture is high. There are clearly many more research questions to be examined. For example, when no one national culture is dominant within an organization, will organizational culture have greater impact on anger norms? Do the links between each element of the anger episode vary across cultures, and if so, what changes would we expect in multicultural organizations when no one culture dominates?
Methodological Issues
As this review has shown, research has primarily focused on antecedents to and expression or regulation of workplace anger, with less focus on experienced anger and consequences. Capturing anger feelings in situ and as experienced is difficult: organizations are complex settings that do not encourage analysis of emotional episodes and anger is typically a short-term, intense experience that is uncomfortable and tends not to invite introspection at the time of feeling. Also, the methodological tools that researchers have available do not provide objective external measures of internal experiences, though physiological measures are increasing in use (see below). Confronting these limitations, to assess individuals anger experience researchers have most frequently resorted to asking respondents how they feel by using verbal self-report measures. The Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) and Spielbergers State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) are the most commonly employed (Spielberger, 1999; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), though a range of more specific anger scales have also been used (see examples in Domagalski & Steelman, 2005; Spencer & Rupp, 2009; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999). The PANAS scale provides a list of words derived from the positive affect/negative affect circumplex describing different feelings and emotions (e.g., cheerful, happy, irritable, angry). Respondents indicate the degree to which they are currently experiencing the emotion using a Likert-type scale from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The STAXI is divided into three sections: state anger (How I feel right now), trait anger (How I generally feel), and behavioral tendencies (How I generally react when angry or furious). State anger is measured on a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so), and includes items, such as I am furious, I am mad, I feel like banging on the table. Trait anger is measured on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always), and includes items such as I am quick tempered, I am a hotheaded person, and When I get mad, I say nasty things. Behavioral tendencies are measured on the same scale and include items such as, When angry or furious . . . I control my temper, I boil inside, but I dont show it, If someone annoys me, Im apt to tell him or her how I feel. Drawing on affective events theory and the idea of emotion episodes as scripts, several studies have used semistructured interviews to have respondents retrospectively describe their anger episodes at work (see Fischer, 1991). Respondents, for example, are asked to remember a time when you felt really angry with someone at work (Fitness, 2000, p. 151) or to
85
think of a time within the past 3 months when youve been angry at work (Gibson et al., 2009) and are then asked to describe in detail what happenedwhat caused the anger, the identity and status of the interactants and how they behaved, and their perception of the episodes consequences. Deriving patterns from qualitative data based on respondents understanding of emotion scripts is a potentially powerful method, because scripts reveal both the descriptive content of what tends to happen when anger is felt and expressed and the normative content of what we think ought to occur and regard as appropriate (Gibson, 2008). Although self-report measures have allowed one window to the reasoning and feelings of respondents, self-report measures present a number of drawbacks for studying emotions, and particularly anger. They rely excessively on memory of past events, suggesting the potential for oversimplification, rationalization, social desirability, and hindsight bias. More subtly, they assume that the label anger has the same meaning across respondents of differing life experiences and cultures, and assume that individuals do not differ in their awareness of their own emotional tendencies and perceptions of their own behavior (see review in Dasborough, Sinclair, Russell-Bennett, & Tombs, 2008). The clear limitations to self-report data have led to exploration of new methodologies. To address the limitations of verbally based scales, visual self-report emotion scales have become more common, recognizing that nonverbal cues are used more than verbal cues in assessing emotions in others (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). Ekmans (1973) photographs of prototypical emotions, for example, allow respondents to report their perceptions of emotions in others. The Kunin Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955) provides graphical representations (11 line drawings of faces ranging from unhappy through neutral to happy), allowing respondents to self-report the face that looks closest to how they are feeling. Two additional methods, the Affect Grid, which uses a 9 9 square grid representing valence and activation (Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn, 1989) and the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; Morris, 1995), which uses a series of cartoon figures, help overcome the one-dimensional aspect of the Kunin Faces Scale by also measuring arousal. Capturing emotions experienced over time and specific to situations has been addressed using experience sampling methods (ESMs). ESM is a quasi-naturalistic method involving signaling research participants at random times throughout the day, often for a week or longer, asking them to report on the nature and quality of their experience at that moment. A variety of ESM methods have been used in studying anger: Respondents may be instructed to fill out diary sheets when they feel anger during the workday, including the causes and felt intensity (Grandey et al., 2002); they may use personal digital assistants (PDA) signaling at periodic intervals that they need to assess their mood and other perceptual data (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007), or they may respond to e-mail reminders to fill out an Internet survey (e.g., Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006). The primary advantages of ESM include providing data that are more proximal to actual experiences at work, providing an extended data set rather than a onetime measure, and providing an estimator of the frequency of felt emotions in situ (Miner, Glomb, & Hulin, 2005). A range of methods attempting to simulate workplace anger experience and expression in the laboratory have been used in recent studies. One type of study uses direct participation: Respondents interact with trained confederates who attempt to induce anger in respondents that can then be measured. For example, confederates may act as customers who behave in unfair versus fair ways toward students role playing as customer service representatives
86
(Spencer & Rupp, 2009). Respondents may also respond to negotiation counterparts who have been given advice to express anger to them as a way to negotiate more effectively (Kopelman et al., 2006; Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006). A second type uses computer mediation to create a counterfeit negotiation partner. Respondents are led to believe that they are negotiating with a counterpart, who is actually represented by simulated responses from the computer. The computer-mediated partner expresses anger during the negotiation, and the reaction of the respondent to that anger is then measured (see, e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2004; Van Kleef & Ct, 2007). A final type uses observation of videotaped anger expressions to assess reactions. These studies have focused on respondents perceptions of individuals expressing anger, especially examining gender and leadership and status differences (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008; Glomb & Hulin, 1997; Lewis, 2000). New methods will be essential to begin to capture more objectively how anger is experienced and expressed in real time. Many are now available, typically involving observing physical changes to indicate emotional states. Techniques used have included galvanic skin response, checking blood pressure, pupil dilation, heart rate, and voice pitch analysis (see summary in Dasborough et al., 2008). Recent advances in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow neuroscientists to noninvasively measures brain activity associated with behavior, cognition, and emotion (Bhatt et al., 2009). In terms of behavioral measures, electromyography (EMG), a technique for evaluating and recording the activation signal of muscles, has been used to measure facial expressions of anger (Sato, Fujimura, & Suzuki, 2008). Although these newer methods promise increasing precision in the measurement of anger, their obvious drawback is the difficulty of using them in workplace settings because of privacy, productivity, cost, and ethical concerns.
Conclusion and Implications

