Work-family interference,emotional labor and burnout

Anthony J. MontgomeryRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland-Medical University of Bahrain,

Adliya, Bahrain

Efharis PanagopolouMedical School of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, and

Martijn de Wildt and Ellis MeenksQidos, Doorn, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of the current study is to examine the relationship between emotionaldisplay rules/job focused labor, work-family interference (WFI) and burnout among a sample ofworkers in a Dutch governmental organization.

Design/methodology/approach – The research is a cross-sectional study of 174 workers from aDutch governmental organization.

Findings – Emotional display rules and job-focused labor were related to burnout andpsychosomatic complaints. More specifically, the need to hide negative emotions and engage insurface acting was related to negative outcomes. In addition, WFI partially mediated the relationshipbetween the hiding of negative emotion/surface acting and burnout/psychosomatic complaints.

Research limitations/implications – The present study is cross-sectional and thus the postulatedrelationships cannot be interpreted causally.

Practical implications – In terms of training and/or interventions, there is a need for the worksiteto provide structured opportunities for employees to decompress from the emotional demandingaspects of their jobs.

Originality/value – Emotional labor has been rarely examined as an antecedent of WFI. In addition,while emotional labor has been studied with individuals in the service sector, it has been rarelyexamined among individuals whose jobs are highly ceremonial in nature.

Keywords Stress, Government departments, The Netherlands

Paper type Research paper

Although the role of emotional experiences in our physical and psychosocial well-beinghas long been recognized it has only recently received consideration within the broaderframework of organizational behavior (Brief and Weiss, 2002; Barsade et al., 2003). Anarea that is receiving increased research attention is emotional labor, a construct firstdefined by Hochschild (1983, p. 7) as the “management of feeling to create a publiclyobservable facial and bodily display”. To date, the issue of emotional labor has beenstudied both qualitatively (James, 1989; Rafaeli and Sutton, 1990; Stenross andKleinman, 1989; Sutton, 1991; Tolich, 1993) and quantitatively (Brotheridge andGrandey, 2002; Brotheridge and Lee, 1998; Mann, 1999; Morris and Feldman, 1996;Wharton, 1993). Indeed, a recent quantitative review of emotional labor (Bono and Vey,2004) indicates that it is associated with poor physical and psychological health. Inregard to outcomes, Bono and Vey (2004) review 87 independent samples in theiranalyses, but none of the reviewed research specifically links emotional labor and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP21,1

36

Received February 2005Revised October 2005Revised October 2005Accepted October 2005

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 21 No. 1, 2006pp. 36-51q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940610643206

work-family interference (WFI).. To date, the link between the two issues has beenrarely studied (with the exception of Montgomery et al., 2005; Wharton and Erickson,1995; Wharton, 1999).

The link between emotional labor and WFIWFI is experienced when pressures from the work and family roles are mutuallyincompatible, such that participation in one role makes it difficult to participate in theother (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Studies of work-family relations have identified arange of both objective and subjective demands associated with WFI (Geurts andDemerouti, 2003), but little is known about the management of emotion and theirconsequences for work-family linkages (Wharton and Erickson, 1995). Indeed,according to Wharton and Erickson (1995), WFI should be highest when work andfamily both require high degrees of emotion management and are governed bydissimilar display norms. The link between emotional labor and WFI has beendemonstrated most recently by Montgomery et al. (2005), who found that emotionallabor, as measured by surface acting at work, was positively related to WFI amongdoctors, and surface acting at home was positively related to family-work interferenceamong nurses. Additionally, Smith and Kleinman (1989), in a qualitative study ofmedical students, found that medical training created as many problems as newmeanings for the body and for body contact that “go home with them at night” (Smithand Kleinman, 1989, p.65).

There is good reason to believe that for employees whose work particularly involvesemotional labor, the need to adhere to job-mandated emotional display rules willexacerbate their feelings of WFI. For example, Schulz et al. (2004), in a daily diarystudy of couples, demonstrated an interesting example of emotional spill-over, in thatnegative emotional arousal at work predicted angrier marital behavior for women andmore withdrawn behavior from men. Additionally, Montgomery et al. (2003), in asample of Dutch newspaper managers, found emotional job demands to be the mostsignificant predictor of both WFI and burnout in comparison with both quantitativeand mental job demands. So, while there is a considerable amount of evidenceidentifying job demands as an antecedent of WFI (e.g. Aryee, 1992; Geurts et al., 1999;Voydanoff, 1988; Wallace, 1999), there is little research evaluating emotionallabor/display rules as antecedent of WFI (with the exception of Montgomery et al.,2005). The present study is consistent with a recent review of the field that calls forresearchers to identify more specific antecedents of WFI (Geurts and Demerouti, 2003).

Theoretical backgroundGrandey (2000) provides a comprehensive review of the theories underlying emotionallabor, and defines emotional labor as the process of managing both the experience andexpression of feelings to support or achieve organizational goals. In terms of linkingemotional labor to burnout or psychosomatic complaints, emotional labor can beconceptualised within the rubric of theories on emotional inhibition and emotionalrepression. Several studies have shown that inhibition of emotions is associated withincreased physiological arousal, which if it becomes chronic can have an adverse effecton health and well being (Gross and Levenson, 1997; Panagopoulou et al., 2002). Basedon this research paradigm, hostility and anger suppression have been related toessential hypertension and coronary heart disease (Redford and Barefoot, 1988;

Work-familyinterference

37

Weidner et al., 1989). Empirical evidence has related inhibition of emotions to cancerprogression (Temoshok, 1985; Temoshok et al., 1985) and to reduced immune function(Schwartz and Kline, 1995). Additionally, the regulation of emotion for socialinteraction can lower behavioural activity, but has been found to increase autonomicnervous system activity (Gross, 1998a; Pennebaker, 1985).

So, the continued management of emotions for social situations can be toxic. Gross(1998a, b) has proposed a process model of emotion regulation, whereby emotionalregulation can occur at two points in the process; antecedent-focused andresponse-focused. According to Grandey (2000), these processes correspond with theemotional labor concepts of deep acting and surface acting (employee-focusedemotional labor), respectively. In this conceptualization, deep acting refers to changingthe focus of personal thoughts and changing appraisals, and surface acting isconcerned with modifying expression. Congruently, job-focused emotional labor ordisplay rules such as displaying positive emotions and hiding negative emotions arepostulated as processes of emotional control that reduce the feelings of emotionalautonomy from the employee.

The present study will examine the direct relationship between emotional labor andburnout. In this sense, emotional labor is postulated as a stressor in this study and thisis consistent with the research by Brotheridge and Grandey (2002), who argue thatemployee-focused emotional labor and display rules are stressful because they createthe need to manage emotional states.

Emotional labor as a predictor of burnoutOriginally, burnout was measured in the human services (for reviews see Schaufeli andEnzmann, 1998), but recently a general measure has been developed to access burnoutoutside the human services: the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS).Accordingly, burnout is viewed as a syndrome of exhaustion, cynicism and decreasesin professional efficacy. Burnout, referring to the draining of energy and resourcescaused by chronic job stress is considered a work-related indicator of psychologicalhealth (Schaufeli and Enzmann, 1998).

The common explanation of burnout suggests that it is the frequency or quantity ofinteractions with clients/customers that contributes to role overload and burnout(Cordes and Dougherty, 1993), but such interactions can also involve the need foremployees to regulate their emotions in a mandated way (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1989). Arecent meta-analysis examining the relationship between emotional labor and burnout(Bono and Vey, 2004), indicated significant associations with both emotionalexhaustion (weighted mean correlation ¼ 0:30) and depersonalization (weighted meancorrelation ¼ 0:23). This need for emotional displays to be regulated is an importantcomponent of employees who work in the Dutch Government department beingstudied, where a high level of formality needs to be maintained at all times. Theemployees in the present study are in constant contact with high-ranking governmentofficials, and their job is characterised by the need to perform ceremonial tasks andobserve strict behavioural codes on a daily basis. The fact that the present sampleinvolves employees whose job is almost entirely ceremonial means that they representa unique sample to be studied.

JMP21,1

38

Display rules and emotional-focused laborHochschild’s (1983) view that display rules are inherently stressful is not consistentlyfound among the literature. For example, Best et al. (1997) did find a relationshipbetween display rules and burnout, but not Brotheridge and Grandey (2002).Furthermore, the qualitative work of Tolich (1993) indicates that while emotional laborcan be tiring, it can also be rewarding. The conflicting finding prompted us to alsoinclude a secondary outcome in the research. A review of the literature indicated that inaddition to burnout, researchers have found that the requirement to express positiveemotions and hide negative emotions is related to the reporting of physical symptoms(Schaubroeck and Jones, 2000; Zapf et al., 1999).

H1a. Perceived emotional display rules relate positively with burnout.

H1b. Perceived emotional display rules relate positively with psychosomaticcomplaints.

Unlike display rules, the evidence for surface acting is more conclusive. Surface acting,the process whereby employees modify and control their emotional expressions, isrelated to stress outcomes (Brotheridge, 1999; Brotheridge and Lee, 1998; Erickson andWharton, 1997; Pugliesi, 1999; Pugliesi and Shook, 1997). Thus we expect, surfaceacting to relate to both exhaustion and cynicism. Deep acting, the process of controllinginternal thoughts and feelings to meet the mandated display rules, has been found to berelated to a greater sense of personal efficacy at work (Brotheridge and Lee, 1998). Thisfinding was consistent with the view of Hochschild (1979, 1983) that successful deepacting may be experienced as positive, if the behavior is perceived as effective.Therefore, in the present study, we replicate the hypotheses of Brotheridge andGrandey (2002) that deep acting will not be related to the exhaustion component ofburnout, but will be related to depersonalization (cynicism in the present study).

H2a. Surface acting relates positively to exhaustion.

H2b. Surface acting relates positively, and deep acting negatively to cynicism.

H2c. Surface acting relates positively to psychosomatic complaints.

H2d. Deep acting relates positively to psychosomatic complaints.

In the present study, we restrict ourselves to the exhaustion and cynicism dimensionsof burnout. These two dimensions are generally considered as the “core of burnout”(Demerouti et al., 2001; Green et al., 1991), whereas professional efficacy reflects apersonality characteristic rather than a genuine burnout-component (Cordes andDougherty, 1993; Shirom, 1989). Empirically, this is reflected by the relatively lowcorrelation of professional efficacy with both of the other burnout dimensions (Lee andAshforth, 1996) and by the fact that cynicism seems to develop in response toexhaustion, whereas professional efficacy seems to develop independently and inparallel (Leiter, 1993).

WFI as a mediatorIn general, a given variable is said to function as a mediator to the extent that itaccounts for the relationship between the predictor and criterion variables. Accordingto Baron and Kenny (1986), a variable functions as mediator when its inclusion in an

Work-familyinterference

39

analysis results in a significant reduction in the relationship between the independentand outcome variable. Theoretically, the definition of WHI/HWI implies mediation, asthere will be no WHI when there are no demands at work. Conceptually, WHI fits thecharacterisation of a response variable as suggested by Holmbeck (1997). In essence,variables such as WFI cannot exist in isolation. One cannot experience WFI if there areno job demands in the first place.

In general, the role of WFI as a mediator has been suggested by many studies(Frone et al., 1992; Geurts et al., 1999; Kinnunen and Mauno, 1998; Montgomery et al.,2003, Parasuraman et al., 1996; Stephens et al., 1997). However, the link betweenemotions, WFI and burnout has not been clearly indicated to date. Such a situation canbe explained somewhat by the fact that while there is broad acceptance that employershave the right to ask employees to perform physical behaviors or engage in cognitiveactivities, emotional behavior might be outside what employers can reasonablydemand (Briner and Totterdell, 2002). Therefore, it seems more likely that emotionaldemands will spillover from work to family. Empirically, this is indicated in the workof Schulz et al. (2004), which demonstrated negative emotional spillover on a dailybasis. Consistently, Maslach (1982), pays special attention to making the transitionfrom work to home by introducing the notion of “decompression”. Maslach argues thatpeople working in an emotional and demanding environment need to “decompress”before moving into the normal pressure of their private life. Additionally, Grandey(2000) views emotional labor and display rules as a proximal predictor of stress, andthis is consistent with the idea that people bring the emotional stress from work tohome. Additionally, the idea that WFI may serve as a mediator between emotionallabor and burnout is indicated by the study of Wharton and Erickson (1995), whofound that women’s well-being on the job was threatened more by their involvement infamily emotion work than by their actual performance of emotional labor.

In the present research, it follows logically that WFI is an important variable thatmediates the ability of individuals to “decompress” from the work domain to the homedomain.

H3a. WFI will mediate the relationship between showing positive emotions andburnout/psychosomatic complaints.

H3b. WFI will mediate the relationship between hiding negative emotions andburnout/psychosomatic complaints.

H3c. WFI will mediate the relationship between surface acting andburnout/psychosomatic complaints.

H3d. WFI will mediate the relationship between emotion deep acting andcynicism/psychosomatic complaints.

All the afore-mentioned analyses were carried controlling for sex, age and havingchildren. Traditionally, no systematic differences have been found with regard to WFIand sex (Geurts and Demerouti, 2003), but there is a need to control for demographicvariables such as sex and age with regard to burnout and psychosomatic complaints.Finally, controlling for a more structural variable such as the presence of childrenallows us to evaluate whether adds WFI any variance to the prediction of both burnoutand psychosomatic compliants, beyond the need to attend to parenting demands.

JMP21,1

40

MethodParticipants and proceduresThe study sample consisted of employees from the Dutch Governmental Organization.A total of 500 employees were contacted to participate in this study. 174 employeesreturned completed questionnaires. Given the nature of WFI, only employees who livedwith someone and or had children living at home were included in the study (N ¼ 155,response rate ¼31 percent). This compares favourably with the average response ratefor published research in the managerial and behavioural sciences (55.6 percent overall,36.1 percent for studies concerning top managers or representatives, see Baruch, 1999for a review). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 64 years of age (M ¼ 44, SD ¼ 9:9),53 percent were men. The majority of people (83 percent) lived with a partner, and 47percent of people had a supervisory position. A total of 63 percent of respondentsreported having a partner with a paid function and 50 percent of the respondents hadchildren living at home. No statistical differences were found between men and womenwith regard to any of the study variables, even when respondents with workingspouses were compared with respondents without working spouses. Confidentialityprevented direct comparison between the sample age and gender breakdown againstthe total sample to assess demographic differences between responders andnon-responders. However, the organization being studied carried out theafore-mentioned analysis and concluded that no statistically significant differencesexisted.

MeasuresWork-family interference (WFI). WFI was measured using the scale recommended bythe Sloan Work-Family Researchers Electronic Network (MacDermid, 2000). The WFIscale is a nine-item work-home interference measure developed by virtual think tankcomprising recognised experts in the field of work/life. The items in the scale representa synopsis of the best published scales in the field, such as the scales of Netermeyeret al. (1996) and Gutek et al. (1991). All items are scored on a five-point frequency scaleranging from “1” (never) to “5”(always). The scale has been used in previous researchwith Greek health care professionals (Montgomery et al., 2005; a ¼ 0:90 for both 180doctors and 84 nurses). In the present study, internal consistency was good (a ¼ 0:89).

Burnout. The Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: General Survey(MBI-GS) was used to assess burnout (Schaufeli et al., 1996). Two sub-scales of theMBI-GS were assessed: Exhaustion (five items;, e.g. “I feel used up at the end of theworkday”, a ¼ 0:87), and Cynicism (four items;, e.g. “I have become less enthusiasticabout my work”, a ¼ 0:79). All items are scored on a seven-point frequency ratingscale ranging from “0” (never) to “6” (daily). High scores on the exhaustion andcynicism sub-scales are indicative of burnout.

Psychosomatic health. Psychosomatic health complaints were measured with aDutch questionnaire on subjective health (VOEG: Vragenlijst Onderzoek ErvarenGezondheid (Questionnaire on Experienced Health)) developed by Dirken (1969). In thisstudy, the 13-item version was used (Jansen and Sikkel, 1981), explaining 95 percent ofthe variance in the 21-item version. All items were scored on a four-point scale rangingfrom “1” (seldom or never) to “4” (often). The VOEG consists of items asking whetherone suffers from a range of psychosomatic complaints, such as headaches, backache,an upset stomach, fatigue, dizziness, and pain in the chest or heart area (a ¼ 0:84). The

Work-familyinterference

41

13-item VOEG is used by the Dutch census office for monitoring psychosomatic healthin the Dutch population.

Job focused emotional labor: perceived display rules. The Emotion WorkRequirements Scale (Best et al., 1997), a five-point scale (1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ alwaysrequired), tapped the level to which employees reported that their emotional displayswere controlled by their jobs. Items ask the extent to which the employee is required toshow (or hide) emotion in order to be effective on the job. These items form two factors(Grandey, 1998; Jones and Best, 1995), which taps the requirement to display positiveemotions (four items, a ¼ 0:78) and hide negative emotions (two items, a ¼ 0:54). Thealpha coefficient for the second scale was poor, but it was used and calculated ontheoretical grounds.

Employee-focused emotional labor. Items measuring surface and deep acting camefrom the Emotional Labor Scale (Brotheridge and Lee, 1998; Brotheridge and Grandey,2002). These ideas tapped the ideas of regulating emotions by hiding feelings, fakingfeelings, and modifying feelings as part of the work role. Three items measures surfaceacting (sample item: “Resist expressing my true feelings”) and three items measureddeep acting (sample item: “Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need todisplay to others”). Items were scored on a five-point scale (1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ alwaysrequired) and alpha’s were appropriate (a ¼ 0:74, a ¼ 0:90, respectively).

ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses and analysis strategyAs a prerequisite to addressing the central hypotheses in this study, we examined thefactor structures of the WFI and emotional labor scales using confirmatory factoranalysis. To examine the appropriateness of computing uni-dimensional scores foreach of the major constructs included in the study, each scale was submitted to aprincipal components analysis (results can be obtained from the first author).Examination of both the number of eigenvalues greater than 1 and factor loadingssupported a decision to treat the hypothesized scales as postulated.

Descriptive statisticsTable I provides the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients of thestudy variables. As expected, WFI is positively correlated with exhaustion (r ¼ 0:64,

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 WFI 1.90 0.632 Surface acting 2.68 0.69 0.27*3 Deep acting 2.37 0.89 0.10 0.26*4 Display rules: show positive 2.98 0.64 0.29* 0.41* 0.46*5 Display rules: hide negative 2.09 0.60 0.26* 0.53* 0.29* 0.57*6 Exhaustion 2.78 1.21 0.64* 0.28* 0.09 0.18** 0.38*7 Cynicism 2.44 1.01 0.32* 0.37* 0.15 0.11 0.36* 0.62*8 Psychosomatic complaints 1.57 0.39 0.51* 0.33* 0.07 0.17** 0.29* 0.61* 0.53**

Notes: * p , 0:01, ** p , 0:05

Table I.Means, standarddeviations andcorrelations

JMP21,1

42

p , 0:01), cynicism (r ¼ 0:32, p , 0:01) and psychosomatic complaints (r ¼ 0:51,p , 0:01). The four emotional labor variables were related (r # 0:26 $ 0:57, p , 0:01).

H1. Emotional display rulesH1a and H1b proposed relationships between emotional display rules and burnout andpsychosomatic complaints. Table I provides the zero-order correlations. With regard toburnout, the display rule to hide negative emotions correlated significantly withexhaustion (r ¼ 0:38, p , 0:01) and cynicism (r ¼ 0:36, p , 0:01), while the displayrule to show positive emotions was significantly related to exhaustion (r ¼ 0:18,p , 0:05), but not cynicism. With regard to psychosomatic complaints, both hidingnegative emotions (r ¼ 0:29, p , 0:01) and showing positive emotions (r ¼ 0:17,p , 0:05) were related.

H2. Emotion focused laborTable I provides the zero-order correlations. With regard to the second set ofhypotheses, only H2a and H2c were supported. Surface acting was significantlyrelated to exhaustion (r ¼ 0:28, p , 0:01), cynicism (r ¼ 0:37, p , 0:01) andpsychosomatic complaints (r ¼ 0:33, p , 0:01). H2b and H2d were not supported.

H3. WFI as a mediatorTable II shows the results of the mediation analyses, carried out in line with themethodology suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Accordingly, a prerequisite formediation is that the predictor, mediator and dependant variables must be significantlyrelated. Mediation is demonstrated by a reduction in the impact of the predictor on thedependant measure after controlling for the mediator (see column b t in Table II). Inaddition, the statistical significance of the mediation was calculated using the SobelTest (Preacher and Leonardelli, 2001).

Sex, age and having children have been entered as control variables. Using themethodology recommended by Eckenrode et al. (1995) reduction of the coefficient to

Exhaustion CynicismPsychosomatic

complaintsStep 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Variable b i b t b i b t b i b t

Sex (male ¼ 1, female ¼ 0) 0.13 0.11 20.05 20.06 0.08 0.07Age 0.07 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.16Having children (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) 20.05 20.08 20.05 20.07 20.11 20.13Surface acting 0.12 0.02 0.27* 0.22* 0.29* 0.19*Deep acting 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.08 20.04 20.02Display: show positive 20.09 20.21 20.19 20.24 0.00 20.10Display: hide negative 0.35* 0.32* 0.31* 0.29** 0.15 0.13WFI 0.61* 0.28* 0.49*R 2 0.13 0.47 0.19 0.26 0.13 0.35R 2 Change 0.34 0.07 0.22F Change 92.06* 14.35* 50.66*

Notes: * p , 0:01; ** p , 0:05; b i, initial beta weight when first entered; b t, final beta weight afterWFI entered

Table II.Mediational analysis of

WFI, between emotionallabor and

burnout/psychosomaticcomplaints (N ¼ 155)

Work-familyinterference

43

zero equals full mediation and reduction of the coefficient is equivalent to partialmediation. This is consistent with the view of Baron and Kenny (1986) who suggestthat as most areas of psychology have multiple causes, a more realistic goal is to seekmediators that significantly reduce the relationship between the predictor anddependant measure.

No support was found for H3a. With regard to H3b, Table II indicates that WFIpartially mediated the relationship between hiding negative emotions and exhaustion(from b ¼ 0:35 to b ¼ 0:32, Sobel test, z ¼ 3:01, p , 0:01), and the relationshipbetween hiding negative emotions and cynicism (from b ¼ 0:31 to b ¼ 0:29, Sobel test,z ¼ 2:28, p , 0:01). For H3c, WFI was found to partially mediate between surfaceacting and both cynicism (from b ¼ 0:27 to b ¼ 0:22, Sobel test, z ¼ 2:33, p , 0:05)and psychosomatic complaints (from b ¼ 0:29 to b ¼ 0:19, Sobel test, z ¼ 3:02,p , 0:01). No support was found for H3d.

DiscussionThe current research made the following contributions:

. it expanded on our knowledge of the relationship between emotional labor, WFIand burnout;

. it examined the mediational role of WFI between emotional labor andburnout/psychosomatic complaints; and

. it provided data on a rarely studied phenomena within governmental workers.

In terms of the first hypothesis, the need for employees to hide negative emotions wasconsistently related to all three outcomes. The results in the present study were incontradiction to the Brotheridge and Grandey (2002) study, which found that thehiding of negative emotions was only related to the personal accomplishmentdimension of the MBI. This difference in findings may be a reflection of the differentsamples studied, with the Brotheridge and Grandey (2002) focusing on a variety ofdifferent occupations and the present study looking at “ceremonial” workers, whooperate in a highly idiosyncratic and highly formalized environment. Additionally, inthe present study, showing positive emotions was related to exhaustion andpsychosomatic complaints, but the correlations were weak. Taking these resultstogether indicates that the need to regulate the display of emotions was most probablyexperienced at a proximal level.

In terms of the second hypothesis, surface acting was significantly related to allthree outcomes. Such a result is consistent with the research of Brotheridge andGrandey (2002), who found surface acting significantly related to emotionalexhaustion. Additionally, this result is consistent with the idea that suppressinganger can be costly to physiological and immune functioning (Gross and Levenson,1997; Pennebaker and Beall, 1986). The consistent relationship with all three outcomesconfirms that idea that surface acting represents a way of detaching from others whileat work. In contrast, deep acting was not related to any of the outcomes. This isconsistent with work of Brotheridge and Grandey (2002), who did find that surfaceacting was related to emotional exhaustion beyond deep acting. In terms of theoccupational group studied, this result makes sense as compared to other occupationalgroups (e.g. police officers) the need to use impression management in a formal setting

JMP21,1

44

(e.g. government offices) is more important than the need to internalize emotionallydifficult situations (e.g. a police officer who needs to internalize difficult interactions).

Limited support was found for the third hypothesis. This result is consistent withthe considerable body of literature denoting the role of WFI as a mediator (see Geurtsand Demerouti, 2003 for a review). The mediating role found for both surface actingand hiding negative emotions provides a new perspective regarding the way that workcan spill-over into non-work. This suggests that for employees inhibited emotionalstates are more likely to be decompressed within the family environment, whichpresents more opportunities for emotional expression, relative to their workplace. Thisis consistent with recent research that has found a positive association betweenemotional labor and WFI (Montgomery et al., 2005), and with the work of Wharton andErickson (1995), who suggest that emotional demanding environments (at both workand home) contribute to WFI.

Emotional labor as a demandUntil recently, most studies concerning the relationship between job demands and jobstress have focused on quantitative demands (e.g. workload). One of the mostprominent models in this area, Karasek’s (1979) demand-control model has receivedcritical attention with regard to the possible multifaceted nature of job demands.Different types of job demands have been rarely examined within the framework of themodel (with the exception of some examples; De Jonge et al., 1999; Soderfeldt et al.,1996, 1997). The aforementioned evidence is consistent with recent reviews in the WFIliterature that has called on researchers to identify more specific antecedents of WFI(Geurts and Demerouti, 2003). The need to evaluate a range of demands is prompted bythe fact that the nature of work is changing and some professions have a specificallyemotional component. Such a contention is supported by researchers who haveidentified three types of emotional displays required by jobs: integrative,differentiating and masking (Jones and Best, 1995; Wharton and Erickson, 1993).Such work prompts us to more carefully consider emotional labor as a significant jobdemand.

LimitationsWith regard to the assessment of mediation, in the present study all variablesmeasured (emotional labor, WFI, burnout and psychosomatic complaints) are in factappraised, and thus measured subjectively. Therefore, we should keep in mind that it isdifficult to demonstrate a mediational effect in time, as suggested by the S-O-R modelof Woodworth (1928). Additionally, cross-sectional data prevents us from assessingcausal relationships. For example, it is possible that surface acting may causeindividuals to suffer from burnout and increased psychosomatic complaints and thusthis may be associated with higher levels of WFI.

The present study did not assess affectivity, which has been identified as animportant component of emotional regulation (Morris and Feldman, 1996). However,the relationship between emotional labor and affectivity is not entirely clear, withBrotheridge and Grandey (2002) finding significant (but weak) relationships betweenNA and hiding negative emotions and surface acting, but not with either displayingpositive emotions or deep acting. Within the wider literature on the stressor-strainrelationship, some researchers call for the inclusion of NA (e.g. Watson and Clark,

Work-familyinterference

45

1984), while some are opposed to it (e.g. Moyle, 1995; Schonfield, 1996). Indeed, Dollardand Winefield (1998) even warn against its inclusion as this may lead to anunder-estimation of the impact of the work environment on strain.

Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) have suggested that employees who stronglyidentify with their job role will feel more authentic in complying with display rules andhence are likely to find it less effortful to display the required emotion. The presentstudy did not assess level of identification with job, which may have been an importantindividual difference.

Finally, the present study is cross-sectional and thus the postulated relationshipscannot be interpreted causally. Longitudinal studies and/or quasi-experimentalresearch designs are needed to further validate the hypothesised causality of therelationships.

Practical implications for both employees and managersThe practical importance of WFI is highlighted by a national US study (Bond et al.,1998), which found that 85 percent of employees have some day-to-day familyresponsibility, and virtually identical proportions of men and women report WFIproblems. Additionally, this research suggests that emotional labor is an importantantecedent of both WFI and burnout. In terms of the literature on job demands, theresults highlight the need to recognise that emotions and job-related emotionalregulation (e.g. customer interaction or management) is an increasingly important partof work cultures. In terms of training and/or interventions, the need for employees todecompress from their job before going home is particularly important in jobs withhigh demands for emotional displays (e.g. civil servants in jobs that are highlyceremonial). Such decompression can be aided by training, and indeed Smith (1999)argues that the skill involved in displaying emotions be should valued in exactly thesame way as any other skill. Finally, Briner and Totterdell (2002) point out thatinterventions focused on how employees feel (e.g. anger or contempt) is more likely tofocus interventions more precisely than knowing they are “stressed”.

There is considerable evidence demonstrating that managers and supervisors caninfluence the emotional experiences of their employees (Ashkanasy, 2003;McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002). Managers can help employees to internalizetheir roles and reduce the need for employees to feel compelled to fake or hide genuineemotion (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993). This is consistent with research showing thatleaders who express a clear vision and positive expectations for performance affectedemployees’ identificantion with their work (Bono and Judge, 2003). A recent paper byVinson et al. (2005) indicates that employees experience fewer positive emotions wheninteracting with their supervisors, except when interacting with supervisors rated highon transformational leadership style. All of the aforementioned evidence points to thefact managerial and supervisory training should include awareness regarding theirinfluence on employee’s emotional experiences.

References

Aryee, S. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professionalwomen: evidence from Singapore”, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 813-37.

Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1993), “Emotional labor in service roles: the influence ofidentity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 88-115.

JMP21,1

46

Ashkanasy, N. (2003), “Emotions in organizations: a multilevel perspective”, in Danasereau, F.and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Research in Multilevel Issues, 2: Multi-level Issues inOrganizational Behavior and Strategy, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 9-54.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Barsade, S.G., Brief, A.P. and Spataro, S.E. (2003), “The affective revolution in organizationalbehavior: the emergence of a paradigm”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior:The State of the Science, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-52.

Baruch, Y. (1999), “Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis”, HumanRelations, Vol. 52, pp. 421-38.

Best, R.G., Downey, R.G. and Jones, R.G. (1997), “Incumbent perceptions of emotional workrequirements”, paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society for IndustrialOrganizational Psychology, St Louis, MO, April.

Bond, J.T., Galinsky, E. and Swanberg, J.E. (1998), The 1997 National Study of the ChangingWorkforce, Families and Work Institute, New York, NY.

Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding themotivational effects of transformational leader”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46,pp. 554-71.

Bono, J.E. and Vey, M.A. (2004), “Toward understanding emotional management at work: aquantitative review of emotional labor research”, in Ashkanasy, N. and Hartel, C. (Eds),Understanding Emotions in Organizational Behavior, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 212-33.

Brief, A.P. and Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace”, AnnualReview of Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 279-307.

Briner, R.B. and Totterdell, P. (2002), “The experience, expression and management of emotion atwork”, in Warr, P. (Ed.), Psychology at Work, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, pp. 229-52.

Brotheridge, C.M. (1999), “Unwrapping the black box: a test of why emotional labor may lead toemotional exhaustion”, in Miller, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Administrative SciencesAssociation of Canada (Organizational Behaviour Division) Saint John, New Brunswick,pp. 11-20.

Brotheridge, C.M. and Grandey, A.A. (2002), “Emotional labor and burnout: comparing twoperspectives of ‘people work’”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 60, pp. 17-39.

Brotheridge, C.M. and Lee, R.T. (1998), “On the dimensionality of emotional labor: developmentand validation of the emotional labor scale”, paper presented at the first conference onEmotions in Organizational Life, San Diego, CA.

Cordes, C.L. and Dougerthy, T.W. (1993), “A review and integration of research on job burnout”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 621-56.

De Jonge, J., Mulder, M.J.G.P. and Nijhuis, F.J.N. (1999), “The incorporation of different demandconcepts in the job demand-control model: effects on health care professionals”, SocialScience and Medicine, Vol. 48, pp. 1149-60.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The jobdemands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 499-512.

Dirken, J.M. (1969), Arbeid en Stress (Work and Stress), Wolters Noordhoff, Groningen.

