Is It Okay to Cry at Work?

What factors do you think make some organizations ineffective at managing emotions?
I think that organizations that try to manage an employee’s emotions through threatening them
or demanding it will result in the employee resenting their supervisor which can create a negative
effect in the work place. You cannot demand a certain type of behavior from someone if you,
yourself do not project that same behavior towards them and others. I think intimidation allows
people to hold a high standard for themselves, but demeaning coworkers to gain that status only
creates a hostile environment. Having a hostile environment creates conflict and can go against
the goal of having a positive attitude. People want to be treated with the same respect as being
on the receiving end. I worked with a group of women and they were extremely rude and snobby,
I hated going to work and seeing them every day, I resented them and having to spend my whole
day with someone I did not really like. Eventually I got terminated, but it was the happiest day
for me.

Do you think the strategic use and display of emotions serve to protect employees, or does
covering your true emotions at work lead to more problems than it solves?
It would depend on the type of job you have and the type of people you work with, also the
company you work for. It can almost be considered as a discriminating behavior, because the
company may or may not approve of it, some companies do not want to deal with their
employee’s erratic behavior, when you are at work you leave your life at the door, you are there
to work not involve people with your personal life. Employer’s may consider it drama, and not
want people caught up in it when they are to be focusing on their work in which they are getting
paid to do. If you have worked for the same company and you know everyone and they do not
mind discussing each other’s home lives then that would be different, but you should not go into
a job volunteering your home dramatics for any to see, it doesn’t look professional.

Have you ever worked where emotions were used as part of a management style? Describe
the advantages and disadvantages of this approach in your experience.
I have never held a position where “emotional” management was part of the job description. I
have worked in customer service where positive attitude was expected from their employees.
We were not taught how to handle certain situations just expected to have common sense to
respond in a professional way. I have been to orientation for a new job where they have
described what type of behavior they expect from their employees, they have a vague
expectation of what is considered positive and negative. The disadvantage is that they can use
the opportunity to demonstrate scenarios and what type of response is expected of the
employee.
Research shows that acts of co-workers (37 percent) and management (22 percent) cause
more negative emotions for employees than do acts of customers (7 percent). What can
Laura’s company do to change its emotional climate?
Laura can get together with other employees and they can express how they feel about the way
they are being treated by management, and how they want things to be addressed. They can
describe how it is creating a negative work space and how if they were treated with respect then
things would run smoothly. They can discuss a code of conduct and how they can achieve the
expectations from management.
Delegate Power, or Keep It Close?
If you were Samantha Parks, how would you prioritize which projects or parts of projects to
delegate?
If I were Parks I would decide what parts of projects to delegate based on the difficulty of the
tasks and the importance of the tasks. If the project requires the knowledge that others would
not have on the subject it would make more sense to do that part of the project yourself. If the
task is something that others know how to do and are able to complete the task than it would
not be the best use of your time to spend working on it. If a certain part of the project is vital to
the overall completion of the project it would probably be something that you would want to do
just to make sure it is done properly. Unless someone else that you trust to complete that part
of the project is able to do so. Essentially it comes down to the fact that if the task is something
that you could trust others to do that and is not of major importance than you can delegate the
task to someone else. That does not mean that you are not in the loop as to what is going on it
just means that you should not try to do everything. Especially when the task can easily be
completed by someone else.
In explaining what makes her divisions hard, Parks said “I hire good people, creative people, to
run these projects, and worry that they will see my oversight and authority as interfering with
their creative process.” How can she deal with these concerns without giving up too much
control?
Parks can deal with these concerns by explaining the guidelines of what she expects and what
her involvement in the projects will be. That way people will understand from the beginning what
to expect. It would not seem as if you are checking up on them to make sure they are doing their
work right. It would be to know what is going on and helping to direct them so they stay in line
with the businesses direction. As long as she lets them have some control and input on the
outcome of the project the people would understand that the CEO wants to be involved with
their business.
Should executives try to control projects to maintain authority? Do they have a right to control
projects and keep in on the loop on important decisions just so they can remain in charge?
I do not think that executives should try to control projects to maintain authority. They should
be guiding the other people in their business so they are all able to complete their goals. If an
executive spends too much time trying to control every project they will not have time to work
on other things. Controlling projects is not the best way to maintain authority if people feel like
they have no say in what is happening they will not buy in to the projects as much as if you let
people have some say in what they are doing. They do have the right to control projects and keep
in on the loop on important decisions, but not so they can remain in charge. Keeping up on what
is going on is something that executives should do. If they have no idea of what is going on in
their business it could be going in a direction that is not good for a company. They should be in
charge because they are able to manage all the aspects of the business and not just control
others. They should be able to work with all of the employees in a way that works for both parties
to a certain aspect.

is there a price for being too nice?

Do you think there is a contradiction between what employers want in employees
(agreeable employees) and what employees actually do best (disagreeable employees)?
Why or why not?
I do believe there is a tremendous contradiction between what employers look for and what
employees are actually good at. Most employers look for people who are agreeable; people who
are easily to be liked and pleasing to be around and people who are willing or are ready to agree
or consent very easily. Agreeable people are more comfortable to have around and are easier to
work with; this is why employers prefer and look for agreeable people to hire. I understand why
employers prefer to look for people who are more agreeable but it makes no sense why they
would hire people who are not better job performers and they are less successful in their career.
This is why there is a contradiction; people look for a job that they are good at and a job where
they can grow and develop their personal and technical skills.
Often, the effects of personality depend on the situation. Can you think of some job
situations in which agreeableness is an important virtue? And in which it is harmful?
Under stressful moments or circumstances, agreeableness becomes a virtue; when things are
going bad at an office or the main vault of a bank doesn’t balance at the end of the day. This is a
situation where stress hits and your brain stops making sense. Having an agreeable person at
that moment helps to swallow better the situation, calm down, and try to identify the problem.
I was stuck in a very similar situation; working in a bank and having money missing is scary and
when you have unpleasant people around you who are not helping the situation it becomes even
worse. When this happens, you tend to lose control, your brain stops making sense, you get mad
and it becomes harder to find a solution to the problem. When a more pleasant coworker showed
up, she was able to calm down the situation, and change all of our feelings and moods, and we
were able to find the problem and with-in the solution. Obviously, in these situations the
agreeable person was very important to us, and they can also affect many customer service work.
In customer service the client looks for someone who’s going to tolerate them and help them in
everything. Agreeable people are great for customer service; they are capable of being passive
at stressful situations and very warm and welcoming to others.

In some research we’ve conducted, we’ve found that the negative effects of agreeableness
on earnings are stronger for men than for women (that is, being agreeable hurt men’s
earnings more than women’s). Why do you think this might be the case?
By nature, men tend to be more aggressive than women, meaning they are more forceful than
women. Men tend to attack their client’s in a way that they push them into buying their products
while women confront the situation by being more sensitive and persuasive. I’m guessing that if
men are agreeable they lose their hostility and it becomes harder for them to sell their products.
I believe that men are characterized for being so aggressive and passionate for the things they
do that when they become passive, people misunderstand them which unfortunately leads to
them loosing opportunities. On the other hand, women are more passionate but in a sensitive
and emotional way. Women have a way to speak to customers that it makes the customer feel
safe and not pressured to do anything they perhaps don’t want to do. Although that is a good
thing for the customers, sometimes that loses opportunities for women in these situations. This,
although, doesn’t apply to all women or men.