The second part of the RS Model uses the heading Emotion Work—Strategy to group emotion work conceptualizations dealing with self-regulation processes and variables leading to actual task behavior, emulating the second part of Hackman's (1969, 1970) framework (Figure 1, p. 9). Accordingly, the present study places the Hochschild (1983) claim that several self-regulation processes are typically triggered by emotion work demands in this RS Model Emotion
Work—Strategy stage comprised of a self-regulation process, task behavior, and feedback of task behavior (Figure 2, p. 37). Hochschild focused on these self-regulation processes as necessary to comply with emotion work job demands.
Hochschild defined emotional labor as, "the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display" (p. 7). In cases where the actual emotions of a service worker toward a customer/client are not in line with the display rule (how one should interact with clients), Hochschild proposed that there are two strategies used in order to fulfill the display rules: either surface acting by which only the emotional expression is manipulated in order to fulfill the job demands; or active deep acting by which the feelings of the service worker are actively manipulated in order to fulfill the job demands. The RS Model (Figure 2) lists surface acting and deep acting as two of four strategies evoked by emotional demands involved in emotion work. Ashforth and colleagues (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Ashforth & Tomiuk, 2000) described the phenomenon of authenticity in service where a required emotion is spontaneously felt and displayed by the service worker—what is referred to in the literature as surface authenticity—and what was termed by Hochschild as passive deep acting and later termed automatic emotion regulation by Zapf (2002). Surface authenticity, passive deep acting, and automatic emotion regulation are referred to in this study as automatic regulation—listed in the RS Model as the third of four strategies evoked by emotional demands involved in emotion work. Rafaeli and Sutton (1987) defined a fourth emotion work strategy where the employee does not express the job-required emotions and termed this option emotional deviance. Emotional deviance is included in the RS Model as the fourth emotion work strategy. Grandey (1998) and Kruml and Geddes (1998)
distinguished two high correlating dimensions of emotion work strategies:
emotional dissonance and emotional effort. Emotional dissonance refers to Hochschild's concepts of surface acting and active deep acting; and emotional effort refers to the degree to which employees actively try to change their inner feelings in order to match the feelings they are expected to express. The notion of emotional dissonance, high correlating with the concept of emotional effort, is applied in several studies (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2000) and positive effects of effort on burnout are shown.
This leads to the proposition that emotional demands affect self-regulation efforts (Proposition 10).
Furthermore, emotional demands affect actual task behavior (Proposition11).
Organizational determinants of emotion work strategies. In the self-regulation literature (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Kanfer, 1990) and stress literature (Zapf & Semmer, in press), feedback is suggested and empirically tested as an important determinant in the self-regulation/task behavior dynamic. Feedback can be provided by the customer event, where the service worker learns how task performance strategies either promote or hinder goals ("am I successful with this strategy or should I change my strategy to reach my goal?"). The RS Model lists the organizational determinants of customer event feedback as a variable affecting the self-regulation strategies leading to emotion work task behavior.
The recursive arrow from task behavior to self-regulation (Figure 2, p. 37, RS Model) illustrates the feedback influence of task-behavior in the self-regulation process. Supervisors and colleagues can also be sources of feedback, supporting
service-worker development of more efficient and less stressful emotion work strategies. According to action theory and stress research (Frese & Zapf, 1994;
Hacker, 1973, 1998; Zapf, 2002), job autonomy (leeway in decision-making), and supervisor- and coworker support as well as their feedback promote performance of the service worker. Thus, job autonomy, supervisor- and coworker support, and feedback are predicted to have moderator effects in the relationship between emotional dissonance and negative emotion work consequences. The RS Model lists the organizational determinants of inner organizational job autonomy, supervisor-, and coworker support as well as feedback as variables affecting the self-regulation strategies leading to emotion work task behavior.
It is proposed that organizational determinants of customer event feedback and inner organizational extents of job autonomy, supervisor and coworker support, including feedback, affect self-regulation efforts and task behavior of emotion work (Proposition 12).
Personal determinants of emotion work strategies. In her paper dealing with emotion regulation in the workplace, Grandey (2000) suggested that emotional expressivity and emotional intelligence (presumed in the present study to be components of emotional competence), positive/negative affectivity (widely accepted as personality factors), and gender are included in aspects that influence self-regulation. Emotional competences such as masking true feelings, regulating emotions in self and others, and use of emotions in persuading customers/clients are involved in the emotion work strategy process and affect both the success of this process and employee consequences. The effect of personality (particularly positive or negative affectivity) on negative individual
consequences might be that persons high in negative affectivity respond more intensely to negative events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and therefore have a greater probability of suffering burnout. In the empirical study of emotion work/emotional labor and burnout by Brotheridge and Grandey (2002), negative affectivity was positively correlated to all three of the burnout dimensions (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment).
Grandey (2000) also discussed that women might be more concerned with getting along whereas men might be more concerned with getting by, suggesting different gender-biased emotion work strategies. Influence of personal determinants on emotion work strategies were recently tested by a diary study of Totterdell and Holman (2003), who found that emotional intelligence (measured by a scale of Schutte et al., 1998) was only weakly positively related to deep acting strategies, and that women engaged in both higher levels of negative affect regulation and the faking of emotions (surface acting strategies). Performance, measured by self-description scales (good vs. bad service), was positively related to deep acting strategies but not to surface acting strategies. Emotional exhaustion consequence was positively related to surface acting strategies but not to deep acting strategies. In the self-regulation literature (Bandura, 1977, 1986;
Kanfer, 1990) and stress literature (Jex & Bliese, 1999; Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, &
Primeau, 2001; May, Schwoerer, Reed, & Potter, 1997; Zapf & Semmer, in press), self-efficacy is suggested and empirically tested as a further important personal determinant in the self-regulation process and a moderator in the relationship of the stressor emotional dissonance and negative emotion work consequences in the RS Model. Self-efficacy as a personal determinant seems to exert positive emotion work consequences as self-efficacy influences cognitive
appraisal differences in resources ("am I okay or in trouble?" and "what can I do about this stressful event?") according to the transactional stress model (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984) and demand resource models (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Karasek, 1979; Oesterreich & Volpert, 1999). The four personal determinant variables discussed in this section—emotional competence, personality, gender, and self-efficacy—are listed as personal determinant components in the strategy stage (second part) of the RS Model.
It is proposed that personal determinants of emotional competence, personality, gender and self-efficacy affect self-regulation efforts and task behavior of emotion work (Proposition 13).