Yugo Jennifer_emotional Labor, Panas ,Etc. Phd

THE ROLE OF CALLING IN EMOTIONAL LABOR

Jennifer Ellen Yugo

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 2009

Committee:

Jennifer Z. Gillespie, Advisor

Jeanne A. Novak Graduate Faculty Representative

Milton D. Hakel

Mary L. Hare

Scott E. Highhouse

ii

ABSTRACT

Jennifer Z. Gillespie, Advisor

With the increasing emphasis on customer service in business and industry,

understanding how employees respond to emotional demands and manage emotions during

interactions with customers is critical for organizational performance. Managing emotions for a

wage can encompass several strategies, including: surface acting, deep acting and the expression

of genuine felt emotions. Research on the meaning of work has also received increased attention

recently. In complying with emotional demands inherent in an occupation, the degree a person

perceives the job as meaningful, and has a calling orientation, may increase emotional labor,

particularly deep acting and genuine felt emotions. The present study examined if having a

calling orientation for work, or perceiving work as significant and rewarding, strengthened the

relationship between customer emotional demands and emotional labor. Using two measures of

customer emotional demands (O*NET database index and self-report), the present study found

that emotional demands were positively related to self-reported emotional labor strategies. In

addition, the calling orientation significantly moderated the relationship between non-self report

and self-report emotional demands, and emotional labor strategies. People high in calling

engaged in more deep acting and genuine felt emotion across emotional demands relative to

people low in calling. Finally, the interaction between calling and emotional demands

significantly predicted global job satisfaction, and in separate regression equations, was

mediated by surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions.

iii

This dissertation is dedicated with greatest gratitude to Joanne and Mike Yugo for their constant

caring, support and encouragement and parenting for the past 28 years.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to my advisor, Dr. Jennifer Gillespie, for her tireless support and guidance

throughout this project and my graduate career. I would also like to thank my committee

members, Drs. Milt Hakel, Scott Highhouse, Mary Hare and Jeanne Novak. Their insightful

suggestions and ideas were critical in the design, execution and communication of this project.

Most importantly, I am grateful to my mother, Joanne and my father, Mike for always believing

in me. Lastly, graduate school was often a lonely and friendless journey, and I am grateful to

Leisha Colyn for friendship and fun.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION…………… ............................................................................................... 1

Emotional Labor ........................................................................................................ 4

Meaning ........................................................................................................... 9

The Current Study ...................................................................................................... 13

METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

Participants ............................................................................................................ 18

Procedure ............................................................................................................ 19

Measures .......................................................................................................... 19

Analytic Strategy ........................................................................................................ 22

RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations .............................................................. 24

Moderation……………............................................................................................... 25

Hypotheses 5a-5d: Moderated Mediation .................................................................. 27

Post-hoc analysis of occupations ............................................................................... 29

DISCUSSION …………… ..................................................................................................... 30

Findings…………… ................................................................................................... 30

Implications…………… ............................................................................................. 33

Limitations…………… ............................................................................................... 35

vi

Directions for Future Research…………… ................................................................ 36

Conclusions…………… ............................................................................................. 38

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 40

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Items in Glomb et al. (2004), equation of emotional demands and indices for example

occupations ................................................................................................................ 50

2 Original and revised work orientation measure with new pilot items ....................... 51

3 Measures of emotional labor strategies...................................................................... 52

4 Variable means, standard deviations and alpha internal consistency reliability ........ 53

5 Variable inter-correlations ......................................................................................... 54

6 Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between O*NET

emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions ................ 55

7 Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between self-report

emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions ................ 56

8 Moderated mediation analysis for surface acting partially mediating the interaction of

calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction ............................ 57

9 Moderated mediation analysis for deep acting partially mediating the interaction of

calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction ............................ 58

10 Moderated mediation analysis for genuine felt emotion partially mediating the interaction

of calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction ........................ 59

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Model of hypothesized relationships ......................................................................... 60

2 Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and surface acting ..... 61

3 Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and surface acting . 62

4 Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and deep acting ......... 63

5 Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and deep acting ..... 64

6 Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and genuine felt emotions

………………………………………………………………………………………. 65

7 Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and genuine felt emotions

………………………………………………………………………………………….66

Calling Orientation 1

INTRODUCTION

One of the most noticeable trends in the workplace over the last few decades has been the

increased emphasis on service. Many organizations’ recruitment, training and policies reflect a

strong customer service emphasis. One of the main reasons behind this trend is that “when

competition in price is out, competition in service is in” (Hochschild, 1983; p. 92). In order to

thrive in an increasingly competitive world, organizations in all industries (e.g., government,

education) are striving to improve service interactions with customers. The customer role has

also taken on a broader scope to include any person who benefits from a worker’s job tasks.

These beneficiaries range from traditional customers buying a product or service, the public in

the case of government and public safety workers, and students for educators (Grant, Campbell,

Chen, Cottone, Lapedis & Lee, 2007).

The increased emphasis on customer interactions has contributed to the exploration of

emotional labor; a construct first defined by Hochschild (1983, 1990) as the management of

emotion for a wage. Workers in a variety of professions encounter emotional demands that

require the expression of specific emotions (Glomb, Kammeyer-Mueller & Rotundo 2004). For

example, police officers have to express stern, negative emotions when enforcing the law, and

customer service providers need to express compassion when interacting with disgruntled

customers. The emotional demands present in a job can vary, affecting the nature and strength of

emotional labor.

Grandey (2000) constructed a framework suggesting the situational cues that require

emotional labor. Although this framework does not refer specifically to occupational

characteristics, interaction expectations, and emotional events may be similar within an

occupation. Occupational characteristics such as the frequency of positive and negative


emotional events and the expectations for interactions with customers, determine what is

emotionally demanding about an occupation and the type and nature of emotional labor required

(Grandey, 2000).

In addition to an increased interest in emotional labor and customer service in recent

years, organizational scholars have paid more attention to the meaning people derive from paid

employment. With workers spending increasing time at work (Schor, 1992) and with the

intensity modern workers pursue their careers (Green, 2006; Hewlett & Luce, 2006), it is not

surprising that scholars have grown increasingly interested in the ways people find and create

meaning in their work (Baumeister, 1991; Brief & Nord, 1990; Castillo, 1997; Pratt & Ashforth,

2003; Shamir, 1991; MOW International Research Team, 1987; Wrzesniewski, Dutton &

Debebe, 2003; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz,

1997). Likewise, the popular press has exploded with publications touting strategies that people

and organizations can use to create a more meaningful work experience (Bains, 2007; Bronson,

2002; Levoy, 1997). Although empirical research in this area is in its early stages, it is generally

assumed that finding greater positive meaning in work will yield beneficial outcomes for

employees, organizations and beneficiaries. Indeed, several empirical studies have provided

tentative support for this hypothesis (Cardador, Pratt, & Dane, 2006, 2007; Wrzesniewski, et al.,

1997; Yugo & Gillespie, in progress).

In order to better understand and test the ways people see, relate to, and find meaning in

paid employment, scholars have increasingly looked to the work orientation construct.

Introduced to the organizational literature by Wrzesniewski et al. (1997), the tripartite model of

work orientation characterizes people’s relationship with their work and the primary ways they

find meaning in the work domain. Although initially proposed by Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) the


job, career and calling orientations were described in ethnographic research a decade before to

categorize predominate ways people approach and relate to work (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan,

Swindler, & Tipton, 1985). Scholars have been using the construct as one of the primary

empirical means of capturing individual differences in work meaning; however, while the

construct has elicited much research recently, research has yet to investigate the mechanisms

through which it has this effect. Little is known about the relationships between work orientation

and variables that may explain its effects on job, health and life satisfaction (Wrzesniewski, et

al., 1997). The present study took steps to investigate this question.

This paper integrates research on both emotional labor and work orientation to examine

the role having a calling orientation plays in moderating the relationship between the emotional

demands of work and emotional labor. In addition, an initial model is tested (see Figure 1),

assessing how the interaction of emotional demands and the calling orientation affects job

satisfaction and if this is partially mediated by emotional labor. Because emotional labor has

been found to be a critically important construct for performance and well-being, exploring

relevant related constructs and moderators has the potential to broaden understanding of the

construct (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2000). Further, how people respond to the

emotional demands of a job may be affected by how people perceive the job relates to their

personal identities, which is related to the meaning they derive from work (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1993). This introduction will first discuss emotional labor, then work orientation,

focusing on the calling orientation, and finally provide a description of the proposed research and

hypotheses.


Emotional Labor

Understanding emotional labor is critical because of the importance of human interaction

in the completion of work tasks. The emotions employees choose to express have significant

effects on organizational outcomes. Emotional labor, however, has also been linked negative

psychological and organizational outcomes for service providers including self-reported stress,

job dissatisfaction and burnout (Bono & Vey, 2007; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Morris &

Feldman, 1996). In particular, job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied variables of

employee well-being and is often undermined by emotional labor (Bulan, Erickson, & Wharton,

1997; Grandey, 2000; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Wharton, 1993, 1996). This study helps to

uncover how one construct, the calling orientation, transcends the relationships between

emotional demands, emotional labor and job satisfaction.

Emotional Display Rules. Because of the evidence of the economic dividends and

personal costs of emotional labor, Morris and Feldman (1996) argued that the expression of

emotion has become “a marketplace commodity,” (see also Hochschild, 1983, 1990). Therefore,

many organizations dictate how emotions should be presented to others through the use of

emotional display rules (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). Emotional display rules are norms and

expectations that state which emotions are appropriate and/or required and how those emotions

should be expressed (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003; Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Ekman,

1973).

These rules can either be explicitly stated role expectations, or unwritten and implicit

rules that can be taught in one’s occupational education, or learned in one’s professional

experience or during the organizational socialization process (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003;

Zapf, Vogt, Siefert, Mertini & Isic, 1999). Whether explicit or implicit, employees and


supervisors perceive them to be required, in-role aspects of their jobs (Diefendorff, Richard, &

Croyle, 2006). Caring teachers, stern police officers and friendly salespeople are common

examples. Some jobs may require the display of negative emotions (e.g., police) or neutral (e.g.,

teacher) emotions. However, the display rules appropriate for most jobs require employees to

show displays of positive emotions (such as happiness, excitement or cheerfulness) and to hide

displays of negative emotions (such as anger or contempt) (Grandey, et al., 2005).

Emotional labor strategies. Achieving the required emotional displays for a situation

often requires the use of emotional labor strategies. Two common strategies for regulating

emotional displays in the work environment are (a) surface acting which involves suppressing

undesired emotions and/or faking the desired emotions, and (b) deep acting, which involves

modifying one’s feelings in order to display the appropriate emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey,

1993; Grandey, 2000). Hochschild (1983, 1990) described surface acting as a process where the

individual creates the outward appearance of a desired emotion without altering felt emotion.

Similarly, Grandey (2000) described surface acting as the suppression of felt emotions and the

faking of desired emotions. With surface acting workers focus entirely on the outward behavior

they are displaying to others (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).

Whereas surface acting involves the faking or suppression of emotions to comply with an

emotional demand, deep acting involves actually changing one’s inner feelings in order to elicit

the appropriate emotional display. This can be accomplished by exhorting oneself to feel the

desired emotion, or through imagination (Grandey, 2003; Hochschild, 1983, 1990). For

example, Hochschild (1983) describes how flight attendants imagine that rude and insulting

passengers may have experienced a stressful or tragic event recently, like the death of a child, in

order to more easily express the positive emotions of sympathy and concern. In other instances,


attendants will think of memorable happy events to exhort positive emotions. In this case the

flight attendants are deep acting by changing their internal emotional states in an attempt to

express authentic emotions (Grandey, 2000; Grandey, 2003). In contrast to deep acting, where

workers focus exclusively on the outward appearance of emotions and behavior, with deep

focuses directly on one’s inner feelings as people strive for the expression of genuine emotions.

(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Workers who use deep acting more than surface acting may also

have a greater desire to help customers and to express authentic emotions in their work (Ashforth

& Fried, 1988).

Researchers have empirically demonstrated that the difference between deep and surface

acting may help explain the negative outcomes linked to emotional labor. Surface acting has

been linked to less effective work behaviors as well as psychological impairment including, such

as inauthentic displays, lower customer ratings, depersonalization, emotional exhaustion and

dissatisfaction (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002;

Gosserand, 2003; Grandey, 2003; Grandey, et al., 2005; Grandey, Fisk, Matilla, Jansen, &

Sideman, 2005; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Alternatively, deep acting leads to more healthy

and successful organizational outcomes including: authentic displays of emotion, feelings of

accomplishment, less negative emotions, greater job satisfaction, and performance (Brotheridge

& Lee, 2002; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Grandey, 2000; Grandey, 2003; Grandey, Fisk &

Steiner, 2005; Totterdell & Holman, 2003).

In addition to surface acting (suppression and faking), and deep acting (changing inner

feelings), there is a third strategy that has been considered as a part of emotional labor: the

expression of genuine felt emotions (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Diefendorff, Croyle &

Gosserand, 2004; Grandey, 2000). This takes place when the employee’s actual emotions already


mimic those expected from the job, thereby eliminating the effort involved in order to achieve

the organizationally desired response. Although emotional expression occurs without effort,

negative genuine felt emotion may still cause psychological strain if the emotions are negative

(e.g., empathy in customer service occupations, or sternness and anger for police officers).

Indeed, Glomb and Tews (2004) found a positive relationship between negative genuine felt

emotions and emotional exhaustion.

In studying emotional labor, it is important to recognize that as emotional events occur

throughout the day people may employ deep acting, surface acting, genuine expression of

emotion, or a combination of the three. Job characteristics, or the required emotional demands,

as well as individual differences in the perception of work may strongly influence the type and

frequency of emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Emotional demands. Implicit in understanding emotional labor is the idea that emotional

labor begins when a demand present in the environment requires a specific emotional display.

Consistent with research on job characteristics theory, jobs may differ in emotional demands and

vary in the frequency of required emotional displays, the strength of emotional display rules, the

variety of emotions required for successful job performance and the likelihood of emotional

dissonance (Morris & Feldman, 1996). Although emotional demands have been frequently

measured as a perceived stressor (e.g., Grandey, et al., 2005), only recently have emotional

demands inherent in a job been quantified and measured as a job characteristic (Glomb, et al.,

2004; Grant, 2007; Grant, et al., 2007). The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is a

comprehensive occupational information system that documents the work tasks, contexts,

necessary skills and abilities needed for more than 10,000 occupations (Dunnette, 1999). The

research by Glomb et al. (2004) determined, using O*NET, that emotional demands can be


isolated from work task and work context items creating an index of emotional demands that

could be applied to each occupation in the database.

The two task activities, “Assisting and caring for others,” and “Performing or working for

the public,” and the three work context items, “Deal with external customers,” “Frequency in

conflict situations and “Deal with angry and unpleasant people,” demonstrated good model fit

through a series of principal component analyses and are conceptually and empirically distinct

from the cognitive and physical work demand items in the database. The authors’ research also

suggests that higher levels of emotional demands are associated with lower wage rates for jobs

low in cognitive demands and with higher rates for jobs high in cognitive and physical demands

(Glomb, et al., 2004).

The Glomb et al. (2004) study has the potential to provide a new non self-report way to

measure emotional demands as a job characteristic. Because the Glomb et al. (2004) study relied

exclusively on O*NET data and focused on developing and refining the index of emotional

demands, the present study tested the relationship between emotional demands and self-reported

emotional labor. In addition to the emotional demands index, the present study had participants

respond to the O*NET items directly, yielding two measures of emotional demands: the index

and self-report.

Although increased emotional demands are likely to be related to psychological strain

and negative organizational outcomes, a new theory of relational job design suggests that the

effects of emotional demands on psychological well-being may be more complex. Grant (2007)

posits that jobs that allow greater contact with beneficiaries (i.e. customers) increase perceptions

of perceived impact on beneficiaries/customers and this affects behavior and identity outcomes

such as effort, persistence, helping behavior, self-worth and job performance. According to


Grant’s theory, the positive impact customer contact has on behavior is affected by individual

motivational differences, possibly including perceived meaning of work (Grant, 2007). An

initial test of this theory found that people given increased contact with customers had greater

affective commitment, persistence and job performance (Grant,et al., 2007). High calling

oriented individuals may receive more positive feedback from customers because of their

increased emotional labor. This may allow the calling orientation to buffer the negative effects

of engaging in more emotional labor.

Meaning

Research on meaning in the work context exists in two areas: the meaning of work (e.g.,

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) and meaning at work (e.g., Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Research is

needed to address both the nature of meaning from work life and what makes specific work tasks

meaningful. This research focused on the former, attempting to understand how individual

differences in perceptions of the purpose or fulfillment derived from work affect a person’s

reaction to emotional demands and engagement in emotional labor. Further, research on

meaning and early studies of work orientation have demonstrated the significant impact of work

meanings on job satisfaction (Wrzesniewski, et. al, 1996; Wrzesniewski, et. al, 2003). The

current research tested the impact of the interaction of emotional demands and one of the work

orientations (calling) on job satisfaction.

One of the most prevalent approaches to the study of meaning is as a part of job

characteristics theory (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1976). This

theory specifies the task conditions under which people are expected to have greater motivation

and satisfaction in their work. When work is perceived as meaningful, people will like their jobs

and be motivated to perform their jobs well. According to job characteristics theory, there are


five core characteristics that can be applied to any job: skill variety, task identity, task

significance, autonomy, and feedback. The five core characteristics are thought to lead to three

psychological states, which include experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced

responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of the work. Skill

variety, task identity, and task significance combine to produce a meaningful work experience.

Experienced meaningfulness in turn contributes to critical outcomes of job performance,

motivation and satisfaction and employee motivation (Champoux, 1991; Hackman & Oldham,

1976); and has been found to be the most predictive of the three psychological states (Spector,

1997). Although tentative, Wrzesniewski et al., (1997) proposed an initial model that is similar

to job characteristics theory. In contrast to job characteristics theory, work orientation provides a

different perspective of work meaning where both worker personality and individual differences

interact with the characteristics of the work environment in meaning-making (Wrzesniewski, et

al., 1997; Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003).

When faced with the voluminous body of research aiming to address the reasons people

work it is clear that this question has been asked many times, by many people, across disciplines

and cultures (e.g., Nord, Atieh & Doherty, 1990). Indeed, we know that people across jobs,

industries, and eras have expressed different conceptualizations of paid employment (Ciulla,

2000), and also find meaning in different aspects of working (Bellah, et al., 1985; Brief & Nord,

1990; MOW International Research Team, 1987; Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). In the modern era

of the boundaryless career, where people rather than organizations drive career development,

scholars have argued that individual differences in work meaning become even more pronounced

and relevant (Arthur & Roussea, 1996; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).


