Why the study?
Affective experiences are intimately connected to organizational behavior and effectiveness, but little is known about the correlates of emotional inertia in terms of organizational behavior.
High emotional inertia of positive emotions is associated with lower self-rated job performance, highlighting the importance of emotional flexibility in the workplace.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High positive emotional inertia was associated with lower self-rated performance; hypothesis-generating for emotional flexibility interventions in occupational settings.
Emotion dynamics, how people’s emotions fluctuate across time, represent a key source of information about people’s psychological functioning and well-being. Investigating emotion dynamics in the workplace is particularly relevant, as affective experiences are intimately connected to organizational behavior and effectiveness. In this study, we examined the moderating role of emotional inertia in the dynamic association between both positive and negative emotions and self-rated job performance among a sample of 120 Italian workers (average age 41.4, SD = 14), which were prompted six times per day, for five working days. Emotional inertia refers to the extent that emotional states are self-predictive or carry on over time and is measured in terms of the autocorrelation of emotional states across time. Although inertia has been linked to several indicators of maladjustment, little is known about its correlates in terms of organizational behavior. Findings revealed that workers reporting high levels of positive emotions and high inertia rated their performance lower than workers high in positive emotions, but low in inertia. In contrast, the relation between negative emotions and performance was not significant for either high levels of inertia or low levels of inertia. Taken together, these results suggest the relevance of investigating the temporal dependency of emotional states at work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Longis et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: