SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Kramer, M. W., & Hess, J. A. (2002). Communication rules for the display of emotions in organizational settings. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 66-80.

Abstract: Using a sample of employees from a wide range of occupations, this research examines the general communication rules that govern emotion management in all aspects of organizational involvement--with coworkers and not just customers. Through content analysis of examples of both appropriate and inappropriate displays or masking of positive and negative emotions, results showed that (a) maintaining “professionalism” is central to appropriate emotion management, (b) positive emotions, not just negative emotions, need to be displayed in appropriate ways, and (c) the appropriate display of negative emotions typically means masking those emotions. This leads to a broader view of the role of emotions in organizational communication, one that is frequently overlooked in the rational paradigm that permeates organizational research.

Journal Article 2: Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. International Journal of Business Communication, 32, 249-265.

Abstract: Research identifies pleasure, affection, escape, relaxation, control, and inclusion as motives explaining why people communicate interpersonally. These motives are examined, along with a duty motive, in organizational relationships. Investigated are employees' motives for communicating with coworkers or with superiors and their satisfaction with work, satisfaction with superiors, and commitment. Full-time workers (N = 202) report high satisfaction with superiors, as well as moderate satisfaction with work and commitment, when communicating with superiors from pleasure, affection, and inclusion needs but not for escape. Employees report high work satisfaction, along with moderate satisfaction with superiors and commitment, when communicating with coworkers for affection but not for escape. Females, more than males, communicate with their bosses for affection and relaxation. Males communicate with coworkers more from control needs, while females communicate for affection. Both communicate more with coworkers versus superiors on all of the motives except for duty. Females communicate more from the duty motive with superiors versus coworkers.

Journal Article 3: Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn’t come to shove: Interpersonal forgiveness in workplace relationships. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 209-216.

Abstract: This article develops the construct of workplace forgiveness by drawing from several relevant literatures. Forgiveness is defined as a process by which an offended worker cognitively acknowledges the wrongfulness of an injurious act and deliberately chooses to release negative emotions and inhibit the desire for revenge. In contrast to revenge, forgiveness may repair damaged workplace relationships in the aftermath of a personal offense. The authors conclude with a research agenda in the form of objectives that provides researchers with a plan for investigating forgiveness.

Journal Article 4: Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. K. (2011). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64, 359-386.

Abstract: We propose a future-oriented model that focuses on the reconciliation of the supervisor–subordinate relationship after a workplace injustice. First, we propose factors associated with the victim’s sensemaking process that influence the need for relationship reconciliation efforts: the seriousness of the violation, blame attribution, and equity sensitivity. We address the moderating effects of relationship characteristics, such as the existing trust reservoir and level of interdependence. Next, we propose that relationship outcomes will be influenced by characteristics of the relationship repair effort. Lastly, we examine the outcomes of successful reconciliation: forgiveness and restored trust and the moderating effects of victim characteristics.