Content area
Full text
Sandi Mann: BNFL Corporate Communications Unit, University of Salford, Manchester, UK
Introduction"
People regard emotion as a value-laden concept which is often treated as "inappropriate" for organizational life. In particular, emotional reactions are often seen as "disruptive", "illogical", "biased" and "weak". Emotion, then, becomes a deviation from what is seen as sensible or intelligent ... linked to the expressive arenas of life, notto the instrumental goal orientation that drives organizations (Putnam and Mumby, 1993, p. 36)."
According to Ashforth and Humphrey (1995, p. 98) "emotions are an integral and inseparable part of everyday organizational life". Despite this, and despite the fact that the experience of work is "saturated" with emotion (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995, p. 97), research into the impact of "everyday" emotions on organizational life has generally been "neglected" (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995, p. 97). Indeed, as the opening quote to this section illustrates, organizational practitioners, managers and executives often hold the belief that work and emotion are mutually exclusive concepts since work must be a rational enterprise while emotion is the antithesis of this. As James (1992) comments, "expressions of emotion appear to be legitimate in the domestic domain but anathema in the workplace" (p. 501). Putnam and Mumby (1993) point out that in organizations emotions are "consistently devalued and marginalised while rationality is privileged as an ideal for effective organizational life" (pp. 39-40). Certainly, examples abound of how strong emotions have undermined seemingly rational enterprises; Brenner (1988) describes how emotional strife tore apart a family-run conglomerate and Mainiero (1986) describes the disruptive effects that office romances may have on work group effectiveness. Such examples serve to perpetuate the somewhat pejorative view of workplace emotion and attempts to control the experience and expression of emotion within the organization.
Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) argue convincingly, however, that emotionality and rationality are not mutually exclusive; rather they are "interpenetrated" (p. 99). Their dialectic of emotionality and rationality goes as far as to suggest that organizational effectiveness may even be improved by "celebrating rather than attempting to suppress" emotion (p. 99). Qualities "of the heart", they say, can give meaning to qualities of "the head" (p. 109) in organizational spheres such as motivation and group dynamics in which emotion is not an adjunct to work, but...