By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores the potential costs of enforcing strict positivity norms and emotional display rules in organizational settings. It examines the concepts of emotional labor and surface acting through a review of the academic literature documenting the personal and interpersonal tolls of dissociating outward affect from inner feelings over prolonged periods. Two real-world examples are provided of companies where mandated positivity policies backfired by damaging employee well-being, engagement, and productivity. Drawing from emotional labor theory and research on compassionate cultures, guidelines are offered for leaders seeking healthier ways to cultivate optimism without compromising psychological safety or problem-solving capacity. Specifically, the brief recommends permitting genuine expression of a full range of emotions, focusing feedback on competence rather than smiles, fostering employee autonomy, and modeling self-care behaviors. Overall, the potential damage of forcing positivity at work is examined, with practical implications discussed for balancing positivity with safety and performance.
In my years consulting for organizations and conducting academic research on workplace dynamics, I’ve observed a concerning trend emerge—the increasing pressure for employees to project constant positivity, even when things are far from ideal. On the surface, encouraging optimism and happiness seems like a reasonable goal. However, research shows that forcing positivity can damage employee engagement, well-being, and ultimately business outcomes if not implemented thoughtfully.
Today we will explore the research on emotional labor and the costs of surface acting, provide real-world examples of how forced positivity has backfired, and offer practical recommendations for leaders looking to cultivate authentic optimism without compromising psychological safety.
Understanding Emotional Labor
Before diving into the risks of positivity mandates, it’s helpful to first define emotional labor and surface acting. Emotional labor refers to the process of managing feelings and expressions to fulfill job responsibilities (Hochschild, 1983). Surface acting involves faking or amplifying emotions that are not genuinely felt in order to display organizationally desired emotional expressions (Grandey, 2003). For example, customer service or health care workers may surface act positive emotions like smiles and enthusiasm to comply with display rules, despite private negative feelings.
The Costs of Surface Acting
Decades of research have documented the personal and organizational costs associated with surface acting over time (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). Physiologically, surface acting is cognitively taxing and elicits cardiovascular reactivity similar to stress (Grandey, 2000). Psychologically, it correlates with increased burnout, emotional exhaustion, depression, and lower job satisfaction compared to deep acting or genuine emotion displays (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Grandey, 2003; Kim, 2008). Consequences spill over outside of work as surface acting predicts poorer marital and family relationships due to drained emotional resources (Judge et al., 2009; Scott & Barnes, 2011).
Importantly for businesses, surface acting reduces core job competencies like task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and interpersonal skills due to depleted self-regulatory capacity (Bonanno & Keltner, 2004; Scott & Barnes, 2011; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Customers also detect insincere displays, undermining the desired positive impact (Grandey et al., 2005). In short, surface acting carries a heavy toll that damages employee well-being, work quality, and ultimately organizational effectiveness over time if used as a mandated strategy rather than a last resort.
Forced Positivity Backfires: Examples
Unfortunately, some companies misguidedly adopt strict positivity policies without considering emotional labor research. Here are two real-world examples that illustrate how forced optimism can backfire:
An anonymous employee wrote about their experience at Anthropic, an AI safety startup that implemented "positivity hours" where staff were expected to project happiness and prohibited from discussing work problems (Anonymous, 2022). However, bottling up critical issues led to low morale and distrust in leadership. Productivity suffered as emotional labor drained employees’ focus, and high turnover followed.
At Amazon warehouses, workers reported facing termination if productivity fell below quotas, even for health and safety breaks (Dastin, 2018). With intense monitoring software, some felt pressure to constantly seem cheerful on cameras to avoid write-ups. However, not addressing work conditions reasonably contributed to MSD injuries increasing over 600% from 2015-2019 according to an article published by The Daily Beast (Kosoff, 2021). Forced positivity did not improve well-being or performance in either case.
Guidelines for Cultivating Authentic Optimism
While surface acting risks business harm, optimism remains important for employee engagement and quality of life. Leaders seeking healthier approaches can consider the following research-backed strategies:
Allow employees to authentically express a range of emotions, both positive and negative. Suppressing problems erodes psychological safety and problem-solving ability in the long-run (Edmondson, 1999).
Foster employee autonomy, control, and influence over work processes and decision-making when possible. These job resources mitigate surface acting and burnout compared to directive leadership styles (Meng et al., 2019).
Promote supportive communication norms where listening to distress without judgment is valued equally with upbeat interactions. This signals empathy and concerns rather than positivity alone (Dutton &Heaphy, 2003).
Focus feedback on performance, not personal traits or smiles. Ensure rewards recognize competence rather competence and performance, not just positive displays (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).
Model and encourage authentic self-care and boundaries. Set an example by taking breaks to recharge without guilt, avoid constant availability, and lead with compassion (Bellou, 2020; Hecht & McCarthy, 2010).
Surface acting tends to backfire and should not replace genuine expressions or problem-solving. With cultural shifts that make psychological safety and well-being top priorities, optimism can naturally increase without forced mandates.
Conclusion
While good intentions may drive interest in strictly positive work cultures, the emotional labor literature clearly demonstrates that forcing positivity typically does more harm than good over the long run. Two real-world examples illustrated how suppressed emotions damaged morale, productivity and wellness without meaningfully improving any outcomes. Organizations seeking to foster employee engagement and performance would be wise to encourage the authentic expression of a full range of emotions, focus on competency-based feedback over positive displays alone, and empower employees through autonomy supportive leadership. With compassionate cultures that make well-being and problem-solving top priorities, optimism will follow naturally without mandates that compromise true care, care, and psychological safety. Overall, leaders would benefit from considering emotional labor research before instituting strict display rules or positivity policies at the expense of authentic human experience and organizational sustainability over time.
References
Anonymous. (2022, January 26). My experience with positivity hours at Anthropic. Real Life. https://www.reallifemag.com/my-experience-with-positivity-hours-at-anthropic/
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of management review, 18(1), 88-115. https://doi.org/10.2307/258824
Bellou, V. (2020). Testing the validity of the self-regulation model of emotional labor: Self-care as a job resource. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(3), 1-22. https://doi-org.ezproxy.andrews.edu/10.1080/19368623.2020.1719350
Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (2004). The coherence of emotion systems: Competing demands and the function of emotional coherence. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 987-1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000470
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. https://www.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1815
Dastin, J. (2018, October 16). Amazon workers ask Bezos to help, claiming tough times. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-workers/amazon-workers-ask-bezos-to-help-claiming-tough-times-idUSKCN1MR0CZ
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). Berrett-Koehler.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95
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, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678
Grandey, A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.002
Hecht, L. M., & McCarthy, J. M. (2010). Coping with employee distress: Emerging perspectives. In P. L. Perrewé, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress (Research in occupational stress and well-being, Vol. 8, pp. 91–137). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008006
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876
Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2009). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 199-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014350
Kim, H. J. (2008). Hotel service providers' emotional labor: The antecedents and effects on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.019
Kosoff, M. (2021, February 18). Amazon’s safety crisis is getting worse under Biden, workers say. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/amazon-warehouse-workers-safety-crisis-is-getting-worse-under-biden-they-say
Meng, J., Ma, H. L., & Liang, H. N. (2019). The influence of job autonomy on turnover intention and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 47(10). https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8192
Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 116-136. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215086
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. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8998.8.1.55
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). The Dark Side of Forced Positivity: Why Faking Positive Emotions Can Backfire at Work. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.4.8
Comments