No CrossRef data available.
The emotional complexities of the COVID-19 pandemic and organizational life
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 May 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Information
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 14 , Special Issue 1-2: Special Pandemic Issue , June 2021 , pp. 85 - 89
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, D. J., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). Looking within: An examination, combination, and extension of within-person methods across multiple levels of analysis. In Humphrey, S. E. & LeBreton, J. M. (Eds.), The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 305–311). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, D. J., & Ghandour, L. (2011). Stability, change, and the stability of change in daily workplace affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 526–546. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41415685
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1054
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carver, C. (2003). Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302294
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). 7 Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 315–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/078559812
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. (2020, April 4). How Zoom became so popular during social distancing. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/how-zoom-rose-to-the-top-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic.html
Google Scholar
Flaherty, C. (2020, April 21). No room of one’s own. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/21/early-journal-submission-data-suggest-covid-19-tanking-womens-research-productivity
Google Scholar
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016–1030. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159814
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The emerging science of positive psychology is coming to understand why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist, 91(4), 330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376. https://doi.org//10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.365
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, T. (2020, May 20). Why do I have such mixed feelings about coronavirus and lockdown? [Blog post]. Welldoing.org. Retrieved from https://welldoing.org/article/why-do-i-mixed-feelings-about-coronavirus-lockdown
Google Scholar
Kellerman, P.M. (2020, June 26). I love teaching at Penn State, but going back this fall is a mistake. 1,000 of my colleagues agree. Esquire. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32973676/penn-state-university-covid-19-petition-professors/
Google Scholar
Koval, P., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Changing emotion dynamics: Individual differences in the effect of anticipatory social stress on emotional inertia. Emotion, 12(2), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024756
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Methot, J. R., Rosado-Solomon, E., Downes, P., & Gabriel, A. S. (2020). Office chit-chat as a social ritual: The uplifting yet distracting effects of daily small talk at work. Academy of Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1474
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monge, P. R. (1990). Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes. Organization Science, 1(4), 406–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, N. B., & Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0355
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0066
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Herte, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., Schockley, K., Shoss, M., Sonnetag, S., & Zacher, H. (2021). Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 14(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the job-related affective well-being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogus, T. J., Rothman, N. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2014). The affective foundations of high-reliability organizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1922
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations, (pp. 1–21). JAI Press.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 3
- Cited by
As noted by Rudolph etal. (Reference Rudolph, Allan, Clark, Herte, Hirschi, Kunze, Schockley, Shoss, Sonnetag and Zacher2021), pandemics have had dramatic effects on people and organizations. Within our lifetimes, the COVID-19 pandemic is the first global crisis that has shut down our normal lives and has upended “taken for granted” aspects of organizational life. Whether eliminating the ability for coworkers to meet in person, have water-cooler talk, or enter their workspaces, COVID-19 will have profound effects on employees for the foreseeable future.
Although there are many reasons that COVID-19 will have significant bearing on organizational life and there are several topics raised by Rudolph etal. (Reference Rudolph, Allan, Clark, Herte, Hirschi, Kunze, Schockley, Shoss, Sonnetag and Zacher2021) that are worthy of consideration, there was little discussion about the emotional complexities of this salient event. Rudolph etal. note that aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to increase an individual’s anxiety and fatigue (i.e., strain), with additional theorizing surrounding anxiety posited when it comes to handling work–family conflict (e.g., working with children at home). However, people may experience a range of complex emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, as people return to work, they are likely to be grappling with hope and excitement at the thought of interacting with their peers in person, paired with anxiety and fear as they also recognize the risk of being exposed to the virus. For some, emotional complexity also results from trying to make sense of what they and others are experiencing simultaneously, as one therapist described: “I am so grateful and lucky to have all that I do and to be safe where I am. But it also hurts deeply to feel how others are struggling even more greatly at this time. This time for me is full of contrasts, intense waves of highs and lows unlike anything I’ve ever experienced” (Jackson, Reference Jackson2020).
We believe that organizational scholars must examine the emotional complexities associated with making sense of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this commentary (written July 2020 to help contextualize our examples), we discuss how COVID-19 represents a salient affective event for employees at work and at home and how the resulting emotions are likely to (a) be complex in nature and (b) fluctuate daily, weekly, and monthly as employees adjust to life during a pandemic.
Emotional complexity
Although many models of emotions are frequently used in the organizational sciences (e.g., Russell, Reference Russell1980; Van Katwyk etal., Reference Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector and Kelloway2000; Watson etal., Reference Watson, Clark and Tellegen1988), a common theme is that individuals, at any given moment, can experience a wide array of discrete positive and negative emotions (Elfenbein, Reference Elfenbein2007). Importantly, emotions can serve as a critical self-regulatory cue for individuals, driving their behaviors and well-being (e.g., Beal etal., Reference Beal, Weiss, Barros and MacDermid2005; Carver & Scheier, Reference Carver and Scheier1990). Depending upon the self-regulatory theory to which one subscribes, either positive or negative emotions can be beneficial for motivation. For example, according to control theory, negative emotions should signal that people’s current state is discrepant from their ideal state, with positive emotions signaling that one is in a beneficial state; in turn, negative emotions should increase efforts to address the discrepancy, whereas positive emotions can signal that one can coast or maintain the status quo (Carver, Reference Carver2003; Carver & Scheier, Reference Carver and Scheier1990). Applied to COVID-19, individuals could recognize that negative emotions (e.g., frustration) indicate that their current state (e.g., working from home with kids) is discrepant from their ideal state (e.g., being able to hold a call or Zoom meeting without interruption), signaling that added effort is needed to resolve this issue. In this example, a parent may decide to hire a babysitter or enroll their child in daycare despite the possible health risks associated with this decision. Alternatively, social cognitive theory suggests that positive emotions should increase effort toward goals, with negative emotions deterring effort (Bandura, Reference Bandura1986). Fredrickson (Reference Fredrickson2003) also offers sentiments in her broaden-and-build theory, suggesting that positive emotions can help employees foster the resilience they need to make progress during a crisis (Fredrickson etal., Reference Fredrickson2003). Thus, people may feel calm and happy that they are able to work from home and maintain employment, spurring productivity. For example, employees may feel unburdened by having fewer distractions and interruptions as are common when working in person, which could explain the surge in journal submissions among male academics in particular (Flaherty, Reference Flaherty2020).
Of course, these ideas likely represent an overly simplistic view of emotions felt during COVID-19. For instance, someone may feel anxiety and happiness simultaneously—people who are working from home with children could feel happiness having more time with their children, yet anxiety about whether to send their children back to school or daycare. Likewise, people who are content and pleased working from home could still feel sad about missing their morning coffee ritual with their colleagues, because such rituals lead to positive moods (e.g., Methot etal., Reference Methot, Rosado-Solomon, Downes and Gabriel2020). These simultaneous feelings are indicative of emotional complexity, where individuals feel positive and negative emotions that differ in valence at the same time or in a sequential manner in relation to a specific target or event of interest (Fong, Reference Fong2006; Rothman & Melwani, Reference Rothman and Melwani2017). Regardless of the form, emotionally complex states allow individuals to thrive in challenging circumstances, as these states signal that one’s environment is safe and uncertain, fostering adaptation and driving action so that goals are attained (Rothman & Melwani, Reference Rothman and Melwani2017; Rothman etal., Reference Rothman, Pratt, Rees and Vogus2017; Vogus etal. Reference Vogus, Rothman, Sutcliffe and Weick2014). Indeed, Rothman and Melwani (Reference Rothman and Melwani2017) theorize that states of emotional complexity are likely to arise when there are “emotional ups and downs, peaks and valleys, and ebbs and flows” (p. 259), all of which are likely for employees during COVID-19.
In pursuing the topics that Rudolph etal. (Reference Rudolph, Allan, Clark, Herte, Hirschi, Kunze, Schockley, Shoss, Sonnetag and Zacher2021) lay out, emotional complexity is likely to play a key role. For instance, healthcare workers who face challenging job demands and conditions (e.g., lack of personal protective equipment or working in hospitals where crisis care has been evoked) are likely to feel heightened fear as they expose themselves to the people with the virus, yetalso feel gratitude for their coworkers who are with them and community members who are celebrating them. These feelings of gratitude may provide healthcare workers the resilience they need to cope with their fear, allowing them to provide high-quality care. Likewise, individuals who work in the technology sector but hold precarious “gig” positions may feel optimistic about the technology-related opportunities that our new way of working has brought, but also envious of their peers and family members who have more stable careers. As a final example, as the end of the summer of 2020 approaches, teachers and professors may feel excited about the prospect of interacting with their students in person, but anxious about how they will enforce mask use and social distancing among their students. For example, as one Penn State instructor wrote: “as for me, I love teaching. I love watching metaphoric LED bulbs illuminate over students’ heads when a concept sinks in … but as much as I love brick-and-mortar teaching, I shudder at the prospect of teaching in a room filled with asymptomatic superspreaders” (Kellerman, Reference Kellerman2020). Thus, capturing how emotions are jointly experienced is a crucial means to understanding how working during COVID-19 affects employee health, motivation, and performance.
Studying the ebb and flow of emotional complexity during COVID-19
Emotional reactions fluctuate and evolve over time (Weiss & Beal, Reference Weiss, Beal, Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Härtel2005). Indeed, as employees engage in active sensemaking surrounding working during the pandemic or obtain new information about the pandemic itself (e.g., new state closures or restrictions, new information about the virus), their reactions are likely to evolve. This resonates with a point noted by Rudolph etal. (Reference Rudolph, Allan, Clark, Herte, Hirschi, Kunze, Schockley, Shoss, Sonnetag and Zacher2021) when they stated that within-person research methods (e.g., experience sampling) are likely fruitful for determining the effects of COVID-19 on work—and relatedly, emotional complexity—over time. Take, for example, the initial stay-at-home orders presented across the United States in March 2020. Originally, employees may have felt anxiety and uncertainty as their work changed, paired with happiness as they were afforded the opportunity to spend more time at home with loved ones and reconnect with others via Zoom (Evans, Reference Evans2020). However, as states have rushed reopening or had to shut down work again months later, these joint feelings may evolve to frustration and gratitude, as employees want to return to “normal,” but feel thankful that they are home and protected from the newest surge of COVID-19. Likewise, what once began as feelings of hope that the pandemic would wane during summer allowing for a return to work may evolve into feelings of doubt as people process that the numbers are not declining.
Adopting within-person methods affords the best opportunity for researchers to capture emotional complexity beyond static affective dispositions individuals may have (Gabriel etal., Reference Gabriel, Podsakoff, Beal, Scott, Sonnentag, Trougakos and Butts2019). When designed carefully, scholars can thoroughly examine how quickly emotions and their subsequent self-regulatory effects unfold. As noted by Beal and Gabriel (Reference Beal, Gabriel, Humphrey and LeBreton2019; see also Monge, Reference Monge1990), scholars can combine within-person designs (e.g., daily, weekly, and monthly) in an effort to identify the temporal nature underlying organizational phenomena. For example, it is possible that healthcare workers’ emotional complexity will not change—as healthcare systems are likely to be burdened for the foreseeable future, their feelings of hope and doubt may stay at higher, more stable levels (i.e., shift less over time) compared with individuals in less precarious occupations. On the other hand, there is also considerable regional variability in positive cases and deaths due to the virus, and there have been large shifts over the course of the pandemic—what healthcare workers in the Northeast were experiencing in spring 2020 in terms of COVID-related workload and experienced emotions was later experienced in California and the Southwestern US., and later parts of the Southern US.
With these shifts in emotional complexity, it is likely that scholars would be able to help understand the beneficial and detrimental states that come with this experience. Rothman and Melwani (Reference Rothman and Melwani2017) note that emotional complexity should help broaden cognitive and behavioral repertoires that make people more adaptable during challenges—it can make them seek more information, broaden their attention span, or increase motivation to seek more balanced perspectives. Thus, during the pandemic, emotional complexity may allow employees to be more flexible and creative (e.g., when healthcare providers shifted to telehealth). However, emotional complexity can also make people experience more doubt or lead them to procrastinate, and we must consider the possible well-being costs. Indeed, emotionally complex states can lead people to be more reactive to environmental stimuli (Beal & Ghandour, Reference Beal and Ghandour2011) and exhibit poorer adjustment and well-being (Koval & Kuppens, Reference Koval and Kuppens2012). Thus, delineating how emotional complexity can be of benefit or detriment during the COVID-19 pandemic will be crucial.
Our complicated conclusion
By now, we hope readers are convinced that (a) COVID-19 has emotionally complex outcomes, (b) people sequentially and simultaneously experience emotions of positive and negative valence, and (c) these complex emotions shift over time. Studying these effects within COVID-19 would prove both fruitful and challenging. Yet, what has made this period fascinating (and upsetting) is that, especially in the US., there are many emotion-provoking events occurring all at once: the death of more Black citizens at the hands of White policemen; protests and riots; lawful and unlawful removal of relics representing racism, slavery, and the confederate South; a rollercoaster of immigration policies from the supreme court upholding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to former President Trump suspending the H1-B visa program; increased division of American people along political lines; and controversies about mask wearing and reopening of nonessential businesses. Thus, 2020 will be a year we all remember—because of all of these events and because of the emotional complexity experienced as a result.