In pursuit of understanding the meaning of work, scholars have created a number of

constructs including intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, work values, work commitment (Loscocco,

1989), job involvement (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), work involvement (Kanungo, 1982), and work

centrality (Dubin, 1956; MOW, 1987). A newer concept, work orientation, examines work

meaning from a slightly different perspective as the relationship people have with work

(Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). This concept stemmed from ethnographic research finding that

people differ in how people expend personal resources at work as well as the outcomes they wish

to attain (e.g., income, fulfillment) (Bellah, et al., 1985).

Work orientation was selected as the construct to assess work meaning because theory

involving on work orientation suggests job characteristics and individual differences, such as

personality, affect the construct (Bellah, et al., 1985; Wrzesniewski, et. al, 1997). Instead of

assessing individual differences in the degree to which people feel intrinsically, or extrinsically

motivated toward employment (e.g., Work Preference Inventory), work orientation may change

over time as a function of job characteristics (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994). Also,

in the present study, emotional demands are assessed as a job characteristic. This study informs

how the interaction between a job characteristic variable, and work orientation, a combination of

job characteristics and individual differences, affects emotion regulation, or emotional labor.

The work orientation construct characterizes the relationship one has with the work

domain, in terms of the interpretation of one’s work role and the meaning of one’s work in the

broader context of life (Bellah et al., 1985; Parker, Wall & Jackson, 1997; Wrzesniewski, Dutton

& Debebe, 2003; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Bellah and colleagues (1985) introduced a

tripartite model of work orientation positing that people endorse one of three main orientations to

work: job, career, or calling. People with a job orientation see work primarily as a means to


necessary monetary rewards, and prefer to pursue their passion through non-work activities.

People with a career orientation see work mainly as an opportunity to achieve status, social

advancement and recognition. Finally, those with a calling orientation find meaning in the act of

working, because of the intrinsic fulfillment the work provides or the positive contribution it

makes on others or society.

In their seminal work, Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) operationalized and tested this

typology of work orientation and found these orientations to be significantly related to job and

life satisfaction. Of particular importance for the construct, paragraphs describing the job and

calling orientations had significant inverse correlations. This makes conceptual sense as

individuals who indicate they work primarily the financial sustenance and benefits are less likely

to endorse that work is one of the most indicating they strongly identify with work.

Unfortunately, Wrzesniewski et al., (1997) presented no exploratory or confirmatory factor

analyses to determine the factor structure of the construct, however, additional unpublished

empirical developments have suggested that the job and calling dimensions are opposite ends of

the same dimension, while career is a distinct, orthogonal dimension. This research has also

determine that the measure has improved reliability and validity when using a five-point Likert

response format instead of the true-false response format that was originally used (Yugo &

Gillespie, in progress).

Additional questions on the meaning of work involve its development and stability over

time. People are motivated to create meaning from their experiences and environments (Brief, et

al., 1990). Meaning creation helps to foster a sense of purpose, self-efficacy and self-worth

(Bauemeister, 1991). Work orientation theory suggests that meaning is created and affected by

both individual differences and the work environment. Research suggests that a person’s


relationship with work may change as the person interacts and changes the work environment

and as the environment affects the person (Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003). Some initial evidence

suggests that work orientation may vary greatly among people with the same work environment.

In a small study of administrative assistants, all of whom shared the same job level and work

activities, the job, calling and career orientations were fairly evenly represented (Wrzesniewski

et al., 1997). Interestingly, initial studies have shown that work orientation may be related to

other important social variables and work outcomes (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). For example,

calling-oriented people may have higher levels of education, greater incomes, and higher

occupational status than do people with other orientations (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).

Furthermore, those with a calling orientation report working longer hours and missing fewer

days of work (Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997), while experiencing higher job and life satisfaction

(Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), seeing their work as more meaningful (Cardador, Pratt, & Dane,

2006), and more strongly identifying with their organization and profession (Cardador et al.,

2006). Evidence has also suggested that people with calling orientations may be high performers

in their organizations (Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003). Although it may seem from these results that

a calling orientation is the most desirable way to view one’s work, there may be a potential “dark

side” of seeing work as a calling, because of the tendency to perceive one’s work as greatly

important and a greater desire to make a difference in the face of obstacles or demands

(Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003). High calling oriented people may empathize more with customers,

experience more negative genuine felt emotions and a possible decrease in well-being.

The Current Study

One of the primary goals of the present research was to measure emotional demands as a

job characteristic using the O*NET database and determine, for the first time, the relationship


between the index and emotional labor strategies (Glomb, et al., 2004). Determining how the

interactive effects of emotional demands (measured as a job characteristic), and the calling

orientation (impacted by both job characteristics and individual differences) influence job

satisfaction was a second goal. Determining these relationships, however, hinged on the

measurement of the calling orientation and emotional demands. In addition to the O*NET

measure of emotional demands, a self-report measure of emotional demands, asking participants

to respond to the same O*NET job descriptors was also included to assesses the relationship

between the index and self-report measures. The self-report emotional labor demand measure

was used to further validate the O*NET measure. Past research on emotional labor has

suggested that workers in jobs with greater emotional demands as defined by the Glomb et al.

(2004) index, are more likely to engage in emotional labor. Jobs with greater emotional demands

often require specific emotional displays when interacting with customers, requiring workers to

alter their genuine felt emotions. Thus, the following hypothesis was tested:

Hypothesis 1: Emotional demands are positively related to emotional labor (i.e., surface

acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions).

The literature on work orientation and relational job design suggests that the meaning

derived from work may transcend the emotional experience of work (Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003;

Grant, 2007; Grant et al., 2007). The present study tested if the calling orientation interacted

with the emotional demands present in the job to have an effect on emotional labor (surface

acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotion), and job satisfaction. A conceptual model of the

relationships tested in the present study is shown in Figure 1. Recent research on emotional

regulation has found that suppression, or surface acting, requires more effort and depletes

emotional resources (Liu, Prati, Perrewe & Ferris, 2008). Low calling people may lack the


emotional resources or focus to engage in other more effortful emotional labor strategies, leading

to surface acting; however, suppression based strategies in turn reduce task focus (Wallace,

Edwards, Shull, & Finch, 2009). Similarly, from a motivational perspective, surface acting

may be more consistent with low calling people who perceive work tasks as less rewarding.

Consistent with Grant’s relational job design model, low calling people may lack the motivation

to deep act or feel genuine emotions that satisfy emotional demands (Grant, 2007). Low calling

people may lack the emotional resources or focus to engage in other more effortful emotional

labor strategies, leading to greater reported surface acting surface acting. This leads to the

second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Calling orientation moderates the relationship between emotional

demands and surface acting. Specifically, if there is a low calling orientation there is a

stronger positive relationship between emotional demands and surface acting.

The next two hypotheses suggest how the calling orientation may moderate the

relationship between emotional demands and the remaining two strategies: deep acting and

genuine felt emotion. According to the conceptual definition of the calling, people with a calling

orientation perceive their work as intrinsically meaningful (Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). Because

work tasks and social interactions are perceived as having a greater purpose or meaning the

calling orientation may be related to genuine felt emotion when encountering emotional

demands. Recent research has found that certain deep acting strategies increase task focus

(Wallace, et al., 2009), and emotional resources (Liu, et al., 2008). This may be in part a result

of genuine felt emotion that is generated through deep acting (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003).

Additional emotional resources may increase the ability to engage in deep acting, a strategy that

requires greater effort. A higher calling orientation may be related to greater genuine felt


emotions, more emotional resources, and deep acting. Conversely, people low in calling, may

lack genuine felt emotions, have less emotional resources, and do not wish to express authentic

emotional displays, resulting in surface acting. This leads to the following hypotheses for calling

orientation as a moderator of emotional demands and emotional labor:

A desire for authenticity in interactions with customers, and a greater concern for

customers are positively related to deep acting, genuine felt emotions and job satisfaction

(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). These motivations may be

greater in people high in the calling orientation who may perceive work as more important and

rewarding (Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). This reasoning leads to hypotheses 3 and 4.


demands and deep acting. Specifically, for the high calling orientation there is a stronger

positive relationship between emotional labor and deep acting.


demands and genuine felt emotion. Specifically, for the high calling orientation there is a

stronger positive relationship between emotional labor and genuine felt emotions.

Finally, the relationship between calling, emotional demands and emotional labor is

largely of interest because if its affect on well-being variables such as job satisfaction that impact

organizational outcomes (e.g., turnover, organizational commitment). This study suggested that

the calling orientation is likely related to greater levels of deep acting and genuine felt emotion,

however, higher levels emotional labor may diminish job satisfaction. Past research has found

positive links between the calling orientation and job satisfaction, however, there is a negative

relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction (Grandey, 2000; Morris & Feldman,


1996). This suggests that the relationship between these variables is not as simple as once

thought.

The present study investigated how the interaction between emotional demands and the

calling orientation impacts global perceptions of job satisfaction and how this relationship is

partially mediated by specific emotional labor strategies (surface acting, deep acting and genuine

felt emotion). The primary focus of the study was to determine how emotional demands as a

job characteristic impact emotional labor. Thus, for the following hypotheses only the O*NET

index of emotional demands was used.

Hypothesis 5a: The interaction of calling and emotional demands is positively related to

job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and the

calling orientation, and job satisfaction is significant and partially mediated by surface

acting.

Hypothesis 5c: The relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and the

calling orientation, and job satisfaction is significant and partially mediated by deep

acting.

Hypothesis 5d: The relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and the

calling orientation, and job satisfaction is significant and partially mediated by genuine

felt emotion.


