Managing Perceptions of Distress at Work

Elizabeth Baily Wolf; Jooa Julia Lee; Sunita  Sah; Alison Wood  Brooks

Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Managing Perceptions of Distress at Work: Reframing Emotion as Passion

by Elizabeth Baily Wolf, Jooa Julia Lee, Sunita Sah and Alison Wood Brooks

Abstract

Expressing distress at work can have negative consequences for employees: observers perceive employees who express distress as less competent than employees who do not. Across five experiments, we explore how reframing a socially inappropriate emotional expression (distress) by publicly attributing it to an appropriate source (passion) can shape perceptions of, and decisions about, the person who expressed emotion. In Studies 1a–c, participants viewed individuals who reframed distress as passion as more competent than those who attributed distress to emotionality or made no attribution. In Studies 2a–b, reframing emotion as passion shifted interpersonal decision making: participants were more likely to hire job candidates and choose collaborators who reframed their distress as passion compared to those who did not. Expresser gender did not moderate these effects. Results suggest that in cases when distress expressions cannot or should not be suppressed, reframing distress as passion can improve observers' impressions of the expresser.

Keywords: Decision Making; Emotions; Perception;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Wolf, Elizabeth Baily, Jooa Julia Lee, Sunita Sah, and Alison Wood Brooks. "Managing Perceptions of Distress at Work: Reframing Emotion as Passion." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 137 (November 2016): 1–12.

Prior advice research has focused on why people rely on (or ignore) advice and its impact on judgment accuracy. We expand the consideration of advice-seeking outcomes by investigating the interpersonal consequences of advice seekers’ decisions. Across nine studies, we show that advisors interpersonally penalize seekers who disregard their advice, and that these reactions are especially strong among expert advisors. This penalty also drives advisor reactions to a widely-recommended advice-seeking strategy: soliciting multiple advisors to leverage the wisdom of crowds. Advisors denigrate and distance themselves from seekers who they learn consulted others, an effect mediated by perceptions that their own advice will be disregarded. Underlying these effects is an asymmetry between advisors’ and seekers’ beliefs about the purpose of the advice exchange: whereas advisors believe giving advice is more about narrowing the option set by providing direction, seekers believe soliciting advice is more about widening the option set by gathering information.

In 2018, Mellody Hobson, President of Ariel Investments, the largest minority-owned investment firm in the U.S., was considering how best to divide her time and use her position and personal characteristics to push for positive change at her firm and in society at large.

Working Paper | 2018

Status Inconsistency: Variance in One's Status Across Groups Harms Well-being but Improves Perspective-taking

Catarina Fernandes and Alison Wood Brooks

Most people belong to many different groups. While some people experience consistently high or low status across all of their groups, others experience wildly different levels of status in each group. In this research, we examine how status inconsistency – the degree to which one’s status varies across groups – impacts well-being and perspective-taking. Across five studies, we find robust evidence that status inconsistency (controlling for average status) has negative intrapersonal, but positive interpersonal, consequences. Study 1A shows that higher status inconsistency across many groups is related to lower levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, and subjective social status. Study 1B tests the causal relationship between status inconsistency and well-being, demonstrating that even thinking about one’s status inconsistency can lead to lower feelings of happiness. Study 2 focuses on attitudes towards the most status-inconsistent groups and shows that individuals are most likely to leave the groups in which their status is furthest away from their mean personal status across groups, irrespective of whether the deviance is positive (much higher status than average) or negative (much lower status than average). Studies 3A and 3B shift to investigate the interpersonal effects of status inconsistency on perspective-taking. Study 3A shows that status inconsistency is related to higher levels of trait perspective-taking and empathetic concern, and Study 3A that thinking about one’s status inconsistency increases perspective-taking on a task. Taken together, the results indicate that those whose status is inconsistent across groups experience lower levels of well-being, but are better at understanding others’ points of view.

Keywords: Status; Social hierarchies; well-being; Perspective Taking; Status and Position; Groups and Teams; Satisfaction; Perspective;

Citation:

Fernandes, Catarina, and Alison Wood Brooks. "Status Inconsistency: Variance in One's Status Across Groups Harms Well-being but Improves Perspective-taking." Working Paper, 2018. (Revise & resubmit, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.) View Details

Cite View Details

Faculty & Research

Managing Perceptions of Distress at Work: Reframing Emotion as Passion

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author