A STUDY ON ANGER EXPRESSION AS A DIMENSION OF WORKPLACE EMOTION

Transcription

1 276 ABSTRACT A STUDY ON ANGER EXPRESSION AS A DIMENSION OF WORKPLACE EMOTION NAGALAKSHMI PALAPARTHI*; DR. K. JAWAHAR RANI** *Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, St.Joseph s College of Engineering, Chennai 119. **Professor, Department of Management Studies, St.Joseph s College of Engineering, Chennai Anger is a state of acute emotional reaction, elicited by any of a number of stimulating situations including threat, overt aggression, restraint, verbal attack, disappointment or frustration, Bhatia and Sharma (1989). Anger as a most primitive emotion is experienced by all category of working class. It s the common emotions in stressful interpersonal situations encountered by present day employees in the organization. Anger may be triggered by two category of events namely interference with the pursuit of a goal, under the influence of some primary or secondary need and a felt approach upon values, possession, status or habitual and attitudes towards other persons Mckellar(1950). Anger expression scales classify individuals as anger-in and anger-out. Anger-in, if they tend to suppress their anger or direct it inward the ego or self and Anger-out, if they express anger toward other persons or objects in the environment, Evans and Stageland (1971). The present study is an attempt to assess the intensity of anger experienced by men and women, thereby find out the if there exists any difference between various dimensions of anger expressed by male and female in work situations. INTRODUCTION Workplace anger often manifests itself in ways that have received a great deal of attention from business owners, researchers, legislators, and members of the business press in recent years. Anger can manifest itself in other less dramatic ways that can nonetheless have a tremendously negative impact on a business by producing an environment marked by poor or nonexistent communication, lousy morale, excessive employee absenteeism or turnover, and a host of other undesired conditions. Business owners, managers, and employees who are unable to control their own anger or effectively respond to the angry outbursts of others will likely find that their business and career suffers as a result. Employees aged 18 to 34 are more than four times as likely to report feeling angry than workers aged 50 and over, while 12 percent of employees on the East Coast said they are extremely or quite angry at work. In contrast, only 6 percent of employees in the Midwest, 4 percent in the South, and 3 percent in the West report being angry at work. The problem is compounded by a

2 277 stunning lack of understanding about the root causes of anger in the workplace and its impact on productivity and employee morale. Negative behaviour by one person in an organization can impact on teams and groups. Researchers describe these individuals as "bad apples" acting like a virus within teams, with the capacity to "upset or spoil the whole apple cart". The socio-cultural and technological changes in the workplace, the role of emotion at work has received increased attention in recent years (Fineman, 1993). Management and organizational researchers have embraced the relevance of anger and anger expression (Domagalski & Steelman, 2005; Fitness, 2000; Gianakos, 2002) and the relationship between anger expression and gender (Gianakos, 2002) and organizational status characteristics (Fitness, 2000; Sloan, 2004). The findings from these and other studies have revealed several incongruous results. For instance, investigations of gender and anger have demonstrated differences between how males and females express anger (Averill, 1982; Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault, & Benton, 1992). Yet researchers have also reported the absence of gender differences in anger expression (Gianakos, 2002). Likewise, studies of status and anger have suggested that higher status individuals will express anger towards those of lower status (Sloan, 2004; Tiedens, 2000), whereas historical accounts of the social rules related to anger expression emphasize emotional restraint among supervisors and managers (Stearns & Stearns, 1986). There exist differences in attitudes to men and women who lose their temper in the workplace. In three separate studies, psychologists Victoria Brescoll from Yale University and Eric Uhlmann from Northwestern University found that while such outbursts tend to be accepted or even rewarded in men, women are judged less competent as a result. Using a sample of employees from a wide range of occupations, Michael W. Kramer & Jon A. Hess (2002) examined the general communication rules that govern emotion management in all aspects of organizational involvement with co-workers and not just customers. Through content analysis of examples of both appropriate and inappropriate displays or masking of positive and negative emotions, results showed that (a) maintaining "professionalism" is central to appropriate emotion management, (b) positive emotions, not just negative emotions, need to be displayed in appropriate ways, and (c) the appropriate display of negative emotions typically means masking those emotions. This leads to a broader view of the role of emotions in organizational communication, one that is frequently overlooked in the rational paradigm that permeates organizational research. Anger influences a range of multi-level organizational phenomena. The experience and expression of anger is implicit in individual-level concerns such as perceptions of injustice, inequity, and dissatisfaction (see Fitness, 2000), an important aspect of hierarchical dyadic relationships (Davis, LaRosa, & Foshee, 1992; Glomb & Hulin, 1997), a factor in group conflict (Jehn, 1995), a determinant of leader effectiveness (Lewis, 2000), and the target of organizational cultural norms (Stearns & Stearns, 1986). The study of anger in the workplace has intrigued researchers partially because of its paradoxical nature: it has the capacity for both negative and positive consequences.

3 278 While individuals experience anger, their ways of regulating and expressing anger differ depending upon characteristics of both the person and the situation such that, as noted, individuals anger expressions are not always consonant with their felt anger; that is, individuals do not express precisely what they feel, particularly in organizations (Hochschild 1983, Morris and Feldman 1996, Rafaeli and Sutton 1989). As Frijda (1986: 401, 405) suggests, People not only have emotions, they also handle them Regulation is an essential component of the emotion process. The form of anger expression reflects the degree to which individuals manage their anger in their organizational setting, a regulation process that has been shown to influence outcomes (Gross 1998). Anger has been found at a full range from angry feelings with no control or regulation attempted to anger that is controlled to the point there is no expression. In-between these two poles is anger that is regulated or controlled, but still expressed. The intensity of anger expression has been shown to impact anger outcomes (Gibson et al., forthcoming). Although the distinction between regulated and unregulated uncontrolled (or authentic) anger is noted in the psychological literature (c.f., Gross 1998, Gross & John 2003), recent research reveals a further distinction expression that is either silent not verbally expressed (Callister et al., 2007) or muted vented only to uninvolved others outside the work unit who cannot influence the situation (Geddes & Callister, 2007). Some employees remain silent because they fear negative repercussions of speaking out, while others believe that voicing their complaints will make no difference (Morrison & Milliken 2000, Pinder & Harlos 2001). ANGER EXPRESSION IN THE WORKPLACE We normally consider anger to be a negative, confliction emotion, in part because of the discomfort it generates, even when we believe the emotion is morally justified (Averill, 1982; Crawford et al., 1992). Anger is a social emotion in the sense that it emerges in response to the actions of others or is directed toward others (Averill, 1982; Crawford et al., 1992; Frijda, 1993). The way we express anger depends on the intensity with which we feel it (Domagalski & Steelman, 2005; Waldron & Krone, 1991) or on the desired objective. Such desired objectives include to correct a perceived injustice (Averill, 1982; Crawford et al., 1992; Tavris, 1989), to assert one's social status (Clark, 1990; Conway, DiFazio, & Mayman, 1999; Sloan, 2004; Tiedens, 2000), or to exact revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997). We may also disguise or suppress anger, particularly when we fear retribution or want to avoid damaging an interpersonal relationship (Fiebig & Kramer, 1998). Thus, we can consider anger as a socially constituted emotion that carries certain communicative properties (Averill, 1982). Furthermore, the expression of anger in the workplace is likely constrained by socially prescribed expectations. Understanding workplace anger is important for several reasons. In a general sense, there are personal and organizational ramifications associated with the experience and expression of anger. For example, anger has been linked to individual consequences, such as coronary disease (Spielberger, Krasner, & Solomon, 1988), disrupted sleep patterns, tension (Begley, 1994), low self-esteem (Thomas, 1993), and diminished relationship quality (Averill, 1982). Organizational effects include counterproductive work behavior (Spector, Fox, & Domagalski, 2006), a decline in work productivity (Fitness, 2000), and, in the extreme case, workplace violence (Dupre & Barling, 2003; Greenberg & Barling, 1999). Employees in subordinate positions have reported ongoing feelings of anger long after an incident involving a supervisor has occurred (Fitness,

4 ). In rare instances, employees have also reported quitting their jobs because of feelings of anger toward a supervisor or someone else at work. Others have found gender effects associated with anger in that the direct expression of anger by females, but not males, is associated with less positive organizational outcomes (Gibson, Schweitzer, Callister, & Gray, 2004). The social rules attached to the communication of anger, however, are complex. The seminal work of Hochschild (1983) on the corporate regulation of flight attendants' felt and expressed emotions is credited with creating widespread interest in research on organizational and occupational emotion norms. The work on emotional norms, also referred to as emotional labor, spans occupations as varied as bill collectors (Sutton, 1991), convenience store clerks (Rafaeli, 1989), theme park operators (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989), nurses (James, 1993), firefighters (Scott & Myers, 2005), and emergency 911 dispatchers (Schuler & Sypher, 2000), among others. The common thread that is shared across these studies is that the occupations in question interface with the public and require employees to manage their emotions to effectively meet organizational goals. A number of studies have examined the relationships between levels of anger and various patterns of expressing anger (Deffenbacher et al., 1986; Siegman, Anderson, & Berger, 1990; Tafrate, Kassinove, & Dundin, 2002). Historically, the use of anger-out or the outward expression of anger was purported to reduce the level of anger and the accompanying physiological arousal (Dollard, Dobb, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). However, more recent work with adults has noted increased levels of anger with the use of anger-out (Ausbrooks, Thomas, & Williams, 1995; Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Getting, et al., 1996; Drummond & Quah, 2001; Siegman et al., 1990; Siegman & Snow, 1997; Thomas & Williams, 1991). ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS AND ANGER EXPRESSION Several studies have reported that individuals of higher status and power are given the latitude to express anger toward those of lower status (Conway et al., 1999; Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Hochschild, 1975; Sloan, 2004; Tiedens, 2000). Those of higher status may be insulated from the anger of others by social inferiors who occupy boundary positions at the lower rungs of the organization and who function as "human barriers" by absorbing the anger of others (Hochschild, 1975). "Powerful people not only get a disproportionate amount of other resources such as money and prestige, but also enjoy more affective rewards.... Powerful and powerless people live in different emotional as well as social and physical worlds" (Hochschild, 1975, p. 296). Anger expression by higher status members is a means of asserting and reinforcing one's location within the organizational hierarchy (Clark, 1990; Gibson & Schroeder, 2002). Anger may be used strategically to intimidate others in the pursuit of goal attainment (Gibson & Schroeder, 2002; Sloan, 2004). A self-reinforcing relationship may exist between emotion and social status. Social status is believed to influence not only which emotions are felt but also the intensity with which they are experienced (Tiedens, 2000). The ways in which emotions are communicated or expressed can lead to others' inferences regarding the social status of expresser. Anger expression is often seen as the domain of those with higher status and is associated with perceptions of competence (Clark, 1990; Tiedens, 2000). Similarly, normative expectations concerning the display of anger

5 280 are based on the perceived dominance of the expresser, but dominance has been shown to be related to the gender of the expresser (Hess et al., 2000). In one investigation of organizational power asymmetries, the display of anger by supervisors was tested to determine whether the degree of provocation by a subordinate would influence perceived relational and personal costs for the supervisor (Davis, LaRosa, & Foshee, 1992). Female supervisors were more likely than male supervisors to report higher relational and personal costs even when the display of anger was justified by high subordinate provocation. The manner in which anger is expressed also differs. Those in positions of relatively higher organizational status are likely to be more direct in the expression of anger (Fitness, 2000; Sloan, 2004), whereas lower status members are more likely to experience greater amounts of anger relative to higher status members and to experience it with greater intensity, but they tend to inhibit their anger expression more frequently than those of higher status (Conway et al., 1999; Sloan, 2004). Taken as a whole, these studies imply that the outward display of anger by a supervisor toward a subordinate is acceptable, if not expected, and that relative differences in status may account for the differences in workplace anger display norms. Anger is associated with adverse social, psychological, and physical consequences. Much of the recent empirical attention devoted to anger is a consequence of research suggesting a link between it and the development of physical disorders, such as heart disease. Physicians have speculated that chronic anger contributes to illness since the time of Galen; however, systematic data addressing this association were unavailable until the advent of the behavioural sciences (see Smith, 1992, for a recent review). Anger is the most primitive emotion, experienced by people of all ages, and occurs regularly in the life of every person. Anger is one of the common emotions in stressful inter-personal situations. It is a strong emotion excited by a real or fancied injury and involves a desire for retaliation. To be angry is considered to be an aggressive act and to feel angry is considered the subjective awareness of aggressive impulses. Anger occurs when people are prevented, frustrated or restrained from doing what they wish, whey they are insulted, interrupted, taken advantage of, or forced to act against their wishes and when they are in pain or prolonged distress. Mckellar(1950) suggested two categories of triggering events- (1)interference with the pursuit of a goal, under the influence of some primary or secondary level, and (2) a felt approach upon values, possession, status or habitual and attitudes towards other persons. ANGER EXPRESSION SCALES Anger expression scales classify individuals as (a) anger-in if they tend to suppress their anger or direct it inward the ego or self and (b) anger-out, if they express anger toward other persons or objects in the environment. Anger directed towards outward may be expressed in physical acts as assaulting other individuals, destroying objects and slamming doors. The earliest attempts to assess anger and hostility were based on clinical interviews, behavioural observations and projective techniques. Most psychometric measures of hostility included angry feelings with the mode and direction of expression of anger.

6 281 Beyond this mixed evidence in literature, however, we still know remarkably little about intensity of anger expression among male and female workers. We lack basic information, for instance, regarding the style of anger expression in work environment. The tension between societal norms and organizational norms suggests that we need a better understanding of the relationship between gender and anger expression. The study examined the impact of gender on anger expression in the workplace. Three forms of anger expression were studied, including: preventing one's outward expression and reducing one's anger (anger control), inwardly repressing one's anger (anger in), and freely manifesting feelings of anger (anger out). The study also examined the intensity of anger experienced with and without the presence of specific provocation that would result in elevation of state anger. An attempt was also made to examine whether gender had an impact on anger expression among varying situations of the organization. Based on the preceding discussion, we hypothesized the following: HYPOTHESIS 1: Male workers will experience anger more frequently than will female workers, consistent with gender-specific emotion norms. HYPOTHESIS 2: Male workers tend to hold in their angry feelings more frequently than female workers. HYPOTHESIS 3: There will be no difference in the amount of anger control used by male and female workers. HYPOTHESIS 4: Overall, workers will outwardly express their anger in the presence of specific provocation more frequently than in the absence of provocation. METHOD SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE The respondents consisted of full- and part-time employees enrolled in M. Sc Psychology, at University of Madras in Chennai. This procedure generated 30 participants, of whom 15 of respondents were employed in managerial positions, 7 in professional occupations, 3 in clerical occupations, 2 as business owners, and 3 as service workers. The respondents were seated comfortably in a well lit room, free of external distractions. The STAXI Booklet is distributed the respondents. The following directions are give: A number of statements that people use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and then fill in the circle with the number which indicates how you feel right now? Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any statement, but give the answer which seems to best describe your present feelings. INSTRUMENT USED The State and Trait Anger Expression Inventory was developed by Spiel Berger(1985) is used for the study. It is a self reporting test which provides concise measures of experience and expression of anger. The STAXI was developed for two primary reasons: (1) to provide a method of assessing components of normal and abnormal personality and (2) to provide a means

7 282 of measuring the contributions of various components of anger to the development of medical conditions, including hypertension, coronary disease and cancer. Anger is generally considered to be a more elementary concept than either hostility or aggression. The concept of anger refers to an emotional state that comprises of feelings that vary in intensity from mild annoyance to aggravation to fury and range, that accompanied by arousal of autonomic nervous system. The experience of anger, measured by the STAXI is conceptualized as having two major components-state and trait anger. State anger is defined as an emotional state marked by subjective feelings that vary in intensity from mild annoyance or irritation to intense fury and rage. Over time, the intensity of state anger caries a function of perceived injustice, attack or unfair treatment by others, and frustration resulting from barriers to goal-directing behaviour. Trait anger is defined as the disposition to perceive a wide range of situations as annoying or frustrating and the elevations in state anger. Individuals high in trait anger experience state anger more often and with greater intensity than individuals low in trait anger. Anger expression is conceptualized as having three major components. The first component involves the expression of anger towards other people or objects in the environment(anger-out). The second component of anger expression is anger directed inward, that is holding in or suppressing angry feelings (Anger-in). Individual differences in the extent to which a person attempts to control the expression of anger (Anger Control) constitutes the third component of anger expression. STAXI SCALES The STAXI consists of 44 items, which form six scales and two subscales. The names, the number of items, and the components are described as follows: STATE ANGER (S-ANGER): A 10 item scale which measures the intensity of angry feelings at a particular time. TRAIT ANGER (T-ANGER): A 10 item scale which measures individual differences in the disposition to experience anger. The T-Anger scale has two subscales. ANGER TEMPERAMENT (T-ANGER/T): A 4 item T Anger subscales which measures a general propensity to experience and express anger without specific provocation ANGER REACTION (T-ANGER/R): A 4 item T Anger subscales which measures individual differences in the disposition to express anger when criticized or treated unfairly by other individuals. ANGER-IN (AX/IN): A 8 item anger expression scale which measures the frequency with which angry feelings are held or suppressed ANGER-OUT (AX/OUT): A 8 item anger expression scale which measures how often an individual expresses anger toward other people or objects in the environment.

8 283 ANGER-CONTROL (AX-CON): A 8 item scale which measures the frequency with which an individual attempts to control the expression of anger. ANGER EXPRESSION(AX/EX): A research scale based on the responses to the 24 items of the AX/In, AX/Out, and AX/Con scales which provides a general index of the frequency that anger is expressed, regardless of the direction of expression. In responding to each of the 44 STAXI items, individuals rate themselves on four-point scales that assess either the intensity of their angry feelings or the frequency that anger is experienced, expressed, suppressed, or controlled. Normative tables provide transformations of the raw scores for each scale to percentile ranks and T scores. RESULTS General Characteristics namely age, gender, Marital Status, Socio-economic Status, Geographical Location and Occupation of respondents are presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 SHOWING GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Characteristics Age Below 35 yrs Above 35 yrs Gender Male Female Marital Status Married Unmarried 22 8 Socio-economic Status Middle Class Upper Class 23 7 Geographical Location Urban Rural 28 2 Occupation Managers Professionals Clerical Business Service

9 284 Most of the respondents were found to fall between the age group of 30 to 45 years, living in Chennai city. Sample consists more of married female respondents. Most of them are at managerial level where the job demands accountability having to interact with others for completion of tasks. Few of the respondents on the other hand were into their own business or in service industry, which also involves dealing with other people for completion of jobs. Based on the income level it was found that majority of respondents fall under Middle class society with work being considered as a necessity. Hypothesis 1 predicted that male workers will experience anger more frequently than will female workers, consistent with gender-specific emotion norms. STAXI score on State Anger (S-Ang) reveals that there was no difference between male and female workers in the level of anger experienced. From Table 2 and Table 3 the (S-Ang) indicated that both male and female experience high level of anger. TABLE 2 SHOWING DATA OBTAINED FROM MEN ON STATE AND TRAIT ANGER EXPRESSION INVENTORY Scale Mean (Men) Percentile Interpretation State Anger (S-Anger) High Trait Anger (T-Anger) High Angry Temperament (T-Ang/T) 7 78 High Angry Reaction (T-Ang/R) Normal Anger In (AX/In) High Anger- Out (AX/Out) High Anger Control (AX/Con) Low Anger Expression (AX/EX) High

10 285 TABLE 3 SHOWING DATA OBTAINED FROM WOMEN ON STATE AND TRAIT ANGER EXPRESSION INVENTORY Scale Mean (Women) Percentile Interpretation State Anger (S-Anger) High Trait Anger (T-Anger) Normal Angry Temperament (T-Ang/T) 8 83 High Angry Reaction (T-Ang/R) 8 38 Normal Anger In (AX/In) Normal Anger- Out (AX/Out) High Anger Control (AX/Con) Normal Anger Expression (AX/EX) High Hypothesis 2, male workers tend to hold in their angry feelings more frequently than female workers was supported by AX-In scores of male who almost always tend to suppress angry feelings than females in most of work situations. Hypothesis 3 stated that there will be no difference in the amount of anger control used by male and female workers, was not supported. AX Con score reported that men were unable to control anger in most of work situations which resulted in them having high level of Anger-In and high Anger-out. While female workers were often able to control anger, which is also supported by optimal Anger In and High Anger-out scores. Hypothesis 4 stated that workers will outwardly express their anger in the presence of specific provocation more frequently than in the absence of provocation. Anger Temperament score was high for both male and female, while Anger reaction was moderate. Contrary to expectations, male as well as female expressed anger in most work situations even in absence of provocation. Furthermore, the overall anger expression of both male and female is high. Thus Hypothesis 4 was not supported. The group data analysis reveals that all the respondents experience high level of anger (S-Anger) in work environment. Depending on the work situations the intensity of anger experienced in different (T- Anger). Respondents possessed high tendency to express their anger (AX-Out) outwards other people or objects in work environment, hence their tendency to suppress anger (Anger-In) was comparatively less. Eventually respondents took lesser efforts in controlling

11 286 anger (Anger Control) in work environment. From Table 4 it may be revealed that, overall all respondents experienced and expressed (Anger Expression and State Anger) high levels of anger in work environment. TABLE 4 SHOWING GROUP DATA OBTAINED ON STATE AND TRAIT ANGER EXPRESSION INVENTORY Scale Group Mean Percentile Interpretation State Anger (S-Anger) High Trait Anger (T-Anger) Normal Angry Temperament (T-Ang/T) 8 83 High Angry Reaction (T-Ang/R) 9 51 Normal Anger In (AX/In) Normal Anger- Out (AX/Out) High Anger Control (AX/Con) Normal Anger Expression (AX/EX) High DISCUSSION This article tried to examine the impact of gender on the forms of anger expression in work environment. When the work environment is non conducive especially one that is blocking the goal directed behaviour, male as well as female feel tensed, annoyed, irritated and raged with arousal of autonomic nervous system. Both male and female experience high levels of anger. But they differ with respect to the dimensions of anger experienced. The normative expectations for anger expression appear to accept the presence of gender-specific dualities. Societal norms simultaneously tolerate greater emotional expressiveness among females while also expecting indirectness, and, paradoxically, tolerate both aggressiveness and emotional restraint among males (Brody, 2000; Maccoby, 1998). One explanation that has been advanced for this seeming contradiction is that scholars have used different methodological approaches to study anger expression, and these different methodologies may account for the disparate findings (Kring, 2000). An alternative explanation is the failure to consider the relevance of social context on prevailing emotion stereotypes, be it in the workplace, in the home, or in other social settings (Shields, 2002). This study hypothesized that male workers tend to hold in their angry feelings more frequently than female workers. The differences between males and females in the inward expression of anger were significant, although, males also reported outwardly expressing their anger more

12 287 frequently than did females. Females have been found to cry when angry (Averill, 1982; Crawford et al., 1992) and to use avoidance, calm discussion, and suppression (Crawford et al., 1992; Thomas, 1993, 1995). Conversely, males have been shown to associate the outward and aggressive display of anger with feelings of power and control, and they exhibit a greater tendency to make external attributions of blame when angry (Kring, 2000; Thomas, 1995). These sex differences in anger expression are generally attributed to gender-specific socialization experiences (Brody, 1997, 2000; Brody & Hall, 2000) and to the cultural relativity of emotion norms (Thoits, 2004). It may be theorized that males and females differed in the forms of anger expression used with others in the organization, it may indirectly unfold something about the comparative influence of gender-based societal norms and organizational norms for anger display in the workplace. The literature on gender socialization and gender stereotypes is unequivocal in its description of different emotion rules for males and females, particularly for anger (Brody, 1997, 2000; Brody & Hall, 2000; Maccoby, 1998). Females are socialized to approach and express their anger indirectly and passively and, at the same time, are labelled the more emotional sex. Males, conversely, are taught to keep a stiff upper lip and remain emotionally inexpressive, yet they are permitted, and perhaps expected, to display their anger directly, if not aggressively. Of the three dimensions of anger expression, Anger-in and Anger-control can be classified as internal coping styles based on the lack of external reactions to anger-provoking situations. While Anger-out is external copying style. It may found from the study that male perceived most of work situations as anger provoking. They exhibited anger in most of situation, alongside equally suppressing anger. They tend to express their anger outwardly without making an attempt to control anger. Female on the other hand expressed anger outwardly in most of the situation either directly or indirectly, while there were less situations when they suppressed anger inwards. However, females were better than male in controlling their angry feelings realising the societal and organizational norms that eventually lead to optimal functioning of anger expression. The high intensity of anger experienced by both sexes may be due to present working environment that is highly competitive, meeting deadlines, and penalties for non compliance of tasks assigned. The insignificance in gender stereotypes towards anger expression may be attributed to the changing role of women in society, realization of their goals and its interference with others in the organization. Both male and female were non responsive for anger provoking situations. It was the job itself or work environment that contributed more towards the anger expression rather than any specific situation. CONCLUSION The results portray how gender difference influences workplace anger expression. The findings indicate that gender stereotypes do not fully attenuate towards the level of anger experienced, however differences exists with respect to forms of anger expression. Regardless of the direction of anger, the frequency of anger expressed is high in both male and female. Male were equally experienced more of anger suppression and anger outburst and less of anger control. While female were experiencing more of anger outburst and anger control and less of anger suppression. Both the sexes experienced anger even in the absence of specific provocation situation.

13 288 REFERENCES 1. Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer- Verlag. 2. Begley, T. M. (1994). Expressed and suppressed anger as predictors of health problems. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4. Braverman, Mark. Preventing Workplace Violence: A Guide for Employers and Practitioners. Sage, Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, Brody, L. (1997). Gender and emotion: Beyond stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 53, Callahan, J. L., & McCollum, E. E. (2002). Obscured variability: The distinction between emotion work and emotional labor. In N. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe, & C. Hartel (Eds.), Managing emotion in the workplace (pp ). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe 8. Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and gender: Constructing meaning from memory. London: Sage. 9. Davis, M. A., LaRosa, P. A., & Foshee, D. P. (1992). Emotion work in supervisorsubordinate relations: Gender differences in the perception of angry displays. Sex Roles, 26, Domagalski, T. (2006). Gender and the expression of emotion in organizations. In M. Barren & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communication issues at work (pp ). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. 11. Domagalski, T., & Steelman, L. A. (2005). The impact of work events and disposition on the experience and expression of employee anger. Organizational Analysis, 13, Fiebig, G. V., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). A framework for the study of emotions in organizational contexts. Management Communication Quarterly, II, Fineman, S. (Ed.). (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage. 14. Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, coworkers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,21, Gibson, Donald E. and Roberts Callister, Ronda, Anger in Organizations: Review and Future Directions (June 15, 2009). 22nd Annual IACM Conference Paper. Available at SSRN:

14 Gibson, D. E., Schweitzer, M., Callister, R. R., & Gray, B. (2004, June). Anger at work: The influence of anger expressions on outcomes in organizations. Paper presented at the Fourth Conference on Emotions and Organizational Life, London. 17. Kramer, M. W., & Hess, J. A. (2002). Communication rules for the display of emotions in organizational settings. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, Kring, A. (2000). Gender and anger. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp ). Paris: Cambridge University Press. 19. Levesque, Joseph D. The Human Resource Problem-Solver's Handbook. McGraw-Hill, McGarvey, Robert. "Foul Play: Battling Hostilities in the Workplace." Entrepreneur. October McShulskis, Elaine. "Workplace Anger: A Growing Problem." HRMagazine. December Meyer, Pat. "Preventing Workplace Violence Starts with Recognizing Warning Signs and Taking Action." Nation's Restaurant News. February 28, Michael W. Kramer & Jon A. Hess Communication Rules for the Display of Emotions in Organizational Settings Columbia Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, (2002) Miller, K. (2002). The experience of emotion in the workplace: Professing in the midst of tragedy. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, Neville, Haig. "Workplace Violence Prevention Strategies." Memphis Business Journal. September 8, Siegman AW, Townsend ST, Blumenthal RS, Sorkin JD, Civelek AC. Dimensions of anger and CHD in men and women: self-ratings versus spouse ratings. J Behav Med 1998;21: Solomon, Charlene Marmer. "Keeping Hate Out of the Workplace." Personnel Journal. July Spielberger CD, Jacobs G, Russell S, Crane RS. Assessment of anger: the State-Trait Anger Scale. In: Butcher JN, Spielberger CD, eds. Advances in Personality Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1983: Thomas, S. P. (Ed.). (1993). Women and anger. New York: Springer