For the study (published in the Academy of Management Discoveries), we interviewed 65 full-time, working professionals employed in a variety of industries and firms in Northern California. Our findings revealed one way to explain why observers tend to be judge women who display emotions at work differently than they judge men who do the same. They showed that when assessing female criers at work, observers rely on cognitive “scripts” about the way people should act in common—and stressful—work contexts such as receiving negative feedback.
These scripts typically prohibit crying at work, especially if the crying disrupts the work of others (e.g., it is done in a public area and lasts for more than a few moments). When observers of crying perceived that crying was situationally inappropriate, like crying in response to critical feedback, observers attributed criers as weak, unprofessional, or manipulative. By contrast, when observers found crying to be acceptable based on the situation, like receiving negative performance appraisal and crying privately afterward, they were more understanding or neutral about the crier. The findings suggest the way crying affects others in work environment and how it impedes the ability to get work done can cause reputation damage to the crier.
Our research showed that women feel the same emotions as men in the workplace, but they are often penalized because the “expression” of those emotions is crying versus an alternative reaction (e.g., raising one’s voice or pounding on a table in frustration).
Find out more about this research by Kimberly D. Elsbach and Beth A. Bechkyby: