154 6: Postmodern Th eory
here). Hochschild (1979) recognized that emotions must also be managed in any
social setting; that “the imperial scope of social rules” (551) shape and constrain
how emotion is manifested. Hochschild presented an “interactive account” of
emotions whereby emotions are managed depending on the situation and task re-
quired; the “emotion-management perspective” (559). Th is management, argued
Hochschild, is unnatural and requires “Work to make feeling and frame consis-
tent with the situation [and] work in which individuals continually and privately
engage” (563); this is what Hochschild would label “emotion work.”
Although rooted in sociology, emotion work applies to any social or organi-
zational setting. Aft er some time, public administration scholars began apply-
ing Hochschild’s emotion work perspective to the study of bureaucratic behavior
and organizational effi ciency. Mary Guy and Meredith Newman were among
the fi rst to do so under the term “emotional labor.” Guy and Newman (2004)
draw on emotional labor to explain job segregation and pay inequity between
men and women. Emotional labor, as they defi ne it, “applies to both men’s and
women’s work, but it is the ‘soft er’ emotions, those required in relational tasks
such as caring and nurturing, that disappear from job descriptions, performance
evaluations, and salary calculations” (289). Gender stereotypes about appropriate
behavior for men and women in the workplace mask inequities in relational tasks
required of male and female employees. If female employees are in positions that
require more face-to-face contact with clients (citizens), then more emotional la-
bor or work will be required. Compared to men, women are expected to be more
caring, and thus the eff ort to act in such a way is considered appropriate and not
worthy of additional pay (Guy and Newman 2004; Newman, Guy, and Mastracci
2009). As Guy and Newman point out, such work is rarely compensated, “when
performed at its best . . . emotional labor goes unnoticed” (2004, 290; see also
Mastracci, Newman, and Guy 2006 for more empirical evidence supporting this
claim). Th e result is further pay inequity and more entrenched stereotypes about
how men and women should behave, in relation to others, in the workplace.
Emotional labor theory, particularly the work of Newman, Guy, and Mas-
tracci (2009; see also Guy, Newman, and Mastracci 2008 for a more extensive
discussion) fi ts within the larger framework of critical theory in public admin-
istration emphasizing unequal power across relationships and within organiza-
tions, and the need for humanistic intervention to correct such imbalances (see
also Box 2005). Th e stereotypical expectations and diff erences among male and
female bureaucrats and resulting inequities also neatly align with the feminist
perspective discussed earlier in the chapter. Th e methodological techniques are
qualitative in nature and rely heavily on narratives, interviews, and fi eld work.
Consider the list of dimensions of emotional labor off ered by Newman, Guy, and
Mastracci (2009):
- Verbal judo: Used in law enforcement to describe “tough talk” banter
- Caritas: Captures the caring function in human services