METHOD Participants

A total of 338 employees in retail stores, police departments, engineering firms, banks,

and universities throughout the Midwest were recruited to participate. The sample consisted of

the following organizations: four retail stores from two different chains, a national bank, three

companies in manufacturing and engineering and two police departments. These organizations

were selected because of their likelihood of participation and the quantitative variance in

emotional demands (see Table 1). In addition, a strength of this sample is the diversity in the

nature of emotional labor within the included occupations (e.g., police officers often display

stern, negative emotions, while retail workers and sales engineers display positive emotions.

One important characteristic of the sample is the diversity in status, a variable that may affect the

nature of the customer service interaction. Wharton (2009) suggested the importance of

sampling high and low status occupations in emotional labor research. Retail worker is a low

status job, while sales engineers are likely to receive greater respect by customers.

Senior management in selected organizations were presented with information describing

the present study and asked if they were willing to participate. Managers were told the benefits

for participating included a summary of the study’s findings and the chance for employees to win

a $25 Amazon gift card. All participating organizations, with the exception of three retail stores,

were given a link to an online version of the survey which was disseminated to employees via

organizational email lists by senior management. For the retail stores, hard copy surveys were

made available in break rooms and links to the online survey were placed on communal work

computers. The majority of the sample was male (55%), salaried (74%), and had been with their

current organization between five and 15 years (53%). Sixty eight percent of the sample

reported earning a Bachelor’s or advanced degree. The index of emotional demands for the


frequently sampled occupations is available in Table 1. All participants worked at least 30 hours

a week. Because surveys were distributed by supervisors via email, and left in communal areas,

an exact response rate cannot be calculated, however, based on the size of the organizations and

departments used for the study approximately 815 potential participants were contacted, yielding

a response rate of 41 percent.

Procedure

After receiving the electronic or paper copy survey, participants reviewed the information

sheet that invited them to participate in a study on the role of emotions at work; and informed

they would be entered in a raffle for a $25 Amazon gift card, in which they would have a one in

twelve chance of winning, for completing the survey. After agreeing to participate, participants

provided their name and e-mail address, for the gift-card raffle, and continued to the beginning

of the survey.

Before completing the emotional demand measures at the beginning of the survey

participants were instructed that for the purpose of the survey a customer is anyone they provide

goods or services for outside the organization. The instructions also provided examples of

customers that would apply for the sampled population (e.g., the public for police officers,

students for administrators).

Measures

Positive and Negative Affect. Because both the meaning of work and emotional labor are

affected by positive and negative affect the Positive and Negative Affect Schedules measure was

administered to control for this potential confound. Participants completed the 20-item PANAS

to indicate the extent they generally felt a series of 20 emotions, ten indicative of positive affect

and ten measuring negative affect. A 5-point response scale was used ranging from “Very


slightly or not at all” to “Extremely.” Example emotions include: “irritable”, “guilty”,

“ashamed” and “upset,” (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The internal consistency reliability

for the negative affect scale was α=.84 and .86 for the positive affect scale.

Emotional demands. Emotional demands were measured with an O*NET index of

emotional demands, and participant self-report of the same O*NET emotional demand items.

O*NET database index of emotional demands. A five item index developed by Glomb et al.

(2004) for quantifying the emotional demands of a job from the O*NET database was used as a

non self-report measure of emotional demands. Two generalized work activities, “assisting and

caring for others,” and “performing or working with the public,” along with three work context

items, “deal with external customers,” “frequency in conflict situations,” and “deal with

angry/unpleasant people,” comprised the index. These items are available in O*NET for each

job present in the database and all five items were averaged to create an index of emotional

demands. The internal consistency reliability for the measure was α=.60.

O*NET item self-report. In addition to the index of emotional demands derived from the

O*NET database participants responded to each of the five O*NET items on a 1-5 “Not

Important” to “Extremely Important” scale. The internal consistency reliability for the measure

was α=.68.

Calling orientation. The 11 item calling subscale of the measure of work orientation

originally developed by Wrzewsniewski et al. (1997) and further developed by Yugo et al. (in

progress) was administered to measure the meaning of work. This measure uses a 5-point Likert,

“Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree,” response format. Example calling items include, “I

find my work rewarding,” “When I am not at work I do not think much about my work,” (reverse

coded), and “I would choose my current work again if I had the opportunity.” All calling items


from the Wrzesniewski et al., (1997) measure are presented in Table 2. The internal consistency

reliability for the calling scale was α=.92. The three item career orientation subscale was also

administered for replication purposes. The internal consistency reliability for the career scale

was α=.78.

Emotional labor. Three emotional labor strategies were measured to assess emotional

regulation at work: surface acting, deep acting and expression of naturally felt emotions.

Surface acting. Grandey, et al.’s (2005) measure of surface acting was administered to assess

how often participants suppress or fake emotions during their work day when interacting with

others. Example items include, “I resist expressing my true feelings,” “I fake a good mood” and

“I put on an act in order to deal with customers/clients in an appropriate way.” The internal

consistency reliability for the scale was α=.88. The full measure of surface acting is presented in

Table 3.

Deep acting. Diefendorff et al.’s (2005) four item deep acting scale was used to measure the

extent to which employees report they modify their felt emotions so that genuine displays follow.

The items for this scale were adapted from Grandey’s (2003) deep acting scale and Kruml and

Geddes’ (200) scale of emotive effort. This scale has a reported reliability of .82 (Diefendorff et

al., 2005). Sample items include “I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to

show customers” and “I work hard to feel the emotions that I need to show to customers.” The

internal consistency reliability for the scale was α=.91. The full deep acting measure is presented

in Table 3.

Expression of naturally felt emotions. Genuine expression of felt emotion was measured using

the three item measure by Diefendorff et al. (2005) was used to measure the expression of

genuine emotions. Example items include, “The emotions I show customers come naturally”


and “The emotions I show customers match what I spontaneously feel.” The internal

consistency reliability for the scale was α=.81. The full measure is presented in Table 3.

Global Job Satisfaction. To measure global perceptions of job satisfaction the 18-item

Job in General scale (JIG) was be administered (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson & Paul,

1989). The JIG is comprised of adjectives or short phrases and participants respond, “yes,” “no,”

or “?” for each item to indicate what their work is like most of the time. Example items include,

“pleasant,” “worse than most,” and “worthwhile.” For positive items, “yes” responses were

given a value of three, “no” a value of zero, and “?” a value of one. For negative items, “yes”

responses were given a value of zero, “no” a value of three, and “?” a value of one. The internal

consistency reliability for the calling scale was α=.92.

Analytic strategy

The over-arching goal of the present study was to examine how the calling orientation

affects emotional demands and emotional labor. The concept of emotional labor was measured

by three, separate emotional labor strategies: surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt

emotion. Bivariate correlations were first calculated to test the relationship between emotional

demands, the calling orientation and emotional labor strategies, and to examine the relationships

between the measured variables.

Each moderation hypothesis (Hypotheses 2-4) was tested independently with a series of

multiple regressions. For all multiple regression analyses, the main effects of emotional labor

(surface acting, deep acting, or genuine felt emotion), and calling orientation as well as their

interaction effect on emotional labor were examined. All regression analyses were computed in

the same manner and investigated the incremental contributions of the control variables in Step 1

(gender, age, negative affect, tenure), the predictor variables in Step 2 and the interaction term in


Step 3 (calling x emotional labor). All predictor variables were centered before calculating the

interaction terms to reduce multi-collinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Significant interactions

were also plotted using values one standard deviation above and below the mean.

To understand if the calling orientation interacts with emotional demands to affect job

satisfaction, and if this relationship is mediated by emotional labor (surface acting, deep acting

and genuine felt emotions), the procedures for moderated-mediation described by Baron and

Kenny (1986) were followed. In this method, the degree of mediation is reflected by the

reduction of the effect of the predictor variable (the interaction of emotional demands and the

calling orientation) on the outcome when the mediator is added to the model. This analysis was

used to determine how the interaction impacts job satisfaction and if emotional labor mediates

the relationship between the interaction and job satisfaction.


RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and Inter-correlations.

Descriptive statistics for all the variables included in this study are in Table 4. Included

in this table are the means, standard deviations and reliability estimates (coefficient alphas)

where appropriate. Coefficient alpha estimates ranged from .60 for the O*NET Database index

of emotional demands to .92 for measures of calling and job satisfaction. The majority of

coefficient alpha reliability estimates were appropriate, however, both measures of emotional

demands (O*NET and self-report) were below .70, warranting further examination (Lance,

Baranik, Lau, & Scharlau, 2009). This may be expected as values for the O*NET items are often

very different. For example, the occupation of sales engineer in the O*NET database, out of a

scale of 100, has score of 34 for Performing and Working for the Public, but a score of 77 for

Deals with External Customers. Examining the sum score for each occupation, indicating the

overall level of emotional demands may be more important than internal consistency, for the

measures of emotional demands. The sum score of the O*NET index of emotional demands, and

participant self-report of the same items have a correlation of .76, a possible indicator of

convergent and construct validity.

Inter-correlations are presented in Table 5. Correlations between genuine felt emotions,

deep and surface acting replicate previous findings in the emotional labor literature; a positive

relationship was found between deep acting and genuine felt emotion(r=-.41, p<.01), and surface

acting was negatively related to deep acting (r=-.36, p<.01) and genuine felt emotion (r=-.28,

p<.01). The calling orientation was found to be positively related to genuine felt emotion (r=.37,

p<.01) and deep acting (r=.35, p<.01), and negatively related to surface acting (r=-.21, p<.05).


The correlations between the two measures of emotional demands (self-report and

O*NET emotional labor demand index), and the three types of emotional labor were examined to

test Hypothesis 1, that emotional demands and emotional labor are positively related. This

hypothesis was supported. All correlations between measures of emotional labor (surface acting,

deep acting and genuine felt emotion) and the two measures of emotional demands were

significant. Correlations ranged from r=.21 p<.05, for self-report emotional demands and

surface acting, to r=.57 p<.01, for self-report emotional demands and genuine felt emotions. The

self-report measure was more strongly correlated with deep acting and genuine felt emotions,

however, surface acting was more strongly correlated with the O*NET index of emotional

demands.

Moderation

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the calling orientation would moderate the relationship

between emotional demands (O*NET index and self-report) and surface acting. As shown in

Tables 6 and 7, both main effects are significant for emotional demands and calling (β=.32,

p<.01 for emotional demand index, β= -.31 for calling, p<.01; and β=.21, p<.01 for self-report

emotional demands, β=-.29, p<.01 for calling). For the analysis using the O*NET index, the

both main effects accounted for an additional 27 percent of the variance in surface acting above

the control variables; and an additional 31 percent for the self-report measure. The interaction

between calling orientation and surface acting was significant for both the index of emotional

demands, and the self-report measure (ΔR2=.09, p<.05; ΔR2=.06, p<.05). Both interaction plots,

as displayed in Figures 2 and 3 respectively, revealed the expected pattern of results.

Specifically, people with a high calling orientation report less surface acting, and there are


weaker relationships between emotional demands and surface acting for people high in the

calling orientation, and there is a stronger relationship for people low in the calling orientation.


between emotional demands (O*NET index and self-report) and deep acting. As shown in Tables

6 and 7, both main effects are significant for emotional demands and calling (β=.27, p<.01 for

emotional demand index, β= .25 for calling, p<.05; and β=.34, p<.01 for self-report emotional

demands, β=.33, p<.01 for calling). For the analysis using the O*NET index, the both main

effects accounted for an additional 22 percent of the variance in deep acting above the control

variables; and an additional 29 percent for the self-report measure. The interaction between

calling orientation and deep acting was significant for both the index of emotional demands, and

the self-report measure (ΔR2=.07, p<.05; ΔR2


between emotional demands (O*NET index and self-report) and genuine felt emotions. As

shown in Tables 6 and 7, both main effects are significant for emotional demands and calling

(β=.33, p<.01 for emotional demand index, β= .27 for calling, p<.01; and β=.42, p<.01 for self-

report emotional demands, β=.26, p<.01 for calling). For the analysis using the O*NET index,

the both main effects accounted for an additional 18 percent of the variance in genuine felt

=.05, p<.05). The interaction plots however

(Figures 4 and 5) did not depict the expected results. When using the O*NET index of emotional

demands, for high calling people the O*NET index was positively related to deep acting,

However, for low calling people, deep acting showed a negative relationship with emotional

demands. When using the self-report measure of emotional demands, deep acting is positively

related to emotional demands, but the relationship is weaker than for the O*NET index. Deep

acting remains constant for low calling people.


emotion, above the control variables; and an additional 27 percent for the self-report measure.

The interaction between calling orientation and genuine felt emotion was significant for both the

index of emotional demands, and the self-report measure (ΔR2=.14, p<.01; ΔR2

Hypothesis 5a- 5d: Moderated mediation.

=.11, p<.01).

Both interaction plots, as displayed in Figures 6 and 7, revealed results similar to those for deep

acting. Specifically, people with a high calling orientation express more genuine felt emotion,

and there are stronger positive relationships between emotional demands and genuine felt

emotion for people high in calling. Similar to deep acting, however, for people low in calling

there is a negative relationship between emotional demands and genuine felt emotions.

Hypotheses 5a-5d suggested that the relationship between the interaction of emotional

labor and the calling orientation is significantly related to job satisfaction and partially mediated

by emotional labor. This was broken down for each of the three types of emotional labor. To

test these hypotheses, the regression procedures developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) were

followed. In this method, the degree of mediation is reflected by the reduction of the effect of

the predictor variable on the outcome when the mediator is added to the model. For the first step

of the procedure it is necessary to determine if the interaction of emotional demands and calling

is significantly related to the outcome variable (job satisfaction). The control variables for all

tests of moderated mediation include the main effects of O*NET emotional demands and the

calling orientation, as well as positive and negative affect, which were shown to be significant

predictors of the calling orientation, emotional labor and job satisfaction. The results for

Hypothesis 5a can be seen in the first step for Tables 8 through 10. The results revealed that the

relationship between the interaction term and job satisfaction was positive (β = .34, p < .01),

supporting the first hypothesis and the first step moderated mediation.


Hypothesis 5b posited that surface acting would partially mediate the relationship

between the interaction of emotional demands and calling, and job satisfaction. Results for

Hypothesis 5b are presented in Table 8. The second step of moderated mediation is to test if the

interaction predicts the mediator (surface acting). This relationship was significant (β = -.39, p <

.01). In the third step, the mediator must affect the outcome variable (job satisfaction) while

controlling for the interaction term. After entering the control variables and the interaction term,

the mediator was still a significant predictor of job satisfaction (β = -.19, p < .01).

Lastly, for the final step in moderated mediation, partial mediation is shown when the

effect of the interaction on job satisfaction is reduced when the mediator (surface acting) is

controlled for. For this step the control variables were entered first, followed by mediator a then

the interaction term. The results showed that the interaction term is still a significant predictor (β

= .19, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 5b. In addition the Sobel test indicates that surface acting

is a significant mediator (Sobel statistic = 1.39, p<.05).

Hypothesis 5c posited that deep acting would partially mediate the relationship between

the interaction of emotional demands and calling, and job satisfaction. Results for Hypothesis 5c

are presented in Table 9. Again the interaction term significantly predicted the mediator in the

second step, (β = .31, p < .01). Deep acting also predicted job satisfaction, controlling for the

interaction term, in the third step (β = .17, p < .05). Finally, the interaction term was reduced in

magnitude in the final step when controlling for the mediator, deep acting (β = .16, p < .05).

The Sobel test was also significant (Sobel statistic = 1.45, p<.05) , supporting Hypothesis 5c, that

deep acting partially mediates the relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and

calling.


Hypothesis 5d suggested that genuine felt emotion would partially mediate the

relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and calling, and job satisfaction.

Results for Hypothesis 5d are presented in Table 10. The interaction term was a significant

predictor of the mediator in the second step, (β = .28, p < .01). In the third step, genuine felt

emotion also predicted job satisfaction, controlling for the interaction term (β = .26, p < .05). In

the final step, the interaction term was reduced in magnitude when controlling for genuine felt

emotion, the mediator (β = .21, p < .01). The Sobel test was also significant (Sobel statistic =

1.75, p<.05). Thus, Hypothesis 5d was supported.

Post-hoc analysis of occupations.

Because all hypotheses were supported, it is important to determine if any occupational

group (e.g., police officer, university administrator) may account for the significant findings.

Three one-way ANOVA tests of the eight sampled occupational groups were conducted with

emotional labor strategy as the independent variable. The results found that there were no

significant differences between occupational groups in emotional labor strategy: surface acting,

F(7, 330) = 1.56, p=.216; deep acting F(7, 330) = 2.12, p=.135; and genuine felt emotions

F(7,33) = 1.94, p=.189. Therefore, occupational groups were not significantly different in

emotional labor strategies and it can be concluded that occupational groups were not responsible

for the findings.


DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to better understand how the meaning of work,

specifically the calling orientation, affects the relationship between occupational emotional

demands and emotional labor. As organizations continue to emphasize customer service quality,

understanding not only how emotional demands affect emotional labor, but also the processes

that impact this relationship will become more important (Hochschild, 1990; Morris & Feldman,

1996). Using both a self-report measure and an occupational database (O*NET) index of

emotional demands, the present study found that perceived meaning moderates the relationship

between emotional demands and emotional labor. The following sections present a discussion of

this study’s findings, implications for research and practice, limitations of the current study and

potential directions for future research.

Findings

Support for the first hypothesis, suggesting emotional demands are positively related to

emotional labor, builds on the research of Glomb et al., (2004) by showing a significant

relationship between the index of occupational emotional demands and emotional labor

strategies. A strong significant correlation was found between the O*NET index and self-report

measures of emotional demands. This suggests convergent validity, and the emotional labor

demand index has the potential to be used as a way to measure emotional labor as a characteristic

inherent in a job.

Key to the present study was the potential link between emotional labor and the meaning

of work. Surface acting, as expected, was negatively related to the calling orientation, whereas a

significant positive correlation was found for the relationship between deep acting and genuine

felt emotion and the calling orientation. This and the overall significance of the findings in this


study demonstrate the strength of the calling orientation in explaining variance in critical work-

related variables.

The primary focus of the study involved determining if having a calling orientation

moderates the relationship between occupational emotional demands and emotional labor

(Hypotheses 2 through 4). Support for these hypotheses suggests that the calling orientation

affects the relationship between emotional demands and emotional labor. People high in the

calling orientation may find work more meaningful and have a greater desire for expressing

authentic emotions that comply with emotional demands resulting in less surface acting

(Diefendorf & Gosserand, 2003). High calling people may also have more emotional resources

relative to those low in calling (Liu, et. al, 2008; Wallace, et. al, 2009). As plots of the

interaction revealed for both emotional labor demand measures, surface acting increased for both

high and low calling people across emotional demands. The relationship between emotional

demands and surface acting, however, was stronger for those lower in calling. This may suggest

that low calling people are not as able to generate genuine felt emotions or create authentic

emotional displays and must, “put on a mask” to comply with emotional demands.

Hypothesis 3 tested if the calling orientation moderated the relationship between

emotional demands and deep acting, was also supported. A plot of the interaction revealed that

for low calling people deep acting is negatively related to both measures of emotional demands.

This may mean that low calling people in more emotionally demanding jobs are less likely to use

deep acting than their low calling counterparts in less emotionally demanding jobs. This finding

may also mean that high calling people deep act more frequently than people low in calling.

The results for the calling orientation as a moderator of emotional demands and genuine

felt emotions, Hypothesis 4, are similar to those for deep acting. Low calling people display less


genuine felt emotion when the job characteristics (O*NET index) or perceptions of the job (self-

report) require more emotional labor. Again, as with deep acting, high calling people feel more

genuine felt emotions. Some research suggests that deep acting my lead to the creation of

genuine felt emotion (Diefendorff, Croyle & Gosserand, 2003). People may initially not feel the

emotions required of an emotional display, but after exhorting the emotions required for the

situation and engaging in deep acting, they display required emotions genuinely (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1993).

In sum, low calling people engage in more emotional labor overall, with the exception of

surface acting. Because high calling people engage in significantly more deep acting and

genuine felt emotion, and these variables are sometimes negatively related to well-being this

finding asks the question if it calling is beneficial for well-being indicators such as job

satisfaction. This was looked at in the mediated moderation analyses for Hypothesis 5.

Hypothesis 5a found the interaction term between emotional demands and the calling

orientation was a significant positive predictor of job satisfaction. Although high calling people

engage in more deep acting, which has a slight negative relationship with job satisfaction, and

experience more negative genuine felt emotions, the calling orientation is still beneficial for

well-being.

Hypothesis 5b found that the relationship between the interaction of the O*NET index of

emotional demands and the calling orientation, and job satisfaction is partially mediated by

surface acting. This may reflect that job satisfaction is affected by both the interaction of the

emotional characteristics of the job (O*NET emotional demands) and individual differences in

the perceived meaning of work (calling orientation), and surface acting is partially responsible

for this relationship.


Hypothesis 5c and Hypothesis 5d, found that deep acting and genuine felt emotion each

partially mediate the relationship between the interaction and job satisfaction. It is noteworthy

that high calling people can deep act and experience more genuine felt emotion but not

experience a decrease in well-being outcomes.

Implications

The present investigation has several implications for research and practice. On the

research front, the current study makes several contributions to the organizational literature on

emotional labor. First, this study expands the research of Glomb et al., (2004), by finding that

the O*NET measure of emotional demands is significantly related to measures of deep and

surface acting and genuine felt emotions. Second, the finding that calling moderates the

relationship between emotional demands and emotional labor, offers one explanation for the

mechanisms through which these demands relate to emotional labor.

The study also adds to the literature on the meaning of work examining how job

characteristics (e.g. emotional demands) may relate to perceptions of meaningful work. One

overarching question raised by this study is the directionality of emotional labor and calling.

Engagement in emotional labor strategies such as deep acting or genuine felt emotion may lead

to higher levels of calling; or, alternatively, higher levels of calling lead to the use of more

effective emotional labor strategies. Additional research can address the directionality of these

relationships.

The present research also shows the importance of the calling orientation as a variable in

explaining emotional labor. The calling orientation is positively related to emotional demands,

deep acting and genuine felt emotions. However, deep acting was negatively correlated with job

satisfaction, and past research has found negative genuine felt emotions increase emotional


exhaustion (Glomb & Tews, 2004). However, in the moderated-mediation analyses, the

interaction of emotional demands and calling was related to greater job satisfaction. This

suggests that people high in the calling orientation are able to engage in more emotional labor

without it diminishing job satisfaction. More research is needed to assess how the calling

orientation has this buffering effect against potential negative outcomes of emotional labor. A

greater understanding of the positive and possible negative effects of the emotional demands of

work and the calling orientation is also needed. More emotionally demanding jobs may be more

likely to cultivate a calling orientation in workers because of the increased contact with

customers. The model of relational job design suggests that jobs that allow people to see the

impact of their work on beneficiaries are more likely to experience positive psychological

outcomes (Grant, 2007). Alternatively, more emotionally demanding jobs and great perceptions

of meaningfulness, or calling, may increase vulnerability to stress and burnout. Understanding

what level of calling is optimal for well-being can be addressed through more specific

measurement of the calling orientation.

Another possible explanation for the positive effects of the calling orientation may

come from Côté’s (2006) recent social interaction theory. This theory suggests that strain from

emotional labor is reduced if it creates a favorable reaction in the customer. People high in

calling may exceed expectations and frequently receive positive reactions from customers,

lessening possible negative effects of deep acting and genuine felt emotions (Côté, 2005).

Similar to Grant’s (2007) theory of relational job design, high calling people may be more

motivated to seek out opportunities to interact with customers.

Conversely, low calling people engage in less deep acting and genuine felt emotions,

even as emotional demands increase. Low calling people may have less emotional resources to


engage in deep acting and genuine felt emotion, which are more effortful emotional labor

strategies (Wallace et al., 2009). Further, from the correlations and moderated regression

analyses, the calling orientation and surface acting are negatively related. This may mean that

people low in calling use surface acting as their primary emotional labor strategy (Grandey,

2003). Research has show that surface acting is less effective than other techniques in providing

customer service. Thus, low calling people may be caught in a negative spiral, where they do not

have the motivation or resources to engage in effective techniques, and possibly receive more

unfavorable responses from customers, preventing the engagement in more effective techniques

in the future.

Incorporating the measurement of emotional demands, and understanding the role of the

calling orientation in negotiating these demands may play a significant role in understanding the

effects of emotional labor strategies on outcomes such as job satisfaction. This research may

also have significant implications for employee selection, as low calling people may engage in

less effective strategies for managing emotions. Having a calling may create a significant buffer,

allowing people to avoid the negative consequences of emotional labor. In occupations high in

emotional demands, such as police work (the most demanding occupation in the current sample)

or care-giving, selecting people with a calling orientation may reduce job dissatisfaction, a

predictor of organizational commitment and turnover (Tett & Meyer, 2006).

Limitations

As with most research the present study has limitations. First, the present study utilizes a

cross-sectional design rather than a longitudinal design. Therefore, causality cannot be inferred.

Thus, the current investigation provides estimates of the strength of the relationships among the

presented constructs. Future research could test the relationships presented in this study in a


longitudinal design to examine the effects, for example of emotional demands (self-report and

O*NET index) on calling and emotional labor over time. An emerging technique in emotional

labor research is the use of experience sampling methodology (ESM), whereby people respond to

questions regarding their emotional displays, attitudes and emotion regulation repeatedly in real

time involving natural work contexts (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009; Miner, Glomb

& Hulin, 2005). This methodology could be very promising for emotional labor and work

meaning research.

An additional limitation is the potential for method bias due to participants completing

self-report measures for most of the constructs in the model. One exception is the construct of

emotional demands, where an index derived from the O*NET database was used. Future

research could also incorporate objective measures of service interaction characteristics (e.g.,

frequency, duration, perceived authenticity emotional displays).

Directions for Future Research

The present study has several key implications for future research on the construct of

emotional labor. The findings highlight the impact of three emotional labor strategies on job

satisfaction, and the impact perceptions of the work environment have on emotional labor. Each

emotional labor strategy significantly mediated job satisfaction, and was impacted by the

interaction of emotional demands and the calling orientation. Given these findings, future

research should include multiple measures of the management of emotions at work, such as

surface and deep acting, genuine felt emotions, as all were found to have different effects on job

satisfaction, and have different relationships to the calling orientation. Emotional labor

researchers could also consider other possible strategies for emotion regulation at work such as

using spirituality or personal values to manage emotions.


Strong, significant correlations were found between the constructs of interest in this

research: the emotional labor strategies (surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions),

and the calling orientation. This may suggest conceptual overlap between the calling orientation,

and emotional labor strategies that could be explored in future research. Research directed at

understanding the link between emotional labor and the calling orientation, and the reasons for

the significant relationships between the constructs can be helpful in advancing the literature in

both areas.

Additional research can be conducted to investigate how job characteristics affect the

meaning of work. This research could more specifically examine elements of the emotional

demands in the present study. For example, one of the items for the O*NET index and self-

report is “deal with external customers.” Interactions and emotional demands involving external

customers may differ in numerous ways in numerous ways, and the nature of these interactions

and job requirements can be investigated to find what characteristics generate perceived

meaningfulness of work. Understanding how emotional demands can lead to adaptive (deep

acting and genuine felt emotions) or maladaptive (surface acting) emotional labor strategies, high

or low job satisfaction, and meaning creates many possibilities for future research.

Further, this study found that using the five O*NET items comprising the emotional demand

index created by Glomb, et. al (2004) as a self-report measure, may be a valid and predictive

measure of emotional demands.

Determining the relationship between challenging and meaningful work is a rich topic

that warrants much further investigation. Consulting the literature on flow may prove beneficial

to determine if calling and flow are related as they seem to be similar constructs

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Mainemelis, 2001). In addition to emotional demands, it is possible


using the O*NET scales developed by Glomb et. al, (2004) to assess the degree of cognitive and

physical demands characteristic of an occupation. This could allow researchers to better

determine the relationship between the demands of a job and the meaning of work. Research can

provide the ideal profile of demands for developing a calling. Further, little is known about why

people choose different emotional labor strategies. This research showed that the calling

orientation affected choice of emotional labor strategies, however, additional research can be

done to understand the situations when high and low callings use different methods and how this

affects the outcome. Knowledge of the specific techniques high calling people use for deep

acting, and the degree of positive and negative genuine felt emotion can help explain differences

in performance and well-being between the two groups.

Further, the intriguing finding that high calling people engage in more emotional labor

can be explored further. Perhaps the calling orientation is also related to effective recovery

techniques and/or coping methods (e.g., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). No research has yet to

examine calling and performance criteria besides absenteeism (Wrzesniewski, 1997,

Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). Also, the role and interactive effects of the second work orientation,

career, can be explored. The career orientation focuses on competition and status. The effects

on performance and well-being indicators such as job satisfaction can help further develop the

concept of work orientation.

Conclusions.

In summary this study tested the interactive effects of the calling orientation and

emotional demands, measured as a job characteristic, on emotional labor. Results show high

calling people engage in more deep acting and feel more genuine emotions, but low calling

people engage in more surface acting. Results for moderated-mediation show the interaction


between emotional demands and the calling orientation has a positive effect on job satisfaction,

and this relationship is partially mediated by each emotional labor strategy, respectively.

High calling oriented people, consistent with relational job design may perceive a greater

benefit being provided by their work to customers than low calling people (Grant, 2007). High

calling oriented people may also have more motivation to go beyond task requirements, resulting

in more desirable feedback from customers, and alleviating some of the negative effects of

emotional labor (Côté, 2005). Finally, low calling oriented people may lack the emotional

resources to engage in deep acting or genuine felt emotion (Wallace, et. al, 2009). Future

research can use the Glomb et al. (2004) O*NET measures to assess emotional demands

characteristic of a job, as well as expand research on emotional labor. Researchers can also try

to determine if high calling oriented people have greater job performance, and why the calling

orientation is related to increased job satisfaction.


REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G., (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E.M. (1994). Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 66, 5, 950-967.

Arthur, M.B., & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment

principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The

influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.

Human Relations, 48, 97-125.

Ashforth, B.E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human

Relations, 41, 4, 305-329.

Aziz, S., & Zickar, M.J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism syndrome.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 1, 52-62.

Bains, G. (2007). Meaning, Inc. Profile Books.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1173-1182.

Baumeister, R.F. (1991). Work, work, work, work. In Meanings of Life (pp.116-144). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the

Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper Row.


Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion,

neuroticism, and self-monitoring.

Brief, A.P., & Nord, W.R. (1990). Meanings of Occupational Work. Lexington: Lexington

Books.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 177-

192.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of

Bronson, P. (2002). What should I do with my life? New York: Random House.

the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7,

57-67.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two

perspectives of ‘people work’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.

Bulan, H.F., Erickson, R.J., & Wharton, A.S. (1997). Doing for others on the job: The affective

structure of social work. Social Problems, 44, 235-256.

Cardador, M.T., & Pratt, M.G. (2006). Occupational identity and the meaning of work: toward

an expanded understanding of work orientation. Paper presented at the Academy of

Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Castillo, J.J. (1997). Looking for the meaning of work. Work and Occupations, 24, 4, 413-125.

Cardador, M.T., Pratt, M.G., & Dane, E.I. (2006). Do callings matter in medicine? The

influence of callings versus careers on domain specific work outcomes. Paper presented at

the Positive Organizational Scholarship Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.

Champoux, J.E. (1991). A multivariate test of the Job Characteristics Theory of Work

Motivation. Organizational Behavior, 12, 5, 431-446.


Côté, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain.

Academy of Management Review, 30, 3, 509-530.

Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and

Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

Dekas, K.H., & Baker, W.E. (2008). Investigating the origins of work orientations.

Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3, 499-512.

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and

antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,

339-357.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor

process: a control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,

945-959.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional

display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284-294.

Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. (2006). Are emotional display rules

formal job requirements? Examination of employee and supervisor perceptions.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 273-298.

Dubin, R. (1956). Industrial workers’ worlds: A study of the central life interests of industrial

workers. Social Problems, 3, 131-142.

Dunnette, M.D. (1999). Introduction. An occupational information system for the 21st century:

The development of O*NET. American Psychological Association , Washington, D.C.


Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New

York: Academic Press.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health and job performance: Effects of

weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 3, 187-199.

Glomb, T.M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., & Rotundo, M. (2004). Emotional demands and

compensating wage differentials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 4, 700-714.

Glomb, T.M., Miner, A.G., & Hulin, C. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at

work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 2, 171-193.

Glomb, T.M., & Tews, M.J. (2004). Emotional labor: a conceptualization and scale

development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 1-23.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to

conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,

95-110.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as

determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of

Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.

Grandey, A.A., & Brauburger, A.L. (2002). The emotion regulation behind the customer

service smile. In R.Lord, R., Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace

(pp. 260-294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grandey, A., Fisk, G., & Steiner, D. (2005). Must "Service with a Smile" Be Stressful? The

Moderating Role of Personal Control for U.S. and French Employees. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90, 5, 893-904.


Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.

Grant, A.M., Campbell, E.M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact

and the art of motivation maintenance: the effects of contact with beneficiaries on

persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1,

53-67.

Green, F. (2006). Demanding Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hewlett, S.A. & Luce, C.B. (2006). Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70-hour

workweek. Harvard Business Review, 84, 12, 49-59.

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of

Sociology, 85(3), 551-575.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Hochschild, A.R. (1990). Ideology and emotion management: a perspective and path for future

research. In T.D. Kemper, (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

International Personality Item Pool (2001). A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of


Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences

(http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.

Ironson, G., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of

a "Job in General" scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Judge, T.A., & Scott, B.A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in

the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1, 177-195.

Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67, 3, 341-349.

Lance, C.E., Baranik, L.E., Lau, A.R., & Scharlau, E.A. (2009). If it ain’t trait it must be

method: (mis)application of the multitrait-multimethod methodology in organizational

research. In Lance, E. & Vandenberg. R.J. (Eds.) Statistical and methodological myths

and urban legend. New York: CRC Press.

Levoy, G. (1997). Callings: findings and following an Authentic Life. New York: Three Rivers

Press.

Liu, Y., Prati, L.M., Perrewe, P.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2008). The relationship between emotional

resources and emotional labor: an exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 38, 10, 2410-2439.

Loscocco, K.A. (1989). The instrumentally oriented factory worker. Work and Occupations,

16, 1, 3-25.

Lodahl, T.M., Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 49, 1, 24-33.

Luong, A. (2005). Affective service display and customer mood. Journal of Service


Research, 8, 117-130.

MacDonald, C. L., & Sirianni, C. (1996). The service society and the changing

experience of work. In C. L. MacDonald & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Working in the service

society (pp. 1-26). Philadephia: Temple University Press.

Mattila, A. S., & Enz, C. A. (2002). The role of emotions in service encounters. Journal

Mainemelis, Charalampos (2001), "When the Muse Takes It All: A Model for the Experience of

Timelessness in Organizations", The Academy of Management Review 26, 4, 548–565.

of Service Research, 4, 268-277.

Meaning of Work (MOW) International Research Team. (1987) The Meaning of Working.

New York: Academic Press.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of

emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010.

Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible

employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 4, 899-929.

Pratt, M.G., & Ashforth, B.E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and work. In K.S.

Cameron, J.E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:

Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter.

Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1018-1027.

Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job

satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 125-154.

Schor, J. (1992). The overworked American: The Unexpected Decline in Leisure. New York:

Basic Books.


Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organizational Studies, 12,

3, 405-424.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work

and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Spence, J.T., & Robbins, A.S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement and preliminary

results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 1, 160-178.

Spector, P.E., (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taris, T.W., Le Blanc, P.M., Schaufel, W.B., & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2005). Are there causal

relationships between the dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory? A review and

two longitudinal tests. Work Stress, 19, 3, 238-255.

Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (2006). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover

intention, and turnover: pat analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel

Psychology, 46, 2, 259-293.

Tolich, M.B. (1993). Alienating and liberating emotions at work. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 22, 361-381.

Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service rolls:

Testing a model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, (1),

55-73.

Tsai, W.C. (2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive

emotions. Journal of Management, 27, 497-512.

Tsai, W.C., & Huang, Y.-M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee affective delivery

and customer behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1001-


1008.

Van Rooy, D.L.,& Viswesvaran, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence: a meta-analytic

investigation of predictive validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1, 71-95.

Wallace, J.C., Edwards, B.D., Shull, A., & Finch, D.M. (2009) Examining the consequences in

the tendency to suppress and reappraise emotions on task-related job performance. Human

Performance, 22, 23-43.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan

and J. Johnson (Eds.) Handbook of Personality Psychology. (pp. 767-793). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press, Inc.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Wharton, A.S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the

job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232.

Wharton, A.S. (1996). Service with a smile: Understanding the consequences of emotional

labor. In C. L. Macdonald and Siranni, C. (Eds.) Working in the Service Society.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wharton, A.S. (2009) The sociology of emotional labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 147-

165.

Wilson, G. (1981). Personality and social behavior. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.) A Model for

Personality, pp. 210-245. Springer, New York.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active

crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 2, 179-201.


Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sense-making and the

meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93-135.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz B. 1997. Jobs, careers, and callings:

People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21-33.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Tosti, J. (2007). My job, your calling: work orientation diversity in

interdependent work teams. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Yugo, J.E., Gillespie, J.Z. (in progress). Career and calling as work meanings: work orientation

as a two-dimensional construct.

Yugo, J.E., McInroe, J., & Fritz, C. (2008). Exploring the relationship between work orientation

and well-being. Paper to be presented in K.H. Dekas & J. Tosti (chairs) Reinforcing and

reorienting work orientation research: beyond jobs, careers and callings. Showcase

Symposium to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.

Anaheim, CA.

Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion work as a

source of stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (3), 371-400.


Table 1. Items in Glomb et al (2004), equation of emotional demands and indices for example occupations.

Job Title Assisting and caring for others

Performing or working for the

public

Deal with external customers

Frequency in conflict situations

Deal with angry unpleasant

people

TOTAL Index

1. Police patrol officer (n=37)

70 92 98 94 92 446 89

2. Counseling Psychologist (n=16)

100 85 78 74 49 386 77

3. Retail Manager (n=29)

40 86 97 50 62 335 67

4. Retail salesperson (n=81)

44 77 89 55 64 329 66

5. University Administrator (n=37)

50 64 76 56 66 312 62

6. Sales Engineer (n=59)

66 34 77 61 57 295 59

7. Credit Analyst (n=38)

26 3 55 30 41 155 39

8. Engineer (n=51)

35 6 34 28 33 136 27

Note. N=338.


Table 2. Original and revised work orientation measure with new pilot items.

Calling Orientation (α= .87) 1. I view my job as just a necessity of life, much like breathing or sleeping. 2. I never take work home with me. 3. I would not encourage young people to pursue my line of work. 4. I am eager to retire. 5. When I am not at work, I do not think much about my work. 6. I would choose my current work again if I had the opportunity. 7. I enjoy talking about my work with others. 8. I find my work rewarding. 9. My work is one of the most important things in my life. 10. I feel in control of my work life. 11. My work makes the world a better place.

Note. Items 1-5 on the Calling scale are reverse coded. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients by each subscale refer to the final measurement models


Table 3. Measures of emotional labor strategies. Surface Acting

1. I fake a good mood. 2. I put on a “show” or “performance.” 3. I just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job. 4. I hide my true feelings about situations. 5. I put on an act in order to deal with customers/clients in an appropriate way. 6. I resist expressing my true feelings. 7. I put on a “mask” in order to display the emotions I need to for my job.

Deep Acting

1. I try to actually experience the emotions I must show to customers. 2. I work hard to feel the emotions that I need to show to customers. 3. I make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display toward others. 4. I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to show to customers.

Expression of genuine felt emotions

1. The emotions I express to customers are genuine. 2. The emotions I show customers come naturally. 3. The emotions I show customers match what I spontaneously feel.


Table 4. Variable means, standard deviations and alpha internal consistency reliability

Note. N=338.

Variable Mean SD α 1. O*NET Emotional demands 54.31 13.86 .60 2. Self-Report Emotional

demands 3.57 0.98 .68

3. Surface Acting 2.19 0.92 .88 4. Deep Acting 2.26 1.09 .91 5. Genuine Felt Emotions 3.18 0.65 .81 6. Negative Affect 1.69 0.48 .84 7. Positive Affect 3.75 0.43 .86 8. Calling Orientation 3.14 0.75 .92 9. Career Orientation 2.75 0.80 .78 10. Job Satisfaction 1.89 0.35 .92


Table 5. Variable inter-correlations.

Note. N=338. Correlations above .19 are significant at the p<.05 level. Correlations greater than .31 are significant at the p<.01 level.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Age

2. Tenure -.07 3. Gender -.09 .03

4. Job Level .21 .11 .10 5. O*NET Emotional demands -.07 .67 .37 .29

6. Self-Report Emotional demands .08 .48 .39 .31 .76 7. Surface Acting -.30 .05 -.24 -.21 .43 .21 8. Deep Acting .25 -.23 .34 -.22 .26 .47 -.36

9. Genuine Felt Emotions .36 .08 .41 .36 .24 .57 -.28 .41 10. Positive Affect .12 .06 .11 .15 .21 -.17 -.24 .19 .17 11. Negative Affect -.07 -.24 .08 -.05 -.25 -.27 .63 -.29 -.62 -.67

12. Calling Orientation .40 .22 .04 .32 .29 .19 -.21 .35 .37 .34 -.35 13. Career Orientation .44 -.54 -.05 -.02 -.07 -.33 .27 .24 -.17 -.21 .22 .29

14. Job Satisfaction -.01 .37 -.04 .32 .24 .15 -.37 -.23 .43 .38 -.29 .40 -.17


Table 6. Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions. Surface Acting Deep Acting

Genuine Felt Emotions

Step Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 1 Intercept 9.35 16.32 19.36 11.31 18.50 22.78 7.47 8.27 12.65 Gender -.06 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.05 -.04 -.02 Age .09 .02 .08 .04 .07 .07 .08 .04 .09 Tenure .02 .07 .09 .07 .04 .04 .01 .02 .05 Negative

Affect .12* .08 .07 -.15* -.11* -.09 -.22** -.18* -.15*

Positive Affect

-.17* -.10* -.08 .16* .10 .04 .24* .14 .07

2 O*NET Emotional demands

.32** .41** .49** .36** .46** .51**

Calling -.31** -.21** .28* .23* .23** .18** 3 EDxCalling -.15* .19* .21** R .05 2 .32 .41 .07 .46 .51 .07 .25 .41 Change in

R

2 .27 .09 .39 .13 .17 .23

Overall F 3.31 15.32* 17.23** 2.87 17.36** 19.34** 2.87 12.32* 18.45** Change in

F 12.01** 2.09* 14.49** 1.98* 8.86** 6.13*

Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01


Table 7. Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions. Surface Acting

Deep Acting Genuine Felt Emotions

Step Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 1 Intercept 9.35 16.32 19.36 11.31 18.50 22.78 7.47 8.27 12.65 Gender -.06 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.05 -.04 -.02 Age .09 .02 .08 .04 .07 .07 .08 .04 .09 Tenure .02 .07 .09 .07 .04 .04 .01 .02 .05 Negative

Affect .12* .08 .07 -.15* -.11* -.09 -.22** -.18* -.15*

Positive Affect

-.17* -.10* -.08 .16* .10 .04 .24* .14 .07

2 Self-Report Emotional demands

.21** .37** .41** .38** .42** .48**

Calling -.34** -.27** .33** .25** .26** .24** 3 EDxCalling -.21** .25** .26** R .05 2 .36 .42 .07 .47 .54 .07 .34 .45 Change in

R

2 .31 .06 .40 .14 .27 .11

Overall F 3.31 16.56** 18.21** 2.87 18.89** 20.43** 2.87 14.54** 17.42** Change in

F 13.25** 1.65* 16.02** 1.54 11.67** 2.88*

Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01


Table 8. Moderated mediation analysis for surface acting partially mediating the interaction of calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction.

Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01

Step 1: Initial Outcome

Step 2: Initial Mediator

Step 3: Mediator Outcome controlling for Initial

Step 4: Initial Outcome controlling for mediator

Control Variables O*NET Emotional demands -.11* .18* -.16* -.16* Calling Orientation .26** -.22* .18* .18* Negative Affect -.12* .13* -.09 -.09 Positive Affect .14* -.08 .11* .11* Initial Predictor Variable O*NET Emotional demands x Calling Orientation

.34**

-.26**

.21**

.19*

Mediator Surface Acting -.19* .35** Outcome Job Satisfaction

R .19** 2 .38** .24** .24**


Table 9. Moderated mediation analysis for Deep Acting partially mediating the interaction of Calling and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction.

Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01





Control Variables O*NET Emotional demands -.11* .11* -.10* -.10* Calling Orientation .26** .21* .17* .17* Negative Affect -.12* -.11* -.04 -.04 Positive Affect

.14* .15 .07 .07

Initial Predictor Variable O*NET Emotional demands x Calling Orientation

.34**

.21**

-.25**

.16*

Mediator .17* .29** Deep Acting Outcome Job Satisfaction

R .19** 2 .32** .27** .27**


Table 10. Moderated mediation analysis for Genuine Felt Emotion partially mediating the interaction of Calling and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction.

Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01





Control Variables O*NET Emotional demands -.11* .18* -.10* -.10* Calling Orientation .26** .21* .17* .17* Negative Affect -.12* -.05* -.06 -.06 Positive Affect

.14* .12 .08 .08

Initial Predictor Variable O*NET Emotional demands x Calling Orientation

.34**

.22**

.26**

.21*

Mediator .24* .31** Genuine Felt Emotion Outcome Job Satisfaction

R .19** 2 .38** .33** .23**


Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationships.

Emotional Demands - O*NET - Self-report

Global Job Satisfaction

Calling Orientation

Emotional Labor - Genuine Felt

Emotion - Deep Acting - Surface Acting

- +


Figure 2. Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and surface acting.

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Gen

uin

e F

elt

Em

oti

on

s

O*Net Emotional Demands

Low Calling High Calling

Surf

ace

Act

ing

Surf

ace

Act

ing


Figure 3. Calling as a moderator between Self-Report Emotional demands and Surface Acting.

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Self-Report Emotional Demands

Gen

uine

Fel

t Em

otio


Surf

ace

Act

ing


Figure 4. Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and deep acting.

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Gen

uin

e F

elt

Em

oti

on

s



Dee

p A

ctin

g


Figure 5. Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and deep acting.

-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.10.20.3

Gen

uin

e F

elt

Em

oti

on

s



Dee

p A

ctin

g


Figure 6. Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and genuine felt emotions.

-0.3-0.25

-0.2-0.15

-0.1-0.05

00.05

0.1

Gen

uine

Fel

t E

mot

ions



Gen

uine

Fel

t Em

otio

ns


Figure 7. Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and genuine felt emotions.

-0.45-0.4

-0.35-0.3

-0.25-0.2

-0.15-0.1

-0.050

Gen

uin

e F

elt

Em

oti

on

s

