1. Introduction
The literature, based on various epistemological frameworks and theoretical perspectives, suggests that emotional ambience in organizations sets the tone of social interactions among members and related patterns of working behavior, thus underpinning employees’ experience of comfort, or discomfort, and satisfaction in regard to the quality of their working life (
Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). Poor interpersonal relations or a lack of practices and policies related to respect for workers are psychosocial hazards within an organization and significantly contribute to workplace stress (
Stoewen, 2016), whereas positive social relationships among employees allow the work to get done. The overarching goal of this research is to study the emotional foundations of action in organizations. To reach this goal, on one side, we propose a conceptual approach that goes beyond the more common intra-individual dispositional approach to contextual emotional factors. On the other side, we utilize an interactionist approach to the explanation of workplace behaviors, which encompasses the interplay between emotional, cognitive, and contextual factors.
The present study focuses on contextual emotions at work, understood as structured ways of emotionally thinking about specific cues in the context that employees share within their organization and that may shape working relationships into different types of toxic emotional dynamics (e.g., claiming, provoking, controlling, distrusting) or, conversely, positive emotional dynamics (i.e., exchanging). These dynamics reflect how employees emotionally interpret and respond to organizational environments. As such, they set the social–emotional tone that affects employees’ actions, as well as their sense of comfort/discomfort. Specifically, our goal is three-fold. Firstly, we examine the emotional foundations of action in organizations by using an interactionist approach encompassing the interplay between emotion, cognition, and context, and go beyond the intra-individual dispositional approach to contextual emotional factors. Secondly, we use a latent profile approach to emotion-related interpersonal factors in order to identify subpopulations of employees who may differ in the way that they emotionally symbolize their workplace and, therefore, how they perform daily nurturing and constructive (or, conversely, maladaptive) behaviors that contribute to structure a comfortable relational ambience, underpinning healthy work environments. We used this methodological approach because latent profile analysis is by definition an exploratory technique that attempts to uncover groups of subpopulations based on how different appraisals (levels) of a construct (e.g., contextual emotions) tend to co-occur in regard to employees and, thus, can be used to identify different configurations of the construct’s profiles (
Oberski, 2016). As such, rather than focusing on predetermined combinations of variables of interest, we examine how these combinations of variables tend to emerge and characterize different groups of people among organizational members. In doing so, we lay the basis for the identification of differently vulnerable groups of employees in terms of their exposure to toxic emotional environments. Thirdly, we assess the role of latent profiles of emotion-related interpersonal factors gained through socialization among organizational members in predicting employee well-being and job satisfaction.
First, we propose an interactionist paradigm to workplace emotional/relational dynamics, grounded in the conjoint interplay between cognition, emotion, and context in regard to explaining behavior. As noted,
contextual emotions at work are emotional symbolization processes through which the human mind assigns emotional importance (emotion) to each represented element (cognition) of an experience within a specific workplace and social environment (context). These contextual emotions are unwantedly shared among employees and reinforced by the network of socialization practices (
Carli & Paniccia, 2003). Thus, recurrent exposure to the environment (e.g., social interactions) helps form structured ways of emotionally thinking about contextual cues. This process shapes emotion-related schemes of thinking and acting that are widespread among the community (contextual emotions or, rather, workplace emotional dynamics) and define the emotional atmosphere in the workplace (
Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017;
Carli & Paniccia, 2003;
Petitta et al., 2018). In doing so, our conceptualization of contextual emotions at work differs from approaches that consider contextual emotions solely as contextual information in situations to help people make sense of their feelings (e.g.,
Arellano et al., 2015;
Guo et al., 2018). The novel conceptualization proposed in the current study is grounded in the Theory of Analysis of Demand (
Carli & Paniccia, 2003) and complements existing emotion theories (e.g., affective events theory; see
Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017 for a review). Contextual emotions are different from well-established emotion-related concepts and phenomena. Specifically, the literature on emotions in organizations (e.g.,
Barsade & Gibson, 2007) suggests that affect represents an umbrella term encompassing a broad range of emotion-related phenomena, including short-term (e.g., feeling state, mood) or dispositional long-lasting (e.g., trait affectivity) feelings that employees experience. While the literature on emotions (e.g.,
Barsade & Gibson, 2007;
Grandey et al., 2013) includes different constructs, such as discrete emotions, moods, trait affect, emotional intelligence, emotional regulation, emotional labor, and collective affect (i.e., the degree to which individual levels of affective characteristics combine to form group level emotions), what they all have in common is an intra-individual approach to the experience of emotion-related phenomena. That is, whether short term or long lasting, affect is framed from the perspective of the inner experience of the individual, even when elicited by an external cause. Conversely, workplace contextual emotions are mental representations of one’s own context that are immersed in the emotions shared among the people interacting at work, which compel employees to structure a relational pattern of interaction that is fueled by emotions that are mutually exchanged. As such, contextual emotions represent an
inter-individual approach to affect in the workplace, as opposed to the renowned
intra-individual approaches. The inter-individual approach to contextual emotions also complements and is different from similar context-focused approaches to emotions at work. For example, affective events theory (AET;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) posits that employees’ affective experiences are reactions to work effects and are also activated by situational causes. In comparing contextual emotions with traditional theories, such as AET, a main point of departure is that AET calls attention to the role of environmental features as proximal causes of an affective reaction. Conversely, contextual emotions direct attention away from emotions as an intra-individual experience and a mere reaction to a trigger, and shift the attention towards an interactionist perspective of the mental representations of one’s own context that are socially co-created by the mutually satisfying emotional needs of people interacting at work.
Workplace contextual emotions also differ from other macro-level emotion-related constructs, such as emotional culture (
Barsade & O’Neill, 2014), collective emotional aperture (
Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009), and collective emotion regulation (
Gross, 2015). Specifically, emotional culture refers to widespread emotions at the collective level among employees through contagion and captures the deep underlying assumptions about the meaning of emotions (e.g., compassionate love). Consistently, it is measured by focusing on “reporting the expressed (not felt) emotions of other employees” (
Barsade & O’Neill, 2014, p. 567). While emotional culture consists of the expression of emotions at the collective level, contextual emotions refer to collective relational dynamics that are fueled by different types of emotional experiences. In a similar vein, “emotional aperture entails a person’s ability to recognize the dynamic emotional composition of a collective” and refers to a one-time perception of employees (
Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009, p. 27). As such, it departs from contextual emotions that entail the perception of specific patterns of relational dynamics that are grounded in different emotional experiences. Finally, the combined relational and emotional features of contextual emotions make them different from the construct of collective emotion regulation, which is mainly concerned with the collective rules that shape the expression of emotions and their trajectory over time (
Gross, 2015).
Second, to date, existing research has mainly adopted a variable-centered strategy to understand the impact of positive or toxic emotional experiences on variables of interest. However, such an approach does not account for the fact that individuals may simultaneously experience differing levels of both positive (i.e., exchange) and toxic (e.g., provoke, control, distrust) emotional dynamics in the workplace. We resolve this issue by first examining the emergence of different configurations of emotional patterns of workplace behavior, using latent profile analysis (LPA;
Morin et al., 2018). Specifically, using LPA, we first aim to identify distinct profiles of employees, based on their levels of positive and toxic emotional patterns of workplace behavior. Given that the difference between positive and toxic emotions depends on both their quantity (i.e., intensity) and their quality (
David et al., 2005), it is necessary to use LPA to reveal quantitatively (i.e., levels) and qualitatively (i.e., combinations) distinct configurations of emotional patterns of workplace behavior (i.e., positive and toxic workplace emotional dynamics).
Third, the current literature on predictors of employee well-being tends to separately examine the roles of (a) relational and emotional processes and (b) individual, interpersonal, and organizational/contextual factors (e.g.,
Hati & Pradhan, 2021;
Sonnentag et al., 2023). To complement existing theoretical perspectives, our proposal on contextual emotions at work that conjointly examines the interplay of individual (e.g., cognition, emotion) and contextual factors (
Carli & Paniccia, 2003), enables us to provide a holistic approach to understand whether emotional profiles of positive and toxic emotional dynamics at work may relate to work-related and health outcomes.
Below, we begin our review of the literature by addressing the concept of contextual emotions at work. Next, we provide a theoretical background on latent profile analysis applied to contextual emotions, and the relationship between emergent contextual emotion profiles and employee well-being outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion, cynicism, sleep disturbances, physical health, mental health), as well as job satisfaction.
2. Theoretical Background: Contextual Emotions at Work and the Latent Profile Approach
Indeed, many models of emotions hypothesize that emotions and cognition are intertwined (
Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). However, they diversely place the emphasis on the primacy of conscious evaluation (i.e., cognition) in regard to the immediate affective response (i.e., emotion) (e.g.,
Lazarus, 1982), or on the neural basis of their interplay, as in the case of research (e.g.,
LeDoux, 2002) suggesting that the activation of the brain areas involved in producing an emotional reaction (i.e., limbic system) precedes that associated with cognition (i.e., neocortex). Moreover, flourishing theories on emotions and contextual factors posit that emotions are situated phenomena that prepare the organism to manage a given situation (e.g.,
Pugh et al., 2022). It is noteworthy that they diversely model the context as (a) an environmental setting that affects how emotions are experienced depending on how people conceptualize the situation (e.g.,
Wilson-Mendenhall et al., 2011), or (b) as the organizational environment constellated by events to which employees affectively react (e.g., affective events theory;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), or (c) as national cultural beliefs and norms that vary regarding the features ascribed to an emotion and, thus, influence emotional behaviors, perceptions, and experiences (
Kitayama et al., 2006;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
The novel conceptualization of contextual emotions proposed in the current study is rooted in the Theory of Analysis of Demand (TAD;
Carli & Paniccia, 2003), engaging an interactionist (individual–context) and holistic model of mind functioning that thoroughly addresses the conjoint interplay of cognition, emotion, and context in explaining organizational behavior and related emotion-driven relational dynamics. The key conceptual points are at least three-fold. First, people’s experience of their interaction with their context is abstracted (i.e., cognitive process) and associated with an emotional experience (i.e., emotional process). Consequently, the human mind attaches emotional value to every contact and experience within their context, and the real outside context is replaced with an emotional mental representation of it. Second, the theory posits that an individual’s behavior is the result of how they emotionally interpret their relationship within their context. As such, it represents an interactionist (individual–context) approach, which integrates both the cognitive and emotional functioning of the mind in order to explain organizational behavior. Third, repeated experiences within a context shared with other people contribute to structuring the interpersonal dynamics that reflect how people emotionally interpret and respond to organizational environments, thus shaping the emotional ambience they are exposed to on an ongoing basis. As noted, while renowned collective-level emotion theories tend to frame affect from the perspective of the inner experience of the individual, the experience of emotion in collective settings (e.g., organizations) proposed by the TAD refers to shared mental representations of the context that compel employees to structure a relational pattern of interaction that is fueled by emotions that are mutually exchanged. The key differences are the type of emotions at stake (e.g., discrete emotions vs. socially intertwined emotional exchanges) and the mutual reinforcement of the relational pattern. For example, a converging view on positive relationships at work suggests that positive interactions are actions that confer a sense of value and worth to others and depend on respect, openness, and connectedness (
Lee et al., 2019). Conversely, the positive emotional patterns of workplace behavior (e.g., exchanging dynamics) proposed by the TAD are relational dynamics fueled by a person’s emotional openness to others and their active exploration of reality (one party), counteracted by the sharing of information (other party), that reiterates mutual exchanges, encourages curiosity in regard to each other, and instills mental calmness when interacting with each other. In organizational settings soaked with exchanging dynamics, employees do not take each other for granted, are not scared about getting to know new people, nor do they experience hostility towards anything new, and they mutually search for dialog as a source of reciprocal knowledge.
The basic tenets that underpin the proposed conceptualization are: (1) the bi-logic mind functioning framework, (2) the individual-in-context approach, (3) collusion, (4) the relationship with the reality/context (known vs. unknown), and (5) positive and toxic contextual emotions.
First, the
bi-logic functioning of the mind (
Matte Blanco, 1975) refers to a model of the mind that includes two levels of information processing (i.e., one cognitive and one emotional) and maintains that the human mind processes one’s interaction with their context through two different yet intertwined levels: the
unconscious and the
conscious. Thus, behavior arises from the interaction between two modes of mental operation: conscious thought organizes the cues from the context based on heterogeneous and dividing principles, while the unconscious level processes the context according to generalization and symmetry principles or, rather, emotional logic. Both levels play a role in shaping an individual’s interactions with their environment.
Second, the individual-in-context approach proposes that an individual is an entity that must be considered within a given context, while the context is an abstraction of reality and, therefore, a mental representation. The individual–context relationship becomes an emotionally symbolized mode of mental functioning, where an emotional mental representation replaces the real outside context. Hence, emotional symbolization describes the process whereby an individual connects their encounters in the external environment with an unavoidable emotional response.
Third, people socialize their emotional environment through interaction.
Collusions, from the Latin “
cum-ludere”, or, rather, playing together in a relationship, are dynamics that people are unaware of that enable one to meet the complementary needs of other people within organizations (
Carli & Paniccia, 1981). For example, people who need affiliation may spontaneously and involuntarily go along with people who need to exert power over others, and the reverse. Therefore, collusions guide individuals to organize and emotionally construct their reality, share similar or commentary emotional symbols, and foster an interpersonal and belonging structure based on socially shared emotional experiences.
Fourth, encountering any individual in the workplace unveils an “unknown side”, even when we have feelings of familiarity, due to shared similarities. When one party views the other as an unknown entity, it prompts active engagement to uncover their potential contributions to the relationship, fostering information exchange and emotional bond exploration. Conversely, when people take reality “for granted”, they fail to notice information or take deceitful shortcuts to save energy and reduce anything novel to something familiar that can be ignored.
Fifth, since birth, the human mind tends to categorize into different compartments the information that it gets from its experience in certain situations. According to the TAD, the human mind addresses the unknown side of reality (i.e., potentially novel information) by progressively developing more evolved forms to emotionally organize it (i.e., put the information into different emotion-related categories or rather, “emotional boxes”). The TAD proposes two main ways to emotionally symbolize the “unknown” side of the organizational context (i.e., contextual emotions): (1) a toxic, dysfunctional way and (2) a positive, functional way. The difference between the two types of contextual emotions depends on how the individual tends to relate to the “unknown” side of reality. Specifically, toxic ways of emotionally symbolizing reality may “close” peoples’ minds towards anything new or unknown (e.g., uncertain situations), thereby compelling all individuals sharing the same context to emotionally avoid novelties associated with change or diversity. Conversely, the positive way of emotionally symbolizing reality may “open” peoples’ minds towards the unknown, which requires a positive approach and exploration, and cannot be taken for granted. While there exists only one positive way to relate, the theory warns against multiple different negative ways to emotionally relate within organizations, each conducive to different patterns of toxic emotional dynamics within communities.
It is noteworthy that employee socialization practices involuntarily contribute to the collusion process, fostering toxic (or wholesome), yet persistent, emotional ways to relate that set the tone of the emotional atmosphere of daily working life. In other words, collusive processes in organizations are the glue that maintains the stability of contextual emotions. Importantly, discrete emotions (e.g., fear, anger;
Ekman, 1972) and emotional drives (e.g., psychological insatiability;
Dweck, 2000;
Vallerand, 2012) are the propellants that feed social interactions and the structured pattern of working relationships.
Building on the above theoretical background, we propose the following positive contextual emotion at work, namely
exchanging dynamics, and seven toxic contextual emotions at work, namely
claiming dynamics,
controlling dynamics,
provoking dynamics,
distrusting dynamics,
obliging dynamics,
complaining dynamics, and
worrying dynamics. Below we provide details for each type of contextual emotion: (a) the specific types of emotions that feed working relationships, and (b) the resulting emotional patterns of workplace behavior that structure relational dynamics.
Figure 1 provides a simplified model of the emotional dynamics for each contextual emotion and describes the relevant contextual emotional patterns.
Claiming is the contextual emotion structured around asymmetrical relationships among parties that is rooted in the emotional experience of imperative demands and a frustrating lack of recognition. In working environments with relational schemes based on a “claim”, the following pattern of behaviors are structured. Some people imperatively demand “something” (e.g., respect, understanding, priority, obedience) by referring to the role that they have (e.g., boss, user who pays taxes, seriously ill person), based on their presumed importance or superiority over others, thereby emotionally experiencing their role as a way to obtain others’ dependence. Others, in turn, eagerly indulge demanding individuals, despite a constant lack of recognition, thus feeding working relationships based on dysfunctional emotions of insatiability (demanders) and frustration (pleasers).
Controlling is characterized by asymmetrical relationships among parties that are rooted in the fear of others’ dangerousness and active, yet illusory, attempts to control them that only leads to hostile and destructive emotions and false consent. In workplaces immersed in “control-based” emotional symbolization, some people are emotionally confused about whether others are friends or foes. This situation involves constantly assessing their innocuity by verifying statements, requesting counterproofs, and monitoring behaviors, regardless of whether they are the boss, a colleague, or a client. In turn, others may demonstrate their emotions with a seemingly accepting demeanor, which may fuel mechanisms of false consent and latent conflicts within the workplace, meaning that people are ready to explode.
Provoking is a feature of asymmetrical relationships among parties that is rooted in emotional expectations of unlimited resources and boundaryless power, as well as the complementary refusal of limits, which only fosters irritation towards impositions and perpetuates tension and conflict. In a workplace immersed with “provoke” emotional patterns, some people (bosses, colleagues, clients) are not able to stay within the limits of the conventional rules and instead substitute them with arbitrary and self-referential rules to elicit reactions (e.g., by reminding the provocateur of the conventional rules they are violating). However, this only serves to satisfy their control over others. Others, in turn, may either patiently tolerate their behavior or react aggressively. In either scenario, the organization tends to function based on ongoing submission tests or conflicts, draining energy from productive activities.
Obliging is a contextual emotion featured in asymmetrical relationships among parties that is rooted in emotional deprivation and self-censoring of intolerable desires to possess others, wherein attempts to make others conform to similar sacrifices and deprivations only unfold a relational context based on paralyzing rules and constraints. In a workplace immersed in obliging emotional patterns, individuals may continuously make sacrifices, exemplarily fulfilling their work obligations, demanding others to do the same out of solidarity, and inducing guilt in those who do not comply. Others, in turn, may comply, initiating a cycle of mutual obligations that floods the working context with constraints, or defensive barriers against tasks beyond their own competence (e.g., it is not really up to me).
Distrust is characterized by asymmetrical relationships among parties that are rooted in the fear of others’ potential dangerousness, leading to distrusting people treating everyone as an enemy, with the instigation of doubt, uncertainty, and suspicion that systematically discards any reassurances, generates irritation, and paralyzes social dynamics. Within a “distrusting” workplace, some people struggle to discern friends and foes, and treat everyone (boss, colleagues, users) as enemies or people who should be aprioristically distrusted. Others, in turn, may uselessly attempt to reassure the distrustful people by proving them with reassurances and credentials, but their efforts only heighten suspicion, leading to stagnant working environments, paralyzed by a fear of novelty and diversity in terms of the reality.
Complaining involves a three-party setting and is featured in asymmetrical relationships among parties that are rooted in anger over having lost control over a third (absent) party. It involves one party (actively) seeking a second party to vent their anger, abandonment, and delusion, and instrumentally forming an alliance that requires passive, uncritical acceptance. In turn, this generates an interpersonal context of immobilized venting, whereby everything is criticized, but nothing is changed, maintaining a stagnant status quo. In “complaint-based” workplaces, some people (bosses, colleagues, users) struggle with relinquishing control over third parties or situations; they often vent their angry or disappointment by involving others in their complaints about what has gone wrong. However, the listener should remain passive, refraining from proposing solutions, as the complaint stems from their reluctance to directly confront the critical situation. These dynamics tend to shape the organizational functioning of the business, whereby everything seems to be in motion and is criticized, yet everything remains unchanged.
Worrying involves a similar three-party dynamic (albeit passively shaped), marked by asymmetrical relationships among parties, which is rooted in the emotional experience of worry and impotence delusion of having lost control over a third (absent) party, and persistently harboring doubts and suspicions. It involves a person venting their disappointment with a second party, who is expected to share doubts and suspicions that prevent individuals from exploring new elements and causes novelty aversion and immobilism. In a workplace immersed in worry, some people cannot tolerate the sorrow of losing control over third parties or situations. They may involve others by instilling doubts and suspicions in them towards those who display new or unusual behaviors. Others, in turn, can be infected by the unspecific sense of concern expressed, leading them to share a fear of the unknown. This fosters a defensive unity against novelties in the workplace, resulting in a paralyzing lack of initiative.
In sum, the seven negative ways to emotionally relate to organizational contexts have in common an emotional distancing from anything that is unknown, but display different forms of dysfunctional relational dynamics. Thus, toxic contextual emotions prevent individuals from fully engaging in relating positively with others and being an effective part of social processes within organizations.
On the other hand, exchanging is the only functional, contextual emotion that is characterized by balanced and symmetrical relationships. It builds on emotional openness to the unknown and a peaceful curiosity towards the unfamiliar, thus promoting active exploration and openness towards anything that is new, and creating a relational context that encourages interpersonal exchange and mutual adaptation. In workplaces immersed in exchange patterns, people do not make presumptions about others, even when they find them familiar, due to shared similarities. When one party views the other as an unfamiliar entity, it prompts active interactions between the parties to uncover potential contributions to the relationship. Doing so establishes the foundation for exchanging information and exploring emotional connections that bind relationships. This creates a relational dynamic at work, based on evolved dialogues and shared definitions of common rules and co-existence styles.
Overall, assessing both positive and negative contextual emotions may provide a comprehensive picture of the relational, shared dynamics in the workplace and offer a lens to understanding what creates a unified and emotionally meaningful representation of employees’ subjective experiences of working life and the social organizational environment. According to the literature, the difference between functional (i.e., adaptive, close to reality, self-enhancing, fostering cognition) and dysfunctional (i.e., maladaptive, less in touch with reality, self-defeating, impairing cognition) emotions depends on both their quantity (i.e., intensity) and their quality (
David et al., 2005). For example, negative emotions could be both dysfunctional (e.g., anxiety, depression, anger, guilt, hurt), but also functional (e.g., concern, sadness, annoyance), depending on the type and intensity of the affective experience, just as positive emotions could be functional (e.g., joy, happiness, satisfaction), but also dysfunctional, if experienced at excessive levels (e.g., euphoria).
Latent profile analysis (LPA;
Morin & Marsh, 2015) can be used to identify consistent patterns of variables that compose quantitatively and qualitatively distinct configurations that are experienced by homogeneous subpopulations of people. As such, LPA applied to contextual emotions qualifies as a key methodology to unfold integrated patterns of dysfunctional, or functional, emotional dynamics, emerging from the interplay of multiple simultaneous contextual emotions (i.e., quality), experienced at different levels (i.e., quantity). To date, no study has assessed whether subpopulations of employees may experience different levels of both positive and toxic contextual emotions that shape different configurations of emotional patterns of workplace behavior. Hence, the main aim of the current study is to identify distinct profiles of employees, based on the levels of different types of shared contextual emotions they experience. Given the lack of previous findings as a result of LPA applied to contextual emotions, we adopt an explorative approach to establish the profiles rooted in different configurations of emotional patterns of workplace behavior and pose specific research questions to guide our investigation, rather than developing hypotheses on the expected results. In order to assess whether distinct profiles exist, we pose the following research question:
Research Question 1: Are there distinct profiles of contextual emotions at work?
Outcomes of Profiles of Contextual Emotions at Work
According to the
World Health Organization (
2016), 15% of working-age adults were estimated to have a mental disorder in 2019, and poor working environments pose a risk to mental health. We explored five outcomes in terms of profiles of contextual emotions at work, including two work-related variables (i.e., job satisfaction, burnout) and three health indicators (i.e., sleep disturbances, mental health, and physical health). Indeed, employee well-being within organizations depends on the quality of the social relationships and emotions experienced therein. The literature suggests that individuals are endowed with brain networks for social thinking and interpersonal relationships have a significant impact on mental and physical health, as positive social interactions help build biological systems that may protect against the adverse effects of stress (
Gable & Gosnell, 2011;
Umberson & Montez, 2010). Moreover,
Seligman (
2011) noted that while social relationships do not guarantee happiness, happiness does not often occur without positive social connections (
Diener & Seligman, 2002) that provide energy to individuals and to the organization in which they work, as opposed to negative relationships that may deplete energy and lead to employee and organizational floundering (
Dutton & Ragins, 2007). A previous field study on contextual emotions (
Carli & Paniccia, 2002) found that professionals in a social services setting who were worn out by a “distrusting” contextual emotion pattern, during a training intervention, gained an awareness of the specific source of the fear of novelty that fueled their experience of threat in the particular context, which emancipated them from these stereotypes and enabled them to develop a new exchange-oriented emotional symbolization (i.e., positive contextual emotion) of their relationships with their patients, colleagues, and supervisors, thus improving the quality of their socio-emotional experiences at work and their related well-being.
Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasant feeling associated with work-related aspects (e.g., supervision, colleagues, promotion) that provides individuals with gratification (
Locke, 1976;
Spector, 1985). Such a sense of satisfaction of a fulfilled need represents an attitude towards work that contains evaluative and affective components (
Landy & Conte, 2004). Indeed, the literature suggests that employees’ quality of life and job satisfaction are associated with a positive personal equilibrium within organizational interactions and the presence of positive emotional states and satisfying relationships within the work environment (
Isen, 1987;
Warr, 1999). In a study on contextual emotions in a public healthcare setting,
Carli and Paniccia (
2011) identified different clusters of context-specific organizational features that employees (doctors) associated with specific and different types of relational and emotional patterns of behavior (i.e., contextual emotions). The findings suggested that higher levels of exchanging emotional patterns of workplace behavior in regard to the employee’s relationship with their own patients and supervisors were associated with higher job satisfaction of the healthcare professionals. An additional study in a nationally representative healthcare setting (
Carli et al., 2008) found that employees who perceived more negative and dysfunctional contextual emotions (e.g., claiming, distrusting, obliging) were highly dissatisfied with their job, whereas positive contextual emotions structured around “exchange” emotional patterns of workplace behavior were associated with a higher level of employee positivity and job satisfaction.
While, according to our knowledge, no study has previously examined the association of all the seven negative contextual emotions (e.g., claiming, distrusting, controlling) and the positive contextual emotion (i.e., exchanging) to employee well-being or stress-related outcomes, based on the above arguments and consistent with the broaden-and-build theory (
Fredrickson, 2004), we may expect that groups of employees experiencing functional contextual dynamics would report the highest levels of job satisfaction and mental and physical health, and the lowest levels of burnout and sleep disturbances.
Hence, we pose the following research question:
Research Question 2: Will the functional profiles of contextual emotions relate to higher levels of (a) mental health and (b) job satisfaction, and lower levels of (c) job burnout (i.e., exhaustion, cynicism), (d) sleep disturbances, and (e) health complaints?
5. Discussion
Poor interpersonal relations combined with toxic emotions and a lack of practices related to respect for workers are psychosocial hazards within an organization that significantly contribute to workplace distress (
Stoewen, 2016). Within the framework of intertwined emotional and relational factors that orient mental representations of the work experience shared among employees, the current paper proposed the novel conceptualization of contextual emotions at work that complements existing emotion-related models by combining relational and emotional processes. The aim was to identify distinct profiles among employees or subpopulations who may differ in terms of the level of positive (e.g., exchanging) and toxic (e.g., controlling, claiming, provoking) emotional ways of symbolizing their workplace, and assess how such emergent latent profiles may differentially relate to employee work-related and health outcomes.
The LPA revealed four distinctive latent profiles. Specifically, we found that a “functional dynamics” profile exists for employees (33%) who report low (below average) levels of all seven toxic emotions and a high (above average) level of the positive exchange symbolization, suggesting an overall positive configuration of emotional patterns of workplace behavior. The “dialectical dynamics” profile (38%) is characterized by average levels of all seven toxic emotions and average levels of exchange symbolization, suggesting a simultaneous and dialectical co-existence of medium negative dimensions, in combination with a medium positive dimension. It is worth noting that we coined the term “dialectical” (i.e., related to opposing forces), because while all the other profiles include a pattern of contextual emotions wherein positive and negative dimensions are skewed and unevenly distributed, the dialectical profile displays the same levels of opposite dimensions (e.g., toxic and positive contextual emotions) and, thus, suggests the co-occurrence of “opposite forces”. A third “mild dysfunctional dynamics” profile (22%) reported high levels of all seven toxic emotions (above average) and low levels of exchange symbolization (below average), suggesting a polarized negative configuration of highly negative contextual emotions, in combination with a low positive contextual emotion. A final “highly dysfunctional dynamics” profile (7%) reported very high levels of all seven toxic emotions (above average) and very low levels of exchange symbolization (below average), suggesting an extremely negative configuration of highly negative contextual emotions, in combination with a low positive contextual emotion. Thus, the last two profiles are qualitatively similar, but are quantitatively different (i.e., they have the same shape in regard to all the dimensions, but at different levels, across the two groups). Moreover, the average latent profile probability result was very high for all of the groups, thus supporting a high degree of separation between these four profiles and the final k = 4 LPA solution, reflecting four distinct emergent organizations of emotional patterns of workplace behavior, uniting the members of each subgroup.
Given that one of the most critical issues in regard to LPA is the identification of “true” versus “spurious” profiles (
Spurk et al., 2020), we reflect on our decision regarding the four profiles. A three-profile solution, including mild and highly dysfunctional profiles and the functional profile, but not the dialectical (average) profile, may also be viable. However, we believe that a dialectical profile is of theoretical and practical relevance in order to capture a nuanced picture of workplace emotional dynamics. On the one hand, the results show that when toxic contextual emotions (e.g., claiming, provoking, controlling) are experienced at medium levels, they are likely to co-exist and dynamically swing according to positive symbolizations (e.g., “exchanging”). On the other hand, capturing a dialectical (average) profile unravels the unhealthy effects of “average” toxic dynamics, the harmful effects of which might go unnoticed and be underestimated, while also helping to avoid polarized views of organizational mechanisms. Moreover, our findings on the significant differences among the mean levels of the health outcomes further support the relevance and discriminant usefulness of the four-profile solution.
Notably, the probability of profile membership was similar across the three main blocks of positive (i.e., 33% of workers experiencing “functional dynamics”), average (i.e., 38% experiencing “dialectical dynamics”), and negative (i.e., 22% experiencing “mild dysfunctional dynamics” and 7% experiencing “highly dysfunctional dynamics”) profile types, thus showing a distribution of roughly one third of employees for each block (the “dialectical dynamics” profile being the largest group) and an overall balanced distribution of positive, average, and negative dynamics among workers. Moreover, the results on the demographics and job characteristics of the sample suggest that the employees classified according to the “highly dysfunctional dynamics” profile were the oldest and those classified in the “mild” and “highly dysfunctional dynamics” groups had in-person working arrangements, whereas employees classified according to the “functional dynamics” profile worked for private organizations. Our findings comport with the literature (e.g.,
Schein & Maanen, 2016), suggesting that longer-tenured employees are more deeply embedded within the organizational functioning of the business and, therefore, tend to reinforce even its more negative relational mechanisms (e.g., toxic contextual emotions). Similarly, working on-site can facilitate more frequent interactions and foster stronger connections that may reiterate problematic socialization processes and their crystallization over time (
Bilderback & Kilpatrick, 2024).
Examining the associations of latent profiles with employee outcomes also highlights how outcomes differ as a function of profile membership. Specifically, we found that those employees classified according to “dialectical”, “mild dysfunctional”, and “highly dysfunctional” dynamic profiles reported increasingly higher levels of burnout, sleep disturbances, poor physical and mental health, and increasingly lower levels of job satisfaction, whereas the “functional dynamics” group was the most satisfied with their work and at low risk of health problems. That is, employees who share emotional patterns of behavior rooted in a combination of high negative (e.g., controlling) emotional dynamics that trump positive (e.g., exchanging) emotional dynamics (as is the case of those classified according to dysfunctional dynamics profiles) tend to experience toxic relational environments that foster their sense of discomfort and eventually lead to physical and psychological distress, as well as dissatisfaction in work situations. These findings align with research on the combination of positive and negative affectivity, which focuses on intra-individual emotional processes and adopts a variable-centered approach, suggesting that a positive discrepancy (i.e., a preponderance for positive affectivity over negative affectivity) is a significant predictor of high employee well-being (
Yoon et al., 2021). While our findings generally comport with the affect-related literature demonstrating how positive emotion-related collective phenomena (e.g., positive team affective climate,
Gamero & González-Romá, 2020; emotional culture of compassion,
Barsade & O’Neill, 2014) are associated with higher employee well-being (e.g., satisfaction, low burnout), the overarching framework of our study goes further and adds information on which specific subgroups of employees are associated with higher well-being as opposed to more at-risk subpopulations. Overall, our findings contribute to complement existing emotion-related models by combining relational and emotional processes, and provides an overarching framework that allows for the identification of differently vulnerable groups of employees in terms of the unwanted consequences of toxic emotional environments. In so doing, our approach departs from traditional models in that it: (a) combines relational and emotional processes in order to explain emotion-related workplace behavior, (b) shifts the focus from an intra-individual approach towards an inter-individual perspective in studying affect phenomena in organizations, and (c) provides a methodological approach (i.e., LPA) that enables the examination of whether an affect-related phenomenon is heterogeneously experienced within a population of employees and identifies specific subgroups, each displaying a unique pattern of the affect experience.
5.1. Theoretical Implications
Our findings add to the literature on affect in organizations in several ways. First, we contribute to theories on emotions as collective phenomena (e.g.,
Barsade & O’Neill, 2014;
Elfenbein, 2023;
Gamero & González-Romá, 2020;
Gross, 2015), by introducing the concept of contextual emotions at work as emotional and relational processes that orient the mental representations of work experiences shared among employees (i.e., emotional symbolizations of reality;
Carli & Paniccia, 2003). The research on workplace dynamics tends to suggest that the effects of emotions among employees may differ depending on whether one takes an intrapersonal or interpersonal perspective (e.g.,
Ashkanasy, 2003;
Cheshin, 2020). Moreover, to date, much of the research on emotion dynamics tends to focus on evaluating specific features of emotions separately, despite the recognition that it may be simplistic to assume that people respond with single discrete emotions during interpersonal exchanges. To complement existing theoretical perspectives (e.g.,
Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017), we propose contextual emotions at work that shift the focus from an intra-individual towards an inter-individual perspective in studying collective affect-related phenomena in organizations, while also combining relational and emotional processes in order to explain emotion-related workplace behavior. For example, research on the affective climate of teams (
Gamero & González-Romá, 2020) or emotional culture (
Barsade & O’Neill, 2014) intersects with how emotions are shared among employees. Yet, they aggregate at the collective level, in terms of an employee’s individual perception of team members’ or other employees’ emotional expression (e.g., discrete emotions) or feelings. Alternatively, contextual emotions refer to collective relational dynamics that are fueled by different types of emotional experiences arising from social interactions (e.g., fear of others’ omnipotence and intolerance of limitations), which are shared among employees and are associated with different patterns of interpersonal behaviors that stand as indicators of a specific contextual emotion. For example, the affective climate of teams or emotional culture inform us on how employees capture specific emotional or mood cues and tend to share such affective states, whereas contextual emotions reveal specific relational patterns (e.g., closed to diversity, false consent, paralyzing rules and constraints) that structure daily interactions over time, based on mutually satisfying emotional dynamics that bond employees within the workplace. In doing so, we provide: (a) a holistic model of the functioning of the mind that thoroughly addresses the conjoint interplay of cognition, emotion, and context in explaining organizational behavior and related emotion-driven relational dynamics, (b) an overarching framework explaining how the emotional atmosphere at work develops as a result of organized ways of emotionally thinking about specific aspects of the context (i.e., emotional symbolizations) that are involuntarily shared among employees and maintained by repeated interactions (
Carli & Paniccia, 2003), and (c) a conceptual framework that includes two foci of emotional symbolizations (i.e., negative and positive emotional symbolizations), thus providing a balanced and nuanced understanding of emotional dynamics at work.
Second, by adopting a latent variable clustering approach (
Collins & Lanza, 2013;
Wang & Hanges, 2011) that focuses on identifying latent subpopulations based on a certain set of variables (
Spurk et al., 2020), we identify distinct emotional dynamic profiles. That is, we supplement variable-centered approaches that consider different characteristics in isolation (i.e., negative or positive emotional symbolizations) by simultaneously examining two foci of emotional symbolizations (i.e., negative and positive) and unfolding the unobserved heterogeneity among employees in terms of the emotional ambience that they experience at work, thereby providing holistic insights into potential psychosocial hazards (
Urbanaviciute et al., 2021). For example, traditional variable-centered approaches inform us about how affect-related phenomena (e.g., the affective climate of teams) tend to be associated with employees’ outcomes (e.g., satisfaction;
Gamero & González-Romá, 2020) in regard to the whole employee population. Conversely, using an LPA framework enables us to identify how employee outcomes (e.g., mental health) tend to be diversely associated with specific subgroups of employees within the whole employee population, based on their differential experience of affect-related phenomenon (e.g., dysfunctional dynamic vs. functional dynamic subgroups).
Third, the current study also informs the occupational health literature. Indeed, vocational behavior research increasingly relies on LPA methodology (
Cheshin, 2020) and our findings reveal that different employee profiles face varied levels of risk in terms of negative health outcomes. This indicates the theoretical importance of incorporating both positive and negative symbolizations and assessing how their combined effects are crucial for unraveling toxic configurations of emotional dynamics at work. Moreover, latent profiles that emerge from qualitatively and quantitatively different combinations of contextual emotions at work demonstrate an additional type of emotional demand (
Bakker et al., 2023;
Le Blanc et al., 2001) or, rather, toxic contextual emotions that require sustained emotional effort from all exposed employees and are likely associated with an increased risk of negative work and health consequences.
Finally, the present contribution builds upon the TAD (
Carli & Paniccia, 2003) and extends its groundwork to the latent variable clustering approach, namely LPA, which enables the identification of different subgroups of employees with different combinations of emotional symbolizations regarding their working context and related emotional interactions. Doing so helps develop our understanding of how employees falling within these profiles may differ in regard to their vulnerability to poor work-related and health outcomes.
5.2. Practical Implications
Our findings are of practical significance for scholars and practitioners alike. First, by adopting LPA to identify subgroups of employees who are exposed to toxic (vs. functional) social environments and, therefore, are the most at risk of developing work-related and health issues, we map the “social fitness” of organizations and unravel the heterogeneity in psychosocial environments (
Urbanaviciute et al., 2021). Our results offer guidance on how to manage emotional dynamics at work. By creating a map of areas in need of change, organizations can implement programs to promote and solidify new norms that are aligned with mindful organizational practices (
DeJoy, 2005). Organizational interventions aimed at preventing emotional and relational hardships and promoting fair and respectful interpersonal practices may involve developing and implementing programs inspired by principles of two-way communication, negotiation, constructive feedback, and respectful performance management to cultivate healthy social environments (
Stoewen, 2016). These interventions serve as measures to combat dysfunctional contextual emotions, marked by a lack of consultation, situations involving conflict and harassment, intolerance in regard to diversity, and a lack of support, dignity, or respect (
World Health Organization, 2016).
Second, the literature on emotions suggests that a positive discrepancy (i.e., a preponderance for positive affectivity over negative affectivity) not only predicts employee health (physical and mental) and satisfaction, but that the most important path to well-being is via increased positive affectivity, and, subordinately, via attenuated negative affectivity (
Yoon et al., 2021). Contextual emotions at work are the responsibility of all organizational stakeholders. Thus, to create healthy emotional and relational environments within organizations, it is necessary to raise awareness about emotional dynamics among team members (e.g.,
Cilliers, 2000) and the existence of emotional contagion among multiple stakeholders (e.g.,
Petitta et al., 2020) by involving all parties in order to effectively implement change. Towards this end, the Search Conference (
Williams, 1979) qualifies as an intervention tool that engages multiple groups in a collaborative full-immersion workshop. Its primary objective is to cultivate awareness of the organization’s context and operational methods by examining its past and present. This serves as a preliminary step towards collective thinking aimed at resolving specific organizational issues or charting new directions for the future (
Williams, 1979). It aims to assist stakeholders within a system by: (a) fostering a mutual understanding of their current circumstances, (b) crafting strategies for proactive change based on their experiences, and (c) deliberating on the steps required to implement the agreed-upon changes. Thus, ideally all members involved in dysfunctional contextual dynamics (e.g., employees, supervisors) should actively participate in collectively identifying the areas in need of change (
Williams, 1979). They should collaborate to determine new directions and approaches to improve the emotional dynamics within the workplace and foster better workplace relationships. This process involves confronting and synthesizing diverging views to create a mutually satisfying plan, which applied to implement an intervention in regard to contextual emotions may help by collectively shaping healthier emotional ambiences in the workplace.
5.3. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
The present paper is the first to identify vulnerable subpopulations of employees diversely exposed to toxic vs. functional configurations of emotional/relational ambience (i.e.,
LPA-classified emotional patterns of workplace behavior) and related outcomes. Moreover, our large sample size goes beyond the recommended threshold to determine the appropriate number of latent profiles (
Spurk et al., 2020).
We also note several limitations. First, we employed a cross-sectional research design, with self-reporting features. Thus, the results could be somewhat skewed due to common method variance contamination (
Podsakoff et al., 2003). While we are unable to determine the cause of the links between the variables of interest in our investigation, as in other correlational studies, the relationships between the contextual emotion profiles and the outcomes of interest are theoretically driven. Nonetheless, future studies may replicate our finding using 2-wave data to introduce temporal separation between our purported predictors (i.e., contextual emotion profiles) and the dependent variables (i.e., health outcomes).
Second, our research relies on information from a single source and may benefit from future designs that include multi-source data. Subsequent research endeavors may replicate the current findings with data from various sources provided by diverse informants, such as objective measures of health indicators (e.g., archive data on sick leave, absenteeism) and from supervisors (e.g., hetero-assessment of employee burnout, satisfaction, etc.). While employees themselves are arguably the best informant on their emotional experience within their social context, multi-source data based on third-party perceptions and/or archive records may strengthen our inferences about emotionally anchored organizational behavior and address issues associated with relying solely on self-reports (
Batista-Foguet et al., 2019).
Third, the use of a convenience sample may cause a problem in terms of the generalizability of our findings. While our dataset includes respondents from numerous industries and employment contexts, our sample may not be representative of the actual national labor force. Thus, it is important to use caution when extrapolating our findings to the whole Italian worker population and our results should be replicated in future studies using a larger sample from additional occupational settings.
Finally, while we only examined age, organization type (i.e., public vs. private), and work arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. remote) as covariates of the outcomes experienced by our participants in association with their emotional symbolizations at work, future studies may include additional contextual variables such as organizational culture norms and values (
Schein, 1985) to reveal organizational boundary conditions that enable stakeholders to model their relational environment and implement changes to the social fabric of their organization.