Are All Service Interactions Created Equal? Employees’ Perceptions of Attribution and Justice of Clients’ Emotional Demands and Employee Well-Being

Emotional labor, particularly in frontline service roles, has traditionally been examined through the lens of performance strategies, such as surface or deep acting. However, emerging research suggests that employees’ subjective interpretations of emotionally demanding situations—especially attributions of responsibility and perceived fairness—play a critical role in shaping their well-being. This study adopts a qualitative phenomenological approach to explore how frontline employees engage in meaning-making regarding the emotional labor demands during customer interaction. Drawing on six group semi-structured interviews, we conducted a thematic analysis to investigate ho<w workers attribute responsibility for emotion regulation demands and how these attributions relate to perceptions of distributive justice and emotional exhaustion. Results indicate that employees differentiate between emotional labor demands based on who they perceive as responsible for the triggering event—whether the client or themselves. Attributions of responsibility for these demands, especially when placed on clients, were associated with a stronger sense of distributive injustice and heightened emotional exhaustion. The evidence extend current emotional labor models by highlighting the centrality of meaning-making processes in employee experience and suggest that responsibility attribution and fairness appraisals are critical mechanisms through which emotional labor impacts occupational well-being. Implications for theory and workplace practices in service contexts are discussed.