Emotional Dissonance Definition

only shape emotions but also reflect the dominant views of emotion, their relative importance, and the socially accepted ways of dealing with them. It is frequently assumed that feeling rules create a tense relationship between socially expected emotions and actually experienced emotions. This tension gives rise to “emotional dissonance” or “emotional deviance” (Hochschild, 1983). Hochschild notes that feeling rules are effective in principle in two ways: as individual expectations of how we (and probably others) usually or “normally” feel in a specific situation (e.g., we expect to feel bored during the lecture of a certain colleague) or as social expectations how we should feel in this situation (Hochschild, 1979).

The emotions of anger,

disappointment, anxiety and weakness were the major emotions for the employees. The mass media tried to cover the topic even if the journalists did not present the emotional situation of the employees. The employees had to manage their emotions and therefore, their actions against the difficult situation.
Therefore, mass media play a vital role in informing employees about the organisation’s external image, which is relevant to the formation of organisational identity and identification. During a crisis, the media serve as informants and crisis intensifiers. When events are negative, employees of an organisation are also directly affected by what is happening to their employer.
In the eyes of employees, negative news reports may appear unfair and biased, which fosters negative emotions, such as anger, annoyance and anxiety. According to Pincus and Acharya (1988, p. 185), “Crises, by definition, are situations high in anxiety-producing signals from the environment”. Feelings of powerlessness and helplessness might also develop because it is impossible for media subjects to tell their “correct” version of the event(s) to everyone (Kepplinger, 2007).
Individuals have two options regarding the mass media coverage, either they hope that media attention will vanish quickly; or they can try to minimise the anticipated effects on others, for example the individuals can explain the situation to the public defending themselves for their decisions and actions (Kepplinger, 2007). It is obvious that most of the employees show a high interest in information and media content; they perceived media coverage as biased, discussed media content with colleagues, thought about media effects on others, showed highly emotional reactions, and sought to defend their organisation or explain the situation to outsiders.
It is obvious in this study that the managers were affected by the media coverage especially, because they did not agree with government’s decision.

They felt betrayed while they tried to manage their own emotions against a difficult situation.

3.1. Modern Bureaucracy and Bureaucratic managers

Given the purpose of the study - which is to investigate how the academic and the administrative staff at Greek Universities manage their emotions relating to lay-offs of their colleagues and in what way the media coverage is related to these emotions – it is appropriate to assume a theoretical framework based on bureaucracy and emotional labour. Emotional labour has been defined as ‘the effort, planning and control needed to express organizationally desired emotion during interpersonal transaction (Morris and Feldman, 1996, p. 987).

3.1.1. Bureaucracy

In order to comprehend the emotional labour of managers working in a bureaucratic environment it is essential to explore the concept of bureaucracy. Max Weber (1981: 21), describes a fully developed bureaucracy as dehumanized in the sense that love, hatred, and all purely personal, irrational, and emotional elements which escape calculation are eliminated. The bureaucratic principle of equal treatment according to formal rules eliminates traditional forms of governance based upon personal relationships, power and privilege (Weber 1981: 24-5). According to Weber bureaucracy is the most efficient and rational way in which human activity

can be organised in order to maintain order and maximize efficiency (Ritzer, 2007).
The nature of bureaucracy (Weber, 1946) consists of six identifying characteristics.

The first one is standard of fixed, official jurisdictional areas governed by a highly codified system of rules and regulations. In addition a bureaucratic organisation is characterized by a visible hierarchy, organised from the top down to the lowest gradations. Moreover, a bureaucratic system is based on the presence of written documents that the staff is expected to manage them. One more characteristic is a thorough and expert training of all specialized office management. Furthermore, bureaucracy demands full working capacity of the official, irrespective of the obligatory time in the office. Finally, the management of the office follows general rules which are more or less stable, more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned. For instance, in this study, the academic and the administrative staff seems to adhere to the bureaucratic rules and regulations submitting to Greek government the requested list. The staff is obliged to obey the rules and the regulations of a bureaucratic organisation which is constituted by written documents and

instructions.
Bureaucratic organisations and decision-making have often been approached by Weber’s perspective, which emphasises the instrumental character of bureaucracie. On the basis of legal formalism, technical efficiency and specialised expert knowledge, the bureaucratic organisation is thought to secure the calculability of outcomes through rational objectivity. The instrumental rationality of such organisations is said to be ‘anti-emotional’ or ‘affective neutral’ in that bureaucrats perform their duties without self-interest by following impersonal rules (Parsons, 1951: 60). This approach often implies that feelings and emotions oppose reason and rationality. However, feelings of duty, commitment to the task and pride in performance are legitimate, as are ‘emotionalized disapproval’ of breaches of bureaucratic norms (Merton, 1940:566). For instance, investigating this particular case, it is observed that the academic and administrative staff is obliged to follow the rules of the organisation performing the duty without following personal values and feelings. One of the respondents argue
The government and the universities authorities promised that they protect all the employees but they didn’t; they protected their own interests. We were asked to follow their practices and policies without acting according our beliefs or personal opinion.
While another respondent argue
I felt frustration and anger when I was asked to submit the list with my colleagues’ names. I was upset because I knew many of them personally. I was confused, on the one hand I had to perform my duty on the other hand, I was feeling sympathy for my colleagues and their families.