Emotions and Organizational Governance

Keywords: Corporate governance; sustainability; organizational support; change agents; emotional thresholds

INTRODUCTION

Corporate greening and sustainability is an area of strategy and policy that has garnered significant attention in organizations over recent years (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Nguyen & Slater, 2010). This relatively new focus has been in response to the recognized environmental impact of business operations, as well as the increasingly damaging impact of global climate change (Banerjee, 2002; IPCC, 2014). As a result, organizations are developing an agenda of responsibility and action around these issues by incorporating initiatives into governance systems that aim to reduce environmental impact and shift cultural norms within organizations toward sustainability practices and values (Banerjee, 2002; Epstein, 2008; Snider, Hill, & Martin, 2003). Fineman (1996) and Pratt and Dutton (2000) suggest that sustainability and environmental issues are likely to be more emotional than other types of organizational issues because of the strong connection to personal values and the controversy surrounding the role of business in sustainability. For example, emotions have been identified as having a key role in the pro-environmental behavior of employees in the workplace (Bissing-Olson, Iyer, Fielding, & Zacher, 2013; Fineman, 1996; Russell & Griffiths, 2008) and the emotions that leaders and change agents (e.g., sustainability managers, consultants and project officers) experience at work can impact their ability to influence green outcomes (Fineman & Sturdy, 1999; Wright & Nyberg, 2012). As a result, emotions and the way in which they are displayed in organizations may have a direct impact on the progress made within the corporate sustainability agenda.

For sustainability change agents in particular, research indicates that the emotions experienced and expressed by these individuals have a strong role to play in the success of their efforts to engage and influence employees with respect to green policy and initiatives (Fineman & Sturdy, 1999; Wright & Nyberg, 2012). To date, the focus of research has been on the expression of negative emotions by sustainability change agents (e.g., anger, fear, apathy) and how this reduces the success of change initiatives (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Fineman, 1996; Visser & Crane, 2010; Wright, Grant, & Nyberg, 2012; Wright & Nyberg, 2012). Emotions, however, produce complex rather than simple outcomes. Recent research suggests that negative emotions are not always linked to negative outcomes and that positive emotions are not always beneficial (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2012). For instance, anger, if used in an appropriate manner, can result in the target of that anger seeking information about how to resolve the issue (Van Kleef, 2009). In the current context, if a change agent expresses anger in the right way about a sustainability issue, it may result in their influence being enhanced and the issue being addressed as employees try to resolve the anger expression. That is, in the search for a way to resolve the anger expression, the employee may conclude that sustainability is an important issue.

Ashkanasy (2003) argues that emotions have an impact at multiple levels in organizations. At the organizational level, governance systems and work cultures can determine formal and informal expectations around the emotions employees can display at work (Diefendorff & Greguras, 2009; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991). These emotional display rules thus set the boundaries for appropriate emotional expression by individuals. At the interpersonal level, interpretations will be made about the propriety of an individual’s emotional expression and whether that expression complies with organizational emotional display rules (Geddes & Callister, 2007; Peart, Roan, & Ashkanasy, 2015). Whether individuals are seen to be appropriate or inappropriate in their emotional expressions has an impact on outcomes such as job performance and well-being (Holman, Martinez-Inigo, & Totterdell, 2008; Morris & Feldman, 1996). For example, the organizational behavior literature suggests that emotional displays by leaders are an important part of how leaders are perceived and determine the success of their influence, which in turn significantly helps or hinders operational outcomes (Jordan & Lindebaum, 2015; Koning & Van Kleef, 2015). Thus, we argue that as change agents work to translate the organizational sustainability agenda into initiatives, participation, and action, others in the organization will make interpretations about the appropriateness of emotions expressed by the change agent based on the organizational display rules, which in turn can have a major effect on the success of green initiatives.

This issue of how other employees perceive the emotional displays by sustainability change agents at work has not been examined to date (i.e., in relation to emotional display rules within organization and the intensity of emotional expression of the change agent). Yet employee perceptions of change agendas and change agents, and the effect of these perceptions on change agent success, is concerning given the critical role of sustainability change agents in progressing green agendas and outcomes in organizations (Portugal & Yukl, 1994; Robertson & Barling, 2013; Rossi, Brown, & Baas, 2000). In this chapter, we present a model that explains the different ways employees perceive emotion displays by change agents regarding sustainability initiatives in relation to the amount of support organizations give to the sustainability agenda. First, we outline our model and the unpinning theories that explain the relationship between organizational support for sustainability and change agents’ expression of emotions. We argue that organizational strategy and policy set the level of organizational support for sustainability, which in turn determines the organizational display rules around sustainability and influences employees’ perceptions of the intensity of emotional display by change agents. Second, we highlight that change agents’ emotional expressions are subject to interpretation by others in the organization. We further argue that the intensity of emotions sustainability change agents express or show in their work has an impact on how they are perceived by others, and that such perceptions either promote or undermine change agent success.

Our model contributes to an understanding of the interaction of organizational support for sustainability, emotional display rules, and the way in which change agent emotions are perceived by other employees. Exploring our model enables us to explain the lived experiences of change agents in terms of how they are perceived at work and, by extension, enable insights into how they can become more accepted by other employees as performing a valued job. More broadly, our model has implications for the implementation of corporate sustainability agendas.

EMOTIONAL THRESHOLDS, PERCEPTIONS, AND CHANGE AGENT SUCCESS

In order to develop a more robust understanding of the emotions experienced by sustainability change agents, and how others might perceive such emotions in varying organizational conditions, we draw on the Dual Threshold Model (DTM: Geddes & Callister, 2007) to theoretically underpin our model. The DTM (Geddes & Callister, 2007) emphasizes the key role of emotions in interpersonal exchanges. In developing the original DTM, which focused on anger expressions, Geddes and Callister (2007) propose an expression threshold (an expression of emotion considered sufficient to be recognized by others) and an impropriety threshold (an expression of emotion considered inappropriate and exceeding the norms for emotional expression within that organization) to describe how emotions are displayed at work. The clear message from Geddes and Callister (2007) is that generally productive outcomes of anger emerge when the expression of anger falls between the expression and impropriety thresholds. Jordan and Lindebaum (2015) contend that the DTM can be used to assess a broad range of emotions, and argue that the threshold positions are dynamic and can shift according to the emotions that are displayed and the tolerance of the organization for the expression of emotion. It is important to note here that the interactions of the dyad in determining expression and impropriety thresholds are influenced by the cultural norms, values, and emotional display rules associated with their work context (Geddes & Callister, 2007).

In the context of our chapter, we identify emotion as an important feature of how change agents influence others toward supporting sustainability agendas. Indeed, theory and research on emotions in the workplace holds that work events influence an individual’s emotions, which in turn shape their behavior at work in relation to job performance and satisfaction (Elfenbein, 2007; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Our model, shown in Fig. 1, therefore looks at the interaction between the intensity of emotions displayed by sustainability change agents and the level of support for sustainability within the organization and how this relationship relates to performance and success in the role. The first dimension in our model is the level of support for sustainability demonstrated by the organization (through, e.g., policy, top management buy-in, leadership). We argue that this level of support partially contributes to a set of organizational display rules about the type of discrete emotions and the intensity of emotions that are appropriate for display – in this case around sustainability issues (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Fineman, 1996). Emotional display rules established within the organization are central in assisting the individual expressing emotion to determine whether or not emotion should be expressed and to assist the observers in determining what constitutes appropriate or acceptable expression of emotion at work (Lindebaum, Jordan, & Morris, 2016; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991). Here we delineate emotional display rules in relation to sustainability issues from emotional display rules for the organization in general. Our focus is on the level of organizational support for sustainability and how this creates emotional display rules within the organization around sustainability issues specifically.

Fig. 1. Model of Emotional Displays by Sustainability Change Agents Perceived in Organizations.

In relation to the second dimension of the model, emotional display rules as they relate to sustainability issues will contribute to the varying positions of the expression and impropriety thresholds across varying levels of support for sustainability. Others in the organization use these emotional display rules in relation to sustainability issues to determine if the emotions shown by change agents are appropriate (cross the expression threshold) or inappropriate (cross the impropriety threshold) (Geddes & Callister, 2007; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991). Following the emotional episode, such assessments then contribute to generating outcomes for the individual change agent who expressed emotion and the organization (Jordan & Lindebaum, 2015; Koning & Van Kleef, 2015).

This leads to the third dimension to our model, change agent success. That is, these judgments can impact the success of the work efforts of the change agent to influence and implement sustainability initiative and outcomes. For example, in an organization with well-defined and supported sustainability policy and programs, there is likely a greater acceptance of emotional displays around sustainability issues. Therefore, a change agent expressing intense emotions (e.g., strong feelings of hope or even outrage) in their work is more likely to be viewed by others as dedicated and passionate about their approach to implementing sustainability initiatives (i.e., a Passionate Champion). This is because the emotional expression of the change agent aligns with the emotional display rules around this issue, and is within the propriety thresholds for that organization (Geddes & Callister, 2007). Other employees then perceive such an emotional display as appropriate and support the change agent or are influenced by them in their work. Alternatively, for a change agent working in an organization with limited support for sustainability, the emotional expression of the change agent is at odds with the emotional display rules around this issue, and the impropriety threshold is crossed. In this case, expressing intense emotions around such issues is more likely to be viewed as overzealous, disruptive, and inappropriate (i.e., a Crazy Greenie). Once emotional expressions of the change agent are perceived as inappropriate, other employees may marginalize and discredit the individual, inhibiting the success of the change agent’s sustainability efforts.

In the following sections, we outline our model in detail, supported by discussion of the conditions under which certain display rules exist and the impact of these rules on the perceptions of change agent emotion by others.

Organizational Support for Sustainability and Emotional Display Rules

Organizational engagement with social and environmental issues is becoming an important part of the culture and social responsibility of organizations (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001; Sonenshein, 2006). Sustainability and corporate greening are emerging as particularly important endeavors that organizations address within their broader governance systems. To date, corporate sustainability agendas have been driven by legislation, stakeholder pressures, economic opportunity, ethical motives, and corporate values (Bansal & Roth, 2000).

Rudimental forms of corporate sustainability focus on regulatory compliance and incremental change; however, Benn, Dunphy, and Griffiths (2014) argue a more progressive stance on corporate sustainability is necessary to see a move beyond compliance to a shift in values, ethics, and governance, with the goal of organizational transformation. Such a move distinguishes companies that take an ethical responsibility to incorporate sustainability into the culture and strategy of the organization (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). These variations in organizational agenda and policy can dictate how receptive or “warm” an organization is to green initiatives (Egri & Herman, 2000; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Ramus & Steger, 2000). For example, Egri and Herman (2000) found that the presence of environmental policy was a signal for encouragement and acceptance of green activities within the organization. Indeed, research suggests the sustainability-orientation of the organizational agenda shapes the sustainability goals of the organization, and how employees understand, accept, and enact corporate sustainability (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Sharma, 2000).

In our model, we argue that there is a relationship between the level of organizational support for sustainability and the emotional intensity that is appropriate for change agents to display around their sustainability efforts. Research by Fineman (1996) found that emotions about environmental issues could be displayed freely in organizations with higher support for sustainability. For instance, if the organization has a strong sustainability agenda, displays of more intense emotions (e.g., passion, outrage) to implement sustainability initiatives may be well received (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Ramus & Steger, 2000) and seen as an indication of the commitment of individuals supporting sustainability initiatives. Conversely, Fineman (1996) also found that emotions had to be restrained or withheld in conditions where there was low support for sustainability. For example, in a bureaucratic and market focused organization where a sustainability agenda may be marginalized in favor of other goals, the change agent may experience greater competitive pressures around their efforts to influence sustainability outcomes (e.g., rationalizing the initiative in economic terms) (Hoffman, 2003). In such a context, it may not be appropriate for a sustainability change agent to display intense emotions in their communications about sustainability.

These examples suggest that varying emotional display rules around sustainability issues can be linked to different levels of organizational support for sustainability. Typically, some business settings can demand emotional restraint, with excessive displays of emotion or strong emotion seen as inappropriate and ineffective (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Geddes & Callister, 2007; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991). Research indicates that certain types of emotional displays (e.g., an emotional outburst) reduce the ability of individuals to make a connection to others (Yang & Mossholder, 2004). However, within an environment that supports a particular issue there may be greater latitude for higher intensity emotional displays around that issue than in low support environments. For example, while high support for sustainability does not automatically mean high acceptance of intense emotion displays within an organization, it may inform the dynamics of what is acceptable emotion around that particular issue. That is, and as depicted in our model, the level of support for sustainability from the organization will contribute to the position of the thresholds within the DTM (Geddes & Callister, 2007) as to what will be appropriate or inappropriate expression of emotion by change agents over sustainability issues.

Expressed Emotions of Change Agents

Feeling and showing emotion is a common experience for many individuals’ at work and these emotions are generated as a result of events in organizational life (Ashkanasy, 2003). Importantly, events take on affective significance when they generate an emotional reaction or change in mood for an individual (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Emotions are specific to an object or cause, with the experience of an emotion attached to being “about,” “at,” or “of” something (Frijda, 1993). Related to the experience of emotion is the expression of emotion, shifting from “feeling” to “showing” (Lawrence, Troth, Jordan, & Collins, 2011). Lawrence et al. (2011, p. 211) explain the importance of emotional expression, stating that “displays of emotion convey substantial information about individuals’ goals, needs, interests, intentions, and boundaries in social interactions, and as a result, displays of emotion effectively coordinate these interpersonal encounters.” Emotions experienced and expressed in relation to organizational events can influence the behaviors and attitudes of individuals in the organization (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Emotions can be classified discretely as a combination of two dimensions, valence and arousal, to form a circumplex model of emotions (Larsen & Diener, 1992; Russell, 1980). Valence refers to the hedonic orientation of emotion (i.e., positive or negative), while arousal refers to the strength or intensity of the emotional experience as felt by the individual. For example, anger and fear are high arousal negative emotions, while contentment and confidence are low arousal positive emotions.

In terms of our model and the context of our chapter, we note that emotions are an important feature of how change agents influence others toward supporting sustainability agendas. Negative emotions have received the most attention in research on this topic, with such emotions attributed to the complex conditions within which the sustainability change agents’ work can be set (e.g., resistance to change from the organization and other employees; variations in the green agenda; and culture of the organization) (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Fineman, 1996; Fineman & Sturdy, 1999). This can be further amplified by the strong values held by sustainability change agents (e.g., caring for the environment and social justice, the desire to make a positive difference, and the urgency of the need to address climate change) (Visser & Crane, 2010; Wright & Nyberg, 2012). Sustainability change agents also have to contend with the unique professional profile of working in the broader context of catastrophic climate change, rising extinction levels, and growing social disruption (IPCC, 2014). As a result, change agents can feel emotions such as guilt, fear, and hopelessness in the belief they are not making enough of a difference (Hoffman, 2003; Wright et al., 2012). Conversely, change agents can also feel hope, passion, and enthusiasm about influencing positive change, employee engagement, and implementing green outcomes in their organization (Wright & Nyberg, 2012). Clearly, the research evidence suggests that sustainability change agents are likely to experience and express a variety of discrete emotions in their organizational role.

In developing our model, we focus on the intensity of emotional expression of change agents as perceived by others. In other words, it is not the valence of the emotion that matters primarily, but rather how appropriate the intensity of the emotional display is for the situation (Jordan & Lindebaum, 2015; Koning & Van Kleef, 2015). The type of emotion displayed will also factor in how change agents are perceived. To that end, we also apply the model to discrete emotions in specific situations, rather than looking simply at positive or negative emotions (for debate on this point, see Elfenbein, 2007; Lindebaum & Jordan, 2012; Solomon, 2003). For sustainability change agents, we argue that, on average, the emotions they experience in their work efforts will likely be of high intensity. Pratt and Dutton (2000) along with Russell and Griffiths (2008) support this idea, suggesting individuals who have strong ownership over an issue (such as environmental and sustainability issues) will experience and display more intense emotions in relation to that issue than if they had less ownership. Since change agents are typically very committed to their role and have strong environmental values (Egri & Herman, 2000; Visser & Crane, 2010; Wright & Nyberg, 2012), they will have high ownership over these issues and, therefore, experience more intense emotion. This holds with research on sustainability change agents, which as discussed earlier, shows these individuals do experience intense levels of emotion including anger, fear, hope, and enthusiasm (Wright & Nyberg, 2012). We argue that how employees perceive change agents’ emotions will emerge from the situational appropriateness of an emotional display. It is natural for change agents to experience such emotions, however, expressing intense emotions can have a powerful role in how individuals are perceived by others and the influence they can have – determined in part by how appropriate such emotional displays are in the context of how much an organization supports sustainability.

Perceiving Emotions at the Interpersonal Level and Change Agent Success

Emotions in the workplace are typically considered at a within person level in relation to the types and intensity of emotions that an individual will experience (feel) and express (show) (Gross & John, 1998; Lawrence et al., 2011). However, there is also an interpersonal aspect to the individual experience and expression of emotion, where others will perceive and make judgments about the emotions an individual is displaying according to organizational display rules and emotional thresholds (Côte & Hideg, 2011; Geddes & Callister, 2007; Lazarus, 1991; Peart et al., 2015). Whether emotional displays are judged to be appropriate or inappropriate (above or below the impropriety threshold) influences the attributions employees make toward to the change agent displaying the emotion (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002; Geddes & Callister, 2007; Koning & Van Kleef, 2015). In general, moderate amounts of emotions are optimal, and extreme amounts (too much or too little) are counterproductive and likely to be viewed unfavorably by other employees. For instance, an employee’s decision on whether a change agent’s emotions are appropriate or inappropriate can promote or undermine the success of the change agent’s ability to influence that employee toward green outcomes (e.g., changes to sustainability policy, practice, and behaviors in the organization). We argue that employees’ perceptions of change agents’ emotions will depend upon their views of the appropriateness of that emotional expression, which will be partially informed by the organizational display rules in relation to sustainability. That is, we argue it is the perceived intensity of emotional expression linked to the organizational support for such expressions that determines the success of sustainability change agents.

In our model, we show the outcomes of varying intensity of emotional expression in varying contexts with respect to change agent success. From this dynamic, we propose four broad categories that are applied to change agents based on the perceptions of others in the organization. When there is high organizational support for sustainability and the change agent expresses their emotion between the expression and impropriety thresholds, we see this as a combination for enhanced success in promoting green agendas. We propose a change agent operating in this quadrant may be identified by others as a Passionate Champion. When there is low organizational support for sustainability and the change agent expresses emotion between the expression and impropriety thresholds, we see this as leading to conditions where success is possible for the change agent, but likely more moderate. In this case, we propose employees may identify the change agent as a Rational Conformist. In situations where the change agent regularly expresses intense emotions in pursuing their goals (regularly exceeding the impropriety threshold) we consider that others will see the change agent as a Crazy Greenie. In describing the outcomes of organizational support, whether the organizational support is high or low, the success will be limited with a change agent that is not seen as being able to display appropriate emotions. Finally, in situations where the change agent expresses little or no emotion (falls below the expression threshold) we consider that this describes the Insincere Imposter. In describing the outcomes of organizational support, whether the organizational support is high or low, the success will be limited with a change agent that is not seen as affectively engaged with a green agenda as evidenced by their lack of “appropriate” expression of emotion within the display rules of the particular organization for which they work. According to our model, change agent success will peak in conditions of high organizational support for sustainability and when employees perceive appropriate emotional displays by change agents. We now move to explaining and exploring each of the categories in more detail.

Passionate Champion

In conditions of high organizational support for sustainability, there is an existing understanding around the green agenda reflected in well-defined and supported sustainability policy and programs. In such organizations, the acceptance of sustainability messages from change agents is more likely (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Wright & Nyberg, 2012). Moreover, there is likely to be greater acceptance of emotional displays by sustainability change agents, with more intense emotional displays seen by others as a sign of the change agent’s commitment to implementing green outcomes and the cause of sustainability (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Fineman, 1996). As depicted in our model, the Passionate Champion is able to express more intense levels of emotion without being perceived as crossing the impropriety threshold. The relationship between emotional display rules and emotional thresholds are such that should the change agent express their emotion between the expression and impropriety thresholds, there is the potential for enhanced success in promoting green agendas.

This is supported by Andersson and Bateman’s study (2000), which examined the process of successful championing of environmental issues in organizations and included an emotional aspect. Specifically, they looked at how change agents display emotion in their efforts to influence change. They initially predicted if change agents used intense or “hot” emotions to gain support for their change initiatives, successful implementation and outcomes from the initiatives would be more likely. What they found, however, was the opposite effect. Dramatic and emotional displays in fact reduced the effectiveness of environmental leaders in influencing green outcomes. The exception to this finding was if the change agents felt there was strong support for sustainability within the organization, in which case displaying drama and strong emotion was a successful strategy to communicate about an environmental issue (Andersson & Bateman, 2000). Therefore, we argue that for high levels of organizational support for sustainability, there will be a larger distance between expression and impropriety thresholds as the display rules will be more accepting of higher intensity emotional expression, and change agent success will be enhanced.

Rational Conformist

As the sustainability agenda is an emerging issue within the governance of organizations, it stands that there will be varying levels of support for and understanding of the issues (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). Some sustainability change agents operate within a more challenging and contested organizational setting that has limited support for the sustainability agenda (Visser & Crane, 2010; Wright et al., 2012). Organizations with low support for sustainability can be seen to lack formal sustainability policy, contest the role of business in addressing sustainability issues, and resist change agent efforts to influence green outcomes (Hoffman, 2003; Visser & Crane, 2010; Wright et al., 2012). Wright et al. (2012), for example, found sustainability change agents activities can be compromised by the antagonistic attitudes of other employees and managers. These attitudes can range from skepticism and critique of the relevance of sustainability in business (Wright et al., 2012) to complacency and apathy (Sonenshein, DeCelles, & Dutton, 2014).

To be successful in these conditions, change agents would be expected to be rational and comply with the attitude toward sustainability as set by the organization, which in this case would demand a moderate emotional expression linked to considered and logical arguments. For example, a change agent implementing a greening initiative in a business where sustainability issues are not supported by policy may have to deal with conditions of economic rationalism and pressure of value for money and cost effectiveness. Indeed, an early study from Fineman and Sturdy (1999) investigated the work behaviors of environmental regulatory inspectors and found that these change agents had to moderate their emotions in their efforts to communicate with employees and influence change in the organizations they were regulating. Fineman and Sturdy (1999) found that the regulators would restrain their emotions around environmental issues in order to be taken seriously and successfully implement their regulation requirements. Another study by Andersson and Bateman (2000) found when support for sustainability within the organization was weak or unsupportive, change agents reported success in their sustainability efforts when they used rational persuasion and displayed more controlled emotions in a formal and businesslike manner (Andersson & Bateman, 2000). Therefore, a change agent expressing rational and moderate levels of emotion in line with the emotional display rules set by low support for sustainability would likely experience some success in implementing greening initiatives. We describe this as being a Rational Conformist. In conditions of low support for sustainability, we argue the change agent would need to be moderate in their expression of intense emotions (e.g., hope and fear) as higher intensities could lead to crossing the impropriety threshold and the threat of being perceived as a Crazy Greenie.

Crazy Greenie

Of all our categories, the Crazy Greenie is likely to resonate the most for many employees as someone they have encountered either at work or socially. But why is this category so easy to identify? We argue that the distinguishing feature of the individual is the expression of emotions on a consistent basis that exceeds the impropriety threshold. For organizations with low support for sustainability, green issues are often not taken seriously and discredited, as are the individuals who seek to implement such changes (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Fineman & Sturdy, 1999). In a market-driven organizational culture with low support for sustainability, a change agent displaying a passionate approach to reducing carbon emissions (doing something good for the environment) may be seen as overzealous, as opposed to using an economic rationale for reducing carbon emissions (doing something good for the business). The change agent’s passionate attempt to influence change is thus discredited in a work environment with low support for sustainability and they are more likely to be identified as a Crazy Greenie.

Wright and Nyberg’s (2012) study on emotions involved with the work of corporate sustainability specialists supports this. They found change agents experienced intense positive and negative emotions with respect to their work activities; however when they expressed these emotions, others saw them as overly emotional or passionate, and their sustainability efforts were not as successful (Wright & Nyberg, 2012). In terms of the DTM, these emotional displays can be seen to breach the display rules of the organization and the impropriety threshold is crossed. Even in organizations with high support for sustainability, emotional displays that are perceived as inappropriate will still result in decreased success for the change agent. We also propose an exception that very intense emotions may be more tolerated in conditions of high support for sustainability and Crazy Greenies have at least the possibility of their ideas being accepted and success in influencing green outcomes.

Insincere Imposter

In situations where the change agent expresses no or very little emotion (falls below the expression threshold), we describe this person as the Insincere Imposter. In examining the outcomes of organizational support, we consider that whether the organizational support is high or low, success will be limited with a change agent that is not seen as affectively engaged with a green agenda. However, just because the emotion is not shown, does not mean it is not felt. Indeed, the mechanisms at play below the expression threshold are typically attributed to emotional suppression (Geddes & Callister, 2007; Gross & John, 1998). One reason that change agents might suppress emotion could be due to low job engagement resulting from continual resistance from the organization when showing high levels of emotion. For example, a change agent could start to suppress emotion as a means of self-preservation or disengagement in response to experiencing burnout after being seen as a Crazy Greenie. However, when individuals repeatedly switch off or temper their authentic feelings, emotional suppression over time can lead to stress and diminished well-being (Gross, 2002; Lawrence et al., 2011; Morris & Feldman, 1996). Again, we propose an exception in conditions of high support for sustainability, where the lack of appropriate emotion may be more tolerated and Insincere Imposters have a chance of influencing green outcomes based on the existing culture of the organization despite their lack of engagement.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Throughout this chapter, we have noted that sustainability change agents experience and express emotions in their efforts to influence sustainability outcomes in organizations. We have also argued that sustainability change agents work in a variety of contexts, ranging from those with full organizational support to little organizational support for the sustainability agenda. In response to these observations, we have outlined a model of change agent success in terms of perceived emotional propriety and organizational support for sustainability. As Andersson and Bateman (2000) found, the change agents that were most successful in influencing green outcomes were those who used varying influencing tactics and aligned these tactics with the needs of the organization. They also found that the level of organizational support for sustainability was important. Our model extends this idea further by drawing on the notion of emotional thresholds and propriety outlined by Geddes and Callister (2007). In doing so, we have argued that how other employees perceive the appropriateness of the emotional intensity change agents display within their organizational setting is an important aspect of success in the role.

In terms of theory, our model provides a framework to assess the impact of displays of emotional intensity on achieving sustainability goals. We contend that taking note of the relevant impropriety threshold in organizations is an essential element in this process. In identifying these emotional thresholds, our model also links emotional propriety to change agent success. The model therefore contributes to further unpacking the implications of the Dual Threshold Model of emotions (Geddes & Callister, 2007). By exploring variations of the DTM in terms of contextual factors and emotional intensity, our model elaborates on the dynamic nature of emotional thresholds (see also Lindebaum et al., 2016). Our application of hope and fear to the DTM as examples also responds to the call for more theorizing and research on discrete emotions (Gooty, Gavin, & Ashkanasy, 2009).

Our model provides further support for research that shows emotional expression by change agents is an important predictor of green initiatives and outcomes in the workplace (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Fineman & Sturdy, 1999; Wright & Nyberg, 2012), and extends this research by providing a framework for understanding this phenomenon. That is, when emotional displays are perceived to be appropriate, success is enhanced, and when emotional displays are perceived to be inappropriate, success is inhibited. We have proposed that organizational support for sustainability will influence the dynamics of emotional propriety thresholds, where high support will lead to greater acceptance of intense emotions and low support will lead to limited acceptance of intense emotions. The model therefore highlights the importance of the interface between emotional displays by change agents and employee perceptions in achieving green outcomes and progressing the sustainability agenda.

In terms of practical implications from our model, change agents need to be aware of the dynamics of emotional display rules in organizations around sustainability issues, and the impacts these rules have on how they are perceived by other employees. In organizations with high support for sustainability, the change agent role is supported, with change agents likely to be seen as Passionate Champions and therefore able to express a wider range of authentic emotions. In conditions of low support for sustainability, change agents need to be aware of the display rules and position of the impropriety threshold to avoid their passion for the topic being misunderstood, thus being seen as a Crazy Greenie and their work discredited. We note that sustainability change agents could potentially modify their emotional intensity in communicating and influencing sustainability initiatives and match this to the level of support for such activities in their organization. We see this as an important consideration for increasing the likelihood of a sustainability initiative’s success. To achieve this, sustainability change agents could refer to the emotional regulation literature, which explains the process of how individuals modify their emotions in response to emotional experiences and stressors in the workplace to achieve goals (Gross, 1998; Lawrence et al., 2011).

For change agents in conditions where the organizational support for sustainability (and emotional display rules) does not match their true emotional experience, they could employ emotional regulation strategies to alter emotions to fit within the propriety thresholds. A change agent in conditions of low support for sustainability, for example, could temper or regulate the intensity of their expressed emotions to shift from being seen as a Crazy Greenie to a Rational Conformist, thereby enhancing the likelihood of successfully influencing a green agenda. In this case, the change agent may engage an emotional labor strategy (especially surface acting to start with) to keep their emotions in check (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2000). Given the negative consequences of stress from extended emotional suppression (Morris & Feldman, 1996), this would not be a long-term solution. Change agents may be better off trying to shift their emotional efforts away from suppression among other employees toward appropriate expression, via cognitive reappraisal efforts, with top management to gain more organizational support for sustainability. The deliberate display of particular emotions and emotional intensities by sustainability change agents through emotional regulation to better fit the emotional display rules, therefore, offers a promising area for further research.

At this exploratory stage, we have simplified the model to focus on the most salient constructs for the role of emotion in sustainability change agent success such as organizational support and emotional thresholds. Future research will involve empirical data collection from sustainability change agents and other employees within organizations to test the associations we have proposed from the model. Investigating discrete emotions, such as hope and fear, as well as other emotions in the context of our model will also contribute to research that shows particular discrete emotions are important predictors of pro-environmental behavior in the workplace (Andersson et al., 2007; Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Harth, Leach, & Kessler, 2013).

Finally, in terms of a contribution to practice, understanding the role of organizational support for sustainability on propriety thresholds for change agent emotion and employee perceptions of change agent emotion presents a number of opportunities. First, given the strong positive relationship between organizational climate and change agent success (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Egri & Herman, 2000, Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010), it is imperative that organizations wishing to progress a green agenda show explicit organizational support (via policies and leadership) for sustainability objectives, as this contributes to the emotional display rules around sustainability conversations in the organization. Second, given the intense emotions typically experienced by sustainability change agents (Pratt & Dutton, 2000; Russell & Friedrich, 2015) managers need to gain a better understanding of the emotions associated with the role and the impact of these emotions on change agent success. This allows organizations and managers to create governance systems and organizational contexts that foster sustainability policy and practice, thereby increasing the acceptance of higher emotional intensity and the potential for sustainability change agents to experience improved performance outcomes. It also allows greater understanding of the experiences of change agents at work, including issues of emotion, retention, behavior, and performance. As organizations increasingly value sustainability outcomes and recruit professionals to enact and engage such change (Benn et al., 2014), this model can potentially be used to identify opportunities to implement specific sustainability policy, as well as training and development opportunities for employees, to increase the success of change agents. Individual change agents and their organizations are likely to benefit from a deeper understanding of the role of emotion in progressing corporate sustainability agendas.

REFERENCES

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in US business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 548–570.

Andersson, L. M., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2007). On the relationship of hope and gratitude to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 401–409.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy (pp. 9–54). Amsterdam: JAI.

Banerjee, S. B. (2002). Organisational strategies for sustainable development: Developing a research agenda for the new millennium. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 105–117.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717–736.

Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 156–175.

Böhm, G. (2003). Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 199–212.

Carter, D. M. (2011). Recognizing the role of positive emotions in fostering environmentally responsible behaviors. Ecopsychology, 3, 65–69.

Côte, S., & Hideg, I. (2011). The ability to influence others via emotion displays: A new dimension of emotional intelligence. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 53–71.

Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615–634.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2009). Contextualizing emotional display rules: Examining the roles of targets and discrete emotions in shaping display rule perceptions. Journal of Management, 35, 880–898.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716–736.

Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571–604.

Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotions in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315–386.

Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work. Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco, CA: Greenleaf.

Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17, 479–500.

Fineman, S., & Sturdy, A. (1999). The emotions of control: A qualitative exploration of environmental regulation. Human Relations, 52, 631–663.

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123–129.

Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381–403). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Geddes, D., & Callister, R. R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): A dual threshold model of anger in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 721–746.

Gooty, J., Gavin, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2009). Emotions research in OB: The challenges that lie ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 833–838.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 170.

Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18–26.

Hoffman, A. J. (2003). Reconciling professional and personal value systems: The spiritually motivated manager as organizational entrepreneur. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewwicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 193–208). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Holman, D., Martinez-Inigo, D., & Totterdell, P. (2008). Emotional labor and employee well-being: An integrative review. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations (pp. 301–315). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, P. J., & Lindebaum, D. (2015). A model of within person variation in leadership: Emotional regulation and scripts as predictors of situationally appropriate leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 594–605. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.004

Koning, L. F., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2015). How leaders’ emotional displays shape followers’ organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 489–501.

Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 25–59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lawrence, S. A., Troth, A. C., Jordan, P. J., & Collins, A. L. (2011). A review of emotion regulation and development of a framework for emotion regulation in the workplace. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 9, 197–263.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819.

Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P. J. (2012). Positive emotions, negative emotions, or utility of discrete emotions? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1027–1030.

Lindebaum, D., Jordan, P. J., & Morris, L. (2016). Symmetrical and asymmetrical outcomes of leader anger expression: A qualitative study of army personnel. Human Relations, 69(2), 277–300.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45, 357–366.

Lord, K. R. (1994). Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of message and source strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 11, 341–358.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986–1010.

Nguyen, D. K., & Slater, S. F. (2010). Hitting the sustainability sweet spot: Having it all. Journal of Business Strategy, 31, 5–11.

Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18, 625–642.

O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 355–379.

Peart, F. M., Roan, A. M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Trading in emotions: A closer examination of emotional labor. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Experiencing and managing emotions in the workplace (Vol. 8, pp. 279–303). Research on Emotions in Organizations. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Popper, K. R. (2004). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge.

Portugal, E., & Yukl, G. (1994). Perspectives on environmental leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 271–276.

Pratt, M. G., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Owning up or opting out: The role of emotions and identities in issue ownership. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 103–129). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 749–775.

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ‘ecoinitiatives’ at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605–626.

Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 176–194.

Rossi, M. S., Brown, H. S., & Baas, L. W. (2000). Leaders in sustainable development: How agents of change define the agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9, 273–286.

Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161.

Russell, S., & Griffiths, A. (2008). The role of emotions in driving workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In W. Zerbe, N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 83–107). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Russell, S. V., & Friedrich, E. (2015). The relationship between emotions and workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In J. Barling & J. Robertson (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp. 141–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697.

Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 175–187.

Solomon, R. (2003). Not passion’s slave – Emotions and choice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sonenshein, S. (2006). Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1158–1172.

Sonenshein, S., DeCelles, K. A., & Dutton, J. E. (2014). It’s not easy being green: The role of self-evaluations in explaining support of environmental issues. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 7–37.

Stern, P. C. (2012). Psychology: Fear and hope in climate messages. Nature Climate Change, 2, 572–573.

Thomas, E. F., McGarty, G., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Transforming “Apathy into movement”: The role of prosocial emotions in motivating action for social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 310–333.

Thomas, I., Sandri, O., & Hegarty, K. (2010). Green jobs in Australia: A status report. Sustainability, 2, 3792–3811.

Van den Berg, A. E., & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 261–272.

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life the emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95–105.

Visser, W., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and the individual: Understanding what drives sustainability professionals as change agents. SSRN Paper Series, 1.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.

Wright, C., Grant, D., & Nyberg, D. (2012). “Hippies on the third floor”: Climate change, narrative identity and the micro-politics of corporate environmentalism. Organization Studies, 33, 1451–1475.

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2012). Working with passion: Emotionology, corporate environmentalism and climate change. Human Relations, 65, 1561–1587.

Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589–605.

CHAPTER 8

EMOTIONAL THRESHOLDS AND CHANGE AGENT SUCCESS IN CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY

ABSTRACT