Anger feelings and expressions have the possibility for great harm and benefit in organizations. A growing literature has begun to investigate the key questions of how and when anger expressions can provide benefits or are likely to be harmful. For managers, this study suggests that awareness of each aspect of the episodic model would help in responding effectively to employee, coworker, and supervisors anger. First, our analysis of work event antecedents suggests that when anger is observed or experienced, the source is likely to be perceptions of unfairness or injustice, a goal being blocked, or a response to conflict. Managers can use the emotional data presented to them (either their own angry feelings or the anger expressions of others) to determine, for example, if a procedural injustice has occurred or if an employee feels that they are unable to accomplish their personal goals because of organizational obstructions. Second, understanding how anger is experienced is a useful managerial attribute. As emotional intelligence approaches have shown, understanding when and how one is experiencing an emotion may allow more effective regulation techniques, increasing the possibility for functional outcomes (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
87
Third, managers must be aware of the emotion norms generated in their organizational context and whether these norms effectively serve individual and organizational goals. Norms for excessive politeness, for example, may cause suppression of anger that leads to vital emotional data being withheld, to the detriment of the organization (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Similarly, norms that allow the frequent and aggressive use of angerparticularly by leadersmay lead to climates of fear and defensiveness. Our review suggests that mangers should consciously foster norms that enhance transparency around when and where expressions of anger are appropriate, so that employees are aware of when their justified anger can be expressed. In terms of consequences, our findings that anger expressions often lead to positive consequences should encourage managers to use patience in judging whether an angry outburst is warranted in a particular situation, recognizing that even an uncomfortable interchange may result in needs and perceptions receiving deserved attention. By not stigmatizing anger expressions, at least those that are within the bounds of appropriateness for the setting, managers may be able to address problems earlier, rather than creating an environment where chronically suppressed anger is released in harmful ways. Ultimately, understanding the ways of anger and how it plays out in organizational episodes will increase the possibility that anger expressions lead to functional outcomes for individuals, groups, and organizations.
Note
1. Although anger, aggression, and hostility are often considered synonymous terms (Buss, 1961), anger is a distinct construct. Aggression by individuals is typically accompanied, and often preceded by, feelings of anger, but anger does not alwaysand usually does notlead to aggression; rather, angry feelings promote action readiness but do not necessarily lead to action itself (see Averill, 1982; Frijda, 1986). Aggression, on the other hand, is an action response intended to inflict pain or discomfort on another person (see Spielberger, 1999). Similarly, revenge has been defined as an action in response to some perceived harm or wrongdoing by another party that is intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible (Aquino et al., 2001: 53). Although this construct shares with anger a fundamental focus on perceptions of injustice, revenge explicitly involves action, which may or may not characterize anger. Similarly, hostility involves frequent experiences of angry feelings, connoting a complex set of attitudes that include meanness and viciousness, as well as aggressive and often vindictive behavior (Spielberger, 1999: 19). Drawing on this research, our model suggests that experienced anger may lead to expression through hostile, aggressive behavior but that anger, aggression, revenge, and hostility are distinct constructs.
References
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: 267-299. New York: Academic Press. Allred, K. G. 1999. Anger and retaliation: Toward an understanding of impassioned conflict in organizations. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations: 27-58. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Allred, K. G., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, F., & Raia, C. P. 1997. The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70: 175-187. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.
88
Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. 2004. Overt anger in response to victimization: Attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 152-164. Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. 2001. How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 52-59. Aristotle. 1992. Nicomachean ethics (Ethica nicomachea). In M. J. Adler (Ed.), The great books: 1109-1125. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. Averill, J. R. 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: 3-52. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. 2007. Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21: 36-59. Beal, D. J., Trougakkos, 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: 1053-1065. Begley, T. M. 1994. Expressed and suppressed anger as predictors of health complaints. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 503-516. Berkowitz, L. 1993. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bhatt, S., Mbwana, J., Adeyemo, A., Sawyer, A., Hailu, A., & Van Meter, J. 2009. Lying about facial recognition: An fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69: 382-390. Bies, R. J. 1987. The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 289-319. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. 1998. The many faces of revenge: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. OLeary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: 49-68. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. 2007. Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1357-1367. Booth, J., & Mann, S. 2005. The experience of workplace anger. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26: 250-262. 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: 268-275. Breugelmans, S., & De Cremer, D. 2007. The role of emotions in cross-cultural justice research. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect: 85-106. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Buss, A. H. 1961. The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley. Callister, R. R., Gray, B., Gibson, D. E., Schweitzer, M., & Tan, J. S. 2007. Anger at work: Anger expression, work unit norms and outcomes in organizations. Paper presented at the International Association of Conflict Management Conference, Budapest, Hungary. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. 1992. Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65: 177-184. Clore, G. L., & Ortony, A. 1991. What more is there to emotion concepts than prototypes? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 48-50. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Byrne, Z. S. 2008. Affect and justice: Current knowledge and future directions. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: 360-392. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Conway, M., Di Fazio, R., & Mayman, S. 1999. Judging others emotions as a function of the others status. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62: 291-305. Cooper, D., Doucet, L., & Pratt, M. 2007. Understanding appropriateness in multinational organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 303-325. Ct, S. 2005. A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of Management Review, 30: 509-530. Ct, S., Moon, S., & Miners, C. T. H. 2008. Emotion regulation in the workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: 284-300. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
89
Coughlan, R., & Connolly, T. 2001. Predicting affective response to unexpected outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85: 211-225. Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K. J., & Grandey, A. A. 2000. Doing justice to workplace emotion. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice: 49-62. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Dasborough, M. T., Sinclair, M., Russell-Bennett, R., & Tombs, A. 2008. Measuring emotion: Methodological issues and alternatives. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: 197-211. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Davidson, M. N., & Greenhalgh, L. 1999. The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of anger and race. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations: 3-26. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Davis, M. A., LaRosa, P. A., & Foshee, D. P. 1992. Emotion work in supervisor-subordinate relations: Gender differences in the perception of angry displays. Sex Roles, 26: 513-531. Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. 2009. Contextualizing emotional display rules: Examining the roles of targets and discrete emotions in shaping display rule perceptions. Journal of Management, 35: 880-898. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. 1939. Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Domagalski, T. A., & Steelman, L. A. 2005. The impact of work events and disposition on the experience and expression of employee anger. Organizational Analysis, 13: 31-52. Domagalski, T. A., & Steelman, L. A. 2007. The impact of gender and organizational status on workplace anger expression. Management Communication Quarterly, 20: 297-315. Douglas, S., C., & Martinko, M. J. 2001. Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 86: 547-559. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. 1995. Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 125-145. Eid, M., & Diener, E. 2001. Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 869-885. Ekman, P. 1973. Cross culture studies of facial expression. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review: 169-222. New York: Academic Press. Ekman, P. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6: 169-200. Ekman, P. 1994. Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russells mistaken critique. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 268-287. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1974. Detecting deception from body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 219: 288-298. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. 2002. Is there an in-group advantage in emotion recognition? Psychological Bulletin, 128: 243-249. Fabes, R. A., & Martin, C. L. 1991. Gender and age stereotypes of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 532-540. Fehr, B., Baldwin, M., Collins, L., Patterson, S., & Benditt, R. 1999. Anger in close relationships: An interpersonal script analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 299-312. Fischer, A. H. 1991. Emotion scripts: A study of the social and cognitive aspects of emotion. Leiden, NL: DSWO Press. Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Mosquera, P. M. R. 1999. The role of honour-related vs. individualistic values in conceptualizing pride, shame, and anger: Spanish and Dutch cultureal prototypes. Cognition & Emotion, 13: 149-179. Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., van Vianen, A. E. M., & Manstead, A. S. R. 2004. Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4: 87-94. 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. Folger, R. 1993. Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research: 161-183. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
90
