You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items

  • Author or Editor: Peter J. Jordan x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Peter J. Jordan

Many research students and junior staff claim ‘they’re over it’. This is a common refrain and the author asks those who are ‘over it’ to think deeply about what it is that you are over. This is a career riddled with frustrations. If you are over it early, maybe research is not the career for you.

You do not have access to this content

Peter J. Jordan

Doing a Doctorate is a weird process. There are four things you need to complete one successfully. First, you need some brains (I have seen some candidates miss out on this attribute and it never ends well). Second, you need some passion. If the passion dies during the process it starts to become a hard slog (for candidate and supervisor alike). The third thing you need is a degree of selfishness (acknowledging this won’t be popular with some students). A part of doing a Doctorate is that everything is less important (for most) than the research – if the research is not important to you, you will find other ways to fill the time (teaching, research assistant work, the latest full series of Game of Thrones, sleeping, cleaning the house). Finally, and most importantly, you need a good supervisor whose feedback you will need.

You do not have access to this content

Dan H. Langerud and Peter J. Jordan

The Ford Motor Company has an iconic reputation that all started with Henry Ford and the introduction of the first affordable automobile to the general market, the Model T in 1908. The revolutionary large-scale mechanized mass production system that Henry Ford developed is still apparent in the global automobile industry today across the spectrum of manufacturers. The Ford Motor Company has existed and maintained its position as one of the top three US automakers for over a century, but not without challenges requiring organizational restructuring to address changes in the industry and in society. In 2006, Ford reported a loss of US$12.1 million, with US$5.8 million of that loss happening in the fourth quarter of the year. At this time, Ford’s market share had dropped from 25.7 percent in 1997 to 17.5 percent in 2006.

You do not have access to this content

Ashlea C. Troth, Peter J. Jordan and Kristie M. Westerlaken

Emotions trigger and result from conflict in the workplace. In this chapter, we consider the emotional nature of conflict with a specific focus on the emotion-related constructs of emotional intelligence and emotional regulation within dyads and groups. Taking a contingency-based approach, we present a model showing the moderating effect of emotional intelligence on the conflict–outcome relationship and subsequent mediation by emotional regulation strategies. The conflict-outcome moderated (COM) model informs the series of testable propositions we present. We also consider the impact of an organization’s display rules regarding the expected emotional expressions of employees. We argue that, although emotional intelligence typically strengthens the positive effects of task conflict and weakens the negative effects of relationship and process conflict on emergent and performance outcomes, these relationships are dependent on the strategic intent of employees.

This content is available to you

Edited by Dirk Lindebaum, Deanna Geddes and Peter J. Jordan

This content is available to you

Dirk Lindebaum, Deanna Geddes and Peter J. Jordan

Our introduction explains the theme of this edited volume, namely, an exploration of workplace emotion from a social functional perspective in relation to societal ‘talk about emotion’. We examine conditions under which they can be at odds with, as well as reinforce each other in organizations, and occasions when both practices can occur simultaneously. Our hope is that this focus injects fresh theoretical and practical momentum into understanding how our talking about emotion can generate changes in emotion-eliciting events over time and place, which in turn can influence various causes, expressions, and consequences of emotions at work. This introductory chapter (and subsequent chapters) shed further light on the ramifications for social functional accounts of emotion, especially in the context of work environments. We also briefly foreshadow chapter contents in alphabetical order by emotion (i.e., awe, anger, boredom, envy, fear, happiness, pride, sadness, schadenfreude, and shame) and conclude with possible directions for future research.

You do not have access to this content

Kathryn E. Moura, Peter J. Jordan and Ashlea C. Troth

Anger is a common emotion at work. Although the major focus of research on anger has been on individuals expressing anger, a new stream of research is emerging which examines the reactions of individuals targeted by anger. The aim of our study is to identify the attributions and emotion regulation strategies of receivers (targets and observers) of anger expressions in the workplace. A total of thirty participants from the medical, mining, banking, legal and manufacturing sectors in Australia were interviewed about their experiences of encountering anger expressed at work. The main attributions given for sender anger were associated with sender anger frequency and its appropriateness. The principal emotion regulation strategies reported for dealing with anger expressions by receivers were four: situation selection, cognitive reappraisal, suppression, and expression strategies. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Dirk Lindebaum, Deanna Geddes and Peter J. Jordan

What novel theoretical insights can be gleaned by comparing our theoretical understanding of emotion in relation to how we 'talk about’ emotion at work? Drawing from psychological and sociological thinking, leading emotion researchers respond to this question for ten common and powerful emotions at work. The chapters detail various conditions under which our study of emotions and our talk about them can be at odds or reinforce each other in organizations, and how these differences impact subsequent consequences for organizations and their members.
You do not have access to this content

Elizabeth (Libby) J. Sander, Alannah E. Rafferty and Peter J. Jordan

The rise of a contingent workforce and the distribution of work have contributed to modifications to typical ways of working. One outcome of these factors has been changes to the physical work environment. Despite considerable interest in managing changes in the physical work environment, researchers still do not have a clear set of methods for assessing the physical work environment. In this chapter, we review current approaches to assessing work environments. To date, both academics and practitioners have adopted unique and potentially incompatible approaches. As a result, the field has been characterized by a lack of cumulative knowledge building. This is reflected in the contradictory research findings that are prevalent in the field. We identify recommendations regarding future research methods that will enhance our understanding of the ways physical work environments influence well-being and quality of working life.