The customer is <i>not</i> always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees

Grandey, Alicia A.; Dickter, David N.; Sin, Hock Peng

doi:10.1002/job.252

Cited by 819 publications

(986 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

925

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this respect, our scale resembled coping questionnaires (e.g., Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989;Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) or more recently published scales on emotion regulation at work in service employees (e.g., Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004;Totterdell & Holman, 2003), where items directly refer to regulatory strategies one might use when experiencing a stressful encounter.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Regulation in Error Management Training: Emotion Control and Metacognition as Mediators of Performance Effects.

Keith¹,

Fresé²

2005

Journal of Applied Psychology

376

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In error management training, participants are explicitly encouraged to make errors and learn from them. Error management training has frequently been shown to lead to better performance than conventional trainings that adopt an error avoidant approach. The present study investigated self-regulatory processes mediating this effect. Fifty-five volunteer students learned a computer program under 1 of 3 conditions: error avoidant training, error management training, or error management training supplemented with a metacognitive module. As predicted, both forms of error management training led to better transfer performance than did error avoidant training (d ϭ 0.75). Mediation hypotheses were fully supported: Emotion control and metacognitive activity (from verbal protocols) mediated performance differences. These findings highlight the potential of promoting self-regulatory processing during training.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Regulation in Error Management Training: Emotion Control and Metacognition as Mediators of Performance Effects.

Keith¹,

Fresé²

2005

Journal of Applied Psychology

376

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When Microsoft introduced a program enabling developers to observe users testing new programs, the developers were able to receive feedback about the impact of their programs on users (Cusumano & Selby, 1995;Heath, Larrick, & Klayman, 1998). Developers likely received nonverbal feedback about their impact from beneficiaries in the form of smiles and frowns, and verbal feedback in the form of expressions of gratitude (e.g., Bennett, Ross, & Sunderland, 1996;Lawler, 1992;McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001) and hostility (e.g., Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004).…”

Section: Proposition 1b: the Greater The Prevention Focus (As Opposedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference

Grant

2007

AMR

1,456

1,482

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article illustrates how work contexts motivate employees to care about making a positive difference in other people's lives. I introduce a model of relational job design to describe how jobs spark the motivation to make a prosocial difference, and how this motivation affects employees' actions and identities. Whereas existing research focuses on individual differences and the task structures of jobs, I illuminate how the relational architecture of jobs shapes the motivation to make a prosocial difference.Why do I risk my life by running into a burning building, knowing that at any moment . . . the floor may give way, the roof may tumble on me, the fire may engulf me? . . . I'm here for my community, a community I grew up in, a community where I know lots of people, a community that knows me (firefighter; International Firefighters ' Day, 2004 Employees often care about making a positive difference in other people's lives. In the popular press, it is widely assumed that employees want to make a difference (Bornstein, 2004;Everett, 1995;May, 2003;Quinn, 2000). In order to motivate employees, many organizations define their missions in terms of making a difference (Collins & Porras, 1996;Margolis & Walsh, 2001Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Qualitative research and quantitative research reveal that many employees describe the purpose of their work in terms of making a positive difference in others' lives (Colby, Sippola, & Phelps, 2001;Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1996), and research in diverse bodies of literature suggests that this motivation to make a prosocial difference is prevalent in a variety of work contexts. For example, in business, managers often attempt to improve the experiences of organizational members by persuading top administrators to address important issues (Dutton & Ashford, 1993;Meyerson & Scully, 1995) and by taking proactive steps to help proté gé s develop skills and advance their careers (Higgins & Kram, 2001). In public service, employees often place their own lives in jeopardy, beyond the call of duty, in order to protect the welfare of others: police officers chase armed suspects in order to safeguard their communities (Marx, 1980), and ambulance drivers speed through red lights at busy intersections in order to rescue victims (Regehr, Goldberg, & Hughes, 2002).Despite the evidence that employees are motivated to make a positive difference in other people's lives, the organizational literature is relatively silent about the sources of this motivation. Existing research suggests that dispositions may shape employees' motivations to make a prosocial difference. Employees who see their work as a calling want their efforts to make

show abstract

“…Studies estimate that 98% of employees experience incivility, with 50% experiencing these behaviors at least weekly. 15 Customers, clients, and patients serve as the primary perpetrators of incivility, 16,17 particularly in high-intensity, serviceoriented organizations such as hospitals. 12,18,19 Scholars have distinguished among 3 main types of rudeness encountered by medical practitioners based on the rudeness source, 19 namely hierarchical rudeness (enacted by an authority [eg, department head, charge nurse]), peer rudeness (enacted by a member of the medical team), and client rudeness (enacted by patients or someone associated with them).…”

Section: What's Known On This Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%