Emotional Dissonance and Affective Organizational Commitment in Family Firm Top Management Teams

Abstract

This article studies the impact of emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO on affective organizational commitment in family firm top management teams. We argue that this relationship will be mediated by the level of satisfaction with the CEO. Additionally, we propose that CEO ownership will have a moderating effect. Using a multiple-respondent dataset of 212 top managers from 45 family firms, we find that emotional dissonance leads to less satisfaction with the CEO, influencing the level of affective organizational commitment. This relationship is even stronger if the CEO has a high degree of ownership power.

Keywords

family firms emotional dissonance affective organizational commitment CEO satisfaction CEO power

Introduction

A behavioral outcome that has received much attention in organizational behavior literature is affective organizational commitment, defined as “an affective or emotional attachment to the organization, such that the strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved in, and enjoys membership in the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 2). High levels of affective organizational commitment have been associated with several positive work-related consequences such as substantial decreases in turnover intentions, reductions in absenteeism, and better job performance (Meyer et al., 2002; Meyer & Maltin, 2010). As the top management team (hereafter TMT), referring to the CEO and the managers directly reporting to the CEO (Boeker, 1997), forms a firm’s dominant decision-making entity (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2006), the level of affective organizational commitment of its team members strongly impacts the firm.

Affective organizational commitment of TMT members is especially essential for family firm TMTs since managers with high levels of affective commitment feel a strong sense of belonging and identification with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991), and this strong shared identity is considered one of the major assets of family firms (Tagiuri & Davis, 1996). Family firms are defined by a family’s involvement in ownership and governance of the firm and a long-term vision for how the firm will benefit the family, potentially across different generations (Bennedsen et al., 2010; Zellweger et al., 2010). However, even though TMT members’ high level of affective organizational commitment is a potential competitive advantage for family firms, not all family firms succeed in achieving this commitment among their TMT members (Dawson et al., 2014; Memili et al., 2013). Overall, little is known about the determinants that impact affective commitment within family firm TMTs (Dawson et al., 2014; Memili et al., 2013).

Since the types and intensities of family firm members’ feelings, emotions, and preferences are unique, researchers are called upon to approach family firms’ distinctiveness in organizational behavior mainly from an emotional perspective (Sharma et al., 2020). Therefore, this study investigates the impact of emotional dissonance, which refers to a conflict between the emotions a person experiences and the emotions they express in compliance of display rules (Abraham, 1998), on affective commitment. People are known to undertake emotional labor at work. According to emotional labor theory, employees, and thus also managers, might deliberately obscure or suppress their emotions “to sustain the outward countenance that produces the proper state of mind in others” (Hochshild, 1983, p. 7). The need for organizational members to hide or fake certain emotions might lead to emotional dissonance. This study will investigate if emotional dissonance negatively impacts the level of affective organizational commitment within a family firm TMT context.

Traditionally, research on emotional dissonance was very individual-focused, and looked into its impact on, for example, an individual’s well-being (e.g., Grandey, 2003; Wharton, 1993). However, a more recent literature stream in emotional labor theory highlights the interpersonal impact of emotional dissonance within a team context. Teams are not merely a collection of individuals expressing their emotions separately. Rather, teams provide a social context in which a team member’s regulation of their emotions is strongly influenced by the other team members’ regulation of their emotions (Becker et al., 2018). As such, this study investigates the relationship between emotional dissonance and affective organizational commitment by applying it on the level of the family firm TMT.

The primary purpose of this study is to deepen our understanding as to how and when degrees of experienced emotional dissonance within the TMT impact affective organizational commitment. We specifically zoom in on the role of the CEO, generally considered to be a firm’s most important and powerful actor (Minichilli et al., 2010), by focusing on the level of emotional dissonance the TMT members experience when interacting with their CEO. Team members’ perception of their supervisor impacts their attitudes about their job and the organization they are working for (Griffin et al., 2001). Therefore, for TMT members to remain affectively committed to the firm, it becomes particularly relevant that they are satisfied with the CEO, or in other words, have a favorable perception of the CEO's competence, fairness, interest in their subordinates, and general likeability (Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006). We, therefore, propose the level of satisfaction with the CEO as a mediator in the negative relationship between emotional dissonance and TMT members’ affective commitment to the family firm.

Additionally, we argue that the negative effect of emotional dissonance on affective organizational commitment through satisfaction with the CEO is even stronger when a powerful CEO leads the TMT. A high degree of ownership power, referring to the level of shareholding a CEO has in the family firm, can cause discrepancies between the CEO and the rest of the TMT (Li & Jones, 2019), which can make TMT members even less satisfied with the CEO toward whom they have to hide or fake their emotions. Given that family firms are typically characterized by a highly owner-centered culture (de Vries, 1993), it is essential to examine the role of this degree of ownership power.

