Faking Versus Feeling Emotions: Does Personality–Job Fit Make a Difference

• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Author: Varaidzo Zvobgo,Romeo Abraham,Meghna Sabharwal
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00910260211034213
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260211034213

Public Personnel Management

2022, Vol. 51(1) 125 –148

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00910260211034213

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Faking Versus Feeling

Emotions: Does Personality–

Job Fit Make a Difference

Varaidzo Zvobgo1, Romeo Abraham2,

and Meghna Sabharwal3

Abstract

Emotional labor (EL) involves regulating, managing, and sensing others’ emotions

to achieve organizational goals. However, it is often considered a unitary variable,

without examining the specific types of emotional labor (i.e., deep acting and surface

acting). Thus, the purpose of this research is to extend the under-researched work

on surface-acting and deep-acting strategies of EL on job involvement in the public

sector by examining the mediating effects of personality–job fit. This research employs

the 2016 Merit System Principles survey data to explore the relationship between

the variables. Results show that personality–job fit has a positive mediating effect on

deep-acting EL and job involvement and a negative mediating effect on surface acting

and job involvement. Findings may help administrators understand and prevent the

potential results of employees’ EL behavior and the importance of personality–job fit

in organizational outcomes.

Keywords

emotional labor, deep acting, surface acting, personality–job fit, job involvement

Introduction

A substantive body of literature has revealed the important contributions of emotional

labor to the workplace and its impact on the well-being of employees, customer

satisfaction, performance, and turnover (Grandey, 2003; Morris & Feldman, 1997).

1Texas A&M International University, Laredo, USA

2University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA

3The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA

Corresponding Author:

Varaidzo Zvobgo, Assistant Professor, Public Administration, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Texas

A&M International University, 5201 University Blvd., Laredo, TX 78041, USA.

Email: veezvobgo@gmail.com

1034213PPMXXX10.1177/00910260211034213Public Personnel ManagementZvobgo et al.

research-article2021

126 Public Personnel Management 51(1)

Emotions are a state of mind that is a result of circumstances, experiences, moods, and

interactions with others. Research on emotions in the workplace shows that moods,

emotions, and experiences affect job performance, decision-making, creativity, team-

work, negotiation, and leadership (Gopinath, 2011). Emotions are an important aspect

of an individual and are crucial for building interpersonal relationships in the work-

place (Hochschild, 1983). They also influence the quality-of-service transactions and

the attractiveness of interpersonal climate (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).

Morris and Feldman (1996) view emotional labor as regulating emotions to achieve

organizational goals. Employers stipulate the required rules of emotional displays that

employees should use when engaging with clients, and this involves suppressing a

person’s emotions to complete a job (Jin & Guy, 2009). Hochschild (1983) views

emotional labor as controlling one’s emotions in exchange for remuneration. She dif-

ferentiated between the two types of emotional labor, surface acting and deep acting,

as ways that employees regulate their emotions. In surface acting, workers are required

to suppress or express their true emotions and create a false emotional display, often

required in public service work (Karatepe & Aleshinloye, 2009; Sloan, 2014). On the

contrary, the deep acting form of emotional labor involves the efforts made by employ-

ees to alter, adjust, and align their emotions with those desired by the organization

(Grandey, 2000; Gross, 1998). Several studies have examined the impact of emotional

labor on key individual and organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, commit-

ment, and turnover (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002;

Brotheridge & Lee, 2003). This research examines the impact of emotional labor on

job involvement (JI; an employee outcome that is exemplified by one’s devotion or

mental association to a job; Kanungo, 1982) and the mediating role of personality–job

fit (PJF) among federal agency employees.

Research Gap

Emotional labor has played an important role in organizational behavior literature and

has helped researchers understand how employees’ regulation of emotions affects their

performance and organizational success. Previous research on emotional labor has

explored the effects of emotional labor on employees’ burnout, job satisfaction, com-

mitment, and turnover in a private sector context (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993;

Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Brotheridge & Lee, 2003; Grandey et al., 2013; Morris

& Feldman, 1996). However, more recently, scholars began to investigate the impact

of emotional labor in the public sector (Guy & Lee, 2015; Guy et al., 2008; Guy &

Newman, 2004; Hsieh & Guy, 2009).

Although studies on emotional labor have shown its effects on organizational out-

comes, there is still very little research that has examined the impact of the two forms

of emotional labor: surface acting and deep acting on JI in the public sector.

Furthermore, few studies have investigated the role of mediating variables in studying

the relationship between emotional labor and organizational outcomes (Guy & Lee,

2015; Kim, 2008). In this study, we developed a model to investigate the mediating

effects of PJF on the relationship between surface acting, deep acting, and JI. This