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Forgas, J. P. 1998. On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 565-577. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 1999. A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 915-932. Friedman, R., Olekalns, M., Anderson, C., Jeanne, B., Nathan, G., & Lisco, C. C. 2004. The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 369-376. Frijda, N. H. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 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: 721-746. Gerhart, B. 2009. How much does national culture constrain organizational culture? Management and Organization Review, 5: 241-259. Gianakos, I. 2002. Issues of anger in the workplace: Do gender and gender role matter? Career Development Quarterly, 51: 155-171. Gibson, D. E. 2008. Emotion scripts in organizations: A multi-level model. In N. M. Ashkanasy and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: 263-283. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 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: 184-211. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Gibson, D. E., Schweitzer, M., Callister, R. R., & Gray, B. 2009. The influence of anger expressions on outcomes in organizations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2: 236-262. Glomb, T. M. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 20-36. Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. L. 1997. Anger and gender effects in observed supervisor-subordinate dyadic interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72: 281-307. Goldberg, L. S., & Grandey, A. A. 2007. Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 301-318. Goldman, B. M., Slaughter, J. E., Schmit, M. J., Wiley, J. W., & Brooks, S. M. 2008. Perceptions of discrimination: A multiple needs model perspective. Journal of Management, 34: 952-977. Grandey, A. A. 2000. Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 95-110. Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. 2002. Affective states and traits in the workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26: 31-55. Gross, J. J. 1998. Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 224-237. Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. 2008. Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in organizations. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 35-59. New York: Elsevier. Harlos, K., & Pinder, C. 2000. Emotions and injustice in the workplace. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations: 255-276. London: Sage. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 228-238. Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dofman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. 2008. Psychosocial predictors of supervisor-, peer-, subordinate-, and service-provider-targeted aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1401-1411.
91
Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. 2006. Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology, 59: 779-814. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 99-130. Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. 1999. Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 13: 467-480. Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. 1998. Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2: 320-342. Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. 2006. The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99: 81-101. Kopper, B. A., & Epperson, D. L. 1991. Women and anger: Sex and sex-role comparisons in the expression of anger. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15: 7-14. Kring, A. M. 2000. Gender and anger. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives: 211-231: Cambridge University Press. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. 1998. Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 686-704. Kunin, T. 1955. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 9: 65-78. Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., & Meulders, M. 2004. Every cloud has a silver lining: Interpersonal and individual differences determinants of anger-related behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30: 1550-1564. Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, K. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 221-234. Liu, M. 2009. The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A cross-cultural investigation. Human Communication Research, 35: 148-169. Lively, K. J. 2000. Reciprocal emotion management. Work and Occupations, 27: 32-63. Miner, A. G., Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. 2005. Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 171-193. Morris, J. D. 1995. SAM: The self assessment manikin. An efficient, cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. Journal of Advertising Research, 35: 63-68. Ohbuchi, K.-I., Tamura, T., Quigley, B. M., Tedeschi, J. T., Madi, N., Bond, M. H., et al. 2004. Anger, blame, and dimensions of perceived norm violations: Culture, gender, and relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34: 1587-1603. Payne, K. E., & Cangemi, J. 1997. Gender differences in leadership. Ife Psychologia, 5: 22-43. Pierce, J. L. 1995. Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pillutla, M., & Murnighan, J. K. 1996. Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68: 208-224. Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. 2001. Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as response to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20: 331-369. 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: 1-42. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1991. Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 749-775. Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. 1990. What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior and status in task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95: 1189-1212. Roseman, I. J. 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory. Review of Personality & Social Psychology, 5: 11-36. Rupp, D. E., McCance, A. S., & Grandey, A. A. 2007. A cognitive-emotional theory of customer injustice and emotional labor. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect: 205-232. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Rupp, D. E., McCance, A. S., Spencer, S., & Sonntag, K. 2008. Customer (in)justice and emotional labor: The role of perspective taking, anger, and emotional regulation. Journal of Management, 34: 903-924.
92
Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. 2006. When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 971-978. Russell, J. A., & Fehr, B. 1994. Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: Varieties of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 186-205. Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. 1989. Affect grid: A single item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 493-502. Salovey, P., & Mayer, D. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9: 185-211. Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., & Koo, J. 2003. Conversing across cultures: East-West communication styles in work and nonwork contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 363-372. Sato, W., Fujimura, T., & Suzuki, N. 2008. Enhanced facial EMG activity in response to dynamic facial expressions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 70: 70-74. Schweitzer, M. E., & Gibson, D. E. 2008. Fairness, feelings, and ethical decision-making: Consequences of violating community standards of fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 287-301. Sharkin, B. S. 1993. Anger and gender: Theory, research, and implications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71: 386-389. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & OConnor, C. 1987. Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1061-1086. Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. 2004. Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in selfreports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109: 1137-1176. Sinaceur, M., & Tiedens, L. Z. 2006. Get mad and get more than even: When and why anger expression is effective in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 314-322. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434-443. Sloan, M. M. 2004. The effects of occupational characteristics on the experience and expression of anger in the workplace. Work and Occupations, 31: 38-82. Solomon, R. C. 1983. The passions: The myth and nature of human emotion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Spencer, S., & Rupp, D. E. 2009. Angry, guilty, and conflicted: Injustice toward coworkers heightens emotional labor through cognitive and emotional mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 429-444. Spielberger, C. D. 1999. Staxi-2: State-trait anger expression inventory-2. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Stearns, C. Z., & Stearns, P. N. 1986. Anger: The struggle for emotional control in Americas history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stets, J. E., & Tsushima, T. M. 2001. Negative emotion and coping responses within identity control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64: 283-295. Sutton, R. I. 1991. Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 245-268. Sy, T. S., Ct, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leaders mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 295-305. Tafrate, R. C., Kassinove, H., & Dundin, L. 2002. Anger episodes in high- and low-trait anger community adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58: 1573-1591. 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: 86-94. Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1998. Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 974-985. Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. 2007. Managing anger and annoyance in organizations in China: The role of constructive controversy. Group & Organization Management, 32: 260-289. van Dijk, E., van Kleef, G. A., Steinel, W., & van Beest, I. 2008. A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it backfires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 600-614.
93
Van Kleef, G. A., & Ct, S. 2007. Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1557-1569. Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K., & Manstead, A. S. 2004. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on negotiation behavior and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 57-76. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Van Kleef, G. A., & Damen, F. 2008. Leadership, affect, and emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations: 465-476. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. 1989. Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational culture. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 43-103. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wall, J. A. J., Blum, M., Callister, R. R., Jin, D. J., Kim, N. H., & Sohn, D. W. 1998. Mediation in the USA, China, Japan, and Korea. Security Dialogue, 29: 235-248. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070. Weiner, B. 1995. Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1999. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18: 1-74. Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. 1999. Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 786-794.

Anger

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/ Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Southern Management Association

Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Ronda Roberts Callister

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

An Episodic Model of Anger in Organizations

Work Event Antecedents

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Figure 1 An Episodic Model of Anger in Organizations

Work Event Antecedents Fairness/Justice Goal Interference Interpersonal Conflict

Experienced Anger Subjective Physiological Cognitive

Expression or Regulation Authentic Controlled Silent

Consequences Valence Levels of Analysis

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Consequences of Experienced and Expressed Anger

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Moderators Influencing the Anger Episode

Individual Level: Gender

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Individual Level: Trait Anger

Dyadic and Group Level: Status

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Organization Level: Organizational Emotion Norms

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Culture Level: Cultural Emotion Norms

Integration: Assessing Current and Future Directions in Anger Research

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Dyadic- and Group-Level Factors

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Gibson, Callister / Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012

Journal of Management / January 2010

Conclusion and Implications

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at XLRI on May 16, 2012