Dollard, M.F. and Winefield, A.H. (1998), “A test of the demands-control/support model of workstress in correctional officiers”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 3,pp. 243-64.

Work-familyinterference

47

Eckenrode, J., Rowe, E., Laird, M. and Brathwaite, J. (1995), “Mobility as a mediator of the effectsof child maltreatment on academic performance”, Child Development, Vol. 66, pp. 1130-42.

Erickson, R.J. and Wharton, A.S. (1997), “Inauthenticity and depression: assessing theconsequences of interactive service work”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 24, pp. 188-213.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-familyconflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 77, pp. 65-78.

Geurts, S. and Demerouti, E. (2003), “Work/non work interface: a review of theories andfindings”, in Schabraq, M.J., Winnbust, J.A.M. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Handbook ofWork and Health Psychology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York, NY, pp. 279-312.

Geurts, S., Rutte, C. and Peeters, M. (1999), “Antecedents and consequences of work-homeinterference among medical residents”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 48, pp. 1135-48.

Grandey, A. (1998), “Emotional labor: a concept and its correlates”, paper presented at the FirstConference on Emotions in Organizational Life, San Diego, CA, August.

Grandey, A. (2000), “Emotion regulation in the workplace: a new way to conceptualise emotionallabor”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 95-110.

Green, D.E., Walkey, F.H. and Taylor, A.J.W. (1991), “The tree-factor structure of the MaslachBurnout Inventory”, Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, Vol. 6, pp. 453-72.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 76-88.

Gross, J. (1998a), “Antecedent – and response-focused emotion regulation: divergentconsequences for experience, expression and physiology”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 224-37.

Gross, J. (1998b), “The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review”, Review ofGeneral Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 271-99.

Gross, J. and Levenson, R. (1997), “Hiding feelings: the acute effects of inhibiting negative andpositive emotions”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 106, pp. 95-103.

Gutek, B.A., Searle, S. and Klepa, L. (1991), “Rational versus gender role explanations forwork-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 560-8.

Hochschild, A.R. (1979), “Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure”, American Journal ofSociology, Vol. 85, pp. 551-75.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983), The Managed Heart, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Holmbeck, G.N. (1997), “Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study ofmediators and moderators: examples from child-clinical and paediatric psychologyliteratures”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 599-610.

James, N. (1989), “Emotional labor: skill and work in the social regulation of feelings”,Sociological Review, Vol. 37, pp. 15-42.

Jansen, M.E. and Sikkel, D. (1981), “Verkorte versies van de VOEG-schaal (Shortened version ofthe VOEG questionnaire)”, Gedrag & Samenleving, Vol. 2, pp. 78-82.

Jones, R.G. and Best, R.G. (1995), “An examination of the impact of emotional work requirementson individual and organizations”, paper presented at the Annual Convention of theAcademy of Management, Vancouver, August.

Karasek, R.A. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for jobredesign”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 285-308.

Kinnunen, U. and Mauno, S. (1998), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict amongemployed women and men in Finland”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 157-77.

JMP21,1

48

Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.T. (1996), “A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the threedimensions of job burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 123-33.

Leiter, M.P. (1993), “Burnout as a developmental process: consideration of models”, in Schaufeli,W.B., Maslach, C. and Marek, T. (Eds), Professional Burnout, Taylor & Francis,Washington DC, pp. 237-50.

MacDermid, S. (2000), “The measurement of work/life tension: recommendations of a virtualthink thank”, Sloan work-family researchers electronic network, available at: www.bc.edu/bc_org/ avp/wfnetwork/loppr/ measure_tension.pdf

McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Anderson, R.D. (2002), “Impact of leadership style on emotions onsubordinate performance”, Leadership Quarterley, Vol. 13, pp. 545-59.

Mann, S. (1999), “Emotion at work: to what extent are we expressing, suppressing, or faking it?”,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 347-69.

Maslach, C. (1982), “Burnout: a social psychological analysis”, in Jones, J.W. (Ed.), The BurnoutSyndrome, London House, Park Ridge, IL, pp. 30-53.

Montgomery, A.J., Panagopoulou, E. and Benos, A. (2005), “Emotional labor at work and homeamong Greek health professionals”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 19, pp. 395-408.

Montgomery, A.J., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Den Ouden, M. (2003), “Work-homeinterference among newspaper managers: its relationship with burnout and engagement”,Anxiety, Stress & Coping, Vol. 16, pp. 195-211.

Morris, J.A. and Feldman, D.C. (1996), “The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences ofemotional labor”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 986-1010.

Moyle, P. (1995), “The role of negative affectivity in the stress process: tests of alternativemodels”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 647-68.

Netermeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation ofwork-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 81, pp. 400-10.

Panagopoulou, E., Kersbergen, B. and Maes, S. (2002), “The effects of emotional (non-)expressionin (chronic) disease: a meta-analytic review”, Psychology & Health, Vol. 17, pp. 529-45.

Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y.S. and Godshalk, V.M. (1996), “Work and family variables,entrepreneurial career success and psychological well-being”, Journal of VocationalBehaviour, Vol. 48, pp. 275-300.

Pennebaker, J. (1985), “Traumatic experience and psychosomatic disease: exploring the roles ofbehavioural inhibition, obsession, and confiding”, Canadian Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 82-95.

Pennebaker, J. and Beall, S. (1986), “Confronting a traumatic event: toward an understanding ofinhibition and disease”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 528-37.

