IMPLICATIONS OF HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES AND EMOTIONAL DEMANDS-ABILITIES FIT ON EMOTION REGULATION By Liana G. Passantino A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Business Administration – Organizational Behavior – Human Resource Management – Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT My dissertation seeks to explain the relationship between organization level human resource (HR) practices related to affect and emotion regulation at the individual level through the concept of fit. Emotion regulation at work is inevitable but, to date, research has not evaluated how organizations may be able to reduce the emotion regulation and emotive dissonance of employees or how fit may mediate this relationship. Decades of research have established the importance of fit throughout the employee lifecycle and focused on the positive outcomes of fit such as increased job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and reduced turnover. Although little research has explored the effect of fit on emotion regulation, recent work by Diefendorff, Greguras, & Fleenor (2016) has introduced the concept of emotional demands-abilities (ED-A) fit, or the perceived compatibility between a job’s emotional demands and the ability of the employee to meet those emotional demands. Drawing on the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model (Schneider, 1987) and fit literature, I suggest that the emotion regulation requirements of the job will be minimized for individuals with good ED-A fit and person-display rule fit. More specifically, in this dissertation, I explore the idea that organizations can, through human resource practices focused on emotions, improve the emotional demands-abilities fit of employees which, in turn, will reduce the emotion regulation required of employees on day-to-day basis. My dissertation also contributes to the management literature through the development and validation of a comprehensive scale of emotion-focused HR practices. Copyright by LIANA G. PASSANTINO 2023 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS They say it takes a village to raise a child. I’ve also heard that completing a PhD is a bit like raising a child. I am so grateful for my village that has supported me in the completion of my PhD journey. First, for my husband, Brad, who has encouraged and challenged me, and always told me, “you can and you will” even when it felt impossible. He was right: I could and I did. Second, I must thank my parents and brother who may not have always understood this journey but always supported me (with unmatched tenacity in recruiting survey participants) and celebrated my success. Third, Dr. Beth Livingston who has been an incredible friend and mentor for the last fifteen years and without whom I would not have started (or finished) my PhD. Many other friends and colleagues helped me in countless ways during my studies and I am deeply appreciative of their support. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my committee, Drs. Brent Scott, Russ Johnson, Lance Ferris, and Georgia Chao. The completion of my dissertation would not have been possible without their guidance and, importantly their patience. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................8 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................30 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................53 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................73 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................79 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................89 APPENDIX A: MEASURES ......................................................................................................114 APPENDIX B: TABLES .............................................................................................................131 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Phase 1 Retained Items and Associated psa and csv Values........................................130 TABLE 2: Phase 2 Retained Items and Associated htc and htd Values ......................................132 TABLE 3: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Subscales in Study 1 – Phase 2 .........................................................................................................................134 TABLE 4: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Study 1 ..................................................135 TABLE 5: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Study 2 [EFHR Scale]...........................136 TABLE 6: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities – Study 2 ....................137 TABLE 7: Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Test of Research Questions ..........................140 TABLE 8: Results of Wald Tests – Test of Research Questions ................................................141 TABLE 9: Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Test of Hypotheses .......................................142 TABLE 10: Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Direct Effects of Fit on Outcomes ..............144 TABLE 11: Supplemental Analysis – Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Emotion-Focused HR Practices Effect on Outcomes via Emotion Regulation ...........................145 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Proposed Theoretical Model ....................................................................................7 vii INTRODUCTION Emotions are a fundamental component of human existence (Stanley & Burrows, 2001) and most jobs place emotional demands on and require emotion regulation from employees (Grandey, 2000b; Grandey & Melloy, 2017; Hochschild, 1983). Emotion regulation is defined as “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross, 1998b, p. 275). Extensive research has explored the antecedents of emotion regulation such as individual differences (e.g. personality traits, demographics, and values) and event characteristics (e.g. frequency and duration of interactions, positive or negative emotion-evoking stimuli) as well as the consequences of emotion regulation such as increased burnout, stress, and workplace deviance, and decreased job performance and helping behaviors, (e.g. Côté & Morgan, 2002; Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael, 2007; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002; Judge, Woolf, & Hurst, 2009). Previous research and theoretical models have established the relationship between individual job performance, attitudes, and workplace behaviors with organizational performance (Ostroff, 1992; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000) which indicates that emotion regulation has ramifications for organization-level performance. Given that emotion regulation is often unavoidable and occurs regularly at work, it would be unreasonable to suggest that organizations simply reduce the emotional demands placed on employees. Nevertheless, the context in which the emotion regulation occurs, the workplace, is an important component to consider as it affects when and how employees experience emotional demands. The emotion regulation expected of employees is communicated via “display rules” which, are the “behavioral expectations about which emotions ought to be expressed and which 1 ought to be hidden” (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989, p. 8). Despite robust research regarding antecedents of emotion regulation such as individual and event characteristics, the extant literature has not considered how organizations may be able to proactively reduce the emotion regulation required of employees. Within organizations, display rules may be made explicit through organization- level practices and policies, or less formally through culture or norms (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Pugh, Diefendorff, & Moran, 2013; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987, 1989). Therefore, it is possible that there are practices and policies that organizations could adopt to reduce the emotion regulation required of employees that could improve individual well-being as well as positively affect work attitudes and performance. Emotional demands may also stem from the organization or job, not just the expectations of emotional displays. In an organization, the job itself may be emotionally demanding, such as oncologists who work with terminally ill patients. Alternatively, the organization may be emotionally demanding if there are display rules that specify the emotions that should be expressed on the job, such as restaurant servers who must be patient and friendly during all interactions with customers. These types of demands require that individuals manage their “emotional reactions to difficult, challenging, monotonous, interpersonally demanding, or unpleasant work circumstances” (Diefendorff, Greguras, & Fleenor, 2016, p. 5). However, research has found that employees within highly emotionally demanding jobs are not necessarily more likely to feel burnout or depletion than those in other types of jobs (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002) which indicates that individuals differ in their abilities to meet the emotional demands of their jobs. Rather than hiring an employee who views the emotion regulation required for the job as untenable, organizations should be aware of the emotional demands of the job and consider the ability of potential employees to handle the emotional demands, while also 2 making the emotional display expectations clear to employees. Incorporating the emotional demands of the work and the emotional abilities of individuals into human resource practices should enable the organization to identify, attract, and retain individuals who are a better fit for the job. Human resource practices such as recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management have previously been identified as characteristics of the organizational context that may establish and maintain display rules and role expectations (Pugh et al., 2013; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Pugh et al. (2013, p. 200) suggest that, “emotional display rules represent the point at which organizational objectives, policies, and practices interface with individual emotion management”. For example, during the selection process, organizations could include selection criteria related to the job candidates’ emotional abilities and during new hire orientation (as part of the socialization process), explain the specific emotional displays expected of employees. Knight, Menges, and Bruch (2018) created a short 6-item measure to broadly capture practices related to employee emotions and found that these practices are related to positive organizational affective tone. However, this measure does not address, for example, how organizations may communicate emotional demands of the job during the recruitment process or whether the organization provides training related to emotion management. An important contribution of my dissertation is the identification of important emotion-related human resource practices that have a significant impact on employee fit. In doing so, I develop and validate a comprehensive scale of emotion-focused human resource practices within the recruitment, selection, onboarding, performance management, and training processes. Although organization-level practices certainly influence the behavior of employees, the idea that human resource practices directly impact their emotional regulation seems to be an 3 oversimplification of the relationship. My dissertation seeks to explain the mechanisms through which distal organization-level practices impact emotional regulation, specifically by focusing on perceptions of fit. I do so by drawing on the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model (Schneider, 1987) and the fit literature. The ASA model provides a strong theoretical basis for the hypothesized relationship between fit and work attitudes as it suggests that individuals are attracted to organizations that match their values, the organizations then select candidates who they believe are well-matched to the organizations’ values and have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform the job, and then, after individuals have been employed, those who feel that they do not fit well with their organizations or jobs will turnover (voluntarily or, potentially, involuntarily). This process leads to increased homogeneity within organizations but also ensures that the values and behaviors of the remaining employees are in line with the culture, norms, and expectations of the organizations and thus, have good fit (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006). For individuals who experience good fit, it is theorized that they will have more positive work attitudes, and the outcomes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention are most frequently evaluated in studies of person- organization fit (Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). Perceptions of fit are used by recruiters in evaluating job candidates and the potential employees’ perceptions of fit influence job offer acceptance. In general, organizations seek to hire individuals who have the knowledge, skills, and abilities for the job (person-job fit) and who share the beliefs and values of the organization (person-organization fit). By focusing on the beginning stages of the employee lifecycle, this dissertation also answers calls for research on recruitment practices and fit (Rynes & Cable, 2003). However, within the fit literature, each dimension (e.g., person-organization, person-job) has various facets. For example, the idea that 4 some employees may have abilities that are better matched to the emotional demands of a job has been conceptualized as emotional demands-abilities (ED-A) fit (Diefendorff et al., 2016). In accordance with the ASA model (Schneider, 1987), previous research has found that perceptions of fit with both the organization and job are important factors that lead individuals to be attracted to and select into specific organizations and that a lack of fit or misfit will lead to attrition. Individuals who believe that their abilities are well matched to the demands of the job will have better fit and experience less exhaustion and anxiety than individuals who perceive misfit (Xie & Johns, 1995). Additionally, employees who perceive a lack of demands-abilities fit are more likely to select out of the hiring process and more likely to leave an organization (i.e., attrition). This can be very costly for organizations as employee turnover has been estimated to total anywhere from 50 to 200 percent of the person’s annual salary (Allen, 2008; Cascio, 2006). Beyond wanting to maintain the emotional well-being of the workforce, from a practical and cost savings standpoint, organizations should seek to maximize fit between individuals and their jobs. Importantly, using emotion-focused human resource practices should help organizations identify individuals who will have good emotional demands-abilities fit, which, in turn can reduce the emotion regulation required of employees on day-to-day basis. Therefore, I suggest that if employees are aware of the emotional requirements of their jobs and have good fit with the job, they will not experience as much emotional distance between their naturally felt emotions and the expected display of emotions which will reduce the amount to emotion regulation regularly required of them (Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005; Scott, Awasty, Johnson, Matta, & Hollenbeck, 2020). Prior management research has largely focused on emotion management as surface and deep acting (Côté, 2005; Grandey, 2015) but managing emotions at work also involves the monitoring of naturally felt emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 5 1993). Thus, in this dissertation I take a more holistic approach to understanding emotions at work by examining the overall emotion regulation of employees, not just surface and deep acting. Ultimately, I propose that the reduction of emotion regulation required of employees will impact work attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), behavioral intentions (i.e., turnover intentions), and employee well-being (i.e., emotional exhaustion and depletion). 6 FIGURE 1: Proposed Theoretical Model 7 LITERATURE REVIEW Emotion Regulation Although the term “emotional labor” is more commonly used within the management literature and the term “emotion regulation” used more within psychology, the differences between the terms emotional labor and emotion regulation “are mostly semantic, not substantive” (Grandey, 2015, p. 54). Within the field of management, emotional labor is most often defined as the management of emotional displays to comply with organizational display rules, occurs in exchange for a wage and is related to customer interactions, and it is most commonly operationalized as surface acting and deep acting (Côté, 2005; Grandey, 2015). However, the experience, suppression, appraisal, modification, and display of emotions at work can occur for reasons beyond that of emotional labor (Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Therefore, throughout this dissertation, I will use the term emotion regulation rather than the more narrowly defined construct of emotional labor. Indeed, researchers are increasingly defining emotional labor as a subset of emotion regulation (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017; Ashkanasy, Troth, Lawrence, & Jordan, 2017; Gross, 2014). Emotion regulation has been defined as “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross, 1998b, p. 275) and the “modification of feelings or expressions” (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015, p. 325). This can mean the enhancement or exaggeration of emotional states that are desirable to display at work (which are generally positive emotions such as happy, joyful, and delighted) and/or the suppression of emotions that are not desirable (usually negative emotions such as angry, mad, afraid, etc.) to display in the workplace (Côté & Morgan, 2002). 8 Emotional labor is the idea that work roles require the regulation of emotions and it has been conceptualized in a number of ways. The term emotional labor was originally defined by Hochschild (1983, p. 7) as “the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display; emotional labor is sold for a wage and therefore has exchange value.” Hochschild (1983) suggested that emotional labor has three components: emotional requirements, emotion regulation, and emotion performance. Emotional requirements are the job-based requirements of emotional displays, often measured as the employee perceptions of display rules at work or requirements evaluated by experts based on job descriptions (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015). These emotional requirements are, essentially, the emotional demands component of emotional demands-abilities fit which will be further discussed below. The second component of emotional labor, emotion regulation, was defined by Hochschild (1983) as the ways in which employees manage their emotions, namely surface acting and deep acting. Surface acting is the regulation of emotional expression and masking true feelings through a superficial display of disingenuous emotions (and, as such, the underlying feelings do not change). Deep acting is the modification of feelings in order to align with the expected emotional display rules (Grandey, 2000a). In order to deep act, an employee engages in behaviors such as situational modification, attentional deployment, or cognitive reappraisal. Within the field of management, emotional labor is most often defined and operationalized as surface acting and deep acting (Grandey, 2015). Emotion performance is the third component of emotional labor and is the extent to which the observable expression of emotions is congruent with the emotional requirements of the job (Bono & Vey, 2007). These observed expressions, however, can be unrelated to the actual reported moods of the employees, which suggests that emotional performance is often an inauthentic expression of feelings (Pugh, 2001). Emotional expressions that are incongruent with the emotional 9 requirements of the job, such that the employee violates the display rules (e.g. displaying negative emotions in a job that requires positive customer service) are referred to as “emotional deviance” (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987) or “deviance from display rules” (Dahling, 2017). Two other conceptualizations of emotional labor emerged from work by Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) and Morris and Feldman (1996). Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) suggested that emotional labor was the observable behavior (or emotional expression) of the employee which included naturally felt emotions in addition to surface and deep acting. Importantly, they considered the expression of naturally felt emotions to be a form of emotional labor as individuals do not simply spontaneously express all emotions but rather, must consciously monitor their displays to ensure that they match the expectations of the organization (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Diefendorff et al., 2005). This is particularly significant given that natural emotional displays occur much more commonly than emotional displays generated via surface or deep acting (Diefendorff et al., 2005; Lennard, Scott, & Johnson, 2019; Scott, Lennard, Mitchell, & Johnson, 2020). The Morris and Feldman (1996) perspective defined emotional labor as a multidimensional construct based on frequency and duration of interactions, the variety of emotions required, the intensity of emotions, and emotional dissonance. In an effort to integrate these definitions, Grandey (2000b) suggested that emotional labor should be considered a form of emotion regulation based on Gross’s (1998a; 1998b) theory and model of emotion regulation. In Grandey’s (2000) model, emotion regulation subsumed surface acting as a form of response- focused emotion regulation and deep acting as a type of antecedent-focused emotion regulation. Grandey and Melloy (2017) revised Grandey’s (2000) model to further integrate the extant 10 research on emotional labor and emotion regulation into a more comprehensive model of emotion regulation that incorporates the temporal and dynamic aspects of emotion regulation. The emotion process is activated when individuals are exposed to a stimulus which then leads the individual to experience emotions (Elfenbein, 2007); Frijda (1988) suggested that experiencing emotions automatically triggers responses to regulate these emotions. The broadest categorization of emotion regulation distinguishes between antecedent-focused and response- focused strategies. However, both types of strategies can be affected by organizational practices and policies. Antecedent-focused emotion regulation is defined as the actions that individuals perform before full activation of emotion response tendencies (Gross & John, 2003). These strategies correspond with deep acting (i.e., efforts to control and alter underlying emotions prior to their development) and place the burden on the employee to identify an emotion-inducing situation and respond accordingly by either changing situations or cognitively modifying feelings. Antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies include situational avoidance or selection, reappraisal or cognitive change, and attentional deployment or distraction (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015). One type of antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategy is situation selection which can be done by walking away from the situation. (Grandey, 2000b; Gross, 1998a). For example, instead of getting involved in a heated argument with a colleague, an employee would need to recognize that the situation is likely to induce negative emotions such as anger and then he or she would decide not to engage with that colleague. Another strategy, attentional deployment, could occur by taking deep breaths to distract the individual from the emotionally charged situation or by thinking about events that elicit the desired emotion (Grandey, 2000b; Gross, 1998a). Cognitive change or reappraisal occurs when the individual reconsiders the situation to lessen the emotional impact (Grandey, 2000a; Lazarus, 1991). For example, getting 11 cut off by a driver changing lanes abruptly without signaling is likely to elicit feelings of frustration or anger and thoughts about the recklessness or stupidity of the other driver. However, reappraising the situation and considering that perhaps this person is unfamiliar with the area and running late to a job interview could instead engender sympathy, understanding, and patience. Similarly, at work, when confronted by a rude customer, instead of feeling frustrated or angry, an employee may consider that perhaps the customer is having a terrible day, and this could similarly engender sympathy. Response-focused emotion regulation refers to the things that individuals do after an emotion is felt and response tendencies are activated (Gross & John, 2003). These emotion regulation strategies involve suppression of naturally felt emotions in order to display the desired or required emotions (Gross & John, 2003). This type of regulation is also referred to as response modulation (Gross, 1998a). Response-focused strategies largely correspond with surface acting (i.e., masking felt emotion by inhibiting or suppressing the display of that emotion). In contrast with antecedent-focused responses such as reappraisal, this type of emotional regulation is based on adjusting expressions of emotions but not the internal or naturally felt emotions (Grandey, 2000a). Ongoing expressive suppression has been found to increase feelings of negative emotions, increase stress (e.g. physiological indicators such as blood pressure) and physical illness such as cancer (Penedo et al., 2006), and negatively impact memory and cognition (Gross, 2013). There are several mechanisms by which emotion regulation has been theorized to relate to well-being and performance including conservation of resources and ego depletion, and emotive dissonance and felt inauthenticity. Ego depletion is based on Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory which suggests that individuals have limited personal resources 12 that they can expend, and so devoting resources towards one undertaking limits the amount of those resources available for similar efforts. Specifically, ego depletion draws on the resources that allow individuals to execute regulatory processes, such as exercising self-control; drawing on this resource (temporarily) reduces the ability of individuals to exercise their control over time (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). The faking or suppression of emotions requires that employees continuously monitor their emotions and emotional displays, which is effortful and depletes mental resources (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005); Côté (2005) labeled this effort as the cognitive load that reduces attentional resources available for other tasks. Researchers have argued that beyond decreasing the ability of employees to control their subsequent behavior due to depletion of resources, ego depletion (or cognitive load) can also lead to strain and reduces well-being (Côté, 2005; Grandey, 2003; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000) and explain reduced task performance after surface acting (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Richards & Gross, 2000; Zyphur, Warren, Landis, & Thoresen, 2007). The other mechanism that has been linked to the outcomes of response-focused emotion regulation is felt inauthenticity. Fundamentally, individuals seek to express their genuine emotions and when they are required to modify and control their emotional expressions so as to display emotions that are discrepant from their true feelings, they experience felt inauthenticity (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Brotheridge & Lee, 2003). Hochschild (1983) suggested that the discrepancy between felt emotions and emotional expressions, which she defined as emotional dissonance, negatively impacts physical and psychological well-being. Feelings of inauthenticity and emotional dissonance have been found to be an antecedent of stress, depression, job dissatisfaction, and turnover (Bono & Vey, 2005; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Côté, 2005; 13 Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Simpson & Stroh, 2004). Clearly, behaving in ways that are contrary to one’s nature or naturally felt emotions has potentially serious outcomes. Regardless of how emotion regulation is defined or operationalized, there is significant agreement within the literature that it is depleting to individuals (Grandey, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; J. D. Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2006). Individuals have different levels of emotional capabilities which is due to myriad attributes including personality traits, trait affectivity, emotional intelligence, and emotional expressivity (Chi, Grandey, Diamond, & Krimmel, 2011; Diefendorff et al., 2016; Gross & John, 2003). In order to be effective in an emotionally demanding job, an employee must have the ability to meet the emotional demands (Arvey, Renz, & Watson, 1998) and so, some individuals may find regulation to be more difficult or depleting of their resources which can negatively impact well-being (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). However, beyond limitations due to emotional abilities, many employees may lack options in how they can respond to these situations (due to the nature of the position or the their ability modify or control their emotional expression) and in these cases it may mean that eventually the employee feels that the best strategy of emotion regulation is to leave the organization (Grandey, 2000b). Within the human resources literature, this would be considered a form of functional turnover because a low performing or poor fitting employee leaving an organization can actually improve firm performance (Batt & Colvin, 2011; Hancock, Allen, Bosco, McDaniel, & Pierce, 2013). However, research has recognized that all forms of turnover have a cost and that organizations should seek to reduce turnover through human resource practices (Batt & Colvin, 2011; Trevor & Nyberg, 2008). Thus, although organizations cannot change the trait level attributes of employees, they can adjust their human resources policies to better identify employees who are 14 well-suited for the emotional demands and display rules of the organization. I turn now to a review of the evolution of human resource management which explains the impact that organizational practices have on individual-level attitudes and behavior. Strategic Human Resource Management Decades of research have found that human resource (HR) practices have an influence on both organizational-level outcomes such as firm performance as well as individual level behaviors such as job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover (Huselid, 1995; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Therefore, the effective usage and treatment of an organization’s human resources (i.e., employees) is clearly an important aspect of organizational success. The idea that employees are an asset similar to financial capital was labeled human capital by Becker (1964) and defined as the “knowledge, information, ideas, skills, and health of individuals” (Becker, 2002, p. 3). This perspective of the value of employees expands the personnel function of organizations beyond administration and ties the HR practices to the needs of the business more strategically (Wright & Ulrich, 2017). Research on managing individuals and their attitudes and well-being along with specific work practices (e.g. selection, training, performance management) has been examined in the HR literature (Boxall, Purcell, & Wright, 2007; Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009) but it has often been considered separately from the strategic HRM (SHRM) literature which seeks to explain how overall HR strategies impact the performance of the organization (Boxall et al., 2007). The SHRM literature also suggests that organizations consider combinations of HR practices, which have been referred to as HR systems and HR bundles (Huselid, 1995; Toh, Morgeson, & Campion, 2008). The use of organizational-level strategies and practices is important to 15 understand because ultimately, these practices have a strong influence on individual attitudes and behaviors (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). Combinations or bundles of HR practices have also been labeled as high-performance work practices or systems (HPWP or HPWS; Kaufman, 2007). HPWS can include the HR practices of recruitment, selection and training procedures, job design, performance appraisal, and incentive compensation systems (Huselid, 1995). High-performance HR practices help organizations ensure that employees have the required skills and abilities to perform their job tasks. Research also suggests that a consistent HR system shapes the experience of employees and can improve performance by developing employee capabilities (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). As stated by Buller and McEvoy (2012, p. 52), “an organization’s stock of human capital (i.e., its collective capabilities, competencies, KSAs), is largely a function of its recruitment, selection and training practices.” Over time, SHRM research has focused on the HR practices themselves rather than the human capital (Wright & McMahan, 2011) which is problematic because ultimately, the “link between organization-level practice and organization-level performance must take place through individuals” (Wright & Ulrich, 2017). The nature of the relationship between HR practices (or HPWPs) and firm performance has been referred to by scholars as a “black box” but employee attitudes and behaviors are considered to be components of that black box (Messersmith, Patel, & Lepak, 2011) . An early suggestion as to how organizations may successfully use HR practices to improve firm performance stems from the behavioral perspective in HRM (Schuler & Jackson, 1987) which suggests that HR systems will be most effective when they are able to prompt specific employee behaviors and attitudes that are viewed as critical to achieving the goals of the organization. 16 Nishii and Wright (2008) introduced a model of the HR practices-performance relationship that suggests that HR practices are linked to performance directly through their impact on employee skills, attitudes, and motivation (Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Huselid, 1995; Parker et al., 2003). Extant research supports the idea that the implementation of new HR practices does not directly affect the job performance of individuals but rather, it first influences their attitudes which then have behavioral implications (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Wright & McMahan, 1992). Further, research supports the idea that employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors mediate the relationship between HRM practices and firm-level outcomes (Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg, & Croon, 2013; Wright & McMahan, 2011). HRM practices shape the perceptions of both job applicants and members of the organization (Cable & Yu, 2007; Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008), though each individual or department may have a unique interpretation of the practice (Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe, 2011; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Messersmith et al., 2011). How organizations treat individuals in the first few months of working in a new environment sends clear signals to new employees about what is expected of them and how well they fit into the organization (Cable & Parsons, 2001). The different aspects of HRM systems “send signals to employees that allow them to understand the desired and appropriate responses” (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p. 204). The ways in which HR practices can affect employee perceptions of the effectiveness of HR practices, and the attributions that employees make regarding the reasons for the HR practices are important because these ideas lead to both affective and behavioral reactions (Nishii et al., 2008; Nishii & Wright, 2008). Kehoe and Wright (2013) found that employees’ collective perceptions of HR practice usage were positively related to affective commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and intent to remain with the organization. Piening, Baluch, and Salge 17 (2013) analyzed longitudinal data and found that increases in employees’ HR system perceptions (i.e., more positive perception of HR practices) were positively related to subsequent increases in job satisfaction and Wright, Gardner, and Moynihan (2003) found a positive relationship between HR practice use and organizational commitment. In this dissertation, I focus on the use of emotion-focused HR practices, specifically within the recruitment, selection, onboarding, performance management, and training practices. This construct stems from Knight et al.’s (2018) recent conceptualization of emotion-focused personnel practices which will be discussed below. Emotion-Focused Human Resource Practices A recent article by Knight et al. (2018, p. 202) introduced the idea of emotion-focused personnel practices which they defined as “the degree to which emotion plays a role in core human resource (HR) decisions (i.e., recruitment, selection, and promotion).” This is an important idea given that all work has an aspect of emotional labor and it is crucial for organizations to ensure that their employees have the emotional capacity or abilities necessary to successfully perform their jobs (Arvey et al., 1998). Knight and colleagues (2018) suggest that organizations should consider the tendency of job candidates to experience positive emotions and manage negative emotions, though research within the field of emotion regulation has moved beyond the idea that it is necessary to solely appear positive (Grandey & Melloy, 2017). However, Knight et al. (2018) focus on consumer-centric jobs in which positive emotional displays are likely to be more desirable or required of employees. Unfortunately, the original scale of emotion-focused personnel practices developed by Knight and colleagues (2018) is deficient for the purposes of this research for several reasons. First, the scale is a broad measure of distinct and separate HR processes and does not account for 18 the full range of HR functions (i.e., recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management) nor does it capture a range of specific tactics within each of these practices. The scale does not include any items related to onboarding and training and has just one item related to promotions (which is part of the performance management process). Second, the scale conflates different HR practices. For example, one item of the scale is “within our recruitment process, we test specifically how resilient and stress resistant our job applicants are” which conflates recruitment (attraction of individuals to apply to the organization) with selection (the assessment of job candidates and hiring decisions; Orlitzky, 2007). Third, for most of the items, there are not corresponding items as to how the practice may be used in other functions. For example, the sample item mentioned above specifically focuses on recruitment, but the scale does not include congruent items for selection or promotion; if resilience and stress resistance are measured in some way, are the outcomes of these tests used to make selection decisions (either hiring candidates into the organization or selecting from within for promotion)? The HR functions of recruiting and selection are conceptually and practically distinct and should be measured accordingly. Next, Knight et al.’s (2018) scale identifies specific emotions, particularly enthusiasm in two of the six items (“In the selection process we specifically examine the job candidates’ capacity for enthusiasm” and “Employees’ promotions into leadership positions depend decisively on whether they can inspire enthusiasm in others”). However, there are many emotions that may be important to display or regulate that are not represented in this scale. A leader within the organization does not necessarily need to inspire enthusiasm; in some jobs it may be just as or more critical for a leader to be able to reduce negative emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety) than enhance positive emotions. Enthusiasm is just one of the many emotions that 19 individuals experience at work and it is important for a scale of emotion-focused HR practices to capture the range of emotions. Fit At the broadest level of conceptualization, person-environment (PE) fit is the compatibility between individuals and their work environment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Theory and research suggest that when there is congruence (or a match or fit) between people and their work environment, there will be positive outcomes such as increased satisfaction, performance, commitment, and lower stress and turnover (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Kristof, 1996; Ostroff & Schulte, 2007). Person-environment fit can be considered an individual characteristic with individual level consequences (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011) but within the PE construct, research has distinguished between several different forms and levels of the environment, which include person-organization (PO), person-supervisor (PS), person-group (PG), person-vocation (PV), and person-job (PJ) fit (Edwards & Shipp, 2007; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Kristof, 1996; Schwab, 1980). The most widely accepted definition of person-organization fit is “the compatibility between people and organization that occurs when (a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics or (c) both” (Kristof, 1996, pp. 4-5). However, in operationalizing person-organization fit, most researchers have measured these fundamental characteristics by assessing whether the individual’s beliefs and values are aligned with the culture and values of the organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof-Brown, 2000; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). The distinction between person-organization fit and person-job fit is often blurred, particularly when evaluating the needs aspect of the person- organization fit definition (Kristof, 1996). One strength of Kristof’s (1996) definition of person- 20 organization fit is that it integrates both the needs-supplies (NS) and demands-abilities (DA) perspectives. The needs-supplies perspective states that fit occurs when a job (or organization) is able to satisfy the needs, desires, or preferences of an individual whereas demands-abilities fit occurs when an individual has the abilities to fulfill the demands of the job (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly, 1977; Resick, Baltes, & Shantz, 2007). In terms of needs-supplies fit, needs are generally conceptualized as psychological needs, goals, or values, and job supplies are the rewarding aspects of the job such as compensation, training, and opportunity for development (Boon & Biron, 2016; Cable & DeRue, 2002). Measurement of demands-abilities fit evaluates abilities in terms of the knowledge, skills and abilities of the individual, and demands refer to the requirements of the job (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Regardless of the inconsistent measurement of these various perspectives of fit, research has found that individuals are able to distinguish between person-organization, needs-supplies, and demands-abilities fit perceptions (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Despite the efforts of fit researchers to create comprehensive definitions of fit (e.g. Kristof, 1996), ambiguities continue to exist in the PE fit literature, particularly due to nonequivalence in measuring fit at different levels (Edwards & Shipp, 2007). In an effort to clarify the various levels and types of fit, Edwards and Shipp (2007) developed an integrative framework that specifies five levels of the environment (individual, job, group, organization, and vocation), three content dimensions (global, domain, and facet), and three types of fit (needs-abilities, demands-abilities, and supplementary). Organizations seek to hire individuals with both strong person-organization fit (the individual’s beliefs are aligned with that of the organization) and person-job fit (the individual’s abilities are well-suited to the demands of the job) because decades of research have established a plethora of beneficial outcomes related to fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof-Brown, 2000). 21 HR practices have been found to positive relate to both person-organization and person-job fit, which perceived fit mediating and moderating employee attitudes and behaviors (Boon et al., 2011). More specifically, person-organization fit is positively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment and identification and negatively related to intentions to quit and turnover (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Person-job fit is positively related to task performance, job satisfaction, satisfaction with coworkers and supervisors, and negatively related to intentions to turnover, indicators of strain, exhaustion, anxiety, and work stress (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Xie & Johns, 1995). There is also extensive research to suggest that evaluations of person-job fit are an effective method of identifying high performing employees (Hausknecht & Wright, 2012; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Thus, in order to hire and retain successful employees who are satisfied and committed to their jobs and perform well, organizations need to ensure both person-organization fit and person-job fit. As Gabriel, Diefendorff, Chandler, Moran, and Greguras (2014, p. 413) suggest, “the process of actually enhancing fit may begin with the improved recruitment and selection processes that aim to enhance employee fit with the job and organization.” Fit and the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) Framework Perceived fit has an important role throughout the employee lifecycle as perceptions of fit can change over time, stemming from a continual assessment-reassessment process (Follmer, Talbot, Kristof-Brown, Astrove, & Billsberry, 2017). The Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider, 1987) is a dominant theory of the fit literature and it suggests that these three eponymous processes are fundamental to understanding how an organization works. The 22 model explains that first, individuals are attracted to specific organizations and make judgements about whether they feel they will fit with the organization (person-organization fit) before deciding whether or not to apply for a job. Next, organizations evaluate how well the knowledge, skills and abilities of the individual will suit the job (person-job fit) and whether the individual’s values are congruent with that of the organization (person-organization fit). Finally, once individuals have entered into the organization, they evaluate their fit and if they feel there is a lack of congruence (or misfit), will leave the organization. Although fit can change over time due to the dynamic nature of work and job demands, the HR practices of organizations have significant influence on perceptions of fit in the initial stages of the employee lifecycle starting with recruitment and selection. The process of recruitment has been called the “most critical human resource function for organizational success and survival” (Taylor & Collins, 2000, p. 304) so the significance of understanding how fit is involved in this process has significant practical implications. The recruitment and selection process within organizations can be organized into three stages (Barber, Wesson, Roberson, & Taylor, 1999; Breaugh, 2008; Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002; Dineen & Noe, 2009; Swider, Zimmerman, & Barrick, 2015). First, organizations seek to capture the attention of individuals to generate viable candidates by providing targeted information that will encourage applications. In the second stage, organizations measure and assess the characteristics of the applicants and the organizational representatives signal the values, culture, and norms of the organization to the applicant with the goal of maintaining the status of viable candidates. Finally, organizations seek to convince applicants to accept offers. Both the organization’s pre-hire assessment of fit and the applicant’s perceived anticipatory fit play an important role in the recruiting and selection processes (Ostroff & Zhan, 2012). At each of these 23 stages, the behavior of the organization, or rather its agents, and the organizational processes and policies send signals to candidates and new employees that are critical input into their evaluations of their person-organization and person-job fit (Allen, Mahto, & Otondo, 2007; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Dineen et al., 2002; Dineen & Noe, 2009; Follmer et al., 2017). Within the recruitment and selection literature, fit has been assessed from the perspective of the applicant and, separately, from the perspective of the recruiter or organization. Taken together, research has found that perceptions of fit have a significant impact on the employment process. Perceived fit is the strongest predictor of applicant attraction to an organization (Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Uggerslev, Fassina, & Kraichy, 2012) and accounts for as much as 31% of the variance in organizational attraction (Chapman & Zweig, 2005). Over the course of the recruitment process, it is expected that person-organization fit perceptions will increase as more information is made available and candidates interact more with the organization and its representatives (Boswell, Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan, 2003; Swider et al., 2015). Providing accurate and realistic job information allows applicants to assess the match between their abilities and the job requirements (i.e., demands-abilities fit) and job information predicts employment intention (Allen et al., 2007). Collins and Han (2004) found that providing more detailed information to applicants during the recruitment process increased both the quantity and quality of candidates. Importantly, when applicants perceive person-job fit, they are more likely to remain in the selection process and accept a job offer (Carless, 2005; Giumetti & Raymark, 2017; Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 2000; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Realistic job previews are also associated with increasing job satisfaction and reducing likelihood of early turnover (Giumetti & Raymark, 2017; Premack & Wanous, 1985). 24 When providing information to applicants, recruiters try to create positive expectations through their communication (Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey, & Edwards, 2000), which is particularly important as job applicants perceive that their experiences during recruitment are symbolic of the attributes of the organization such as their culture and efficiency (Cable & Yu, 2007). As job seekers receive additional information, they evaluate the degree to which the organization can satisfy their needs for self-expression (Highhouse, Thornbury, & Little, 2007) and are particularly attracted to organizations that they believe will allow them to genuinely express their characteristics and values and define their social identity (Highhouse et al., 2007; Highhouse, Zickar, Thorsteinson, Stierwalt, & Slaughter, 1999). This suggests that job seekers consider the extent to which they will be able express their naturally felt emotions. In the second stage of recruitment, research has found that recruiters use both person-organization and person- job fit to make hiring decisions but are able to distinguish between the two types of fit (Kristof- Brown, 2000). When evaluating person-organization fit, recruiters consider the values of the job candidate whereas knowledge, skills, and abilities are the basis for judging person-job fit; demands-abilities fit is considered the most relevant type of fit for hiring recommendations and pre-entry person-job fit is strongly correlated with the organization’s intent to hire the candidate (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). According to Chuang and Sackett (2005), “an applicant’s fit with the job is still the number one criterion to fulfill from the organization’s point of view” (p. 222). In the final stage of recruitment, person-organization fit is positively related to job offer acceptance (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Resick et al., 2007). Once the recruitment and selection processes have taken place, the next phase of the employee lifecycle consists of onboarding and socialization. This is the process through which 25 new hires develop an understanding of the values and expected behaviors necessary in order to be an effective member of the organization (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013). These initial weeks as an employee are critical as organizational newcomers are most impressionable and susceptible to organizational influence on appropriate behaviors, attitudes and emotions (Cable et al., 2013; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). It is in this initial phase of employment that employees develop their identity. However, research has found that when newcomers need to suppress their true identities in order to display the expected identity of the organization, they will not feel they fit with the organization and become more depleted as they need to behave inauthentically (Cable et al., 2013; Grandey, 2003; Hochschild, 1983). Rather than hiring employees who will need to suppress their true identities, organizations can provide job candidates and new hires with explicit information about the emotional expectations of the job in order to ensure better fit. Previous research has found that organizations can reduce newcomer uncertainty and promote appropriate behaviors by strategically and consistently conveying expectations throughout the onboarding and socialization processes. The greater the newcomer’s perceived fit, the more likely that the socialization process will be successful in integrating new employees (Cable et al., 2013; Cable & Judge, 1996). Unsuccessful socialization, which can result from poor fit, or a lack of fit in general, often results in employee attrition (Cable et al., 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005; Lee, Ashford, Walsh, & Mowday, 1992). Emotional Demands-Abilities (ED-A) Fit Recent research has also established an additional type of fit: emotional demands-abilities (ED-A) fit. This form of fit is defined as the perceived match between the emotional demands of a job and an individual’s abilities to meet those demands (Diefendorff et al., 2016). Based on the 26 Edwards and Shipp (2007) integrative conceptualization of person-environment fit, emotional demands-abilities (ED-A) fit is a job-based, facet-level, demands-abilities form of person- environment fit (Diefendorff et al., 2016). This means that the fit is evaluated at the job level based on the demands placed on the individual within the job and at the facet level by focusing on the demands-abilities fit for specific tasks or activities (such as idea generation or motivating subordinates; Edwards & Shipp, 2007). Diefendorff et al. (2016) found that ED-A fit is distinct from other fit perceptions (person-organization, person-group, person-supervisor, demands-abilities, and needs-supplies fit), and that it accounts for incremental variance in job satisfaction, work tension, felt inauthenticity, burnout, self and supervisor ratings of job performance, and psychological need satisfaction (controlling for the aforementioned fit perceptions). This suggests that beyond considering how well matched the knowledge and experience of an employee is with the demands of the job, organizations need to consider how well the employee’s abilities match the emotional demands of the position. In order to fully understand this concept and its boundaries, it is important to define both emotional demands and emotional abilities. When introducing the concept of ED-A fit, Diefendorff et al. (2016, p. 5) offered a very general definition: “ED-A fit may be construed fairly broadly as the match of person with emotional work demands, whatever those emotional demands might be and from whatever source they originate”. Emotional demands stem from an organization’s display rules which indicate which emotions are necessary and/or acceptable to express, such as requiring call center employees to be friendly and helpful at all times, regardless of customer mistreatment (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). The job itself may also be emotionally demanding, such as oncologists who work with terminally ill patients and must be able to 27 suppress displays of grief on the job. These types of demands require that individuals manage their “emotional reactions to difficult, challenging, monotonous, interpersonally demanding, or unpleasant work circumstances” (Diefendorff et al., 2016, p. 5). These emotional demands require employees to suppress their naturally felt emotions and, potentially, engage in surface or deep acting. Employees must use their emotional abilities to handle these demands. However, based on Diefendorff and colleagues’ (2016, p. 5) definition, emotional abilities encompass a “diverse array of potential attributes, such as personality traits (Goldberg, 1992), dispositional affectivity (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), approach and avoidance motivational tendencies (Carver & White, 1994), emotional expressivity (Gross & John, 1997), emotion regulation capabilities (Gross & John, 2003), coping skills (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003), emotion recognition abilities (Nowicki & Duke, 1994), and emotional intelligence (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006)”. The idea that individuals have so many types of knowledge, skills, and abilities inherently suggests that individuals differ in how well they can meet the emotional demands of their job. If an employee does not have the requisite emotional abilities, he or she will need to more consciously regulate or suppress his or her affect. This will deplete the cognitive and regulatory resources of the employee which, in general, negatively impacts well-being (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005). In contrast, an individual who has better emotion-focused coping skills is likely find it easier to handle emotionally fraught situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). When employees have jobs that better fit their abilities, research has found that they will experience better well-being and have higher performance (Bono & Vey, 2007; Boon & Biron, 2016; Boon et al., 2011; Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1990; Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002; Van Iddekinge, Aguinis, Mackey, & DeOrtentiis, 2018). Perceptions of fit reflect affective 28 judgments, and if an employee perceives misfit between his/her abilities and the job demands, it will lead to negative affect (Gabriel et al., 2014). An important note about the concept of fit and its measurement is that the extant fit literature has treated the concept of fit as a threshold to be met rather than an exact match of demands and abilities or needs and supplies. Although it is certainly possible that an individual may, for example, be overqualified for a job based on his or her skills or abilities, the current conceptualization of fit would consider that there is good person-job fit because the individual has the abilities to meet the demands of the job. In practice, it is likely that such an individual in such a situation may not perceive good fit. However, given the specific construct of ED-A fit, it seems unrealistic that an individual would believe that his or her emotional abilities far exceed what is required of the job and therefore they are not suited for the job nor is it likely that an individual would feel that a job does not demand enough emotional labor and seek a more emotionally demanding position. Thus, for the purposes of this dissertation, I will treat ED-A fit as a threshold to be met such that an emotionally overqualified individual will be considered to have good fit. Having provided an overview of the literatures on emotion regulation, HRM practices, and fit, I now turn to developing a model describing how HR practices, specifically emotion- focused HR practices, impact individual behaviors and attitudes through emotional demands- abilities fit and emotion regulation. 29 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Despite the wide acknowledgement of the important role of emotions at work and the stress that emotional demands can create (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Grandey, 2000a; Pugh et al., 2013), “HRM scholars have yet to devise a comprehensive theory about the role of emotions and emotional regulation” and emotions are “almost totally absent from the strategic HRM literature” (Ashkanasy et al., 2017, p. 5). Therefore, although there is not a single theory to support the connection between HR practices and emotion regulation, extant research and theory supports the plausibility of a relationship between the constructs. An important contribution of my dissertation is identification of emotion-related HR practices and the development of a robust scale of emotion-focused practices beyond that of Knight et al.’s (2018) emotion-focused personnel practices. Based on the fact that my scale captures a more comprehensive range of practices, I define emotion-focused HR practices as the degree to which emotion plays a role in human resource (HR) processes throughout the employee lifecycle. These practices can be considered a form of high-performance work practice rather than simply an administrative task and, as such, I believe the more appropriate label for my scale is emotion-focused HR practices rather than personnel practices. The HR practices included in this scale are recruitment, selection, onboarding, performance management, and training as these are most clearly related to emotional demands and abilities. Given that not all individuals are suited to jobs that require extensive emotion regulation, using these emotion-focused HR practices should enable organizations and individuals to evaluate how well they will fit within both the organization and the job which should influence individual attitudes. To date, there is a paucity of research on how organizational practices shape emotional labor processes (Grandey, Diefendorff, & Rupp, 2013) but HR practices strongly 30 influence the individuals within the organization who must perform the emotional labor and so it is important to understand how these constructs may be related. HR Practices and Individual Outcomes One of the ultimate goals of HR researchers is to understand the HR practice- performance linkage (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nishii & Wright, 2008). In order to understand the impact of these HR practices, it is imperative to capture key work attitudes that are related to performance related outcomes. As previously discussed, my dissertation seeks to understand the mechanisms, namely, emotional demands-abilities fit and emotional regulation, through which HR practices affect individual work attitudes. Therefore, I focus on outcomes most frequently evaluated within the high-performance work practice and fit literatures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to turnover and two common outcomes from the emotion regulation literature of emotional exhaustion and depletion (Verquer et al., 2003). The outcomes of organizational commitment and turnover intent are central in the HR literature due to their importance to organizations and their generalizability (Guthrie, 2001; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005). Organizational commitment in particular has been established as a key mediator between HR practices and organizational-level performance and stems from the idea of social exchange (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that individuals participate and invest in relationships due to norms of reciprocity; social exchange relationships in work settings emerge when organizations implement employee- oriented practices that then engender positive employee attitudes (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). By implementing high-performance HR practices, organizations indicate their commitment to employee development and satisfaction, which, due to the nature of positive social exchange, leads employees to feel committed to the 31 organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Huselid, 1995; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). Given that emotion-focused HR practices are a form of high- performance HR practices, they should engender positive employee attitudes. Extensive prior research suggests that organizational commitment and turnover intentions are negatively related (Cohen, 1993; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Vandenberghe & Bentein, 2009) and studies have found that organizational commitment is a predictor of turnover as employees who are less attached to an organization are more likely to leave (Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011; Hom, Lee, Shaw, & Hausknecht, 2017; Kammeyer- Mueller et al., 2005; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Due to the costliness of employee turnover, it is in the best interest of organizations to promote organizational commitment to reduce attrition. Although this dissertation represents an attempt to better understand the mechanisms through which organization-level HR practices may impact individual-level outcomes, it has been well-established that HR practices (particularly high-performance work practices) can have a direct effect on the attitudes and behaviors of employees (Jiang et al., 2012; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nishii et al., 2008; Nishii & Wright, 2008; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Indeed, the bureaucracy inherent within organizational structures has been found to influence the emotional experiences of employees by limiting the ability of individuals to act on their emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Elfenbein, 2007). Consistent with this research, I believe that emotion- focused HR practices will influence key workplace outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover as well as individual well-being such as emotional exhaustion and depletion. In the sections that follow, I unpack the mechanisms that explain how these emotion-focused HR practices impact these outcomes. 32 HR Practices and Fit: An ASA Perspective During the initial stages of the employee lifecycle, interactions with the organization have a strong impact on job candidate perceptions and expectations of the organization. According to the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model of Schneider (1987), individuals are attracted to organizations within which they believe they fit. Although the ASA model is commonly used as the basis for person-organization fit research due to Schneider’s (1987) focus on organizational characteristics (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), I believe that it well-suited to explain other dimensions of fit. In fact, after conducting a meta-analysis of the four most prevalent dimensions of person-environment fit (i.e., person-job, person-organization, person- supervisor, and person-group fit), Kristof-Brown et al. (2005, p. 321), suggest that the field lacks “a comprehensive theory of how individual actions and organizational practices during and immediately following entry impact both perceived and actual levels of fit”. Kristof-Brown (2000) found that perceived person-job fit was found to explain greater variance in hiring recommendations than person-organization fit which supports the idea that organizational recruiters are focused on hiring individuals who have the abilities to meet the demands of the job (Wright & Boswell, 2002). Fundamentally, the ASA model supports the idea that the fit between person and environment is beneficial to and valued by individuals and thus, it is important to consider dimensions of the environment beyond the organization. In order to explain how these emotion-focused HR practices may be implemented in the workplace, I will provide the following example. A corrections facility is looking to hire new officers so representatives from the organization attend a career fair at a local college with a strong criminal justice program. During this career fair, the representatives focus on the positives of the job, such as the high compensation, generous benefits, and set hours in order to encourage 33 applications. However, this does not provide a realistic job preview to the applicants. The representatives should also explain how important it is for corrections officers to have high levels of self-control, be able to remain calm in stressful situations, and be conscientious, and that it is important to not form attachments with prisoners. This information could be used by applicants in deciding whether they are well suited for the job (i.e., person-job fit). The selection process used by the corrections facilities could include situational judgment tests (SJTs) and experienced-based interview questions. Situational judgment tests are a selection tool in which candidates are provided with a work-related scenario and potential responses and then are asked to evaluate the likelihood they would pursue that course of action (Whetzel & McDaniel, 2009). These types of tests generally take the form of multiple-choice questions so as a selection measure they are not difficult to develop, but they generally do not involve questions about emotions; however, understanding the likely emotional response of a job candidate could have high utility for jobs with high emotional loads. During the selection process, the interviewers could also include experience-based structured interview questions, which have been shown to have high predictive validity (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014; McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel, & Grubb, 2007; Whetzel & McDaniel, 2009), with a specific focused on emotions. For example, “Tell me about a time at work or school where you felt threatened or intimidated. How did you respond in the moment? After the incident was over, how did you feel?”. If a job candidate said he or she calmly spoke with the instigator rather than escalating the situation or acting aggressively, and felt that the instigator was just lashing out because he or she had a bad day at work, this would indicate the candidate’s ability to display neutral emotion (i.e., surface acting) and ability to perform cognitive reappraisal (to understand the instigator’s motives). How the job candidate explains how he or she coped or recovered after 34 the incident would also provide revealing information about how his or her emotional abilities. These types of selection measures are particularly appropriate given the idea of behavioral concordance (i.e., individuals tend to act in consistent ways) and that these measures are based on the idea of behavior consistency such that the past behavior of individuals is the best predictor of future behavior (Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990; Motowidlo, Hooper, & Jackson, 2006). During the onboarding process, the organization should make sure to be clear about the display rules of the organization and provide information to the new employees about how to maintain distance from prisoners while still demonstrating some compassion and potential coping strategies in difficult situations. Onboarding is a critical component of organizational socialization as it is at this point that newly hired employees are most impressionable and susceptible to organizational influence on the appropriate behaviors, attitudes, and emotions; failure to properly onboard and socialize employees is problematic for organizations as poor socialization has been related to employee turnover (Cable et al., 2013). Within the performance management process of the corrections facility, wardens could be required to evaluate the appropriateness of the emotional displays of their subordinates and provide feedback regarding their emotional performance. The performance management process could help wardens identify officers who might be struggling to manage their emotions (e.g. displaying overly positive emotions rather than maintaining neutral expressions when interacting with inmates) and ensure that they receive additional training on strategies to regulate their emotions and, potentially, assigned a mentor. Mentorship and supervisor support are associated with employee adjustment and can increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and reduce the intent to turnover (Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007). These HR practices could be helpful for organizations 35 seeking to retain employees because working as a corrections officer is very emotionally demanding and these individuals experience high levels of stress and burnout (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Although compensation is a significant HR process, I do not include it within the scale because of the lack of connection between emotional displays and compensation. Although organizations often use performance management ratings to help determine compensation, which would thus embed evaluations of emotional demands-abilities fit within the process, it is unrealistic to expect that individuals would be offered a higher pay rate due to their emotional abilities. Within this dissertation, I also introduce the concept of person-display rule fit (P-DR fit) which I define as the match between the naturally felt emotions of an individual and the display rules. ED-A fit suggests that an individual must, in some way, labor to meet emotional demands of the job. In contrast, the construct of person-display rule fit specifically refers to the expression of emotions that is not effortful. It is important to consider how the work environment matches with the individual’s naturally felt emotions given that the display of naturally felt emotions occurs more frequently at work than emotional displays expressed through surface or deep acting (Lennard et al., 2019; Brent A. Scott et al., 2020). I believe organizations that use more emotion-focused HR practices will be able to identify individuals who have better fit and thus, employees will perceive greater emotional demands-abilities fit as well as person-display rule fit. Recent research (e.g. Follmer et al., 2017; Jansen & Shipp, 2019) has suggested that assessments of fit are often revisited due to external triggers such as promotions or performance reviews and that sometimes these events are “misfit- reducing events” (Jansen & Shipp, 2019). This suggests that HR processes throughout an employee’s tenure affect their perceived fit and thus, implementing more emotion-focused HR 36 practices may impact their emotional demands-abilities fit and person-display rule fit. Importantly, my model suggests that the business units that use these emotion-focused HR practices will have employees with higher levels of fit compared with units that use fewer or none of these HR practices. Within a unit or job group, there is greater consistency in the implementation HR practices relative to the implementation practices across an entire organization and so, it is actually helpful to measure practices at a unit-level rather than assuming a uniform effect of practices on employees (Nishii & Wright, 2008). Previous research supports the idea that despite inherent differences between individuals within organizations, collective perceptions of HR practices within job groups can be meaningfully related to employee attitudes and behavior such as commitment, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Similarly, I believe that in units or groups that utilize emotion-focused HR practices, there will generally be higher levels of emotional demands-abilities fit as well as person-display rule fit. Hypothesis 1 (H1): Emotion-focused human resource practices will be positively related to emotional demands-abilities fit, such that individuals within organizations that use more emotion-focused HR practices will perceive greater emotional demands-abilities fit. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Emotion-focused human resource practices will be positively related to person-display rule fit, such that individuals within organizations that use more emotion-focused HR practices will perceive greater person-display rule fit. Previous research suggests that organizational attraction is often based on personality traits, personal values, and work attitudes (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Judge & Cable, 1997; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In terms of selection, organizations seek out individuals who will fit with the organization and recruiters evaluate applicant person-organization and person-job fit 37 (Kristof-Brown, 2000). At an individual level, selecting into the application process and accepting a job offer is also heavily influenced by fit. By providing potential job applicants with information about the demands of the job, specifically the emotional demands, these individuals will be better able to evaluate whether they should select into the organization. Researchers have found that the amount of detail provided to applicants in organizational descriptions is positively related to applicant perceptions of person-organization and person-job fit (Kristof-Brown, Reeves, & Follmer, 2014; Roberson, Collins, & Oreg, 2005; Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991). This idea is in line with signaling theory (Spence, 1973) which explains that information asymmetry inherently exists between organizational insiders and outsiders; in terms of recruiting, the organizational insider (e.g. manager or recruiter) communicates information about the job and organization (sends a signal) to an outsider (i.e., the signal recipient), in this case the job candidate, who then interprets the signal (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). Individuals dislike uncertainty and seek as much information as possible in order to understand their potential employer and then interpret what the information provided could indicate about a future job at the organization (Connelly et al., 2011; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Highhouse et al., 2007). The signals or information communicated from insiders can be both positive and negative, though traditionally signaling theory focuses on deliberately conveying positive information to portray the organization in a positive light as signaling is meant to have a strategic effect (Connelly et al., 2011). Job demands and organizational norms can be considered a type of signal. Organizations can signal the importance of emotion or emotion regulation on the job during the initial phases of the employee lifecycle. Recruiters and hiring managers should focus on the emotional aspects of a job during the organizational entry process and provide explicit details about the emotional 38 demands of the job; this includes the display rules as well as the emotional load of the job (as an oncologist, for example, has a much more emotionally demanding job than a pharmacist though both positions will require emotion regulation and adherence to display rules). Providing detailed information about emotional demands as form of realistic job preview will help to reduce misfit and limit the possibility of eventual withdrawal and turnover (Giumetti & Raymark, 2017). Organization representatives should also encourage applicants to consider their emotional abilities and clarify applicant perceptions of person-job fit (or lack of fit), specifically ED-A fit. In fact, emotions researchers have suggested that organizations consider the ability of individuals to adapt emotions in their selection processes (Bono & Vey, 2005). Emotional abilities include both the dispositional tendencies of individuals (i.e. personality traits and dispositional affectivity; Goldberg, 1992; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) as well as their emotional expressivity and emotion regulation capabilities (Gross & John, 2003) and coping skills (Ito & Brotheridge, 2003; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). It is important to note that emotional requirements are not always dictated by formal policies, job descriptions, or tasks and can be the result of the work itself and established by unwritten norms (Diefendorff et al., 2016). This highlights the importance of communicating the emotional demands of the job during the recruitment, selection, and onboarding phases of the employee lifecycle, which is a component of emotion-focused HR practices. In keeping with the ASA framework, when provided with more information, individuals are likely perceive greater ED-A fit by the time the enter into an organization because they will have a clear understanding of the emotional demands of the job; these individuals also would have exited the selection process if they did not feel they had good ED-A fit or fail to be selected by recruiters due to a perceived lack of fit. Although recruiter judgments of person-job and person-organization fit 39 have not been found to be particularly accurate (Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof-Brown et al., 2014), I focus on the applicant perspective of fit for the purposes of this dissertation, rather than that of organizational representatives. This is important as perceptions of fit have also been found to more accurately capture fit than subjective and objective measures. In the first stages of recruitment, the job applicant’s perception of fit is related to organizational attractiveness, and at any point during the employee lifecycle, a lack of fit (or misfit) can lead to an employee leaving the organization (Follmer et al., 2017; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Uggerslev et al., 2012). In this dissertation, I focus on the initial stages of the employee lifecycle as previous research has found that the greatest change in work attitudes occurs during the first three months of an employee’s tenure (Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013; Lance, Vandenberg, & Self, 2000) and that employee attitudes upon organizational entry, such as organizational commitment, are related to attitudes several months later (Hom, Griffeth, Palich, & Bracker, 1999) and even turnover as long as four years later (Kammeyer- Mueller et al., 2005; Lee et al., 1992). This suggests that initial perceptions of and attitudes towards the organization are strong predictors are future attitudes of employees. Therefore, I believe that the emotion-focused HR practices of recruiting, selection, and onboarding, which occur within the beginning of the employee lifecycle, will be stronger drivers of emotional demands-abilities fit and person-display rule fit than the performance management process and training. However, it is possible that certain emotion-focused HR practices have a greater impact on employees at different points in their tenure. For example, the onboarding process will be significant for newly hired employees as they acclimate to the role expectations and display rules of the organization. In fact, Bretz and Judge (1994) suggested that fit would be most beneficial early in an employee’s tenure as fit would contribute to early career success, which, in 40 turn affects later career success (Dreher & Bretz, 1991) and “early fit experiences set the stage for future employment experiences” (Shipp & Jansen, 2011). However, the expectations of and demands on more tenured employees may change over time, making the performance management process more important for evaluating their emotional demands-abilities fit. Over the course of an employee’s tenure with an organization, he or she may move into different roles; organizations often promote individuals as based on or to reward their performance in their current role without fully considering whether the abilities and reasons for their current success would translate well in the new role. Before promoting an individual, it is important to consider whether they have the emotional abilities to meet the emotional demands of the new role or whether they will be able to display the emotions expected by the display rules of the new position. Therefore, it is possible that different emotion-focused HR practices will have differential effects on emotional demands-abilities fit and person-display rule fit. Research Question 1 (RQ1): Are there differential effects of emotion-focused human resource practices on emotional demands-abilities fit? Are recruitment, selection, and onboarding practices more strongly related to emotional demands-abilities fit than performance management and training? Research Question 2 (RQ2): Are there differential effects of emotion-focused human resource practices on person-display rule fit? Are onboarding, training and performance management practices more strongly related to person-display rule fit than recruitment and selection? Although the ASA model provides a strong theoretical basis to suggest that organizations that utilize emotion-focused HR practices will, in general, be able to identify, hire, and retain employees with higher perceptions of fit, there will still be variability in employees’ perceptions of fit within organizations and units (Nishii & Wright, 2008). Given this expected individual- 41 level variability in fit within organizations, the behavioral and attitudinal responses of employees will differ (Nishii & Wright, 2008). Fit and Emotion Regulation One major assumption within emotional labor research is that “people who are a better fit will need to do less emotional labor” (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015, p. 341). Although the assumption that fit is an antecedent of emotion regulation is so prevalent, to date, articles within the area have focused on antecedents based on specific individual characteristics or on the nature of the emotion eliciting event rather than aspects of fit (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015). Furthermore, despite the inevitable nature of emotion regulation at work and the work-related outcomes associated with emotion regulation, “…HRM [human resource management] scholars have yet to appreciate fully the critical role that emotions play in their field (Ashkanasy et al., 2017, p. 4). Being able to connect the HR concept of fit with emotion regulation would provide both HR and OB scholars with an important bridge between these two areas of work. Demands- abilities fit is a form of complementary fit which means that the “employee has a skill set that an organization requires” (Cable & Edwards, 2004, p. 822) or that the “need of the environment is offset by the strength of the individual” (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 271). In the case of ED-A, the requirements of the environment can be interpreted as the demands placed on the employee by their tasks or roles, and the strength of the individual refer to their abilities to manage their emotions. If an organization can improve or even ensure emotional-demands abilities fit, the need for emotion regulation can be reduced. In other words, when individuals have the emotional abilities to meet the emotional requirements of their jobs, less regulation should be required and the regulation that is performed will be less effortful due to the individual’s ability to surface and 42 deep act. It is important to note that Diefendorff et al. (2016) suggest that ED-A fit, like other forms of perceived fit, is a general, global construct that captures the beliefs of individuals about whether they possess the abilities to fulfill the emotional demands of their jobs, regardless of the demands or abilities. This means that good ED-A fit may be the result of several different pathways that are unique to each individual. For individuals who have greater emotional abilities (for example, higher emotion regulation capabilities), the need to surface or deep act will be less effortful and not as draining on cognitive resources. Consistent with the idea that some individuals are more likely to engage in or feel the need to employ different emotional labor strategies, prior research has established that the personality traits of extraversion and neuroticism are predictors of the need to use surface acting (Diefendorff et al., 2005). However, these personality variables were not found to be predictors of deep acting which suggests that the emotional labor strategy employed by individuals depends on more than just their dispositional tendencies (Diefendorff et al., 2005). Importantly, Diefendorff and colleagues (2005) found that extraversion and agreeableness were significant predictors of the expression of naturally felt emotions and posited that individuals who are predisposed to positive emotions naturally display their spontaneously felt positive emotions at work, which provides them with an advantage at work because they are able to display their naturally felt emotions. However, the sample population consisted of individuals in jobs that were more likely to require positive displays (i.e., sales and service) so this suggestion assumes that the display of positive emotions is the desired behavior when, in fact, there are a number of positions in which neutral or even negative displays are desirable (e.g. funeral directors, bill collectors, sports referees, etc.). Therefore, it is imperative to understand that organizations should not simply seek to hire individuals who are higher in extraversion and agreeableness 43 because the emotional demands of jobs are not uniformly positive and therefore, they will not necessarily provide for good emotional demands-abilities fit. The self-regulatory view of emotional labor suggests that employees constantly monitor the discrepancies between their emotions and emotion expectations and make efforts to minimize these discrepancies (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003; Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015). To some extent, individuals are constantly regulating their emotions; even those who display their naturally felt emotions must consider whether expressing those emotions are appropriate for their current situation. Gabriel, Daniels, Diefendorff, and Greguras (2015) found that individuals were somewhat consistent in their use of specific regulation strategies and developed five emotion labor profiles based on the extent to which individuals engage in surface and deep acting. These five profiles are: low actors (low deep and low surface acting); deep actors (high deep and low surface acting); surface actors (low deep and high surface acting); regulators (high deep and high surface acting); non-actors (no or extremely low levels of both deep and surface acting). Importantly, their analysis found that higher levels of ED-A fit were associated with a greater probability of an individual being a non-actor than any other profile (Gabriel et al., 2015). Although individuals are constantly regulating their emotions, regardless of their emotion labor profile, those with a higher ability for emotion regulation should find that regulating emotions (either via surface or deep acting), requires less effort compared with those who are lower in emotion regulation abilities. In an athletic context, for example, given the same task of making free throws with a basketball, a professional basketball player (i.e. an individual with greater basketball ability) would need to exert far less effort than a non-athlete or amateur player (i.e. an individual with lower basketball ability) in order to execute the same task. The concept of higher levels of skill and/or ability in a domain reducing the amount of effort to be exerted to 44 perform has found support across numerous fields and studies. Skill acquisition theories within both education and psychology, suggest the amount of cognitive effort that must be exerted to execute a task decreases with additional skill (DeKeyser, VanPatten, & Williams, 2007; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Yeo & Neal, 2008). Consistent with this, within physiology research, Freude, Ullsperger, and Erdmann (1999) found that increased skill was associated with a decrease in effort expenditure (measured via slow brain potentials in an EEG). Within the management literature, Yeo and Neal (2004, 2008) found that study participants – who were tasked with completing multiple rounds of an air traffic control task – were able to improve performance with practice and also reported that their subjective cognitive effort declined over time (as a function of practice, and, thus increased ability). In line with the idea that greater ability can reduce the amount of effort required for an individual to execute a task, an individual with greater emotional abilities should find regulation of emotion to be less effortful. Thus, individuals who perceive a high level of emotional demands-abilities fit will be well-suited to displaying the emotions required at work and will find it less effortful to regulate emotions (i.e., perform surface and deep acting) compared to an individual with poor emotional demands- abilities fit. Hypothesis 3 (H3): Emotional demands-abilities fit will be negatively related to effortfulness of (a) surface acting and (b) deep acting. The extent to which employees have dispositional tendencies that are in line with the emotions they are expected to display, which I label person-display rule fit, is a form of supplementary fit. Supplementary fit is an underlying “tradition within the P-E fit paradigm” (Cable & Edwards, 2004, p. 822). This type of fit is based on similarity such that the “person fits into some environmental context” (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 269). Research suggests 45 that supplementary fit exists when there are inherent similarities between the person’s characteristics and the characteristics of the organization or job (Boon & Biron, 2016; Kammeyer-Mueller, Schilpzand, & Rubenstein, 2012). When an individual’s naturally felt emotions are similar to those that the organization requires (via display rules), then supplementary fit should exist. Moreover, when individuals have a higher level of person-display rule fit, the emotive dissonance between their naturally felt emotions and the expectations of displayed emotions will be minimized and thus those individuals will more frequently display their naturally felt emotions at work and, also have reduced need to surface or deep act because their emotions are already most similar to those required in role. Hypothesis 4 (H4): Person-display rule fit will be (a) positively related to the frequency of natural emotional expression and negatively related to the frequency of (b) surface acting and (c) deep acting. Understanding the relationship between emotional demands-abilities fit and emotion regulation, and determining whether or not fit can reduce emotion regulation is important because of the myriad negative outcomes associated with emotion regulation (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). The negative effects of emotion regulation have been well-established through experimental and field research and within meta-analyses (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011) and it is linked to increased emotional exhaustion, burnout, job dissatisfaction, and turnover (Chau, Dahling, Levy, & Diefendorff, 2009; Côté & Morgan, 2002; Grandey, 2003). In general, researchers believe that employees withdraw from work as an outcome of emotional labor because of the effortful nature of emotion regulation and the emotional dissonance experienced (Chau et al., 2009). Consistent with previous literature, I expect to find similar relationships between emotion regulation and behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Due to the effortful nature 46 of surface acting and the depletion of resources associated with monitoring and altering emotional displays, surface acting has been associated with significant emotional exhaustion and depletion (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Glomb & Tews, 2004; Martínez-Iñigo, Totterdell, Alcover, & Holman, 2007; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Trougakos, Beal, Cheng, Hideg, & Zweig, 2015). The negative relationship between surface acting and job satisfaction and positive relationship between surface acting and exhaustion are supported by meta-analytic results (J. D. Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Deep acting has not consistently been found to be related to emotional exhaustion because, it is believed that suppressing experienced emotions (i.e., surface acting) requires more effort than preventing the development of emotions that have not been fully experienced (i.e., deep acting; Martínez-Iñigo et al., 2007; Richards & Gross, 2000). Deep acting also reduces the emotional dissonance experienced by individuals which is another reason that it is believed to be less depleting than surface acting (Grandey, 2003) although it is still considered harmful over time (Judge et al., 2009). As previously discussed, the emotional exhaustion and depletion that stem from emotion regulation can be explained by resource depletion and cognitive load, and emotive dissonance and felt inauthenticity. In a similar vein, Grandey, Fisk, and Steiner (2005) found that employees who were required to perform emotion regulation at work experienced lower levels of job satisfaction as the job depleted their personal resources, and Gross and John (2003) found that individuals who suppressed their emotions (i.e., surface actors) experienced lower levels of life satisfaction and well-being. Chau et al. (2009) also found that emotional labor was related to turnover intentions and emotional exhaustion and indirectly related to actual turnover. Although displaying naturally felt emotions is a form of emotion regulation, it is far less effortful than changing how one feels (using deep acting) or faking emotions (using surface acting). Therefore, Diefendorff et al. (2005) suggested that 47 researchers should not expect naturally felt emotions to “be associated with the negative effects of emotional labor, such as emotional dissonance and burnout (p. 340).” Extant research suggests that in terms of well-being and performance, the display of naturally felt emotions results in less exhaustion, greater satisfaction, and better performance than surface or deep acting (Hülsheger, Lang, Schewe, & Zijlstra, 2015; Martínez-Iñigo et al., 2007). Moreover, Lennard et al. (2019) found that displaying naturally felt emotions (in positive display contexts) was better for individuals in terms of their effects on emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. The extensive body of literature related to emotional labor has mainly focused on contexts requiring positively displays. This has resulted in the consensus that emotional labor, particularly surface acting, has negative effects on employees (Bono & Vey, 2005; Grandey, 2003; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). However, scholars have recognized this absence in the literature and recent research has examined emotional displays in a more nuanced manner and found that achieving negative displays through natural displays has a more negative effect on individuals than achieving negative displays via surface acting (Lennard et al., 2019; Brent A. Scott et al., 2020). These findings demonstrate that negative display contexts may reverse the effects of natural emotional expression, surface acting, and deep acting on employee well-being. Thus, for the purposes of this dissertation, my predictions are bounded to positive display contexts. Ultimately, all forms of emotional labor require regulatory effort that use cognitive resources and have the potential to negatively impact well-being and attitudes towards work but expression of naturally felt emotions is less draining and should be associated with more positive outcomes compared to surface acting and deep acting (Grandey & Melloy, 2017). 48 Hypothesis 5 (H5): Natural emotional expression will be positively related to (H5a) job satisfaction and (H5b) organizational commitment and negatively related to (H5c) intent to turnover, (H5d) emotional exhaustion and (H5e) depletion. Hypothesis 6 (H6): Surface acting and deep acting will be negatively related to (H6a) job satisfaction and (H6b) organizational commitment and positively related to (H6c) intent to turnover, (H6d) emotional exhaustion and (H6e) depletion. In developing the construct of perceived emotional demands-abilities fit, Diefendorff et al. (2016) found that ED-A fit explained variance in job satisfaction, work tension, and burnout above and beyond other fit perceptions. If an individual had low levels of emotional demands- abilities fit, it would be unsurprising that being required to consistently perform tasks that the employee does not enjoy will decrease his or her job satisfaction and commitment to the organization, increase stress, and perhaps even lead the employee to leave the organization. This concept is supported by the ASA framework (Schneider, 1987) which suggests that individuals are attracted to organizations and jobs in which they feel they will have good fit [attraction], the organizations make selection decisions based on how well the individuals will fit with the organization and the job [selection], and once the individuals have entered the organization, they assess their fit and if they feel there is a lack of congruence (or misfit), will leave the organization [attrition]. Indeed, Ramesh and Gelfand (2010) found that person-job fit was the strongest predictor of turnover within a sample of employees in the United States. An individual with low levels of fit will have lower levels of job satisfaction, feel less committed to the organization, and be more likely to turnover; by improving fit, organizations can reduce the likelihood of withdrawal from work (Giumetti & Raymark, 2017; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). 49 An individual who has the traits and abilities that are congruent with the emotional requirements of a job will find it easier to display these emotions and experience less stress when they are able to do so (Bono & Vey, 2007; Dahling & Johnson, 2013; Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Moskowitz & Côté, 1995). For example, a highly introverted person is predisposed to work independently and to avoid excessive amounts of socializing in the workplace. This individual would likely enjoy working in a technical position writing code while listening to his or her own music. Requiring that this employee work at a weeklong convention with coworkers to engage potential investors and customers would be out-of-character and lead to feelings of greater stress than someone who is extraverted. In this case, the demands of the job (acting in a positive and friendly manner) exceed the ability of the individual (because he or she is naturally a more introverted and finds interacting with others to be draining). When the job requires this person to regulate his or her emotions (through, perhaps surface acting, or the response-focused emotion regulation strategy of emotion suppression), the individual will experience greater emotional exhaustion and depletion (due to resource depletion and emotive dissonance). The construct of fit in general suggests that individuals evaluate their own attributes, which include needs, abilities, and personality traits, in comparison to the demands of their environment, organization, or job when considering their person-environment, person-organization, or person-job fit (Edwards et al., 2006). Similarly, Diefendorff et al. (2016) suggest that employees consider a wide range of personal attributes that include their personality, dispositional affectivity, and emotion regulation capabilities when forming their beliefs about their abilities to meet the emotional demands of their jobs. In the example above, this particular employee would likely recognize his or her difficulty to meet the emotional demands of the job and would thus perceive low levels of emotional demands-abilities fit. In addition, because of the lack of match between personal 50 abilities and emotional demands, the employees would feel depleted from the emotion regulation required and would also likely be dissatisfied with the job. Ideally, an organization would be able to identify individuals who have the emotional capabilities to effectively regulate their emotions such that the emotional labor is less depleting or find individuals who have a tendency to naturally feel the emotions required by the job so they do not have to perform as much emotion regulation and experience fewer negative outcomes (Pugh et al., 2013). Hypothesis 7 (H7): Emotion regulation (i.e., more surface acting and deep acting, less natural emotional expression) will mediate the positive relationship between emotional demands- abilities fit and (H7a) job satisfaction and (H7b) organizational commitment and the negative relationship between emotional demands-abilities fit and (H7c) intent to turnover, (H7d) emotional exhaustion and (H7e) depletion. Despite researchers advocating that organizations select individuals based on emotional demands of work (Arvey et al., 1998; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Pugh et al., 2013), organizations are unlikely to change their HR practices unless there is a clear effect on factors that influence organizational performance. The mechanisms by which organization-level practices influence individuals is a research area that has been referred to as a “black box” (Messersmith et al., 2011). I believe that the mechanisms explained above shed light into this black box and demonstrate how, ultimately, emotion-focused HR practices impact individual well-being through emotional demands-abilities fit and emotion regulation. Hypothesis 8 (H8): Emotional demands-abilities fit and emotion regulation (i.e., more surface acting and deep acting, less natural emotional expression) will serially mediate the relationships between emotion-focused human resources practices and (H8a) job satisfaction and (H8b) 51 organizational commitment and the negative relationship between emotional demands-abilities fit and (H8c) intent to turnover, (H8d) emotional exhaustion and (H8e) depletion. 52 METHODS Summary I conducted two studies for this dissertation. Study 1 consisted of three samples that were used to develop and validate the new proposed measure of emotion-focused human resource practices. The first sample comprised expert raters within the fields of human resources, organizational behavior, and industrial/organizational psychology. The other two samples were conducted by recruiting full-time working professionals with managerial and hiring experience via Prolific. Study 2 was a field study of HR representatives and managers and employees in customer-facing roles. The data was collected first from the HR representatives and managers and then from employees across two time points in order to test the multilevel, serially mediated model. Study 1 – Scale Development Given the deficiency of the original emotion-focused personnel practices scale by Knight and colleagues (2018) as described previously, in this dissertation, I developed a more robust measure of emotion-focused personnel practices that captures specific phases in the employee lifecycle, particularly recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management. This construct would be more appropriately labeled emotion-focused human resource (HR) practices given the strategic nature of the HR practices and, as discussed, personnel is a more antiquated term referring to the administrative function of people management (Kaufman, 2007). Most scales within the HR literature are developed by surveying or interviewing HR managers to collect a list of practices that then serve as indices of HR practices (Collins & Smith, 2006; Kehoe & Collins, 2017; Wright, Gardner, et al., 2001). These indices of HR practices are also most commonly validated by subject matter experts (Kehoe & Collins, 2017). My measure 53 of emotion-focused HR practices was validated following procedures in the survey measure development literature (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991; Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell, & Hill, 2019; Hinkin, 1998; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999) Item Generation and Content Validation. Items were adapted from the initial six item Knight et al. (2018) scale to more explicitly refer to HR practices, and additional items were generated by consulting the existing HR and, specifically, high-performance work practices, literatures. Though this approach, a set of 33 initial items were generated within five subscales of HR practices (i.e., recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management). In order to establish content validity, I used a multistep approach (Clark, Smith, & Haynes, 2020; Colquitt et al., 2019). First, I recruited 30 graduate students and researchers within the fields of industrial/organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resources to ensure that the proposed items reflect the intended content domain. Expert raters were chosen for this validation and can be considered an appropriate source as awareness of the content domain (i.e. human resource processes) is essential. A sample size of 30 is considered a sufficient to obtain a normal sampling distribution and it provides reliable agreement coefficients and correlations above .90 across populations (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991; Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999). Following the guidelines of Colquitt et al. (2019) for a Q-sort task, participants were provided with the definition of emotion-focused HR practices, as well as specific definitions of each of the HR functions (e.g., “Recruitment: The process of promoting the organization and encouraging potential job applicants of their fit with the company”). They were then shown each item and asked to decide which aspect of HR it represents by dragging and dropping the item into one of the boxes labeled for each HR practice). For example, a participant was shown the item “We encourage individuals to consider 54 their ability to manage their emotions before applying to open positions” and was asked to drag it into boxes labeled recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, or performance management. Substantive validity, or, the degree to which a measure reflects the construct of interest (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991), was calculated using two indices: the proportion of substantive agreement (psa) and the substantive-validity coefficient (csv). The values for psa can range from 0 to 1, whereby a 1 indicates that all judges classified the item to its intendent construct, and the csv values range from -1 to 1, whereby a value of -1 indicates that none of the judges correctly classified the item and all did so incorrectly and a value of 1 indicates that all judges classified the item correctly and that no judges incorrectly classified it (see Table 1 for full results). After this analysis, I removed all items with a psa less than .82 and/or a csv less than .61 which are the cutoffs determined by evaluation criteria from Colquitt et al. (2019) to suggest strong substantive validity. These criteria led to the elimination of 1 item and the remaining 31 items were retained for the second step of validation. Next, I recruited 250 employed individuals registered to participate in the online research platform Prolific who were employed full-time and have been involved in the hiring process within their organization. I used this platform as Prolific participants have been found to provide higher quality data than Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and other research platforms (Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti, 2017; Peer, Rothschild, Gordon, Evernden, & Damer, 2022). Participants represented a variety of industries and jobs. Due to the nature of Prolific, data were collected online, and participants were compensated for their time. Following the guidelines from Colquitt et al. (2019) for Hinkin and Tracey’s (1999) to content validation, participants were provided with a conceptual definition of emotion-focused HR practices, high-performance human resource systems [“systems of human resource practices 55 designed to enhance employees’ skills, commitment, and productivity”; Datta, Guthrie, and Wright (2005, p. 135)], and commitment-based HR practices [human resource practices with the objective of enhancing employee performance by increasing organizational commitment; Collins and Smith (2006); Kehoe and Collins (2017)]. These orbiting constructs were chosen based on recommendations from Colquitt et al. (2019) because they are frequently used in the HR literature, at the same stage of “causal flow” as emotion-focused HR practices, and have the same referent (i.e. organization-level HR practices). My scale of emotion-focused HR practices may relate to high commitment HR practices given the potential for employees to perceive the attention to their emotions as a signal of concern for their longer-term well-being. However, given the specificity of the items in the focal scale, I expect that the measure will not significantly overlap with previous established commitment-based measures of HR practices or high-performance HR practices. Participants were then provided with each of the items in the emotion-focused HR practices scale and asked to evaluate the degree to which the item matched the definition provided using a 7-point Likert scale. Response options ranged from 1 (item does an extremely bad job of measuring the concept) to 7 (item does an extremely good job of measuring the concept). In total, individuals rated each of the 31 items three times to assess definitional correspondence. Using this data, and based on content validation guidelines from Colquitt et al. (2019), I calculated two indices: the htc (Hinkin Tracey correspondence) and the htd (Hinkin Tracey distinctiveness). For full results, see Table 2. The htc statistic represents how well a scale item corresponds to the definition of the intended construct with the maximum value of 1 representing that all evaluators selected the maximum scale anchor for all the scale items. The htd statistic represents how well the scale item corresponds to the orbiting scale constructs. Higher positive 56 values of htd indicate that the items were rated higher on the intended construct than orbiting constructs and negative values indicate that the item was rated higher on orbiting constructs than the intended one. Htc values across the items ranged from .77 to .83 and htd values ranged from .19 to .36. The average definitional correspondence for all items was between 5.38 and 5.79 (using a 7-point Likert scale in which a score of 5 represents “somewhat good”). Although the htc values were below .84 (which, according to Colquitt et al. (2019), is the cutoff for a moderate interpretation for content validation statistics), the htd values can be interpreted as moderate to very strong across all items. Given the importance in this step of demonstrating that emotion- focused HR practice items are distinct from those of other constructs, I retained all items given the strong htd values and high average definitional correspondence. Extant research suggests that four to eight items per scale or construct sufficiently represents the intended construct while maintaining homogeneity between items (DeVellis & Thorpe, 2021; Yu, Hays, & Zhao, 2019), thus each subscale containing between 5 and 7 items falls within these established guidelines for scale development. Confirmatory Factor Analyses. The next step was to again recruit employed individuals through Prolific using the same criteria as above. This yielded 250 employed individuals registered to participate in Prolific who were asked to respond to reflect on their organizations’ practices related to recruitment, selection, onboard, performance management, and training. Participants represented a variety of industries and jobs. They were then provided with all 31 of the items in the emotion-focused HR practices scale and asked the extent to which their organization utilizes those practices on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). In order to further test discriminant validity, they were also provided with the 4-item commitment-based approach to HR practices scale from Collins and Smith (2006) and 10-items 57 from two subscales of high performance work practices from Sikora, Ferris, and Van Iddekinge (2015) asked to rate the extent to which their organization used the practice using a 5-point Likert scale. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). Correlations between the eight dimensions were calculated and the correlation between the five new subscales and those of Collins and Smith (2006) and Sikora et al. (2015) ranged between .12 and .43 which suggests that, as expected, these constructs are related but not redundant (see Table 3 for full descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities). Using this data, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test the emotion-focused HR practices scale. A five-factor model (i.e., recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management; for a full list of items, refer to Appendix A) was tested for goodness of fit and compared to three alternative models (see Table 4). Given the natural connection between some of the processes within the employee lifecycle, I tested a four-factor, three-factor, and one-factor models. A two-factor model was not tested as there is not a natural, practical way to group the employee processes into two factors. The three-factor model was estimated by loading recruitment and selection items on one factor, the onboarding and training items to a second factor, and performance management loading to a third factor. The four-factor model loaded the recruitment, selection, and performance management items on separate factors and kept onboarding and training combined as one factor. The five-factor model loaded each of the items for each subscale onto a separate factor. Model fit was analyzed using Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) with full maximum likelihood estimation. Acceptable overall model fit was assessed based on multiple fit indices: the χ2 index, comparative fit index (CFI) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). CFI values greater than .90 indicate good fit 58 (Bentler, 1990; Grimm & Ram, 2012). Values less than .05 for RMSEA and less than .08 for SRMR indicate good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The standardized factor loadings for the five-factor model were statistically significant (all p values <.01) and ranged between .54 and .93. Due to the limitations of social science research, factor loadings of greater than 0.4, are considered satisfactory if not particularly high (i.e. above 0.7; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). Based on these fit statistics and factor loadings, the results support a five-factor model as the best fit for the data. I also examined coefficient alpha for each of the five subscales (i.e., recruitment, selection, onboarding, performance management, and training) as well as the overall scale. The coefficient alphas for each of the subscales ranged from .89 to .95. In addition, I examined the coefficient alphas of the Collins and Smith (2006) and Sikora et al. (2015) subscales which had coefficient alphas of .67, .65 and .84, respectively. The theoretical assumption of equifinality is inherent to SHRM theory such that different combinations of HR practices can lead to identical outcomes (Delery & Doty, 1996) and theories of SHRM suggest that the value of the practices increases when multiple practices are combined and that the practices can reinforce one another (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Delery, 1998; Huselid, 1995; Jiang et al., 2012). Researchers have suggested that “HR system measures can be better understood as additive indices than as scales reflecting underlying constructs” (Collins & Kehoe, 2017, p. 1229) particularly considering the additive nature of the effects of high-performance work practices (Batt & Colvin, 2011; Delery, 1998; Delery & Doty, 1996; Jiang et al., 2012; Kepes & Delery, 2007; Macduffie, 1995; Shaw, Dineen, Fang, & Vellella, 2009). In other words, in an additive relationship, two HR practices may be able to have a larger impact on an impact than using either one in isolation but, it is important to note that the “effect 59 of each practice is sufficient in isolation and is not dependent on other practices” (Jiang et al., 2012, p. 76). For example, strategic selection practices can improve the quality (and subsequently, performance) of employees in and of themselves. However, using these selection practices in conjunction with training practices can increase the effectiveness of training because the employees who have been selected have the skills and abilities necessary to succeed in the training program. The idea of HR practices as an additive index corresponds with Chan’s (1998) typology of composition models which specify the functional relationships between constructs at different levels of analysis. In an additive model, the higher level construct consists of the sum of the lower level units and the operational combination process is the sum or average of scores of the lower level variables (Chan, 1998). Creating an additive index based on a sum of scores of individual practices measures is a well-established practice within the SHRM literature (Arthur, 1992, 1994; Collins & Smith, 2006; Jiang et al., 2012; Macduffie, 1995). This operationalization also supports the theoretical assumption of equifinality (Delery & Doty, 1996). Thus, consistent with previous measures of HR practices (e.g., Collins & Smith, 2006; Shaw et al., 2009; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996) and HR theory (Jiang et al., 2012; Kepes & Delery, 2007), the emotion-focused HR practices scale is an additive index. However, in order to test Research Questions 1 and 2, I will run analyses with distinct groupings of practices (i.e., combining recruitment, selection, and onboarding and comparing to the combination of performance management and training) and compare these subsets of practices to the combination of all practices. 60 Study 2 – Field Study Participants and Sample This study involved surveys of human resources (HR) representatives or managers from organizations in the United States operating in emotionally demanding industries (e.g. service employees, customer service, mental health professionals, etc.). HR business partners or employee managers from each organization completed the survey of their business unit’s emotion-focused HR practices. These HR employees or managers then recruited full-time employees in customer-facing jobs to participate in surveys capturing emotional demands- abilities fit, emotion regulation, and outcomes such as job performance and emotional exhaustion. Although 106 managers participated in the survey of their organization’s practices, none of the employees referred by ten different managers did not complete surveys which yielded a sample of 96 manager surveys. The target was to have roughly five employees per manager respond to the individual level surveys. Managers referred a total of 472 of whom 302 participated in the Time 1 survey and 265 participated (of those who participated in Time 1) also completed the Time 2 survey for a response rate of (64.0% and 87.7% respectively). All survey respondents were based in the United States working across a variety of industries and roles. Of the final sample of employees, 65.6% identified as female, 30.1% identified as male, 4.3% identified as non-binary or preferred not to say. The average age was 41 years. Participants self-reported their ethnicities as 63.2% White, 15.2% Hispanic or Latino(a), 12.3% Black, 6.3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.7% Native American, 3% identified as having multiple ethnicities. In terms of educational background, 37.4% were college graduates, 26.1 % held advanced degrees, 23.2% were high school graduates or had some college, and 10.9% had obtained an associate degree. In terms of organization size, 61 66.4% of the organizations had less than 250 full-time employees, 11.5% employed 251-1,000 people, 12.4% had 1,001-10,000 full-time employees and 9.7% of organizations employed over 10,000 employees. In a sequential two-mediator model, 250 participants is a large enough sample to yield sufficient power (i.e., greater than .8) to detect medium effect sizes (O’Rourke & MacKinnon, 2015) and is a larger sample size than most nested models tested for mediation (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007). Procedure The HR department or manager at each organization was contacted and recruited to assess the HR practices for the organization or business unit (following procedures used by Collins and Smith (2006) to assess commitment-based HR practices). The method of obtaining information about HR practices from a single HR representative within the organization is the most common source of data collection within HR research (Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, & Snell, 2000; Langevin-Heavey et al., 2012; Wright, Gardner, et al., 2001). However, I allowed for both HR business partners and managers within organizations to respond to the initial survey for several reasons: first, in smaller organizations, there may not be a dedicated HR representative; second, in a large organization, it is likely that HR representatives will become less aware of HR practices as the organization grows and becomes more complex. This can also lead to high amounts of specialization (such that many of the HR staff will not be involved in the recruiting or onboarding processes) and that the hiring responsibilities will become decentralized (Dooney, 2015). Thirdly, within larger organizations, there is often a disconnect between the intended HR policy and its actual implementation because the policy makers at upper levels of 62 the organization are not responsible for implementing the HR practices (Wright & Nishii, 2012; Wright, Gardner, et al., 2001). I contacted the HR departments, managers, and other organizational leaders via email, phone calls, and in person to request participation in the study from them and their employees. For clarity and concision, the individuals who participated in the initial survey about the organization’s HR practices will be referred to as managers within the rest of the manuscript. The managers were asked to complete the emotion-focused HR practices scales as well as seven items form the emotion work requirements scale (Diefendorff, Erickson, Grandey, & Dahling, 2011). These managers then identified employees in the relevant business unit, location, or organization by providing the names and email addresses for up to seven employees. The referred employees were then contacted via emails containing personalized links to participate in the surveys. The survey provided the informed consent document and communicated assurances of the confidentiality of the data to encourage employees to respond candidly. In exchange for participation, all managers and employees were compensated $20. The individual employees responded to two online surveys separated by two weeks. The first survey collected demographic information (e.g. age, race, ethnicity, organizational tenure, and job tenure), personality and trait level characteristics (e.g. positive and negative affect), as well as perceptions of fit (person-organization, person-job, person-display rule, and emotional demands-abilities) and perceptions of display rules. Many of these demographics are important to capture as potential control variables. For example, previous research has found that women are more likely to engage in emotion regulation at work than men (Hochschild, 1983; Schaubroeck & Jones, 2000), that gender moderates the relationship between work values (i.e., importance of pay, job security, work-life balance, etc.) and perceptions of fit (Venkatesh, 63 Windeler, Bartol, & Williamson, 2017), that older individuals may be better at regulating emotions and handling stressors than younger employees (Gross & John, 2003) and that extraverted employees are better able to regulate their emotions (Chi et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2009). Studies have also as found that demographics can impact perceptions of fit; for example, individuals with more work experience (i.e., older individuals) should have more insight related to their values and desired organization and are better at evaluating fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Cable & Parsons, 2001). In order to ensure that the variance in the model is due to emotional demands-abilities fit, I also captured potential other control variables with other perceptions of fit (i.e. person-organization and person-job). However, research indicates that many control variables do not, in fact, improve the rigor of results (Carlson & Wu, 2012) so the models were tested both with and without control variables as a conservative approach with few controls may be more appropriate for the models. This survey also included retrospective questions about emotion regulation (i.e., within the past two weeks) and the dependent variables in the model of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover, emotional exhaustion, and depletion. A second survey, which was administered two weeks later, included all of the same scales as Time 1 except for personality (Saucier, 1994), affect (Waston & Clark, 1994), and emotional intelligence (Wong & Law, 2002), and demographics questions, which were only be measured at Time 1. Collecting the data in this way allowed for the testing of cross-lagged effects across Time 1 and Time 2. All surveys were administered online via the survey platform Quatrics.com. 64 Study 2 Measures All measures, including the instructions provided to participants, are included in the Appendix. Emotion-focused human resource practices. The measure developed and validated in the pilot study was used to evaluate the extent to which organizations use emotion-focused HR practices during recruitment, selection, onboarding, performance management, and training. Managers were specifically asked to consider the practices used when hiring and managing the employees they referred for the subsequent surveys. Perceived emotional demands-abilities fit. There are three ways in which fit is assessed (i.e., subjective, objective, and perceived fit). Subjective fit is assessed by comparing the person variables to environment variables as assessed by the same individual whereas objective fit is calculated by comparing these variables as reported by distinct sources (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Perceived fit is a direct measure of fit as the individual makes a direct assessment of the compatibility between the person and environment variables (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). I measure perceived ED-A fit as research has found individual perceptions of fit are more proximal to attitudes and behaviors and are more consistent over time (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). I measured perceived emotional-demands abilities fit using the three-item scale developed by Diefendorff et al. (2016). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = completely). A sample item from this scale is, “the match is very good between the emotional demands of my job and my personal skills”. Perceived emotional demands-abilities fit was assessed at Time 1. Perceived person-display rule fit. Person-display rule fit was measured by adapting three items from Cable and Judge (1996). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 65 = completely). A sample item from this scale is, “The emotions that I naturally feel fit with this job and its emotional expectations”. Perceived person-display rule fit was assessed at Time 1. Emotion regulation frequency. Emotion regulation was conceptualized and operationalized in terms of frequency and effortfulness. Using measures of self-reported emotion regulation is, in this case, appropriate because I am interested in the extent to which individuals are consciously regulating their emotions rather than how others may perceive their emotional displays or expressions; conscious regulation also requires an individual to exert effort and is depleting (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). I used Diefendorff, Croyle, and Grosserand’s (2005) scale to capture frequency of emotional displays (i.e., surface acting frequency, deep acting frequency, and frequency of naturally felt emotions). This scale comprised seven items related to surface acting, four items addressing deep acting, and three items related to naturally felt emotions. These items were adapted by replacing the word “customer” with “others at work” in order to generalize the measure across workplaces. A sample item is “I tried to actually experience the emotions that I must show to others at work.” Respondents were instructed to think about the past two weeks at work and use a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = always) to indicate how frequently they engaged in the specified behaviors. Surface acting frequency, deep acting frequency, and frequency of naturally felt emotions were assessed at Time 2. Emotion regulation effortfulness. To capture effortfulness of emotion regulation, I again modified Diefendorff, Croyle, and Grosserand’s (2005) scale to capture emotional displays (i.e., surface acting effortfulness and deep acting effortfulness). I did not capture effortfulness of natural emotional displays as natural displays do not require regulation and are assumed to not be effortful. Thus, effortfulness scale comprised seven items related to surface acting effortfulness and four items addressing deep acting effortfulness. These items were adapted by replacing the 66 word “customer” with “others at work” in order to generalize the measure across workplaces and edited for grammatical correctness given the new instructions. Respondents were instructed to think about the past two weeks at work and use a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all effortful to 5 = extremely effortful) to assess how effortful it was to engage in the specified behaviors. Surface acting effortfulness and deep acting effortfulness were assessed at Time 2. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using three items from Brayfield and Rothe (1951), Participants assessed their agreement with each statement on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). An example item is, “In the last two weeks, I have felt fairly satisfied with my present job.” Job satisfaction was assessed at Time 2. Organizational commitment. I measured organizational commitment using six items from the affective commitment subscale and six items from the normative subscale of the organizational commitment measure developed by Meyer and Allen (1997). Participants assessed their agreement with each statement on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Example items included “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization” and “This organization deserves my loyalty”. Organizational commitment was assessed at Time 2. Intent to turnover. The construct of intent to turnover was measured using three items from Kelloway, Gottlieb, & Barham (1999). Participants assessed their agreement with each statement on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). An example item is, “I don’t plan to be in my organization much longer”. Intent to turnover was assessed at Time 2. Emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was measured using seven items adapted by Koopman, Lanaj, and Scott (2016) from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1993). Agreement was assessed on a seven-point scale (1 = never to 7 = every day) and 67 participants were asked to reflect on their last two weeks at work. Example items included “In the past two weeks, I have feel emotionally drained from my work” and “In the past two weeks, I have felt burned out from my work”. Emotional exhaustion was assessed at Time 2. Depletion. Depletion was measured using five items from Twenge, Muraven, and Tice (2004) adapted by Christian and Ellis (2011). Participants indicated their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Example items included “In the past two weeks, my mental energy has been running low” and “In the past two weeks, my mind has felt unfocused”. Depletion was assessed at Time 2. Control variables. Within the initial survey (Time 1), employees also responded to a range of previously validated measures, such as person-organization and person-job fit, (see Appendix B for complete measures) as well as demographics (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, job tenure, organizational tenure, etc.). 68 Analyses The reliabilities of all scales and correlations between variables were calculated using SPSS. Prior to testing hypotheses, I estimated null models for each variable to determine the amount of variance at each level of analysis and ensure the appropriateness of multilevel modeling. I calculated the ICCs for each of the fit variables (i.e. ED-A ft and P-DR fit) to evaluate the nonindependence of the data. The ICCs for ED-A fit were ICC (1) = .11 and ICC (2) = .28 and for P-DR fit, ICC (1) .00 and ICC (2) = .01. This suggests that for ED-A fit there is greater variance between groups than within groups. However, there is very little agreement for PD-R and the between and within variance are nearly equal. A low ICC (2) is understandable given the unit size for the study was relatively small (k = 3.15). James (1982) has suggested that ICC (2) is less relevant as support for aggregation given its dependence on unit size. I first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the EFHR variables using the data from the manager survey to compare a five factor model with a one-, three-, and four-factor model (using the same factors as the CFA from Study 1). Model fit was analyzed using Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) with full maximum likelihood estimation. Acceptable overall model fit was assessed based on multiple fit indices: the χ2 index, comparative fit index (CFI) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Based on the fit statistics, a five-factor model fit the data best compared to the other models (χ2 = 2554.10, df = 424, CFI =.76, RMSEA was .13 and SRMR was .08). For the full results for these analyses, see Table ??. I also noticed a high correlation between the recruitment and selection factors (r = .72) and thus ran a model with four factors wherein recruitment and selection were loaded onto one factor. This alternative model did not significantly improve model fit. Lastly, I also tested a second order CFA in which overall EFHR was indicated by the 69 five factors (i.e. recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management) which were modeled by their respective items. There was not a significant difference in fit statistics for this model and the other five-factor model. Using the full dataset from manager, employees at Time 1 and Time 2, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test the full measurement model (i.e. EFHR, ED-A fit, P-DR fit, surface acting frequency, deep acting frequency, naturally felt emotion frequency, surface acting effortfulness, deep acting effortfulness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover, emotional exhaustion, and depletion). Given the proposed model combined all the subscales of emotion-focused HR practices (EFHR) into a unidimensional scale, I estimated the model first with EFHR as one factor. The χ2 index was 9754.42 (df = 3491), CFI was .75, RMSEA was .08 and SRMR was .07. Factor loadings for all items in the full model were statistically significant (all p <.01) and ranged between .39 and .97 which indicated that the model did not fit particularly well. I originally theorized that EFHR, like many scales in the HR literature, would be an additive index and thus planned to test it as a gestalt when testing my hypotheses. However, based on the results of the CFA, I also tested the full model with EFHR modeled with each of the subscales (i.e. recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management) as separate factors. This model with a five-factor EFHR fit the data better. The χ2 index was 7728.60 (df = 3433), CFI was .83, RMSEA was .06 and SRMR was .06. Factor loadings for all items in the full model were statistically significant (all p <.01) and ranged between .51 and .97. Given the improvement of the fit statistics and that loadings for the EFHR items were noticeably better in the five-factor model, it was clear that a model with EFHR modeled as 5-factors fits the data best. I also tested a second order CFA in which overall EFHR was indicated by the five factors (i.e. recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and 70 performance management) which were modeled by their respective items. There was not a significant difference in fit statistics for this model (the χ2 index was 7873.89, df = 3486, CFI was .82, RMSEA was .07 and SRMR was .06). Based on these results, which suggested a five- factor model of the subscales was most suitable for the data, I also conducted supplemental analyses to test a multilevel model with each of the separate subscales. To test the multilevel model, which consisted of organizational-level measures as well as individual level variables, I used multilevel path analysis in Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Given the multilevel nature of the data (i.e. individuals nested within organizations), it must be modeled to account for the non-independence of the responses. The organizational-level variable (i.e. emotion-focused human resource practices) was assessed only by managers at each organization, which means that the variance exists only between organizations; thus, EFHR was modeled at level-2. All other variables (i.e. ED-A fit, P-DR fit, emotion regulation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover, emotional exhaustion, and depletion) were assessed by multiple employees from a given organization and therefore modeled at level- 1. The relationship between EFHR and both types of fit are at the organizational level of analysis because the variance exists between organizations. The emotion regulation variables were group mean centered. The remaining relationships between variables in the model were tested at level-1 (within organizations) with fixed slopes. I used a Bayesian estimator and followed steps recommended by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) to text mediation within a multilevel model (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010; Muthén, 2010). The model specified fixed slopes. Using the Mplus analysis command of Type = Twolevel and Estimator = Bayes, I used a Bayesian estimator with 20,000 iterations to create a 95% confidence interval (CI) around the indirect effect to assess its significance (Bauer, 71 Preacher, & Gil, 2006; Muthén, 2010; Taylor, MacKinnon, & Tein, 2008). Bayesian analysis is appropriate as it accounts for the nonnormal sampling distribution of the indirect effect (see also Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014; Wang et al., 2013). 72 RESULTS Table 6 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the focal variables in this dissertation for each of the samples (i.e. managers, employees at Time 1 and employees at Time 2). Test of Research Questions The research questions I posed asked whether there were differential effects of the different emotion-focused HR practices on ED-A fit or P-DR fit. I ran multilevel path analyses between each of the emotion-focused HR practices and both ED-A fit and P-DR fit. The results of these tests were not significant (see Table 7 for full results). I also conducted Wald tests to evaluate whether the coefficients for these relationships were significantly different. Wald tests did not reveal significant differences in the relationships between the five emotion-focused HR processes (recruitment, selection, onboarding, training and performance management) and either ED-A fit or PD-R fit (see Table 8 for full results). Therefore, the answer to research question 1 is that there is no support that recruitment, selection, and onboarding are more strongly related to emotional demands-abilities fit than training and performance management. Similarly, in terms of research question 2, there is no support to indicate that onboarding, training, and performance management practices are more strongly related to person-display rule fit than recruitment and selection. Test of Hypotheses I started my analyses by testing whether employees of organizations utilizing EFHR practices experienced higher levels of ED-A and P-DR fit (see Table 9 for path model results). Using the Mplus default, covariances were freely estimated (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). 73 Hypothesis 1 predicted that emotion-focused HR practices would be positively related to emotional demands-abilities fit. The path from EFHR to ED-A fit was not significant (B = -.025, p > .05) and thus, hypothesis 1 was not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that emotion-focused HR practices would be positively related to person-display rule fit. This relationship was not significant (B = -.013, p > .05) so hypothesis 2 was not supported. Hypotheses 3a predicted that emotional demands-abilities fit would be negatively related to effortfulness of surface acting and this relationship was supported (B = -.236, p < .01). Hypotheses 3b predicted that emotional demands-abilities fit would be negatively related to effortfulness of deep acting. This hypothesis was also supported (B = -.145, p < .05). Hypothesis 4a suggested that person-display rule fit would be positively related to the frequency of natural emotional expression. The results showed that this hypothesis was supported (B = .081, p < .01). In hypothesis 4b, I predicted that person-display rule fit would be negatively related to surface acting frequency and this hypothesis was supported by the model results (B = -.367, p < .01). Hypothesis 4c predicted that person-display rule fit would also be negatively related to deep acting frequency, but this was not supported by the model results (B = .081, p > .05). Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive relationship between natural emotional expression and the outcomes of (a) job satisfaction, (b) organizational commitment and a negative relationship with the outcomes of (c) intent to turnover, (d) emotional exhaustion, and (e) depletion. Hypothesis 5(a) was supported as the path model indicated a significant positive relationship between the frequency of natural emotional expression and job satisfaction (B = .318, p < .01). However, the relationship between natural emotional expression and organizational commitment 74 (hypothesis 5(b)) was not supported (B = .255, p > .05). Hypothesis 5(c) was also not supported, suggesting no relationship between natural emotional expression and turnover intent (B = -.324, p > .05). Hypothesis 5(d) was supported as the relationship between natural emotional expression and emotional exhaustion was negative and significant (B = -.225, p < .05). Finally, the relationship between natural emotional expression and depletion in hypothesis 5(e) was also not significant (B = -.135, p > .05). Hypothesis 6 predicted that surface acting and deep acting would be negatively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) organizational commitment and positively related to (c) intent to turnover, (d) emotional exhaustion and (e) depletion. The path analysis between surface acting frequency (B = -.319, p < .01) and job satisfaction was negative and significant. However, surface acting effortfulness (B = -.047, p > .05), deep acting effortfulness (B = -.039, p > .05), and deep acting frequency (B = .073, p > .05) were not significantly related to job satisfaction. Taken together there is partial support for hypothesis 6a. Hypothesis 6b was partially supported with a negative significant relationship between organizational commitment and surface acting frequency (B = -.387, p < .01). However, deep acting frequency (B = .188, p < .05) was positively associated with organizational commitment. Surface acting effortfulness (B = .008, p > .05) and deep acting effortfulness (B = -.011, p > .05) were not associated with organizational commitment. Hypothesis 6c predicted a positive relationship between surface and deep acting and intent to turnover. There was a positive relationship between surface acting frequency and intent to turnover (B = .616, p < .01) but surface acting effortfulness (B = -.099, p > .05), deep acting effortfulness (B = .001, p > .05), deep acting frequency (B = -.145, p > .05) were not significantly associated with intent to turnover. Therefore, hypothesis 6c was partially supported. 75 Hypothesis 6d suggested that emotional exhaustion would be positively related to surface and deep acting. Emotional exhaustion was positively and significantly associated with surface acting frequency (B = .546, p < .01). However, surface acting effortfulness (B = .016, p > .05), deep acting effortfulness (B = .022, p > .05), and deep acting frequency (B = -.056, p > .05) were not significantly associated with emotional exhaustion. Therefore, hypothesis 6d was partially supported. Finally, hypothesis 6e suggested that surface and deep acting would be positively related to depletion. Surface acting frequency (B = .557, p < .01) and surface acting effortfulness (B = .112, p < .05) were positively associated with depletion. However, deep acting frequency (B = - .018, p > .05), and deep acting effortfulness (B = -.013, p > .05) were not significantly associated with depletion. Hypothesis 6e was partially supported. Hypothesis 7 predicted that emotion regulation would mediate relationships between fit and the focal outcome variables. None of the indirect paths from emotional demands-abilities fit to the outcome variables via emotion regulation were significant which means that hypotheses 7a-e were not supported. For the full results of the indirect paths, see Table 8. Hypothesis 8 predicted serial mediation between emotion-focused human resource practices and the study outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover, emotional exhaustion, and depletion). However, none of these relationships were found to be significant. Supplemental Analyses I conducted additional analyses to test the robustness of these findings and identify additional potential insights into the concepts of emotion-focused HR practices, emotional demands-abilities fit, and person-display rule fit. First, given that the five-factor model identified 76 during the scale development study fit the data better than a single-factor model, I tested the full mediated model with each of the five subscales (recruitment, selection, onboarding, training, and performance management) as independent variables. However, the results showed that the individual paths between the subscales and measures of fit were not significant. In this model, unlike the unidimensional model, the paths between naturally felt emotion frequency and organizational commitment (B = .29, p < .05) and naturally felt emotion frequency and depletion (B = -.20, p < .05) were significant (which would have provided additional support for Hypothesis 5). I also tested a cross-lagged model to control for variables at the subsequent time point (for fit variables) and previous time point (for emotion regulation and outcome variables). The significant paths in this model were identical to the paths in the original model without controlling for the subsequent or previous time point. For the full correlation matrix of all variables at Time 1 and Time 2, see Table 6. Additionally, I tested the model to remove the mediating variables of emotion demands- abilities fit and person-display rule fit (for path analyses, see Table 11). This model showed some significant paths between selection and surface acting effortfulness (B = -.30, p < .05), selection and deep acting frequency (B = -.23, p < .05) which suggests that organization practices evaluating emotional demands-abilities of job candidates reduces the emotion regulation required of employees. The other significant paths were between training and surface acting effortfulness (B = .23, p < .05), training and deep acting effortfulness (B = .27, p < .05), and deep acting frequency (B = .31, p < .05). Given previous research discussed above regarding potential control variables, I also ran the model with several different controls on level-1 including age, gender, organizational tenure, 77 job tenure, other perceptions of fit, and personality characteristics. There were significant relationships between ED-A fit and the personality traits of agreeableness (B = .12, p < .05), conscientiousness (B = .18, p < .01), and openness to experiences ((B = .13, p < .01). There were also significant relationships between PD-R fit and agreeableness (B = .18, p < .01) and conscientiousness (B = .13, p < .05). I also identified significant relationships between person- organization fit and person-job fit and both types of fit. There were significant positive relationships between ED-A fit and PO fit (B = .255, p < .01), PD-R fit and PO fit (B = .353, p < .01) as well as between ED-A fit and PJ fit (B = .326, p < .01), and PD-R fit and PJ fit (B = .214, p < .01). However, the inclusion of control variables did not change the results of the model. 78 DISCUSSION The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First, I wanted to develop a nuanced way to evaluate the emotion-focused HR practices of organizations. Despite the well-established understanding of the impact of emotional labor on employee well-being, “surprisingly little research has explored specific managerial practices and their effect on EL [emotional labor] and outcomes” (Grandey & Melloy, 2017). I hoped that creating a scale to measure the specific HR practices would be an initial step to furthering this research. Second, I sought to determine whether organizations that use HR practices that focused on the emotional demands of jobs and the emotional abilities of job candidates and employees are able to reduce the emotion regulation required of their employees and improve outcomes. Specifically, I theorized that perceptions of fit and emotion regulation would mediate a relationship between EFHR and outcomes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intent, emotional exhaustion and depletion. In the first study, I developed and validated a new 31-item, 5-factor measure to capture emotion- focused HR practices. In the second study, I recruited a multilevel field sample from managers and employees within a wide range of organizations. I tested my research questions about differential effects of specific HR practices on fit and my hypotheses about my theoretical model using multilevel modeling. The hypotheses I proposed in this dissertation received mixed support which may be due to theoretical or empirical reasons which I will explore in this discussion section. Summary of Findings The results of scale validation supported a five-factor model of emotion-focused HR practices and demonstrated that the concept was conceptually distinct from existing measures of HPWP. To test my proposed model, I used the unidimensional version of the measure as that was 79 consistent with many measures in the strategic HR literature of high performance work practices that are treated as additive indices. However, given the results of the CFA, I also tested the model with a 5-factor version of the EFHR measure. As reported in the results section, most of my hypotheses were not supported or only partially supported by the data. Most critically, I found no relationship between the emotion- focused HR practices and either emotional demands-abilities fit or person-display rule fit. However, it is encouraging to see that relationships previously established within the emotions literature were supported which speaks at the very least to the quality of the data. It is possible that the lack of support for the EFHR and fit relationships is due to the level of analysis. The EFHR were evaluated by managers at the organization-level whereas the rest of the model (e.g. the relationships between fit and emotional labor) were analyzed at the individual-level, which means that my results are evaluating the effects of EFHR on employee’s average perceptions of fit. My results indicated a negative relationship between surface acting and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and a positive relationship between surface acting and turnover intention, emotional exhaustion, and depletion. Additionally, my results indicated support for the positive relationship between naturally felt emotion and job satisfaction along with a negative relationship between naturally felt emotion and emotional exhaustion. The nonsignificant findings of the relationships between the HR practices and fit perceptions and between fit perceptions and emotion regulation were disappointing. Despite the logical arguments made associating emotion-focused HR practices with fit perceptions, I must consider reasons why these arguments were not supported by the data. Overall, I anticipated a medium effect size for ED-A fit (based on extant empirical work) and thus, per the recommendations of O’Rourke and MacKinnon (2015), believed that a sample size of over 200 80 would be sufficient. However, given the limited research on ED-A fit, and the new construct of EFHR, it is possible that my data was underpowered. A smaller sample coupled with potentially small effect sizes could explain why I did not find significant relationships between EFHR, ED- A fit, P-DR fit, and emotion regulation. And, any conclusions drawn from a small sample size are more prone to the threat of sampling bias. There are a limited number of studies that have used field samples to research fit perceptions, and thus, I thought the nature of my sample would be a strength of this study (Carless, 2005). However, it is possible that the operationalization of this field study (i.e. contacting managers and having them refer employees), could have had several unintended consequences. Although my multilevel design captured multiple individuals within the same team or business unit, it is possible that managers referred individuals with slightly different jobs within each team. This could explain a few issues within the data. First, in terms of the low ICCs with regard to fit perceptions, individuals may have different perceptions of their job expectations if they are not performing the exact same job. I further discuss the ICCs below. Second, it is possible that managers or organizations have inconsistently communicated expectations to individuals within the organization. Thirdly, changes in managers are very common in organizations. It may have been the case that managers were reporting practices that they currently use in dealing with employees but the employees they referred (i.e. survey respondents) were not always their subordinates (and thus had different hiring and onboarding experiences. Lastly, employees may have had different experiences with organizational processes. And thus, it would be more appropriate to assess the congruence of their perceptions of EFHR practices with the EFHR practices reported by managers. 81 As part of my analysis, I calculated ICCs for the two fit variables (i.e. ED-A fit and PD-R fit). The ICCs for PD-R fit were particularly low which indicated a lack of agreement for PD-R fit and suggested the variance between and within groups was nearly equal. Unlike ED-A fit, the items for PD-R fit were not validated in previous literature and were adapted from Cable & Judge’s (1996) scales of fit. Comparing the specific items within ED-A fit and PD-R fit provides some possible explanation as to why agreement was higher for ED-A fit than PD-R fit. First, the items within ED-A fit seem to be a bit more skills-based and objective (e.g. “My ability to manage my emotions is a good fit with the requirements of my job”) and thus, potentially easier for respondents to evaluate in a more objective, consistent way. In contrast, the items within PD- R fit are based on emotional expectations and unstated norms (e.g. “I am able to display the emotions expected of me at work”). Job requirements and demands are likely to be made explicit to employees whereas expectations rely on individual interpretations of potentially unstated norms. As stated above, individuals may have different perceptions or interpretations of jobs and managers may communicate those expectations inconsistently across teams. It is also possible that the phrasing of the items in ED-A fit (e.g. “The match is very good between the emotional demands of my job and my personal skills”) encourage employees to assess their overall fit because skills and abilities are more stable whereas feeling emotions is more variable (e.g. “The emotions that I naturally feel are a good match with this job and its emotional demands and expectations"). Respondents could be influenced by their current or most recently felt emotions rather than considering their inclination to display certain emotions. These possibilities could account for the differences in agreement with regards to the different types of fit. Given the nature of a field study that involved employees referred by managers – despite clear communication that answers would not be shared with their organization or manager – 82 some employees opted not to participate or, I would surmise, did not answer survey questions in a fully candid manner because they were nervous to share their true feelings about work. I received some explicit feedback from employees on this topic. Managers were not informed of the study hypotheses, but they were asked to refer employees after they completed the survey questions that included the EFHR measure. It is possible that managers did not feel comfortable referring employees who they felt were low performers so as not to reflect poorly on them or their organizations. Or, managers may not have referred employees who they thought may soon separate from the organizations. Additionally, employees who are particularly poor fits may have already separated from the organization. At least two employees originally referred by managers separated from their organization before completing either survey. This range restriction could account for the relatively high levels of fit, particularly ED-A fit, and organizational commitment, in the sample. Theoretical Implications This dissertation has taken important initial steps towards validating a more comprehensive, validated measure of emotion-focused HR practices. Through Study 1, I have established construct validity for the scale. However, predictive validity fell a bit short given the lack of support for the relationships between EFHR practices and fit. Decades of research in strategic HR have shown the difficulty in tying potentially distal practices with employee outcomes and there are many mediating mechanisms that can be considered (Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). The ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) model of HRM suggests that HR practices maximize employee performance through these three components. Within this dissertation, I focused on the practices that focused on identifying and enhancing employee ability (i.e. emotional abilities) but there may be other mediating mechanisms such as motivation 83 and opportunity. For example, employees who perceive their organization’s use of EFHR practices positively and as a signal of the organization’s commitment to them may have a more positive attitude towards work and feel obligated or motivated to perform better. Another potential mechanism could be the design of jobs – in other words, providing opportunity for employees. Organizations that use EFHR practices may put greater consideration into the design of jobs and enable or empower employees to use their emotion regulation abilities to achieve higher performance. Nevertheless, the new scale has the potential to make a contribution to the emotions literature by identifying specific practices that can be captured for future research. The supplemental analyses demonstrated that selection and training practices were both associated with emotional labor. This scale will allow emotion labor scholars to examine a more nuanced view of organizational practices that may be important antecedents in the employee lifecycle. This dissertation contributes to the emotional labor literature by examining individuals in a range of jobs and expanding the idea of what constitutes a customer. Emotional labor research in the past has broadly focused on contexts (or workplaces) requiring customer service and interactions between employees and customers as the antecedents of emotional labor (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007). Although for the purposes of recruiting managers and employees, I specified that I was looking for participants who were customer-facing, I defined customers rather broadly to include internal customers (e.g. HR business partners whose customers are colleagues within their own organization) and nontraditional customers (e.g. teachers or tutors whose customers are students and their parents). This is an important shift in understanding the reality of emotional labor in the workplace and has been supported by recent work by Gabriel, Koopman, Rosen, Arnold, and Hochwarter (2020), who identified that 84 employees both deep and surface act with colleagues. Workplaces are “saturated with emotions” and emotion regulation is required of employees interacting not just with customers but also with colleagues (Gabriel et al., 2020; Hu & Shi, 2015). There are few jobs and work contexts in which employees work with customers but not with coworkers (beyond self-employed individuals) and so my dissertation sample demonstrates ecological validity. Practical Implications Although my hypotheses regarding emotion-focused HR practices positively impacting fit were not supported by the data, supplemental analyses provide some insights that have practical implications. Specifically, these analyses showed that emotion-focused selection practices were associated with a reduction in reported effortfulness of surface acting and in increase in deep acting frequency. This suggests that greater consideration of the emotional abilities of job applicants could be beneficial for organizations seeking to identify employees with the emotion regulation skills to thrive in emotionally demanding roles. Interestingly, training was found to be positively related to surface acting effortfulness, deep acting effortfulness, and deep acting frequency. This could reflect that employees who have received training about emotion regulation are more attuned to the importance of using these strategies at work and may put in more effort in order to display the expected emotions. For organizations, therefore, training employees in emotion regulation strategies could be beneficial. And although historically believed as detrimental, recent research has shown that deep acting can be beneficial to employees by improving trust with coworkers and progress towards work goals so training that increases the frequency of deep acting could, in fact, have positive effects on the work environment and individual performance (Gabriel et al., 2020). 85 On another practical note, the idea of being more aware and supportive of the emotional demands of jobs and supporting the well-being of employees has grown in prevalence. Emotional labor in particular has become a part of the vernacular in the last few years and questions about emotional demands at work resonated with employees and their managers. Over the course of collecting data for this dissertation, I received a surprising amount of feedback via the open text question for comments in the surveys and email communications with survey participants. One manager within the hospitality industry wrote, “I expect each and every employee …hired to come with an emotional maturity…. if one isn’t capable to navigate [sic] interpersonal and professional emotional situations, they most likely show the lack of skill early on and we separate them from our company.” However, the majority of the comments from managers mentioned that they had not considered the importance of emotional demands or incorporating emotion regulation explicitly within HR processes. A manager from a healthcare organization shared that the survey “…made me realise that while we expect people in a position to demonstrate certain emotional strengths, we are not equipping/developing staff well to do so...which means, not only do we need to ensure our selection process assesses applicant emotional strengths, but we need to incorporate ongoing training/tools to strengthen and improve emotional responses for current staff.” Limitations and Future Research As mentioned above, the field sample nature of Study 2 created some limitations to the data collection. The issues related to employee participation could be addressed in future research by adjusting the participant recruitment process and first enrolling employees who would subsequently refer their managers. A dyadic study design could also increase the feasibility of data collection and potentially improve response rates. 86 Another limitation of this dissertation was due to the very practical limitations of survey space. I did not include the full scale of emotion-focused HR practices in the employee surveys. This would have been helpful to collect to evaluate whether employees have actually experienced the HR practices. Future research could certainly investigate whether the HR practices that managers report having in place are reflected in the employee perceptions of these practices or actual experiences. For example, asking employees whether they were informed of the emotional demands of the job before applying, whether they had received explicit guidelines about appropriate emotional displays during onboarding or received training about emotion regulation strategies. Therefore, congruence analysis might be more appropriate way to evaluate the emotion-focused HR practices (Cheung, 2009). Similarly, although previous research found ED-A fit accounted for variance in job satisfaction, burnout, and felt inauthenticity, this construct has not been used as extensively as other forms of fit (Diefendorff et al., 2016; Lavelle, Rupp, Herda, Pandey, & Lauck, 2021). Most fit research does not leverage polynomial regression analysis (PRA) despite its higher predictive power and the research on ED-A fit has not yet used this methodology (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Both ED-A fit and P-DR fit could be modeled using Su, Zhang, Liu, & Tay’s (2019) reliability single-indicator latent moderated structural equations (SI-LMS) method. There are also other variables that could be considered as potential mediators of the EFHR-emotion regulation relationship. For example, affect climate, which is the “employees’ shared perception of organizational aspects, such as policies, practices and routines, as well as the behaviors that are expected, supported, or rewarded regarding their affective expressions or experiences” might more holistically capture employee beliefs about what type of emotion regulation is required or expected of them at work (Parke & Seo, 2017, p. 335). 87 Conclusion This dissertation contributes to the literature by defining the construct of emotion-focused HR practices and creating a measure that can be used by researchers to connect organizational- level processes with the day-to-day emotional labor performed by employees. 88 REFERENCES Allen, D. G. (2008). Retaining talent: A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover. SHRM Foundation Effective Practice Guidelines Series, 1-43. Allen, D. G., Mahto, R. V., & Otondo, R. F. (2007). Web-based recruitment: effects of information, organizational brand, and attitudes toward a Web site on applicant attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1696-1708. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1696 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the Performance of Measures in a Confirmatory Factor-Analysis with a Pretest Assessment of Their Substantive Validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732-740. Arthur, J. B. (1992). The Link between Business Strategy and Industrial Relations Systems in American Steel Minimills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(3), 488-506. doi:10.2307/2524274 Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687. doi:10.2307/256705 Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786-801. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.786 Arvey, R. D., Renz, G., & Watson, T. W. (1998). Emotionality and job performance: Implications for personnel selection. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 16, pp. 103-147): JAI Press Inc. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional Labor in Service Roles: The Influence of Identity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88-115. doi:10.2307/258824 Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 441-452. doi:10.1002/job.320 Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dorris, A. D. (2017). Emotions in the Workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 67-90. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113231 Ashkanasy, N. M., Troth, A. C., Lawrence, S. A., & Jordan, P. J. (2017). Emotions and Emotional Regulation in HRM: A Multi-Level Perspective. In M. R. Buckley, J. R. B. Halbesleben, & A. R. Wheeler (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 35, pp. 1-52). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. 89 Barber, A. E., Wesson, M. J., Roberson, Q. M., & Taylor, M. S. (1999). A tale of two job markets: Organizational size and its effects on hiring practices and job search behavior. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 841-867. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00182.x Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 695-717. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 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. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Becker, G. S. (2002). The age of human capital. In Education in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 3- 8). Best, R. G., Downey, R. G., & Jones, R. G. (1997). Incumbent perceptions of emotional work requirements. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2005). Toward understanding emotional management at work: A quantitative review of emotional labor research. In Emotions in organizational behavior. (pp. 213-233). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: extraversion, neuroticism, and self-monitoring. J Occup Health Psychol, 12(2), 177-192. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.177 Boon, C., & Biron, M. (2016). Temporal issues in person–organization fit, person–job fit and turnover: The role of leader–member exchange. human relations, 69(12), 2177-2200. doi:10.1177/0018726716636945 Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person– 90 organisation and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138-162. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.538978 Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). Individual job‐ choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 23-37. doi:doi:10.1002/hrm.10062 Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the "strength" of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. M. (2007). Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 1-18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 103-118. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.003 Bretz, J. R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–Organization Fit and the Theory of Work Adjustment: Implications for Satisfaction, Tenure, and Career Success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32-54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1003 Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307. Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of "people work". Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 17-39. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1815 Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 365-379. doi:doi:10.1348/096317903769647229 Buller, P. F., & McEvoy, G. M. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human Resource Management Review, 22(1), 43-56. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.002 Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J. R. (2000). The sources and accuracy of job applicants' beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1076-1085. doi:10.2307/1556336 Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. doi:10.1037//0021- 9010.87.875 91 Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822-834. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.89.5.822 Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking Them in or Eliciting Their Best? Reframing Socialization around Newcomers' Authentic Self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1-36. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294-311. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0081 Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546-561. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.546 Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00083.x Cable, D. M., & Yu, K. Y. T. (2007). How selection and recruitment practices develop the beliefs used to assess fit. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 155-181). New York. Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648-657. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.75.6.648 Carless, S. A. (2005). Person–job fit versus person–organization fit as predictors of organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 411-429. doi:doi:10.1348/096317905X25995 Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The Illusion of Statistical Control:Control Variable Practice in Management Research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413-435. doi:10.1177/1094428111428817 Cascio, W. F. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviors on organizational performance. California Management Review, 48(4), 41-+. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 Chapman, D. S., & Zweig, D. I. (2005). Developing a nomological network for interview structure: Antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 673-702. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00516.x 92 Chau, S. L., Dahling, J. J., Levy, P. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). A predictive study of emotional labor and turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1151-1163. doi:10.1002/job.617 Cheung, G. W. (2009). A Multiple-Perspective Approach to Data Analysis in Congruence Research. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 63-68. doi:10.1177/1094428107310091 Chi, N. W., Grandey, A. A., Diamond, J. A., & Krimmel, K. R. (2011). Want a Tip? Service Performance as a Function of Emotion Regulation and Extraversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1337-1346. doi:10.1037/a0022884 Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on workplace deviance: A self-regulatory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 913-934. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0179 Chuang, A., & Sackett, P. R. (2005). The percieved importance of person-job fit and person- organization fit between and within interivew stages. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 33(3), 209-226. doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.209 Clark, M. A., Smith, R. W., & Haynes, N. J. (2020). The Multidimensional Workaholism Scale: Linking the conceptualization and measurement of workaholism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1281-1307. doi:10.1037/apl0000484 Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1140. Collins, C. J., & Kehoe, R. (2017). Examining Strategic Fit and Misfit in the Management of Knowledge Workers. ILR Review, 70(2), 308-335. doi:10.1177/0019793916654481 Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: The effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 685-717. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00004.x Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560. Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2014). Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: a comparison of relative content validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 599-618. doi:10.1037/a0036374 Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1243-1265. doi:10.1037/apl0000406 93 Combs, J., Liu, Y. M., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501-528. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. doi:10.1177/0149206310388419 Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 10(1), 7. Côté, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 509-530. Côté, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 947-962. doi:10.1002/job.174 Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 Dahling, J. J. (2017). Exhausted, mistreated, or indifferent? Explaining deviance from emotional display rules at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(2), 171-182. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1229307 Dahling, J. J., & Johnson, H.-A. M. (2013). Motivation, fit, confidence, and skills: How do individual differences influence emotional labor? In Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. (pp. 57-78). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 135-145. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: an individual-differences model and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DeKeyser, R., VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. 94 Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 289-309. doi:10.1016/s1053- 4822(98)90006-7 Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802-835. doi:10.2307/256713 Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon, M. A. (2013). HRM, Communication, Satisfaction, and Perceived Performance:A Cross-Level Test. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1637-1665. doi:10.1177/0149206312440118 DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale Development: Theory and Applications: SAGE Publications. Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339- 357. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.001 Diefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A. A., & Dahling, J. J. (2011). Emotional display rules as work unit norms: A multilevel analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 170-186. doi:10.1037/a0021725 Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor process: a control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 945-959. doi:10.1002/job.230 Diefendorff, J. M., Greguras, G. J., & Fleenor, J. (2016). Perceived Emotional Demands– Abilities Fit. Applied Psychology, 65(1), 2-37. doi:10.1111/apps.12034 Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction: Person- organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 723-734. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.723 Dineen, B. R., & Noe, R. A. (2009). Effects of Customization on Application Decisions and Applicant Pool Characteristics in a Web-Based Recruitment Context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 224-234. doi:10.1037/a0012832 Dooney, J. (2015). How Organizational Staff Size Influences HR Metrics. Report fof the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM Research Department Dreher, G. F., & Bretz, R. D. (1991). Cognitive ability and career attainment: Moderating effects of early career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 392-397. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.392 95 Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3), 656-670. doi:10.1080/09585199500000041 Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283-357). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802-827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802 Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 209-258). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31(6), 901-919. doi:10.1177/0149206305279759 Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in Organizations: A Review and Theoretical Integration. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 315-386. Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146-163. doi:10.2307/3090130 Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. W. (2008). The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366. doi:10.1037/a0012743 Follmer, E. H., Talbot, D. L., Kristof-Brown, A., Astrove, S. L., & Billsberry, J. (2017). Resolution, relief, and resignation: A qualitative study of responses to misfit at work. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0566 Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291- 314. Freude, G., Ullsperger, P., & Erdmann, U. (1999). Slow brain potentials in a visual monitoring task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 33(3), 231-241. doi:10.1016/S0167- 8760(99)00058-6 Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358. 96 Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional labor actors: a latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863-879. doi:10.1037/a0037408 Gabriel, A. S., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). Emotional Labor Dynamics: A Momentary Approach. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1804-1825. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.1135 Gabriel, A. S., Diefendorff, J. M., Chandler, M. M., Moran, C. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). The Dynamic Relationships of Work Affect and Job Satisfaction with Perceptions of Fit. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 389-420. doi:10.1111/peps.12042 Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., Arnold, J. D., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2020). Are coworkers getting into the act? An examination of emotion regulation in coworker exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105, 907-929. doi:10.1037/apl0000473 Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregat voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 315- 350. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01212.x Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. (2000). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 803-834. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02418.x Giumetti, G. W., & Raymark, P. H. (2017). Engagement, procedural fairness, and perceived fit as predictors of applicant withdrawal intentions: A longitudinal field study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(2), 161-170. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12169 Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 1-23. doi:10.1016/s0001- 8791(03)00038-1 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. Goldberg, L. S., & Grandey, A. A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 301-318. doi:10.1037/1076- 8998.12.3.301 97 Grandey, A. (2015). Smiling for a Wage: What Emotional Labor Teaches Us About Emotion Regulation (Vol. 26). Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free to be you and me: a climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. J Occup Health Psychol, 17(1), 1-14. doi:10.1037/a0025102 Grandey, A. A. (2000a). Emotion regulation in the workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor. J Occup Health Psychol, 5(1), 95-110. Grandey, A. A. (2000b). Emotion regulation in the workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95-110. Grandey, A. A. (2003). When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96. Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Michael, J. H. (2007). Work-family supportiveness organizational perceptions: Important for the well-being of male blue-collar hourly workers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 460-478. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.001 Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 397-418. doi:10.1002/job.252 Grandey, A. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2013). Bringing emotional labor into focus: A review and integration of three research lenses. In Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. (pp. 3-27). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must "service with a smile" be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 893-904. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.893 Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional Labor at a Crossroads: Where Do We Go from Here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 323-349. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400 Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 63-79. doi:10.1037/1076- 8998.12.1.63 Grandey, A. A., & Melloy, R. C. (2017). The State of the Heart: Emotional Labor as Emotion Regulation Reviewed and Revised. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 407-422. doi:10.1037/ocp0000067 98 Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 31-55. doi:10.1023/a:1015142124306 Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different Fits Satisfy Different Needs: Linking Person-Environment Fit to Employee Commitment and Performance Using Self- Determination Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477. doi:10.1037/a0014068 Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488. doi:10.1016/s0149- 2063(00)00043-x Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224-237. Gross, J.J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271. Gross, J. J. (2013). Conceptualizing emotional labor: An emotion regulation perspective. In A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional labor in the 21st century: Diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. (pp. 288-294). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Gross, J. J. (2014). Handbook of Emotion Regulation (J. J. Gross Ed. 2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180-190. doi:10.2307/3069345 Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013). Meta- Analytic Review of Employee Turnover as a Predictor of Firm Performance. Journal of Management, 39(3), 573-603. doi:10.1177/0149206311424943 Hausknecht, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2012). Organizational Strategy and Staffing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection (pp. 147-155). New York: Oxford University Press. 99 Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. (2007). Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 134- 146. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.001 Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast food industry. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 151-172. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb01819.x Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An Analysis of Variance Approach to Content Validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 175-186. doi:10.1177/109442819922004 obfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources - a New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (1 ed.): University of California Press. Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1999). Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 97-112. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb01815.x Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One Hundred Years of Employee Turnover Theory and Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530- 545. doi:10.1037/apl0000103 Hu, X., & Shi, J. (2015). Employees' surface acting in interactions with leaders and peers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(8), 1132-1152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2015 Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Schewe, A. F., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2015). When regulating emotions at work pays off: A diary and an intervention study on emotion regulation and customer tips in service jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 263-277. doi:10.1037/a0038229 Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: a meta- analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 361-389. doi:10.1037/a0022876 Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human-resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672. doi:10.2307/256741 100 Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 490-509. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(02)00033-7 James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229. Jansen, K. J., & Shipp, A. J. (2019). Fitting as a temporal sensemaking process: Shifting trajectories and stable themes. human relations, 72(7), 1154-1186. doi:10.1177/0018726718794268 Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A., & Winkler, A.-L. (2012). Clarifying the construct of human resource systems: Relating human resource management to employee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 73-85. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.005 Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J. and Baer, J. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1264–94. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1997.tb00912.x Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional labor more difficult for some than for others? A multilevel, experience-sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 57-88. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01129.x Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2007). The dynamics of newcomer adjustment: Dispositions, context, interaction, and fit. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectices on organizational fit (pp. 99-122). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, Undermining, and Newcomer Socialization: Fitting in During the First 90 Days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104-1124. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0791 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Rubenstein, A. L., Long, D. M., Odio, M. A., Buckman, B. R., Zhang, Y., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2013). A Meta-Analytic Structural Model of Dispositonal Affectivity and Emotional Labor. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 47-90. doi:doi:10.1111/peps.12009 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Schilpzand, P., & Rubenstein, A. L. (2012). Dyadic Fit and the Process of Organizational Socialization. In Organizational Fit (pp. 50-73): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 101 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., & Ahlburg, D. (2005). The role of temporal shifts in turnover processes: It's about time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 644-658. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.644 Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and Cognitive Abilities: An Integrative/Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Approach to Skill Acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690. Kaufman, B. E. (2007). The development of HRM in historical and international perspective. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 19-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kehoe, R. R., & Collins, C. J. (2017). Human resource management and unit performance in knowledge-intensive work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1222-1236. doi:10.1037/apl0000216 Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The Impact of High-Performance Human Resource Practices on Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366- 391. doi:10.1177/0149206310365901 Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conflict: a longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 337-346. Kepes, S., & Delery, J. E. (2007). HRM Systems and the Problem of Internal Fit. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 387-404). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knight, A., Menges, J., & Bruch, H. (2018). Organizational Affective Tone: A Meso Perspective on the Origins and Effects of Consistent Affect in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 191-219. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0671 Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the Bright and Dark Sides of OCB: A Daily Investigation of the Benefits and Costs of Helping Others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414-435. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0262 Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters' perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643- 671. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00217.x Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3-50). Washington, D.C.: APA. 102 Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 985-993. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.985 Kristof-Brown, A. L., Reeves, C. J., & Follmer, E. H. (2014). The Goldilocks pursuit during organizatioanl entry: Applicants' and recruiters' search for the "perfect fit". In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Recruitment (pp. 437-453). New York: Oxford University Press. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2005.00672.x Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1996.tb01790.x Lanaj, K., Johnson, R., & Barnes, C. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Lance, C. E., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2000). Latent growth models of individual change: The case of newcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 107-140. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2904 Langevin-Heavey, A., Beijer, S., Federman, J., Hermans, M., Klein, F., McClean, E., & Martinson, B. (2012). Measurement of human resource practices: Issues regarding scale, scope, source and substantive content. In J. Paauwe, D. E. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM and Performance : Achievements and Challenges (pp. 129-148). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841-866. doi:10.1177/0149206307307635 Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., Herda, D. N., Pandey, A., & Lauck, J. R. (2021). Customer Injustice and Employee Performance: Roles of Emotional Exhaustion, Surface Acting, and Emotional Demands–Abilities Fit. Journal of Management, 47(3), 654-682. doi:10.1177/0149206319869426 Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, T. W., Ashford, S. J., Walsh, J. P., & Mowday, R. T. (1992). Commitment propensity, organizational commitment, and voluntary turnover: A longitudinal study of 103 organizational entry processes. Journal of Management, 18(1), 15-32. doi:10.1177/014920639201800102 Lennard, A. C., Scott, B. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Turning frowns (and smiles) upside down: A multilevel examination of surface acting positive and negative emotions on well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/apl0000400 Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 25, pp. 217–271). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(06)25006-0 Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The Structured Employment Interview: Narrative and Quantitative Review of the Research Literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241-293. doi:doi:10.1111/peps.12052 Macduffie, J. P. (1995). Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197-221. doi:10.2307/2524483 Martínez-Iñigo, D., Totterdell, P., Alcover, C. M., & Holman, D. (2007). Emotional labour and emotional exhaustion: Interpersonal and intrapersonal mechanisms. Work & Stress, 21(1), 30-47. doi:10.1080/02678370701234274 Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1993). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 63-91. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & DeNisi, A. S. (2000). A Meta-Analytic Examination of Realistic Job Preview Effectiveness: A Test of Three Counterintuitive Propositions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 407-434. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00034-6 Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., & Lepak, D. P. (2011). Unlocking the Black Box: Exploring the Link Between High-Performance Work Systems and Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105-1118. doi:10.1037/a0024710 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 986-1010. doi:10.2307/259161 104 Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing Emotions In The Workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), 257-274. Moskowitz, D. S., & Côté, S. (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 915-924. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.915 Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640-647. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.640 Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006). Implicit policies about relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness in situational judgment items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 749-761. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.749 Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268-277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1 Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247 Muthén, B. O. (2010) Bayseian analysis in Mplus: A brief introduction (Technical Report). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User's Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the "why" of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503-545. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00121.x Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic human resources management. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (pp. 225-248). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O'Reilly, C. A. (1977). Personality—job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18(1), 36-46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90017-4 O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. doi:10.2307/256404 105 O’Rourke, H. P., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2015). When the test of mediation is more powerful than the test of the total effect. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 424-442. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0481-z Orlitzky, M. O. (2007). Recruitment strategy. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 273-299). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963-974. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963 Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 211-266). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organizations across levels of analysis. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives of Organizational Fit (pp. 3- 69). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ostroff, C., & Zhan, Y. (2012). Person–Environment Fit in the Selection Process. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection (pp. 252-273). New York: Oxford University Press. Parke, M. R., & Seo, M. G. (2017). The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 334-360. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0424 Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389-416. doi:10.1002/job.198. Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153-163. Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54(4), 1643-1662. doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3 Penedo, F. J., Dahn, J. R., Kinsinger, D., Antoni, M. H., Molton, I., Gonzalez, J. S., . . . Schneiderman, N. (2006). Anger suppression mediates the relationship between optimism and natural killer cell cytotoxicity in men treated for localized prostate cancer. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(4), 423-427. 106 Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., & Salge, T. O. (2013). The Relationship Between Employees' Perceptions of Human Resource Systems and Organizational Performance: Examining Mediating Mechanisms and Temporal Dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 926-947. doi:10.1037/a0033925 Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609. doi:10.1037/h0037335 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A General Multilevel SEM Framework for Assessing Multilevel Mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233. Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 706-719. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.4.706 Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018-1027. doi:10.2307/3069445 Pugh, S. D., Diefendorff, J. M., & Moran, C. M. (2013). Emotional labor: Organization-level influences, strategies, and outcomes. In A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional Labor in the 21st Century: Diverse Perspectives on Emotion Regulation at Work. (pp. 199-221). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of Emotion as Part of the Work Role. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 23-37. doi:10.2307/257991 Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 1-42. Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will They Stay or Will They Go? The Role of Job Embeddedness in Predicting Turnover in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 807-823. doi:10.1037/a0019464 Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related attitudes and decisions: Examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1446-1455. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1446 Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: the cognitive costs of keeping one's cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 410-424. 107 Roberson, Q. M., Collins, C. J., & Oreg, S. (2005). The Effects Of Recruitment Message Specificity On Applicant Attraction To Organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(3), 319-339. doi:10.1007/s10869-004-2231-1 Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44(3), 487-521. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1991.tb02402.x Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. A. (2003). Recruitment Research in the Twenty‐First Century. In W. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. xii). New York: Wiley. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 646-654. doi:10.1037//0021- 9010.87.4.646 Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 163-183. Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2000). Job Stress and Burnout Among Correctional Officers: A Literature Review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19-48. doi:10.1023/a:1009514731657 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking Competitive Strategies with Human Resource Management Practices. The Academy of Management Executive (1987-1989), 1(3), 207- 219. Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organization behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Scott, B. A., Awasty, N., Johnson, R. E., Matta, F. K., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2020). Origins and destinations, distances and directions: Accounting for the journey in the emotion regulation process. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 423-446. Scott, B. A., Lennard, A. C., Mitchell, R. L., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). Emotions naturally and laboriously expressed: Antecedents, consequences, and the role of valence. Personnel Psychology. doi:10.1111/peps.12382 108 Shaw, J. D., Dineen, B. R., Fang, R., & Vellella, R. F. (2009). Employee-Organization Exchange Relationships, HRM Practices, and Quit Rates of Good and Poor Performers. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1016-1033. Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 50-68. Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit theory: Crafting and Recrafting Narratives of fit in media res. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 76-101. Sikora, D. M., Ferris, G. R., & Van Iddekinge, C. H. (2015). Line manager implementation perceptions as a mediator of relations between high-performance work practices and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1908-1918. doi:10.1037/apl0000024 Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2004). Gender differences: Emotional expression and feelings of personal inauthenticity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 715-721. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.715 Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 216-269. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216 Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. doi:10.2307/1882010 Stanley, O. S., & Burrows, G. D. (2001). Varieties and Functions of Human Emotion. In R. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: theory, research, and applications for management (pp. 4-19). West Sussex, England: Wiley. Su, R., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., & Tay, L. (2019). Modeling congruence in organizational research with latent moderated structural equations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 1404- 1433. doi:10.1037/apl0000411 Swider, B. W., Zimmerman, R. D., & Barrick, M. R. (2015). Searching for the right fit: Development of applicant person-organization fit perceptions during the recruitment process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 880-893. doi:10.1037/a0038357 Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems on employees' attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1-29. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01127.x Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241-269. doi:10.1177/1094428107300344 109 Taylor, M. S., & Collins, C. J. (2000). Organizational recruitment: Enhancing the intersection of research and practice. In C. Cooper & E. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organizational psychology: Linking theory with practice (pp. 304–330). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293. Toh, S. M., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Human resource configurations: Investigating fit with the organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 864-882. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.864 Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(1), 55-73. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.8.1.55 Trevor, C. O., & Nyberg, A. J. (2008). Keeping your headcount when all about you are losing theirs: Downsizing, voluntary turnover rates, and the moderating role of HR practices. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 259-276. Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 227-236. doi:10.1037/a0038082 Twenge, J. M., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2004). Measuring state self control: Reliability, validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress. Unpublished manuscript, San Deigo State University. Uggerslev, K. L., Fassina, N. E., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting Through the Stages: A Meta‐ Analytic Test of Predictors of Applicant Attraction at Different Stages of the Recruiting Process. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 597-660. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2012.01254.x Van Dijk, P. A., & Kirk-Brown, A. (2006). Emotional labour and negative job outcomes: An evaluation of the mediating role of emotional dissonance. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(2), 101-115. doi:10.1017/S1833367200004053 Van Iddekinge, C. H., Aguinis, H., Mackey, J. D., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. (2018). A Meta-Analysis of the Interactive, Additive, and Relative Effects of Cognitive Ability and Motivation on Performance. Journal of Management, 44, 249 - 279. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory or organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 110 Vandenberghe, C., & Bentein, K. (2009). A closer look at the relationship between affective commitment to supervisors and organizations and turnover. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 331-348. Venkatesh, V., Windeler, J. B., Bartol, K. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2017). Person-organization and person-job fit perceptions of new IT employees: Work outcomes and gender differences. Mis Quarterly, 41(2), 525-+. doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.2.09 Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473- 489. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(02)00036-2 Wang, M., Liu, S., Liao, H., Gong, Y., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Shi, J. (2013). Can’t get it out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 989-1004. doi:10.1037/a0033656 Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. 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. Whetzel, D. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 188-202. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.007 Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243- 274. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1 Wright, P., & Nishii, L. (2012). Strategic HRM and Organization Behavior: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis. In J. Paauwe, D. E. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM and Performance : Achievements and Challenges (pp. 97-110). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247- 276. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(02)00128-9 Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701-721. doiintro:10.1177/014920630102700607 111 Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00096.x Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. E. (2001). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 875-901. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00235.x Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320. doi:10.1177/014920639201800205 Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2011). Exploring human capital: putting ‘human’ back into strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2), 93-104. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00165.x Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 301-326. doi:10.1080/09585199400000020 Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, M. D. (2017). A Road Well Traveled: The Past, Present, and Future Journey of Strategic Human Resource Management. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 45-65. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- 032516-113052 Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress - Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1288-1309. doi:10.2307/256858 Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 231-247. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231 Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective cognitive effort: a model of states, traits, and time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 617-631. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.617 Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836-866. doi:10.2307/256714 Yu, A., Hays, N. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 84-104. 112 Zyphur, M. J., Warren, C. R., Landis, R. S., & Thoresen, C. J. (2007). Self-regulation and performance in high-fidelity simulations: An extension of ego-depletion research. Human performance, 20(2), 103-118. doi:10.1080/08959280701332034 113 APPENDIX A: MEASURES Emotion-Focused HR Practices Survey for Scale Development Emotion-Focused Human Resource Practices Proposed Measure The following items ask you to reflect on your organization’s 1 = Not at all practices related to recruitment, selection, onboarding, 2 = To a lesser extent performance management, and training processes. For the 3 = To a moderate purposes of this survey, we define recruitment as the process of extent promoting the organization and encouraging potential job 4 = To a higher extent applicants of their fit with the company; the selection process 5 = To a great extent begins when you start to review job applicants and includes the activities that occur through extending an offer to a job candidate; onboarding includes the practices designed to facilitate the adjustment of newly hired employees into both their job and the organization at large and can include initial training programs; performance management refers to the activities that occur within both the formal performance management process (i.e., scheduled evaluations) and informal feedback provided to employees throughout their regular workday; training refers to any additional training, presentations, or materials provided to employees beyond their initial onboarding experience. Please indicate the extent to which your organization utilizes these practices using the scale below. 1. During the recruitment process, … a. …we provide potential job applicants with information (e.g. flyers, online job postings, etc.) about the emotional demands of the available position. b. …we emphasize the importance of managing emotions on the job to potential applicants. c. …we include information about the emotional demands of open positions in our job postings. d. …we encourage individuals to consider their ability to manage their emotions before applying to open positions. e. …the organization’s HR policies and practices regarding emotional displays are shared with job applicants. f. …we explain the emotional re4quirements of the job to job applicants. g. …the expectations for emotional displays are made clear to job applicants. 2. During the selection process, … 114 a. …we evaluate whether there is a good match between the emotional demands of the job and the candidate’s skills. b. …we assess whether the job candidate displays positive emotions such as enthusiasm and happiness. c. …we assess whether the job candidate expresses negative emotions (e.g. frustration, annoyance, anger or anxiety). d. …we focus on selecting the candidate who demonstrates the emotional abilities necessary for the job. e. …it is a priority to evaluate the candidate’s ability to manage his/her emotions. f. …we select employees based on the emotional abilities of the individual. g. …we select candidates based on their fit with the emotional demands of the job. 3. During the onboarding process, … a. …we set expectations about how new hires should manage emotions on the job. b. …we communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to new employees. c. …we provide information about the emotional demands of the employee’s new job. d. …we explain the importance of managing emotions on the job to new hires. e. …we provide explicit guidelines about appropriate emotional displays to newly hired employees. f. …we suggest strategies for managing emotional displays at work to new hires. 4. During the training process, … a. …we provide training to employees about how they can manage their emotions on the job. b. …we communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to employees. c. …we explain strategies that employees can use to regulate their emotions on the job. d. …employees act out scenarios to practice managing their emotions. e. …there is a focus on developing skills related to emotion management. 5. During the performance management process, … a. …we evaluate the appropriateness of the employees’ emotional displays. 115 b. …employees are provided feedback on their ability to manage their emotions. c. …we evaluate how well employees are able to express feelings to fulfill their job duties. d. …we measure the extent to which employees display appropriate emotions at work. e. …employees who do not manage their emotions well are provided with training in order to develop their skills. [dropped after Study 1] f. …we consider the ability of the employees to manage their emotions when making promotion decisions. g. …the ability of employees to manage the emotions of others’ is an important consideration in promotion decisions. Emotion-Focused Personnel Practices Knight et al. (2018) 1. The enthusiasm of job applicants plays an important role 1 = Not at all in the employment decision. 2 = To a lesser extent 2. Within our recruitment process, we test specifically how 3 = To a moderate resilient and stress resistant our job applicants are. extent 3. The ability to handle stress and negative emotions are 4 = To a higher extent very important criteria in our employment process. 5 = To a great extent 4. In the selection process we specifically examine the job candidates’ capacity for enthusiasm. 5. In our recruiting, we want to specifically appeal to job candidates’ emotions. 6. Employees’ promotions into leadership positions depend decisively on whether they can inspire enthusiasm in others. Items Measuring a Commitment-Based Approach to HR Collins & Smith Selection Policies (2006) Rate the extent to which the company uses the HR practice 1 = Strongly disagree below. 2 = Moderately 1. Internal candidates are given consideration over external disagree candidates for job openings. 3 = Neutral 2. We select employees based on an overall fit to the 4 = Moderately agree company. 5 = Strongly agree 3. Our selection system focuses on the potential of the candidate to learn and grow with the organization. 4. We ensure that all employees in these positions are made aware of internal promotion opportunities. 116 High Performance Work Practices Sikora, Ferris, and Van Iddekinge (2015) For the following HR practices, please use these guidelines when describing your use of each practice: 1 = Never. I do not use this practice. Staffing Practices Subscale 2 = Rarely. I use this 1. Formal job applicant tests (paper and pencil or work practice in about 25% sample tests). of the chances when I 2. Structured interviews with job applicants (job-related can. questions, same questions asked of all job applicants, use 3 = Sometimes. I use of rating scales). this practice in about 3. Hiring decisions based on formal applicant assessment 50% of the chances criteria (assessment of job applicants against job when I can. description requirements). 4 = Often. I use this Employee Involvement and Communication Practices Subscale practice in about 75% 1. Organization’s strategies, objectives and values are of the chances when I shared with employees. can. 2. Customer service and satisfaction goals and results are 5 = Always. I use this shared with employees. practice in all chances 3. Organization’s financial performance is shared with when I can. employees. 4. Organization’s HR policies and practices are shared with employees 5. Periodic use of employee attitude surveys. 6. Formal employee participation processes such as quality improvement groups, problem solving groups, unit councils, roundtable discussions and/or suggestion systems. 7. Employees provided with access to reasonable and fair complaint process. 117 Manager / HR Representative Survey General directions: This survey is intended to assess HR practices related to customer-facing roles (e.g. sales representative, servers, baristas, customer service employees, etc.). As you respond to the questions in this survey, it is important that you think only of the practices used in managing the specific group of customer-facing employees. Emotion-Focused Human Resource Practices Proposed Measure The following items ask you to reflect on your organization’s 1 = Not at all practices related to recruitment, selection, onboarding, 2 = To a lesser extent performance management, and training processes for customer- 3 = To a moderate facing roles. For the purposes of this survey, we define extent recruitment as the process of promoting the organization and 4 = To a higher extent encouraging potential job applicants of their fit with the 5 = To a great extent company; the selection process begins when you start to review job applicants and includes the activities that occur through extending an offer to a job candidate; onboarding includes the practices designed to facilitate the adjustment of newly hired employees into both their job and the organization at large and can include initial training programs; performance management refers to the activities that occur within both the formal performance management process (i.e., scheduled evaluations) and informal feedback provided to employees throughout their regular workday; training refers to any additional training, presentations, or materials provided to employees beyond their initial onboarding experience. Please indicate the extent to which your organization utilizes these practices using the scale below. 1. During the recruitment process, … a. …we provide potential job applicants with information (e.g. flyers, online job postings, etc.) about the emotional demands of the available position. b. …we emphasize the importance of managing emotions on the job to potential applicants. c. …we include information about the emotional demands of open positions in our job postings. d. …we encourage individuals to consider their ability to manage their emotions before applying to open positions. e. …the organization’s HR policies and practices regarding emotional displays are shared with job applicants. 118 f. …we explain the emotional re4quirements of the job to job applicants. g. …the expectations for emotional displays are made clear to job applicants. 2. During the selection process, … a. …we evaluate whether there is a good match between the emotional demands of the job and the candidate’s skills. b. …we assess whether the job candidate displays positive emotions such as enthusiasm and happiness. c. …we assess whether the job candidate expresses negative emotions (e.g. frustration, annoyance, anger or anxiety). d. …we focus on selecting the candidate who demonstrates the emotional abilities necessary for the job. e. …it is a priority to evaluate the candidate’s ability to manage his/her emotions. f. …we select employees based on the emotional abilities of the individual. g. …we select candidates based on their fit with the emotional demands of the job. 3. During the onboarding process, … a. …we set expectations about how new hires should manage emotions on the job. b. …we communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to new employees. c. …we provide information about the emotional demands of the employee’s new job. d. …we explain the importance of managing emotions on the job to new hires. e. …we provide explicit guidelines about appropriate emotional displays to newly hired employees. f. …we suggest strategies for managing emotional displays at work to new hires. 4. During the training process, … a. …we provide training to employees about how they can manage their emotions on the job. b. …we communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to employees. c. …we explain strategies that employees can use to regulate their emotions on the job. d. …employees act out scenarios to practice managing their emotions. 119 e. …there is a focus on developing skills related to emotion management. 5. During the performance management process, … a. …we evaluate the appropriateness of the employees’ emotional displays. b. …employees are provided feedback on their ability to manage their emotions. c. …we evaluate how well employees are able to express feelings to fulfill their job duties. d. …we measure the extent to which employees display appropriate emotions at work. e. …we consider the ability of the employees to manage their emotions when making promotion decisions. f. …the ability of employees to manage the emotions of others’ is an important consideration in promotion decisions. 120 Emotion-Focused Personnel Practices Knight et al. (2018) 1. The enthusiasm of job applicants plays an important role 1 = Not at all in the employment decision. 2 = To a lesser extent 2. Within our recruitment process, we test specifically how 3 = To a moderate resilient and stress resistant our job applicants are. extent 3. The ability to handle stress and negative emotions are 4 = To a higher extent very important criteria in our employment process. 5 = To a great extent 4. In the selection process we specifically examine the job candidates’ capacity for enthusiasm. 5. In our recruiting, we want to specifically appeal to job candidates’ emotions. 6. Employees’ promotions into leadership positions depend decisively on whether they can inspire enthusiasm in others. Emotion Work Requirements Scale Adapted by Diefendorff, Erickson, As you answer the following questions, think about the same Grandey, and Dahling customer-facing employees that you evaluated in the previous (2011) from Best, questions. Downey, and Jones (1997) To be effective in their job, to what extent are these employees required to…. 1 = Never required 2 = Rarely required Requirement to Display Positive Emotions 3 = Required about half 1. …reassure people who are distressed or upset. the time 2. …remain calm even when they are astonished. 4 = Usually required 3. …express feelings of sympathy (e.g., saying they 5 = Always required “understand,” they are sorry to hear about something). 4. …express friendly emotions (e.g., smiling, giving compliments, making small talk). Requirement to Hide Negative Emotions 1. …hide their anger or disapproval about something someone has done (e.g., an act that is distasteful to them). 2. …hide their disgust over something someone has done. 3. …hide their fear of someone who appears threatening. Please provide contact information for at least three and up to seven employees who work in customer-facing roles within the same business unit (e.g. department, location, etc.) at your organization: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 121 Organization Information Industry Organization size Job title or department of referred employees Additional comments or questions [open text field] 122 Employee Survey – Time 1 and Time 2 Note: Time 2 survey included all of the same scales as Time 1 with the exception of the following measures: personality (Saucier, 1994), affect (Waston & Clark, 1994), and emotional intelligence (Wong & Law, 2002), and demographics. These items were only measured at Time 1. Personality Saucier (1994) Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to how well this list of common traits describes yourself. Please be as accurate as possible, describing how you are most of the time, 1 = Strongly disagree not as you wish to be in the future. 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree nor Conscientiousness Agreeableness disagree 1. Organized 1. Cooperative 4 = Agree 2. Systematic 2. Warm 5 = Strongly agree 3. Practical 3. Kind (R) = Reverse-coded 4. Efficient 4. Sympathetic 5. Sloppy (R) 5. Harsh (R) 6. Careless (R) 6. Rude (R) 7. Disorganized (R) 7. Unsympathetic (R) 8. Inefficient (R) 8. Cold (R) Extraversion Neuroticism 1. Energetic 1. Unenvious (R) 2. Talkative 2. Relaxed (R) 3. Bold 3. Moody 4. Extraverted 4. Fretful 5. Bashful (R) 5. Temperamental 6. Quiet (R) 6. Touchy 7. Shy (R) 7. Envious 8. Withdrawn (R) 8. Jealous Openness 1. Creative 2. Complex 3. Intellectual 4. Deep 5. Philosophical 6. Imaginative 7. Unintellectual (R) 8. Uncreative (R) 123 Affect (PANAS-X) D. Watson et al. (1988); D Watson and Watson et al. (1988); Clark (1994) Watson and Clark This scale consists of a number of words and phrases that (1994) describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. 1= Very slightly or not Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way. Use the at all following scale to record your answers: 2 = A little General Positive Affect 3 = Moderately 1. Active 4 = Quite a bit 2. Alert 5 = Very much 3. Attentive 4. Enthusiastic 5. Excited 6. Inspired 7. Interested 8. Proud 9. Strong 10. Determined General Negative Affect 1. Afraid 2. Scared 3. Nervous 4. Jittery 5. Guilty 6. Ashamed 7. Irritable 8. Hostile 9. Upset 10. Distressed Perceived Emotional Demands-Abilities Fit Diefendorff et al. (2016) 1. The match is very good between the emotional demands of my job and my personal skills. 1 = Not at all 2. My ability to manage my emotions is a good fit with the 2 = A little requirements of my job. 3 = Somewhat 3. My personal abilities and background provide a good 4 = Mostly match with the emotional demands that my job places on 5 = Completely me. 124 Perceived Person-Organization Fit Cable & Judge (1996) 1. To what degree do you believe your values “match” or fit 1 = Not at all this organization and the current employees in this 2 = A little organization? 3 = Somewhat 2. My values match those of the current employees in this 4 = Mostly organization. 5 = Completely 3. Do you think the values and “personality” of this organization reflect you own values and personality? Perceived Person-Job Fit Cable & Judge (1996) 1. To what degree do you believe your skills and abilities “match” those required by the job? 1 = Not at all 2. To what degree is your job performance hurt by a lack of 2 = A little expertise on the job? 3 = Somewhat 3. To what degree do you think you possess the skills and 4 = Mostly abilities to perform this job? 5 = Completely Perceived Person-Display Rule Fit Based on Cable & Judge (1996) 1. The emotions that I am required to display at work match well with my natural emotions. 1 = Not at all 2. I am able to display the emotions expected of me at work. 2 = A little 3. The emotions that I naturally feel fit with this job and its 3 = Somewhat emotional expectations. 4 = Mostly 5 = Completely Job Satisfaction Brayfield and Rothe (1951) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your job. 1 = Strongly disagree 1. At this very moment, I am enthusiastic about my work. 2 = Disagree 2. Right now, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. 3 = Neither agree nor 3. At this moment, I am finding real enjoyment in my work. disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree Emotional Labor Strategy – Frequency Diefendorff, Croyle, Thinking about the past two weeks at work, please indicate how and Grosserand frequently you engaged in the following behaviors. (2005) *modified by changing Surface acting “customers” to “others 1. I put on an act in order to deal with others at work in an at work” in order to appropriate way. generalize items for 2. I faked a good mood when interacting with others at different types of work work. environments* 3. I put on a “show” or “performance” when interacting with others at work. 1 = Never 125 4. I just pretended to have the emotions I needed to display 2 = Rarely for my job. 3 = About half the 5. I put on a “mask” in order to display the emotions I time needed for the job. 4 = Usually 6. I showed feelings to others that were different from what 5 = Always I felt inside. 7. I faked the emotions I showed when dealing with others at work. Deep acting 1. I tried to actually experience the emotions that I needed show to others at work. 2. I made an effort to actually feel the emotions that I needed to display toward others. 3. I worked hard to feel the emotions that I needed to show to others at work. 4. I worked at developing the feelings inside of me that I needed to show to others at work. Expression of naturally felt emotions 1. The emotions I expressed to others at work were genuine. 2. The emotions I showed others at work came naturally. 3. The emotions I showed others at work matched what I was spontaneously feeling. Emotional Labor Strategy – Effortful Diefendorff, Croyle, Thinking about the past two weeks at work, if and when you and Grosserand engaged in any of the following behaviors, please rate how (2005) effortful this behavior felt. *modified by changing “customers” to “others Surface acting at work” in order to 1. Putting on an act in order to deal with others at work in generalize items for an appropriate way different types of work 2. Faking a good mood when interacting with others at work environments* 3. Putting on a “show” or “performance” when interacting with others at work 1 = Not at all effortful 4. Just pretending to have the emotions I needed to display 2 = A little effortful for my job 3 = Somewhat 5. Putting on a “mask” in order to display the emotions I effortful needed for the job 4 = Very effortful 6. Showing feelings to others that were different from what 5 = Extremely I felt inside effortful 7. Faking the emotions I showed when dealing with others at work Deep acting 126 1. Tying to actually experience the emotions that I needed show to others at work 2. Making an effort to actually feel the emotions that I needed to display toward others 3. Working hard to feel the emotions that I needed to show to others at work 4. Working at developing the feelings inside of me that I needed to show to others at work Organizational Commitment (Affective Commitment) Meyer and Allen (1997) In the last two weeks, how strongly have you felt the following. 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with 1 = Strongly disagree this organization. 2 = Disagree 2. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my 3 = Somewhat own. disagree 3. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning 4 = Neither agree nor for me. disagree 4. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization. 5 = Somewhat agree (R) 6 = Agree 5. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. 7 = Strongly agree (R) 6. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (R) Intent to Turnover Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham (1999) In the last two weeks, how strongly have you felt the following. 1 = Strongly disagree 1. I am thinking about leaving my organization. 2 = Disagree 2. I am planning to look for a new job. 3 = Somewhat 3. I don’t plan to be in my organization much longer . disagree 4 = Neither agree nor disagree 5 = Somewhat agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly agree Emotional Exhaustion Adapted by Koopman, Lanaj, Indicate how frequently you have felt the following in the past Scott (2016) from Maslach Burnout two weeks. Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1993) In the past two weeks, I … 1. ... have felt emotionally drained from my work. 1 = Never 2. …have felt used up at the end of the workday. 2 = Rarely 127 3. …have felt fatigued when I get up in the morning and 3 = About half the have to face another day on the job. time 4. ... have felt burned out from my work. 4 = Usually 5 = Every day 5. ... have felt frustrated by my job. 6. ... have felt I’m working too hard on my job. 7. …have felt like I’m at the end of my rope. State Depletion Adapted from Twenge et al., 2004; Please indicate your agreement with the following statements full scale published using the scale below. by Christian & Ellis, 2011 In the last two weeks, … 1. …I have felt drained. 1 = Very slightly or 2. …my mind has felt unfocused. not at all 3. …it took a lot of effort for me to concentrate on 2 = Rarely something. 3 = About half the 4. …my mental energy has been running low. time 5. …I have felt like my willpower is gone. 4 = Usually 5 = Very much or always Emotion Work Requirements Scale Adapted by Stem: To be effective in your job, to what extent are you required to…. Diefendorff et al. Requirement to Display Positive Emotions (2011) from Best et al. 1. …reassure people who are distressed or upset. (1997) 2. …remain calm even when you are astonished. 1 = Never required 3. …express feelings of sympathy (e.g., saying you “understand,” 2 = Rarely required you are sorry to hear about something). 3 = Required about half 4. …express friendly emotions (e.g., smiling, giving the time compliments, making small talk). 4 = Usually required Requirement to Hide Negative Emotions 5 = Always required 1. …hide your anger or disapproval about something someone has done (e.g., an act that is distasteful to you). 2. …hide your disgust over something someone has done. 3. …hide your fear of someone who appears threatening. Display Rule Perceptions Diefendorff et al. Positive display rule perceptions (2005) 1. Part of my job is to make the customer feel good. 1 = Strongly disagree 2. My workplace does not expect me to express positive 2 = Disagree emotions to customers as part of my job. 3 = Somewhat 3. This organization would say that part of the product to disagree customers is friendly, cheerful service. 4 = Neutral 4. My organization expects me to try to act excited and 5 = Somewhat agree enthusiastic in my interactions with customers. 6 = Agree Negative display rule perceptions 7 = Strongly agree 128 1. I am expected to suppress my bad moods or negative reactions to customers. 2. This organization expects me to try to pretend that I am not upset or distressed. 3. I am expected to try to pretend I am not angry or feeling contempt while on the job. Social Exchange Colquitt, Baer, Long, and Halvorsen- Below are several terms that can be used to describe a work Ganepola (2014) relationship. For each, please indicate how accurately that term describes your relationship with your supervisor/organization. 1= Highly inaccurate  Mutual obligation 2 = Somewhat inaccurate  Mutual trust 3 = Neither inaccurate  Mutual commitment nor accurate  Mutual significance 4 = Somewhat accurate 5 = Highly accurate Emotional Intelligence Wong and Law (2002) Self-emotion appraisal (SEA) 1 = Strongly disagree 1. I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most 2 = Disagree of the time. 3 = Somewhat 2. I have good understanding of my own emotions. disagree 3. I really understand what I feel. 4 = Neutral 4. I always know whether or not I am happy. 5 = Somewhat agree Others’ emotion appraisal (OEA) 6 = Agree 5. I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior. 7 = Strongly agree 6. I am a good observer of others’ emotions. 7. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. 8. I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me. Use of emotion (UOE) 9. I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them. 10. I always tell myself I am a competent person 11. I am a self-motivated person. 12. I would always encourage myself to try my best. Regulation of emotion (ROE) 13. I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally. 14. I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions. 15. I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry. 16. I have good control of my own emotions. 129 Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) Gross and John (2003) INSTRUCTIONS: We would like to ask you some questions about your emotional life, in particular, how you control (that is, regulate and manage) your emotions at work. The questions 1 = Strongly disagree below involve two distinct aspects of your emotional life at 2 = Disagree work. One is your emotional experience, or what you feel like 3 = Neither agree nor inside. The other is your emotional expression, or how you show disagree your emotions in the way you talk, gesture, or behave. Although 4 = Agree some of the following questions may seem similar to one 5 = Strongly agree another, they differ in important ways. For each item, please answer using the following scale: Reappraisal Items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 When answering these questions, please consider how you felt or Suppression Items: 2, displayed emotions in the past two weeks at work 4, 6, 9. 1. When I wanted to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I changed what I was thinking about. 2. I kept my emotions to myself. 3. When I wanted to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I changed what I was thinking about. 4. When I was feeling positive emotions, I was careful not to express them. 5. When I was faced with a stressful situation, I made myself think about it in a way that helped me stay calm. 6. I controlled my emotions by not expressing them. 7. When I wanted to feel more positive emotion, I changed the way I was thinking about the situation. 8. I controlled my emotions by changing the way I thought about the situation I was in. 9. When I was feeling negative emotions, I made sure not to express them. 10. When I wanted to feel less negative emotion, I changed the way I was thinking about the situation. Demographics Organizational Tenure Job Tenure Job Title Hours/Week Gender Age Race Education Level 130 APPENDIX B: Tables TABLE 1: Phase 1 Retained Items and Associated psa and csv Values Item # Item Dimension psa csv 1 We provide potential job applicants with information (e.g. flyers, brochures, etc.) about the Recruitment 1.00 1.00 emotional demands of the available position. 2 We emphasize the importance of managing emotions on the job to potential applicants. Recruitment 1.00 1.00 3 We include information about the emotional demands of open positions in our job postings. Recruitment 1.00 1.00 4 We encourage individuals to consider their ability to manage their emotions before Recruitment 1.00 1.00 applying to open positions. 5 The organization’s HR policies and practices regarding emotional displays are shared with Recruitment 0.87 0.77 job applicants. 6 We explain the emotional requirements of the job to job applicants. Recruitment 0.87 0.73 7 The expectations for emotional displays are made clear to job applicants. Recruitment 0.90 0.80 8 We evaluate whether there is a good match between the emotional demands of the job and Selection 1.00 1.00 the candidate’s skills. 9 We assess whether the job candidate displays positive emotions such as enthusiasm and Selection 0.90 0.83 happiness. 10 We assess whether the job candidate expresses negative emotions (e.g. frustration, Selection 0.97 0.93 annoyance, anger or anxiety). 11 We focus on selecting the candidate who demonstrates the emotional abilities necessary for Selection 1.00 1.00 the job. 12 It is a priority to evaluate the candidate’s ability to manage his/her emotions. Selection 0.93 0.87 13 We select employees based on the emotional abilities of the individual. Selection 1.00 1.00 14 We select candidates based on their fit with the emotional demands of the job. Selection 1.00 1.00 15 We set expectations about how new hires should manage emotions on the job. Onboarding .87 0.83 16 We communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to new employees. Onboarding .93 0.87 17 We provide information about the emotional demands of the employee’s new job. Onboarding 0.93 0.87 131 TABLE 1 (cont’d) Item # Item Dimension psa csv 18 We explain the importance of managing emotions on the job to new hires. Onboarding 1.00 1.00 19 We provide explicit guidelines about appropriate emotional displays to newly hired Onboarding 1.00 1.00 employees. 20 We suggest strategies for managing emotional displays at work to new hires. Onboarding 0.97 0.93 21 We provide training to employees about how they can manage their emotions on the job. Training 0.97 0.93 22 We communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to employees. a Training 0.40 0.10 23 We explain strategies that employees can use to regulate their emotions on the job. Training 0.97 0.93 24 Employees act out scenarios to practice managing their emotions. Training 0.97 0.93 25 There is a focus on developing skills related to emotion management. Training 0.90 0.80 26 Employees who do not manage their emotions well are provided with training in order to Training 0.90 0.80 develop their skills. 27 We evaluate the appropriateness of the employees’ emotional displays. Performance 1.00 1.00 Management 28 Employees are provided feedback on their ability to manage their emotions. Performance 0.97 0.93 Management 29 We evaluate how well employees are able to express feelings to fulfill their job duties. Performance 0.97 0.93 Management 30 We measure the extent to which employees display appropriate emotions at work. Performance 1.00 1.00 Management 31 We consider the ability of the employees to manage their emotions when making Performance 0.90 0.83 promotion decisions. Management 32 The ability of employees to manage the emotions of others is an important consideration in Performance 0.93 0.87 promotion decisions. Management Note. Dimension refers to the dimension selected by the majority of coders. a Item omitted from subsequent surveys N = 30 132 TABLE 2: Phase 2 Retained Items and Associated htc and htd Values Item # Item Dimension htc htd 1 We provide potential job applicants with information (e.g. flyers, online postings, Recruitment 0.78 0.29 etc.) about the emotional demands of the available position. 2 We emphasize the importance of managing emotions on the job to potential Recruitment 0.80 0.36 applicants. 3 We include information about the emotional demands of open positions in our job Recruitment 0.82 0.36 postings. 4 We encourage individuals to consider their ability to manage their emotions before Recruitment 0.78 0.34 applying to open positions. 5 The organization’s HR policies and practices regarding emotional displays are Recruitment 0.79 0.31 shared with job applicants. 6 We explain the emotional requirements of the job to job applicants. Recruitment 0.83 0.34 7 The expectations for emotional displays are made clear to job applicants. Recruitment 0.80 0.34 8 We evaluate whether there is a good match between the emotional demands of the Selection 0.81 0.22 job and the candidate’s skills. 9 We assess whether the job candidate displays positive emotions such as enthusiasm Selection 0.77 0.27 and happiness. 10 We assess whether the job candidate expresses negative emotions (e.g. frustration, Selection 0.77 0.29 annoyance, anger or anxiety). 11 We focus on selecting the candidate who demonstrates the emotional abilities Selection 0.82 0.29 necessary for the job. 12 It is a priority to evaluate the candidate’s ability to manage his/her emotions. Selection 0.78 0.29 13 We select employees based on the emotional abilities of the individual. Selection 0.77 0.31 14 We select candidates based on their fit with the emotional demands of the job. Selection 0.80 0.27 15 We set expectations about how new hires should manage emotions on the job. Onboarding 0.79 0.27 16 We communicate information about norms regarding emotional displays to new Onboarding 0.80 0.26 employees. 17 We provide information about the emotional demands of the employee’s new job. Onboarding 0.82 0.29 133 TABLE 2 (cont’d) Item # Item Dimension htc htd 18 We explain the importance of managing emotions on the job to new hires. Onboarding 0.81 0.29 19 We provide explicit guidelines about appropriate emotional displays to newly hired Onboarding 0.81 0.26 employees. 20 We suggest strategies for managing emotional displays at work to new hires. Onboarding 0.82 0.25 21 We provide training to employees about how they can manage their emotions on the Training 0.82 0.20 job. 22 We explain strategies that employees can use to regulate their emotions on the job. Training 0.82 0.24 23 Employees act out scenarios to practice managing their emotions. Training 0.78 0.26 24 There is a focus on developing skills related to emotion management. Training 0.82 0.21 25 Employees who do not manage their emotions well are provided with training in Training 0.81 0.19 order to develop their skills. 26 We evaluate the appropriateness of the employees’ emotional displays. Performance 0.79 0.33 Management 27 Employees are provided feedback on their ability to manage their emotions. Performance 0.80 0.26 Management 28 We evaluate how well employees are able to express feelings to fulfill their job Performance 0.79 0.25 duties. Management 29 We measure the extent to which employees display appropriate emotions at work. Performance 0.78 0.28 Management 30 We consider the ability of the employees to manage their emotions when making Performance 0.79 0.26 promotion decisions. Management 31 The ability of employees to manage the emotions of others is an important Performance 0.77 0.23 consideration in promotion decisions. Management N = 250 Prolific users 134 TABLE 3: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Subscales in Study 1 – Phase 2 Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 EFHR – Recruitment 2.24 1.07 .95 2 EFHR – Selection 3.21 .84 .61 .89 3 EHFR – Onboarding 2.49 1.09 .84 .70 .95 4 EFHR – Training 2.27 1.07 .73 .55 .78 .94 5 EFHR – Performance Management 2.80 .97 .63 .72 .74 .68 .93 6 Commitment-Based Selection 3.76 .71 .26 .37 .31 .28 .38 .67 7 HPWP – Staffing 3.49 .84 .16 .18 .12 .18 .13 .28 .65 8 HPWP – Employee Involvement 3.46 .82 .31 .25 .34 .40 .43 .46 .34 .84 Notes: N = 250 Prolific users. EFHR = Emotion Focused HR Practices; HPWP = High Performance Work Practices. Reliability estimates are reported along the diagonal. All correlations are statistically significant with p < .01. 135 TABLE 4: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Study 1 χ2 df RMSEA CFI SRMR Δχ2 1-factor model 2542.79*** 434 .14 .73 .10 3-factor model 1912.61*** 431 .12 .81 .08 630.18 4-factor model 1352.91*** 428 .09 .88 .05 559.70 5-factor model 987.59 *** 424 .07 .93 .05 365.32 Notes: 3-factor model = Estimated by loading recruitment and selection items on one factor, the onboarding and training items to a second factor, and performance management loading to a third factor. 4-factor model = Estimated by loading recruitment, selection, and performance management items on separate factors and combining onboarding and training as one factor; χ2 = chi-square statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; *** p < .001, two-tailed 136 TABLE 5: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Study 2 [EFHR Scale] χ2 df RMSEA CFI SRMR Δχ2 1-factor model 4516.57*** 434 .18 .54 .12 3-factor model 3954.92*** 431 .17 .60 .12 561.65 4-factor model (a) 2921.50*** 428 .14 .72 .09 1033.42 4-factor model (b) 3618.26*** 428 .16 .64 .11 336.66 5-factor model 2554.10*** 424 .13 .76 .08 367.42 5-subfactor on EFHR factor model 2635.99 *** 429 .13 .75 .09 81.89 Notes: 3-factor model = Estimated by loading recruitment and selection items on one factor, the onboarding and training items to a second factor, and performance management loading to a third factor. 4-factor model (a) = Estimated by loading recruitment, selection, and performance management items on separate factors and combining onboarding and training as one factor; 4-factor model (b) = Estimated by loading recruitment and selection on one factor, and performance management, onboarding, and training as separate factors. χ2 = chi-square statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; *** p < .001, two-tailed 137 TABLE 6: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities – Study 2 Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Emotion-Focused HR Practices 13.69 3.77 (.96) 2 EFHR – Recruitment 2.24 0.93 .83** (.94) 3 EFHR – Selection 3.52 0.90 .73** .42** (.93) 4 EHFR – Onboarding 2.71 0.97 .88** .72** .56** (.94) 5 EFHR – Training 2.26 0.97 .85** .70** .39** .71** (.90) 6 EFHR – Performance Management 2.96 0.81 .83** .55** .65** .59** .67** (.88) 7 ED-A Fit (T1) 4.06 0.75 -.14* -.18** -.01 -.16** -.12* -.09 (.86) 8 ED-A Fit (T2) 3.99 0.78 -.10 -.15* .02 -.11 -.08 -.07 .65** (.86) 9 P-DR Fit (T1) 3.93 0.83 -.07 -.08 .02 -.06 -.10 -.07 .62** .53** (.80) 10 P-DR Fit (T2) 3.85 0.81 .01 -.02 .05 -.01 .00 .01 .51** .62** .60** 11 Surface Acting Frequency (T1) 2.28 0.96 .09 .06 .03 .08 .09 .09 -.33** -.39** -.46** 12 Surface Acting Frequency (T2) 2.32 0.93 .17** .18** .07 .15* .13* .15* -.45** -.48** -.48** 13 Deep Acting Frequency (T1) 2.94 1.13 -.02 -.05 .02 .02 -.05 .00 .04 .03 .01 14 Deep Acting Frequency (T2) 2.95 1.07 .02 .05 .00 .03 -.03 .02 -.02 .00 .01 15 Naturally Felt Emotions Frequency (T1) 4.01 0.76 -.01 .02 .03 -.02 -.08 -.01 .37** .35** .45** 16 Naturally Felt Emotions Frequency (T2) 3.97 0.73 .05 .04 .02 .04 .07 .01 .39** .44** .46** 17 Surface Acting Effortfulness (T1) 2.39 1.06 .08 .05 .06 .09 .09 .06 -.19** -.21** -.24** 18 Surface Acting Effortfulness (T2) 2.38 1.10 .07 .05 .01 .09 .06 .09 -.26** -.20** -.27** 19 Deep Acting Effortfulness (T1) 2.33 1.12 .04 .05 .00 .03 .07 .04 -.13* -.12 -.27** 20 Deep Acting Effortfulness (T2) 2.23 1.05 .01 .03 -.06 -.03 .05 .04 -.24** -.24** -.40** 21 Job Satisfaction (T1) 3.76 0.92 -.08 -.03 -.04 -.07 -.09 -.09 .43** .45** .50** 22 Job Satisfaction (T2) 3.63 0.90 .03 .08 .05 .01 .02 -.03 .42** .53** .45** 23 Organizational Commitment (T1) 5.00 1.25 -.12* -.09 -.04 -.08 -.16** -.13* .45** .40** .49** 24 Organizational Commitment (T2) 4.85 1.24 -.12 -.07 -.04 -.08 -.15* -.16** .43** .46** .45** 25 Turnover Intent (T1) 2.66 1.67 .05 -.01 .00 .03 .09 .11 -.37** -.38** -.41** 26 Turnover Intent (T2) 2.86 1.66 .11 .03 .03 .08 .13* .18** -.46** -.44** -.45** 27 Emotional Exhaustion (T1) 2.60 0.98 .03 -.02 -.04 .05 .07 .08 -.37** -.42** -.49** 28 Emotional Exhaustion (T2) 2.58 0.98 .04 -.02 .00 .08 .03 .08 -.45** -.53** -.48** 29 Depletion (T1) 2.36 0.91 .03 -.02 -.04 .07 .09 .04 -.34** -.37** -.49** 30 Depletion (T2) 2.43 0.97 .02 -.04 -.03 .06 .05 .05 -.47** -.51** -.46** Notes: Time 1 N = 302 employees; Time 2 variables N = 265 employees. EFHR = Emotion-Focused HR Practices. Reliabilities are reported on the diagonal in parentheses; *p < .01. 138 TABLE 6 (cont’d) Variables 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 10 P-DR Fit (T2) (.80) 11 Surface Acting Frequency (T1) -.51** (.95) 12 Surface Acting Frequency (T2) -.58** .73** (.95) 13 Deep Acting Frequency (T1) -.02 .21** .08 (.92) 14 Deep Acting Frequency (T2) -.04 .15* .19** .43** (.91) ** ** ** 15 Naturally Felt Emotions Frequency (T1) .47 -.61 -.55 -.05 -.05 (.91) ** ** ** 16 Naturally Felt Emotions Frequency (T2) .62 -.58 -.64 -.05 -.04 .63** (.89) ** ** ** 17 Surface Acting Effortfulness (T1) -.29 .47 .40 .11 .11 -.28** -.36** (.97) 18 Surface Acting Effortfulness (T2) -.33** .31** .38** .07 .07 -.28** -.33** .56** (.97) ** ** ** ** * 19 Deep Acting Effortfulness (T1) -.30 .36 .26 .21 .15 -.19** -.17** .57** .39** (.96) 20 Deep Acting Effortfulness (T2) -.44** .43** .53** .12 .06 -.33** -.39** .42** .59** .51** (.97) ** ** ** 21 Job Satisfaction (T1) .51 -.39 -.50 .11 .04 .39** .46** -.23** -.24** -.12* -.34** 22 Job Satisfaction (T2) .61** -.40** -.51** .04 .01 .36** .52** -.28** -.28** -.13* -.35** ** ** ** 23 Organizational Commitment (T1) .49 -.43 -.40 .07 .02 .40** .41** -.20** -.19** -.17** -.35** ** ** ** * 24 Organizational Commitment (T2) .52 -.38 -.45 .13 .05 .36** .40** -.18** -.19** -.13* -.29** 25 Turnover Intent (T1) -.41** .42** .41** .02 .08 -.38** -.39** .21** .15* .13* .24** ** ** ** ** ** ** * 26 Turnover Intent (T2) -.41 .40 .45 .01 .04 -.37 -.37 .22 .13 .11 .25** 27 Emotional Exhaustion (T1) -.53** .50** .53** .02 .01 -.37** -.47** .27** .25** .15** .33** ** ** ** 28 Emotional Exhaustion (T2) -.57 .49 .62 .02 .08 -.33** -.50** .26** .30** .16** .35** 29 Depletion (T1) -.44** .53** .55** .14* .04 -.45** -.50** .29** .30** .17** .35** ** ** ** * 30 Depletion (T2) -.51 .47 .62 .11 .14 -.41** -.50** .30** .37** .18** .39** Notes: Time 1 N = 302 employees; Time 2 variables N = 265 employees. Reliabilities are reported on the diagonal in parentheses; ** p < .01; *p < .05. 139 TABLE 6 (cont’d) Variables 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 21 Job Satisfaction (T1) (.91) 22 Job Satisfaction (T2) .74** (.89) 23 Organizational Commitment (T1) .58** .47** (.84) 24 Organizational Commitment (T2) .54** .55** .77** (.85) 25 Turnover Intent (T1) -.62** -.59** -.54** -.48** (.95) 26 Turnover Intent (T2) -.62** -.68** -.56** -.58** .84** (.95) 27 Emotional Exhaustion (T1) -.66** -.67** -.46** -.46** .59** .54** (.94) 28 Emotional Exhaustion (T2) -.62** -.71** -.40** -.48** .49** .54** .84** (.94) 29 Depletion (T1) -.57** -.58** -.41** -.39** .51** .50** .80** .72** (.91) 30 Depletion (T2) -.57** -.67** -.41** -.46** .49** .55** .71** .84** .78** (.94) Notes: Time 1 N = 302 employees; Time 2 variables N = 265 employees. Reliabilities are reported on the diagonal in parentheses; ** p < .01; *p < .05. 140 TABLE 7: Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Test of Research Questions Emotional Demands- Person-Display Rule Fit Abilities Fit γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Emotion Focused HR Practices -0.03 0.01 -1.92 -.01 .01 -1.00 Recruitment -0.10 0.10 -1.00 -0.02 0.09 -0.20 Selection 0.13 0.08 1.60 0.11 0.08 1.36 Onboarding -0.13 0.09 -1.44 -0.02 0.09 -0.24 Training -0.05 0.11 -0.42 -0.09 0.10 -0.88 Performance Management 0.05 0.08 0.63 -0.04 0.09 -0.43 N (level-1) = 302, (level-2) = 96. Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. s.e. = standard error. 141 TABLE 8: Results of Wald Tests – Test of Research Questions Emotional Demands-Abilities Fit Person-Display Rule Fit Wald Test Value p Wald Test Value p Emotion Focused HR Practices Recruiting vs. Performance Management 0.13 0.72 0.26 0.61 Recruiting vs. Training 0.94 0.33 0.02 0.89 Selection vs. Performance Management 1.09 0.30 1.66 0.20 Selection vs. Training 0.58 0.45 1.78 0.18 Onboarding vs. Performance Management 0.27 0.61 0.24 0.62 Onboarding vs. Training 2.04 0.15 0.02 0.90 142 TABLE 9: Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Test of Hypotheses Outcome: Outcome: Outcome: Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Intent to Turnover 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t [LI, UI] [LI, UI] [LI, UI] Direct Effects SA Effort -.05 .05 -1.00 .08 .07 1.14 -.10 .10 -1.00 DA Effort -.04 .06 -0.67 .01 .90 0.01 .00 .12 .00 SA Freq -.32* .08 -4.00 -.39* .14 -2.79 .62* .18 3.44 DA Freq .07 .05 1.40 .19 .08 2.38 -.15 .09 -1.67 NF Freq .32* .10 3.20 .26 .16 1.63 -.32 .22 -1.45 Indirect Effects ED-A Fit  SA Effort .01 .01 0.85 [-.022, .050] .00 .02 -0.13 [-.054, .050] .02 .02 1.00 [-.043, .100] ED-A Fit  DA Effort .01 .01 0.60 [-.020, .036] .00 .01 0.17 [-.038, .043] .00 .02 .00 [-.055, .055] P-DR Fit  SA Freq .12* .04 3.16 [ .038, .206] .14* .06 2.33 [ .029, .270] -.23* .08 -2.86 [-.398, -.072] P-DR Fit  DA Freq .01 .01 1.00 [-.007, .027] .02 .02 1.00 [-.012, .054] -.01 .01 -.92 [-.053, .014] P-DR Fit  NF Freq .10* .03 3.00 [ .023, .190] .08 .05 1.55 [-.032, .202] -.10 .07 -1.44 [-.265, .047] N (level-1) = 265-302, (level-2) = 96. Level-1 predictors were centered within individual (i.e., group-mean centered). Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. ED-A Fit = Emotional Demands-Abilities Fit, P-DR Fit = Person-Display Rule Fit, SA Effort = Surface Acting Effortfulness, DA Effort = Deep Acting Effortfulness, SA Freq = Surface Acting Frequency, DA Freq = Deep Acting Frequency, NF Freq = Naturally Felt Emotion Frequency. s.e. = standard error. * p < .05. 143 TABLE 9 (cont’d) Outcome: Outcome: Emotional Exhaustion Depletion 95% CI 95% CI γ s.e. t γ s.e. t [LI, UI] [LI, UI] Direct Effects SA Effort .02 .05 0.40 .11 .06 1.83 DA Effort .02 .06 0.33 -.01 .07 -0.14 SA Freq .55* .19 2.89 .56* .18 3.11 DA Freq -.06 .05 -1.20 -.02 .04 -0.50 NF Freq -.23* .11 -2.09 -.14 .11 -1.27 Indirect Effects ED-A Fit  SA Effort .00 .01 -.33 [-.044, .033] -.03 .02 .14 [-.073, .008] ED-A Fit  DA Effort .00 .01 -.30 [-.035, .025] .00 .01 .85 [-.027, .032] P-DR Fit  SA Freq -.20* .05 -3.77 [-.309, -.108] -.20* .05 -4.00 [-.313, -.113] P-DR Fit  DA Freq -.01 .01 -.83 [-.025, .008] .00 .00 -.25 [-.018, .012] P-DR Fit  NF Freq -.07* .04 -1.95 [-.162, .010] -.04 .04 -1.23 [-.130, .038] N (level-1) = 265-302, (level-2) = 96. Level-1 predictors were centered within individual (i.e., group-mean centered). Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. ED-A Fit = Emotional Demands-Abilities Fit, P-DR Fit = Person-Display Rule Fit, SA Effort = Surface Acting Effortfulness, DA Effort = Deep Acting Effortfulness, SA Freq = Surface Acting Frequency, DA Freq = Deep Acting Frequency, NF Freq = Naturally Felt Emotion Frequency. s.e. = standard error. * p < .05. 144 TABLE 10: Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Direct Effects of Fit on Outcomes Outcome: Outcome: Outcome: Outcome: Outcome: Surface Acting Deep Acting Surface Acting Deep Acting Naturally Felt Effortfulness Effortfulness Frequency Frequency Emotion Frequency γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t Direct Effects ED-A Fit -.24* .09 -2.67 -.15* .06 -2.50 P-DR Fit -.37* .07 -5.29 .08 .07 1.14 .32* .05 6.40 N (level-1) = 265-302, (level-2) = 96. Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. ED-A Fit = Emotional Demands-Abilities Fit, P-DR Fit = Person-Display Rule Fit. s.e. = standard error. * p < .05. 145 TABLE 11: Supplemental Analysis – Results of Multilevel Path Analyses – Emotion-Focused HR Practices Effect on Outcomes via Emotion Regulation Surface Acting Deep Acting Naturally Felt Surface Acting Deep Acting Effortfulness Effortfulness Emotion Frequency Frequency Frequency γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t γ s.e. t EFHR Recruitment -.04 .11 -1.29 -.25 .14 -1.80 -.01 .07 -.18 .10 .08 1.33 -.18 .14 -1.30 Selection -.16 .10 -2.77 -.25 .14 -1.86 .11 .08 1.47 -.04 .08 -.51 -.23* .12 -1.95 Onboarding .17 .14 .34 .02 .15 .10 .02 .07 .33 .01 .08 .08 .10 .12 .83 Training -.06 .14 1.67 .27* .14 1.96 -.13 .09 -1.41 -.04 .10 -.41 .31* .15 2.13 Perf Mgmt .24 .15 .75 .06 .16 .40 .02 .09 .20 .07 .09 .78 .10 .15 .68 N (level-1) = 302, (level-2) = 96. Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. EFHR = Emotion-Focused HR Practices, Perf Mgmt = Performance Management. s.e. = standard error. * p < .05. 146