User talk:Teagan96/sandbox

Week 4 - Evaluation Article ( @JButlerModaff: ) Bounded Emotionality Article - This article is currently unrated on Wikipedia. There is a good number of references for the length of the article, however it seems heavily reliant on the first source. The content of the page lacks continuity. There are a lot of long, unclear sentences. After reading it, I still don't really understand what the concept is or means. The examples at the end don't really clarify. Additionally, at the end of the article is starts talking about the links between bounded emotionality and leadership, I would not include this in the "example" part of the article. I would probably just delete that section entirely and include examples within the explanations. The article focuses quite a bit on the comparison of bounded rationality and bounded emotionality, perhaps this is an important distinction to make but I am unsure that is requires so much attention.To progress this article, we will need to focus more are what exactly the concept it, what it does, and its importance. There is no discourse on the talk page of this article. Teagan96 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Week 4 - Evaluation Article ( @JButlerModaff: ) This article has a variety of information but is lacking some links and references. There are currently only nine references and our group has a goal of adding three more per person to get better information. Each of us has been assigned a section in the article to proofread and update. Danijean12 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor Edits - Bounded emotionality is a concept within communication theory that stems from emotional labor and bounded rationality. It was proposed by Dennis K. Mumby and Linda L. Putnam[1]. It defines an alternative form of organizing that encourages expression of a greater spectrum of emotions in organizational communication. Mumby and Putnam (1992) stress that bounded emotionality encourages emotions such as nurturance, care, and supportiveness, and fused with individual responsibility to shape organizational experiences. Emotions are encouraged to be expressed, but must fall within variable boundaries. The boundaries set differ from traditional and normative organizations.[2] Possible Sources : Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 429-469. King, D. (2007). Rethinking The Care-Market Relationship In Care Provider Organisations. Australian Journal Of Social Issues (Australian Council Of Social Service), 42(2), 199-212.

( @JButlerModaff: ) Teagan96 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Introduction Bounded emotionality is a communications studies approach to dealing with emotional control in the work place. Emotional control simply refers how employers and employees handle to the range of emotions that naturally occur in the workplace. These emotions can occur because of work, or they can be brought into work from an employee's home life. Unbounded emotionality was proposed by Dennis K. Mumby and Linda L. Putnam[1]. Mumby and Putnam (1992) stress that bounded emotionality encourages the expression of a wide range of emotions. Their theory encourages expression of emotions because it is a way to maintain interpersonal relationships and boundaries among people in the organization. Additionally, the expression of emotions strengthens work relations because people can bond over mutual feelings. Bounded emotionality is a broad framework for organizations to use when dealing with emotions. It has six defining characteristics. The characteristics are: intersubjective limitations, spontaneously emergent work feelings, tolerance of ambiguity, heterarchy of values, integrated self identity and authenticity, and community. Teagan96 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Defining Characteristics Intersubjective Limitations: Just as individuals do in personal relationships, they need to respect emotional boundaries in professional ones. For example, if a coworker feels certain emotional expressions or topics are inappropriate, you will not discuss them. Similarly, they will respect what you find inappropriate. Those personal boundaries are the intersubjective limitations of the work relationship.

Spontaneously emergent work feelings: Feelings about work emerge in response to work tasks. This is natural and management should not try to ascribe feelings to employees. When spontaneous feelings emerge they should be dealt with within the previously set intersubjective limitations.

Tolerance of ambiguity: Complex emotions are likely to occur because of emotional labor (the process of controlling emotions during interactions at work). Bounded emotionality entails tolerance of these complex emotions. Contradictory feelings must coexist.

Heterarchy of values: The opposite of hierarchy of values, or placing certain values as more important than others. A heterarchy of values means that no one is set above another. The context of situations and individual preferences determines what values may be prioritized in a given moment.

Intergrated Self Identity and Authenticity: Bounded emotionality assumes that people have one single identity. This means that that their personality, their values, and their actions are the same no matter where they are physically. The goal of bounded emotionality is to make it easy to be one's true self while at work.

Community: The purpose of bounded emotionality is to create a strong sense of community among its members. Research has shown this structure works best in smaller organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teagan96 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Bounded Emotionality vs. Unbounded Emotionality

Unbounded Emotionality should be enacted not for the instrumental gain of the organization, but to enhance the well-being of the individual organizational members. Work stress is a political, organizational and community issue that can be difficult to implement in large organizations. Bounded Emotionality is a limited, pragmatic approach to the problem of emotional control in organizations. It focuses on work related emotions, defined as, “feelings, sensations, and affective responses to organizational sensations”. However, it is acknowledged that such work feelings stem from and affect emotions that come from one’s personal life (436).

• Encourages the expression of a wider range of emotions than is usually condoned in traditional and normative organizations
• Stresses the importance of maintaining interpersonally sensitive, variable boundaries between what is felt and what is expressed
• The goal of bounded emotionality to build interpersonal relationships through mutual understanding of work related feelings
• Six defining characteristics

Bounded Emotionality	Unbounded Emotionality
Personal limitations	Organizational limitations
Implicit	Explicit
Heterarchy	Hierarchy
Integration of body and mind	Separation of body and mind
Community	Individual
Relational feeling rules	Gender/occupational feeling rules

Danijean12 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Austin's Peer Review

- Overall, I think you have a solid base/start to your article. You all did a nice job of keeping your wording neutral. With that said, I do have some technical/minor recommendations that can be found below.

- There were many times you made statements/laid out facts that were not supported by a citation. Although they sound correct, as an outside reader I have no idea if they really are. Examples of this include but are not limited to:

1. In the section titled "introduction" you have written "Emotional control simply refers how employers and employees handle to the range of emotions that naturally occur in the workplace. These emotions can occur because of work, or they can be brought into work from an employee's home life." - I would add a citation after these sentences so we know where your are getting this information from. 2. Under "Defining Characteristics" you do a great job defining, but I do not see a citation for any of the definitions. I would go back and add where you found these definitions. Also, you give a great example for "intersubjective limitations" but you don't give examples for the rest of these terms - I would highly consider going back and brain storming examples - As a new comer to this topic, hearing that example really helped me the understand it at a deeper level.

- In your last section "Bounded Emotionality vs. Unbounded Emotionality" There are a couple of sentence structure issues. For example:

1. You start a sentence with "encourages". As a reader this makes no sense to me, since you don't say what encourages. Also, in the same sentence you have capitalized "Stresses". These will be quick fixes.

- Overall great work. I can not wait to see your full and complete article - I am sure it will be great based on what you have now!

AustinJames (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Austin Haas (CST 350)

Madysen's Peer Review 1. I think the introduction is good, did a nice job introducing the topic and idea without giving too little and giving too much. 2. As Austin said cite!!! Citing will give you more credibility and will help if a potential bias is in the article. I like how you broke it up, making it easier to read, so it's not just one chunk. 3. Just cite as much as possible Madysen leroy (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)madysen leroy

==

Draft: Origins ==

Prior to Mumby and Putnam's specific articulation of bounded emotionality research and the role it plays in what is known about organizational emotion regulation, workplace emotion research focused on the relationship between emotion regulation, work performance and general attitudes towards work. Traditionally, two concepts, bounded rationality and emotional labor were used to describe conventional organizational theory pertaining to emotional regulation.

Bounded Rationality: Whereas bounded emotionality encourages the expression of a large spectrum of emotions in organizational communication, bounded rationality advocates for the “control” or tempering of any emotion or personal characteristics that may interfere with rational organizational decision making. Simon introduced the term bounded rationality and cast it as “bounded” because he viewed highly emotion-based forms of reasoning such as intuition and judgement as irrational and thus un-helpful in reaching organizational goals. Bounded rationality approaches to emotional regulation not only devalue individual emotion in the workplace but also view excessive emotional expression as inappropriate for the work setting.

Emotional Labor: Emotional labor refers to the way in which individuals manage emotions based on what is perceived as “appropriate” in specific social or environmental situations. Human beings often pay close attention to their surroundings and how they should act in certain social situations (source?). A variety of organizational factors as well as personal factors may impact emotional regulation including: socialization, channels of communication, departmental differences (ie: sales vs. packaging), etc. In an organization that deploys a bounded emotionality approach to emotional regulation, much less emotional labor will be required than an organization that deploys a bounded rationality approach.

Mumby and Putnam introduced the concept of bounded emotionality as an alternative organizational concept to bounded rationality and emotional labor in order to demonstrate the instability of traditional understandings and highlight what they believe to be the importance of emotions in organizational decision-making. In an organization framed by bounded emotionality (as opposed to bounded rationality and emotional labor), hierarchal goals and values are flexible as emotion and the physical self are not isolated from the process of organizing. In other words, emotions are “bounded” in organizations to protect interpersonal relationships and mutual understandings, two organizational aspects that Mumby and Putnam argue as important to success. Keeler.Jax (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Keeler.Jax

Megan's Peer Review

In the introduction you have written “communications studies” but it should say “communication studies.” In the introduction you could combine the sentences “It has six defining characteristics. The characteristics are…” so that it flows better. Reread each section and double check for minor grammatical errors. Be consistent with the capitalization of the titles of each little paragraph. The “Tolerance of ambiguity” section could go a little more in depth. Lastly, don’t be afraid to cite your sources to improve the quality and credibility of your article.

You guys have a good article with a lot of information. You just need to fix some minor errors and add more citations after some of your sentences. Nice work! Hill.megan (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tyler's Peer Review

You all have great first drafts of each segment! I would say definitely keep an eye on grammar throughout the article. One part in particular was in Integrated self Identity where there was a repeated word, but it is all minor details like that. The facts you have are very well put and straight forward, but make sure you cite what should be. Also, start adding title headers and bolded sections. It could be something easily forgotten about later down the road. Lastly, add linked words that reference other articles. People might want to see other articles that would be related to this one. Great article everyone!

Tyler.Ramquist (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Tyler.Ramquist

Erik's Peer Review

Hey guys, great job so far! I have a couple minor suggestions: -In the intro you second sentence is as follows: "that BP made good efforts to maintain a positive and diligent image during the crisis, but some individuals within the company hindered their efforts." I may consider rewording "simply refers to" -In the Origins sections, under Bounded Rationality, using whereas as your way to start that section is a little awkward -Adding sources throughout the origins section would make your article much stronger -Like others have pointed out, check for grammatical consistency -Make sure format in the Defining Characteristics section matches other sections (Bolded terms? However you are planning on formatting the rest)

Overall, great work! Just some minor changes and you all are lookin' good. Read.erik (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)