Preacher, K.J. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2001), Calculation for the Sobel test: an interactive calculationtool for mediation tests (Computer software), available at: www.unc.edu/, preacher/sobel/sobel.htm

Pugliesi, K. (1999), “The consequences of emotional labor in a complex organization”, Motivationand Emotion, Vol. 23, pp. 125-54.

Pugliesi, K. and Shook, S. (1997), “Gender, jobs and emotional Labor in a complex organization”,Social Perspectives on Emotion, Vol. 4, pp. 283-316.

Rafaeli, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1989), “The expression of emotion in organizational life”, inCummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-42.

Work-familyinterference

49

Rafaeli, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1990), “Busy stores and demanding customers: how do they affect thedisplay of positive emotion?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 623-37.

Redford, W. and Barefoot, J. (1988), “Coronary-prone behavior: the emerging role of the hostilitycomplex”, in Houston, B.K. and Snyder, C.R. (Eds), Type A Behaviour Pattern: Research,Theory and Intervention, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 189-211.

Schaubroeck, J. and Jones, J.R. (2000), “Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions andmoderators of their effects on physical symptoms”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour,Vol. 21, pp. 163-83.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Enzmann, D. (1998), The Burnout Companion to Study and Research:A Critical Analysis, Taylor & Francis, London.

Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1996), “MBI-General survey”, inMashlach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Mashlach Burnout Inventory, 3rd ed.,Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Schonfield, I.S. (1996), “Relation of negative affectivity to self-reports of job stressors andpsychological outcomes”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 397-412.

Schulz, M.S., Cowan, P.A., Pape Cowan, C. and Brennan, R.T. (2004), “Coming home upset:gender, marital satisfaction and the daily spillover of workday experience into coupleinteractions”, Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 250-63.

Schwartz, G.E. and Kline, J.P. (1995), “Repression, emotional disclosure and health: theorectical,empirical and clinical considerations”, in Pennebaker, J.W. (Ed.), Emotional Disclosure andHealth, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 177-95.

Shirom, A. (1989), “Burnout in work organizations”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I. (Eds),International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, John Wiley, Chichester,pp. 25-48.

Smith, A.C. and Kleinman, S. (1989), “Managing emotions in medical school: students’ contactswith the living and the dead”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp. 56-69.

Smith, S.L. (1999), “The theology of emotion”, Soundings, Vol. 11, pp. 152-8.

Soderfeldt, B., Soderfeldt, M., Muntaner, C., O’Campo, P., Warg, L. and Ohlson, C. (1996),“Psychosocial work environment in human service organisations: a conceptual analysisand development of the demand-control model”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 42,pp. 1217-26.

Soderfeldt, B., Soderfeldt, M., Jones, K., O’Campo, P., Muntaner, C., Ohlson, C.G. and Warg, L.(1997), “Does organisation matter? A multilevel analysis of the demands control modelapplied to human services”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 44, pp. 527-34.

Stenross, B. and Kleinmann, S. (1989), “The highs and lows of emotional labor”, Journal ofContemporary Ethnography, Vol. 17, pp. 435-52.

Stephens, M.A.P., Franks, M.M. and Atienza, A.A. (1997), “Where two roles intersect: spilloverbetween parent care and employment”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 12, pp. 30-7.

Sutton, R.I. (1991), “Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: the case of bill collectors”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 245-68.

Temoshok, L. (1985), “Biophysical studies on cutaneous malignant melanoma”, Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, Vol. 29, pp. 139-53.

Temoshok, L., Heller, B.W., Sagebiel, R.W., Blois, M.S., Sweet, D.M., DiClemente, R.J. and Gold,M.L. (1985), “The relationship of psychological factors tp prognostic indicators incutaneous malignant melanoma”, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 29, pp. 139-53.

JMP21,1

50

Tolich, M.B. (1993), “Alienating and liberating emotions at work: supermarket clerks’performance of customer service”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 22,pp. 361-81.

Vinson, G., Jackson, H., Bono, J. and Muros, J. (2005), “Felt and expressed emotions at work:examining the role of interaction partners”, in Ilies, R. and Johnson, M. (Co-Chairs),Work-Related Social Interactions and Mood: Tests of Affective Events Theory, Symposiumpresentation at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Voydanoff, P. (1988), “Work role characteristics, family structure demands and the work/familyconflict”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 50, pp. 749-61.

Wallace, J.E. (1999), “Work-to-nonwork conflict among married male and female lawyers”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 797-816.

Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984), “Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversiveemotional states”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96, pp. 465-90.

Weidner, G., Istvan, J. and McKnight, J.D. (1989), “Clusters of behavioral coronary risk factors inemployed women and men”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 468-80.

Wharton, A.S. (1993), “The affective consequences of service work: managing emotions on thejob”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 20, pp. 205-32.

Wharton, A.S. (1999), “The psychological consequences of emotional labor”, ANNALS, Annals ofthe American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 561, pp. 158-76.

Wharton, A.S. and Erickson, R.J. (1993), “Managing emotions on the job and at home:understanding the consequences of multiple emotional roles”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 18, pp. 457-86.

Wharton, A.S. and Erickson, R.J. (1995), “The consequences of caring: exploring the linksbetween women’s job and family emotion work”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 273-96.

Woodworth, R.S. (1928), “Dynamic psychology”, in Murchison, C. (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925,Clark University Press, Worcester, MA.

Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H. and Isic, A. (1999), “Emotion work as a source of stress:the concept and development of an instrument”, European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 370-400.

Corresponding authorAnthony J. Montgomery can be contacted at: amontgomery@rcsi-mub.com

Work-familyinterference

51

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints