Why do we keep emotion under control?


Several authors explain why it is not unusual for organisations to seem to be emotion-free. Sanchez-Burks & Huy (2009) refer to a


widespread “habit among Westerners to filter out much of what unfolds in the social and emotional domains…attributed to the pervasive work ethos of the protestant relational ideology, which assumes that social and emotional matters interfere with business effectiveness”. Ashforth &


dehumanized, the more completely it succeeds in eliminating from official business love, hatred and all purely personal irrational and emotional elements which escape calculation”. Complicating this, the ascent of rationality as the dominant administrative paradigm has led to an


“overrationalised conception of organisational life” (Morgan 1986) resulting in a pervasive neglect of emotionality in organisational life. So, we eschew emotion due to our Western work ethic and our bureaucratic organisational approach.


What are the benefits of evoking and exploring emotions within workplace change? Vince & Broussine (1996) claim there are


benefits to deliberately exploring emotion during organisational change, as outlined in the rationale above.


Avey et al (2008) concur reporting the enhancement of mindfulness as a result of


tapping into one's emotions, which suggests that becoming more mindful of one's thoughts and emotional response patterns can identify misconceptions and faulty assumptions, and offer an open approach to problem solving and supply energy for adapting to new conditions.


Jordan (2005) also identifies the importance of emotional reflection for groups as a method for coping with change and finding solutions. Confusion and paradox can be used as an


“energiser of reflection as a counterweight to the unreflective discourse” surrounding change management; and exploring emotion around change will surface both confusion and paradox (Luscher & Lewis 2008:235). “What would sometimes be referred to as resistance, will lead to alterations for the better in the direction of change, because the reality of others will sometimes expose the problems of


implementation that must be addressed” (Fullan 2001:97). Rather than viewing resistance to


change negatively, Thomas & Hardy (2001) highlight the benefit of embracing resistance, suggesting it is important to give voice to and


25


allow for resistance on the part of identities rendered invisible in organisational change. It is through chaos that we may find best practice, when relations mobilised by private and displayed emotions reflecting power relations create surprising, self-limiting, unexpected, uncomfortable and unwanted structures for action, but enabling action that will, given the appropriate circumstances, result in positive outcomes. Many scholars, including Jordan


Humphrey (1995), referring to Weber, state “that (2005) and Liu & Perrewe (2005), speak about bureaucracy progresses the more it is


the management of emotions as the main reason for exploring emotions in organisations.


However, Callahan & McCollum (2002) remind us of Freire's (1970:77) insight that “emotion is an emergent force underpinning dialogue that cannot serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one man by another”.


These are convincing examples of the merit of exploring emotions around change. However, many researchers recommend caution when working with emotions in organisational settings


as it is risky and potentially damaging if not appropriately done. Liu & Perrewe (2005) warn that emotions are not static; individuals will differ in the time needed for sense-making, appraisal and in the factors they take into consideration in their individual appraisals. Rajah et al (2011) add another layer to the complexity


of emotions with their claim that more than one emotion can be felt at any one time. Clearly emotion is complex and working with emotions requires great care and expertise.


What method?


Historically, quantitative methods have been used to explore emotions, but more recently researchers are using qualitative language-based


approaches, which allow for rich, naturalistic investigations. Mossholder (2000) measured emotion through interviews, using word


frequency and computer aided textual analysis of the responses using the Dictionary of Affect in Language (Whissell & Dewson 1986) which measures the emotional tone of words. This was an interesting perspective as the emotional content plus the strength of the emotion was measured. Sorensen et al (2011) used qualitative and quantitative measures plus actors' interpretations of other actors' relational signalling as a method of establishing measures of trust as well as other emotions. This methodology appeals, as interpretations will elicit dialogue which uncovers further emotions and data iteratively.


While interviews and questionnaires give a good account of participant feelings, they can't


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44