Management of Emotional Issues in Organisations - Term Paper Example

Significance of Psychological Contract for the Occurrence of Emotional Issues in the Work Situation "There are few, if any, jobs in which ability alone is sufficient. Needed, also, are loyalty, sincerity, enthusiasm and team play." – William B. Given, Jr. (Heathfield, n.d., par. 2) As the economy continues to be challenging, the head of companies strive not only for increase in productivity but also for minimization of production cost. This tightening of belt nourished the growing dissatisfaction of employees around the globe. In United States alone, one of three American workers are taking into account the option of bailing out of their jobs while twenty one percent expressed their dissatisfaction and negative notion for their employer according to survey (Rooney, 2011, par.5-6). The survey also expounded that discontent roots from extra work and stagnant wages that employers provide yet they remind confined with their jobs due to downfall of the job market. Unhappy employees can never leave the management on with a positive edge for a burned out workforce usually results to reduce quality in productivity. It is a common scenario occurring to companies of any size both in developed and under-developed countries as one of many dreadful consequences of the 2007-2009 economic recession (Rooney, 2011, par.7-12). Economic experts explain that this issue at hand is a turnout of not only the macroeconomic events of the earlier years posting threat to termination of employment contract but also of the eradicating system of psychological contract in the workplace (Furness, 2008, par.4). Dr. Judith Barwick supported this notion by stating that the problem is not primarily economic recession but rather psychological recession which is an “emotional state in which people feel extremely vulnerable and afraid for their futures” (cited in Furness, 2008, par.8). Gone were the days when employees jump ships in their venture of their career development for the security of tenure gains higher relevance in this tough time of the economy. The Concept of Psychological Contract “For organisations to change, people must change. For leaders to help people change they do not need to understand change, they need to understand people (Morrison, 2012, p.1)”. Innovation has been the key for companies to remain competitive in the ever evolving trends in the market to meet the demands of the consumers. Through years global competitiveness raised its bar challenging the companies to do better through increased productivity and specializing the skills of their employees. Yet the recent recession confined them to minimized production cost thus creating imbalance and difficulty on the part of the employee’s benefits and compensation. As quoted by Morrison (2012, p.1), leaders need to understand people to effect the needed changes but unfortunately, not all managers are capable of understanding their people. The traditional training for managers has been technical and non-personal in belief that it is necessary in order to maintain professionalism in the workplace yet the thing that is missed is the interpersonal relation development thus creating chaos in psychological aspect of both employees and managers. Psychological contract denotes informal obligation and understanding between an employer and an employee insuring mutual principle and insights to set dynamics for the relationship and to delineate the in depth practicality of the labour at hand (Conway & Briner, 2005). Dr. Harry Levinson (1966) comprehensively discussed the psychological contract in work setting by identifying its five qualities: unspoken expectation, expectation from the past, interdependent, psychological distance, and dynamic. The issues covered by the contract are primarily psychological thus creating emotional turmoil if not satisfactorily met. In every contract, expectation arises and psychological contract involves unspoken expectations between the employer and employee which mark its difference between and employment contract which prints in generalized details the roles and responsibilities of each other. It is strongly binding regardless of its lacking shared definition. It creates a powerful expectation of interdependence among each other where both become dependent of one another in order to function effectively. This quality of psychological contract determines one’s capability to be loyal to the other (Levinson, 1966). Moreover, the fourth quality indicated is psychological distance where intimacy in the workplace is given importance. According to Levinson (1966), human has the innate need for intimacy anywhere, including in the workplace, in order to properly cope with stress and to gain personal sustenance from work. The challenging part is keeping the proper distance where the feeling of invasion of one’s personality is prevented. The limits for psychological distance is determined by what is considered legitimate by the society, what can facilitate required task at hand, and one’s personal requirements. Since psychological contracts are not written nor spoken, it changes continuously or as collectively stating, it is dynamic. As people, workplace, and environment change, so as the expectations of both the employers and employees. These changes can either strengthen the psychological contract or it can totally eradicate them (Levinson, 1966). Just like in the case stated earlier in this paper, with the downward economic change, psychological contracts are challenged. Some employers who see their employees as production costs rather that as assets tend to cut them off the system while others maintain the people yet reduce the benefits and compensations they once enjoy (Furness, 2008). This change created a negative impact on the part of the employees creating dissatisfaction at work and flawed loyalty. On the other hand, on occasions that employers appraises their employees in congruence to their satisfactory productivity, then loyalty is strengthen and positive outlook on the work and their employers are secured. “Organisations need interpersonal structures in order for the human side to function as smoothly as possible (Morrison, 2012, p.4)” and this is where psychological contracts take part in organizing the social life at the workplace. All parties of the contract must participate in the discovery of the specifics of the contract since it has no standard form. It is not defined by leaders but rather developed by the people through their perceived expectations. It is created from the people’s performance, which is based on what they actually do and not what is dictated upon them by formal policies. Historically speaking, psychological contracts have been on existence for a very long time yet its existence have been given importance by human resource officers on the aftermath of the 1990’s recession (Furness, 2008). And seemingly, it regained its popularity on management since the recent economic downfall. Though ironic as it can be perceived, economic experts suggest that this poor performance of stock markets is an ideal time to encourage employees to invest in all-employee share schemes. This type of scheme will not only salvage the organisation but also uplift the psychological contract on the benefit of the employee as they gain importance in their company. Moreover, this cultivates a culture where improvement of organisational performance is to primary goal of everyone. Furness (2008) added that organisations that support their employees through development opportunities fortify the psychological contract even in the most challenging times. In summary, Furness (2008) believed that understanding of both parties involved in the psychological contract creates pledges or guarantees for each other. Though there are no standard set for the components of psychological, an overview of the most common assurances delivered are as follows: Employees agree to (1) work hard, (2) uphold company reputation, (3) maintain high levels of attendance and punctuality, (4) show loyalty to the organisation, (5) work extra hours when required, (5) develop new skills and update old ones, (6) be flexible, for example, by taking on a colleagues work, (7) be courteous to clients and colleagues, (8) be honest, and (9) come up with ideas (Furness, 2008). In return, employers guarantee to provide (1) pay commensurate with performance, (2) opportunities for training and development, (3) opportunities for promotion, (4) recognition for innovation or ideas, (5) feedback on performance, (6) interesting tasks, (7) an attractive benefits package, (8) respectful treatment, (9) reasonable job security, and (10) a pleasant and safe working environment (Furness, 2008). In terms of the legal implication, it remains to be perceived as binding even though there is no basis for the psychological contract in employment law. That is if an employee resigns they can demand for constructive dismissal if they consider that a relationship of mutual trust and confidence has been breached (Furness, 2008). The Concept of Emotional Process in Workplace In every organisation, professionalism is very vital to achieve the established goal within the determined time frame and financial plan. This code of professionalism pushes an individual to set aside his or her emotions in order to function according to what is expected of their role. A study by Diefendorff and Gosserand (2003) discussed the difference between one’s emotional display and the existing emotional display rules in their organizations. They stated that emotional labour can be characterized as “involving a discrepancy monitoring and reduction process, whereby perceptions of emotional displays and emotional display rules are continuously compared.” As stated earlier, like the psychological contracts, these emotional display rules depends on what the society dictates as legitimate and it this case it is what the organisation culture determines as acceptable. They added that if a discrepancy between emotional displays and display rules is detected, individuals are proposed to use emotion regulation strategies to reduce the discrepancy. These emotion regulation strategies involve limiting of what they share with their colleagues and maintaining personal distance in a professional level to name a few. Paradoxically, though emotional solidity reined the traditional management style, theorists suggest that display of emotion in the workplace, be it a genuine display or merely a strategic expression, facilitates smoother negotiations and communication (Staw & Sutton, 2000, p.4). In addition, Staw and Sutton (2000, pp.15-20) stated that although decision making researches consider emotions to directly impact one’s information processes, these emotions can be directed to alleviate interpersonal communication systems in order to explore the existing problems between dyads or among group relations. In the lower end of the hierarchy, relationships amongst workers are relatively on a personal level where emotions and notions are freely shared. Korczynski (2003, p.55), in his study regarding emotional labour in service work, collectively stated that frontline service workers have this type of social relations in a way of forming an informal communities of coping. He further explains that through emotional sharing, workers are able to manage stress that they acquire from the demands of their work and employers or customers. This is a double bladed strategy where on the positive end is that they are able to cope with stress thus preventing the sentiment of being burned out while on the negative end is that this feelings can be transpired to every member of the workforce involved in the system. Barsade (2002, p.644) call this as the “ripple effect” where group emotional contagion or the transference of moods among people in a group directly affects the emotional atmosphere of an organization. He stated that emotional contagion directly affects an individual’s attitude and group processes where positive emotional contagion produces “improved cooperation, decreased conflict, and increased perceived task performance” while negative emotional contagion creates otherwise. In sum, emotional process definitely affects an individual performance and group processes directly or indirectly, therefore, influencing the potency of psychological contracts existing in organisations. Conflicts and tension are inevitable in any organisation and it is with good management that these emotional outcomes can be settled. Management of Emotional Issues in Organisations It has been contended that with the evolving global economy considerably reshaped the employment exchange relationship formed by employee and employer and with this is a significant transformation in their perceptions of the relational component of the psychological contract (Meuse, Bergmann and Lester, 2001, p.102). Although psychological contract remain to be an unwritten form of bind, researchers suggest that in order for it to effectively transpire, organisations must initially identify the schemes, promises, and mutuality in its formation (Rousseau, 2010, p.511). Understanding the relevance of psychological contract in maintaining harmonious relationship within the members of the organization is the fundamental for its successful observance. As interdependence remains mutual, positive outlook for each other with be paralleled. Emotional issues may occur to an individual or in a group and any issue must not remain unsettled or disregarded. Ignoring these issues may further enhance the negative mood in an organisation which may later turn into more unpleasant scenario such as lay-offs, resignation, or even creation of labour unions (Furness, 2008). Human resource professionals are trained to settle such concern through open communication with the involved members. Communicating the differences and conflicts leads to understanding and further to settlement and agreement in order for employees and employers to meet in the middle. This systemic approach upholds fairness, trust, and delivery of the ‘deal’ between the organisation and employees which are the pillars of a positive psychological contract (Guest and Conway, 2004, p.vii.) In every situation maintaining equilibrium is always the key to goal achievement. Supply needs to meet the demand as well as expectations and responsibilities must be met by good performance and productivity. Breach of psychological contract is the worst state that may transpire in organisations yet it is highly preventable. Inconsistencies and divergence may chance on the process but effective communication, bearing in mind the elements of a positive psychological contract, can generate solutions to any issue – emotional or not. Bibliography Barsade, S. (2002) The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (4) December, pp.644-675. Conway, N. & Briner, R. (2005) Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Diefendorff, J. & Gosserand, R. (2003) Understanding the emotional labor process: a control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24 (8) December, pp. 945-959. Furness, V. (2008) Impact of economic downturn on psychological contract between employer and employee. Employee Benefits [Internet], November 1. Available from: < http://www.emplo- yeebenefits.co.uk/item/7912/pg_dtl_art_news/298/pg_ftr_art> [Accessed 12 August 2012]. Guest, D., Conway, N. (2004) Employee Well-Being and the Psychological Contract: A Report for the CIPD. Great Britain, Short Run Press, Exeter. Heathfield, S. (n.d.) Inspirational Quotations for Business and Work [Internet], Human Resources. Available from: [Accessed 12 August 2012]. Korczynski, M. (2003) Communities of Coping: Collective Emotional Labour in Service Work. Organization, 10 (1) February, pp. 55-79. Levinson, H, et al. (1966) Management and Mental Health. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Meuse, K., Bergmann, T., & Lester, S. (2001) An Investigation Of The Relational Component Of The Psychological Contract Across Time, Generation, And Employment Status. Journal of Management Issues, 13 (1) Spring, pp.102-118. Morrison, D. (2012) Psychological contracts and change [Internet]. Available from: < http://www.morrisonltd.com/resources/whitepapers/PsyCncts.pdf> [Accessed 12 August 2012] Rooney, B. (2011) Half of workers unhappy with their jobs. CNN Money, 20 June. Rousseau, D. (2010) Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (4) November, pp.511-541. Staw, B. & Sutton, R. (2000) Research in Organizational Behavior Volume 22. New York, USA, Elsevier Science Inc. Read More