Johny T. Garner

“Let Me Tell You About My Job”: Exploring the Terrain of Emotion in the Workplace

Because of the rapid growth in literature on emotion and communication in organizations and the many disciplinary homes of this work, scholars use many conceptualizations of emotion in the workplace. In this article, the authors map the terrain of emotion and communication in the workplace. They first review extant literature and argue for five types of organizational emotion: emotional labor (inauthentic emotion in interaction with customers and clients), emotional work (authentic emotion in interaction customers and clients), emotion with work (emotion stemming from interaction with coworkers), emotion at work (emotion from nonwork sources experienced in the work-place), and emotion toward work (emotions in which work is the target of the feeling). They then explore these types of emotion through an analysis of workplace narratives from the books Working (Terkel, 1972) and Gig (Bowe, Bowe, & Streeter, 2000). Themes that characterize workplace emotion are considered, and directions for future research are proposed.

When Things Go Wrong at Work: An Exploration of Organizational Dissent Messages

Research on organizational dissent is important given the implications and potential repercussions for employees and employers. The present research conceptualized dissent in terms of employee voice and organizational influence. An instrument to measure the content of dissent messages was developed, and factor analyses indicated 11 types of dissent messages. Results further indicated that messages of Solution Presentation, Direct-Factual Appeal, Coalitions, and Inspiration were more frequently used to express dissent, while messages of Pressure and Exchange were less frequently employed. The results refine understandings of dissent messages, an important step in giving employees more effective options for voice in the workplace.

Dissenters, Managers, and Coworkers The Process of Co-Constructing Organizational Dissent and Dissent Effectiveness

Previous research on organizational dissent has explored a number of issues, but that research has been overly focused on the dissenter while neglecting the active role of others in co-constructing dissent. That line of scholarship has also tended to examine dissent expressions in isolation rather than exploring how previous experiences shape present expectations. This essay redefines dissent to situate interaction centrally and to focus on dissent interactions over time as a process rather than a one-time event. The success or failure of dissent is conceptualized as part of that process. Such a perspective reveals nuances by including the stories and discourses that are told as part of and in addition to an initial dissent conversation. A case study demonstrates how this reconceptualization of dissent recognizes the primary importance of interaction in constituting organizations and advances process theory by explicating the value such a perspective adds to this context.

Making Waves at Work Perceived Effectiveness and Appropriateness of Organizational Dissent Messages

The way in which an employee communicates organizational dissent is partially responsible for the outcomes of that dissent conversation. Previous research has examined such outcomes in limited ways, but employees’ perceptions of the general effectiveness and appropriateness of their dissent expressions have been neglected. The current study fills that gap, finding that participants recalled solution presentation, circumvention, and repetition as effective whereas coalition-building messages were ineffective. Participants also report that solution presentation and direct factual appeals were appropriate whereas pressure tactics and humor messages were inappropriate. These results make important contributions and extend previous research by demonstrating connections between dissent messages and conversational outcomes and offering a practical understanding for dissenters about what types of dissent messages may be perceived as more effective and appropriate than others.

Masters of the Universe? Resource Dependency and Interorganizational Power Relationships at NASA

On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia broke apart as it re-entered the atmosphere. Months later, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board determined the immediate cause of the crash, but it also alluded to relationships NASA has with other organizations as being problematic, suggesting that Columbia was a painful symptom of a deeper disease. This paper uses resource dependency theory and structuration theory together to examine NASAs interorganizational network, illustrating that NASA is involved in multiple toxic relationships and that a pattern has developed through NASA miscues in the last 20 years. This case study demonstrates the advantages of using these two theories together, how such integration provides a useful perspective for understanding power and change in interorganizational relationships. The paper also discusses practical suggestions for NASA specifically, but also for others as organizations become more dependent on external stakeholders and interorganizational relationships.

Open Doors and Iron Cages Supervisors’ Responses to Employee Dissent

Organizational dissent and employee voice have been linked to benefits for companies and employees, but part of realizing those benefits is how a supervisor responds to subordinates’ communication. Two studies presented here explored supervisors’ responses to dissent. Results from Study One indicated a continuum of responses to dissent from instrumental support to rejection. However, managers in all points along that continuum claimed to be “open” to employees. In contrast to previous research, supervisors were apt to choose not to act on dissent rather than sanctioning the dissenter. Results also specified conditions that increased the likelihood of employee dissent being successful. Study Two further explored those conditions by comparing supervisors’ recollections of dissent to their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of that dissent. Both studies draw attention to multiple perspectives of employee dissent and to the importance of supervisors’ perceptions in their responses and in the dissent process.

Different Ways to Disagree: A Study of Organizational Dissent to Explore Connections Between Mixed Methods Research and Engaged Scholarship

Organizational communication processes are complex, but all too often, researchers oversimplify the study of these processes by relying on a single method. Particularly when scholars and practitioners partner together to solve organizational problems, meaningful results require methodological flexibility and diversity. As an exemplar of the fit between mixed methods research and engaged scholarship, the present project used surveys, observations, and interviews to study the process of dissent in two organizations. Results emphasized that each organization’s mission was a key factor in how employees expressed disagreement and how others responded. Emergent research questions and sequential data collection revealed insights that would have been missed in single method studies and provided more complete insights for the nonacademic practitioners involved in the study.

Nothing to Laugh About: Student Interns' Use of Humor in Response to Workplace Dissatisfaction

Humor is an important option for employees responding to frustrating circumstances because humorous responses can be less confrontational than alternative ways of expressing dissatisfaction. The present study examined how student interns enacted humor as a response to workplace dissatisfaction. Results indicated a continuum of humorous messages and a variety of goals motivating those messages. These findings demonstrate the nuances in humor as a way of communicating dissatisfaction while also underscoring the need to further understand how goals and outcomes are related as employees dissent. At a deeper level, these results speak to issues of power and identity as low-positioned, contingent employees used humor to recast their identities apart from their status and to negotiate the boundaries of acceptable communication.

Changes in Eye Contact and Attraction Scores Relative to Ostracism and Dissent

Ostracism casts a number of harms on group members who are targets, yet little is known about the behaviors which can lead group members to become ostracism targets. Here, we investigated whether dissent—an important and beneficial behavior for group decision making—led the group to ostracize the members who voiced dissent. This study examined ostracism and two types of dissent—disagreement with the group’s decision-making process and disagreement with specific ideas. Confederates who dissented with ideas were ostracized, as evidenced by lower attraction scores when compared to confederates in control groups. By contrast, process dissenters were not ostracized. Rather, eye contact with process dissenters was significantly higher than eye contact with confederates in control groups. These results suggest that questioning a group’s decision-making process may be one way to draw the attention of the group without being ostracized whereas challenging the prevailing decision itself may subject the dissenter to social exclusion.

An Examination of Organizational Dissent Events and Communication Channels: Perspectives of a Dissenter, Supervisors, and Coworkers

Dissent is a vital process of organizational communication. Prior research has explored the variables that shape dissenters’ choices regarding what they say and to whom they say it. Less is known about the ways in which dissent events are situated in past dissent experiences. Additionally, few studies have examined the extent to which dissent expressed via social media and e-mail differs from face-to-face conversations. This case study examined the points of view of a dissenter, a supervisor, a skip-level supervisor, and two coworkers. Such a multiperspective analysis allowed a detailed exploration of how dissent events chained together and how dissenters’ choices about communication channels shaped the ways in which others responded to the dissent.