We contribute to the existing literature, and particularly literature on emotional labor, in multiple ways. Firstly, our article responds to the call for unraveling the potential impact of emotions in a family firm setting (Labaki et al., 2013) as well as the call for incorporating emotional labor theory in family firm research (Brundin & Härtel, 2014). This is achieved by using emotional dissonance as the proposed antecedent and explaining its impact through emotional labor arguments. As such, we provide contemporary insights on the role of emotional dissonance in understanding why some family firm TMTs show high levels of affective commitment while others are less affectively committed. Additionally, we unravel the explaining mechanism behind this relationship, namely the degree of satisfaction with the CEO. Secondly, according to Becker et al. (2018), using multiple, interdependent sources is crucial for further developing emotional labor theory. An individual approach is often insufficient for capturing the complex setting in which emotional dissonance arises (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Hence, team-level findings can considerably strengthen our understanding of the consequences of emotional dissonance (Becker et al., 2018). Also, Pearson et al. (2014) highlight the importance of incorporating a team-level focus when studying organizational behavior in family firms, since family firms’ team characteristics are unique due to the enduring presence of both family and non-family members. For these reasons, we approach emotional dissonance from a team-level perspective. Lastly, in this study, we highlight the “emotional arenas” that family firms are (Brundin & Härtel, 2014, p. 536). As such, we take an important step in further untangling the determinants of family firm continuity since the affective organizational commitment of all TMT members is found to be crucial for the survival and effectiveness of the family firm (Memili et al., 2013).

Theoretical Background

Affective Organizational Commitment and the Influence of Emotional Dissonance

Understanding the nature, development, and implications of affective organizational commitment is essential since organizations’ competitive advantage increasingly relies on having a committed workforce (Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). Organizational commitment can generally be defined as “a psychological link between the employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 252). Affective organizational commitment refers to an affective or emotional attachment to the organization. The strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved in, and enjoys membership in the organization. In other words, strong affective commitment means employees stay within an organization because they want to (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). The theme of (affective) organizational commitment has received significant attention in organizational behavior literature. Existing research has mainly revealed that affective organizational commitment is negatively related to turnover (Meyer et al., 2002), which means that highly committed employees are the least likely to leave the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

Affective organizational commitment is especially relevant within the context of family firms (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011). Together with their long-term orientation, high levels of (affective) organizational commitment are often mentioned in the literature as important advantages for family firms (de Vries, 1993; Tagiuri & Davis, 1996). According to Dawson et al. (2014), family firm members with high levels of affective commitment strongly believe in the firm’s goals and are enthusiastic about positively contributing to them, which provides them with a strong desire to stay within the firm. As such, having highly committed members is advantageous for family firms, given that they are more willing to pursue a career in the firm, are more likely to be cooperative in their role in leadership transition, and are often more satisfied with the succession process (Sharma & Irving, 2005).

In summary, affective organizational commitment is crucial for the continuity of organizations, which is extra relevant in the family firm context, given that this type of firm is characterized by a long-term orientation and a desire to pass the firm to the following generation (de Vries, 1993). Therefore, it is striking that family firm research has put so little focus on the antecedents of this critical construct (Sharma & Irving, 2005). This article looks into the effect of the level of emotional dissonance experienced during interactions with the CEO, typically a firm’s most powerful actor (Minichilli et al., 2010), on family firm executives’ level of affective organizational commitment.

The phenomenon of emotional dissonance has its origin in emotional labor theory (Hochshild, 1983). Emotional labor refers to “the effort, planning, and control needed to express organizationally desired emotion during interpersonal interactions” (Morris & Feldman, 1996, p. 987). In emotional labor theory, two types of emotional labor can be distinguished. Firstly, deep acting means that organization members make an effort to truly feel the emotions they are expected to display in their job. On the contrary, in the case of surface acting, they only change their appearance to match the expected emotions and thus do not actually experience these emotions (Hochshild, 1983; Morris & Feldman, 1996). The latter form, surface acting, leads to emotional dissonance (Lawrence et al., 2011). Emotional dissonance is the term used for the phenomenon that occurs when there is a conflict between the emotions an individual experiences and the emotions they express to conform to display rules (Abraham, 1998). It emerges from the fact that members of organizations often attempt to publicly display or hide certain emotions during social interactions (Côté, 2005).

Regulating one’s emotions is necessary to function in social contexts, and the workplace is no exception (Grandey, 2015). It is thus part of interpersonal workplace relationships (Troth et al., 2018), of which the relationship with the CEO within the top management team (hereafter TMT) is an example. In the specific context of family firms, emotional dissonance is still a very understudied research topic, even though emotions play a crucial role in properly understanding this type of organization (Labaki et al., 2013; Rafaeli, 2013). The need to hide or fake certain emotions, leading to emotional dissonance, during work-related interactions causes high levels of psychological strain. Emotional dissonance is, therefore, an important job demand (Mann, 1999), which is defined as a psychological stressor related to one’s job (Fox et al., 1993). As a result, research on the emotional labor theory already revealed the harmful impact emotional dissonance has on both the organization member as well as the organization, linking it to outcomes such as well-being or job satisfaction (e.g., Abraham, 1998; Wharton, 1993), but findings on its impact on team outcomes remain scarce (Hu & Shi, 2015).

Whereas emotional labor theory initially focused on emotional dissonance from an individual point of view, scholars now highlight the importance of further research on the team-level impact (Becker et al., 2018). Within teams, each team member brings their emotional states to team interactions, which are, both implicitly and explicitly, communicated to the rest of the team (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Consequently, these emotions become socially shared (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994). Moreover, according to Kozlowski and Klein (2000), individual-level data attained from a single respondent is insufficient for correctly capturing organizational behavior-related constructs since it does not consider the context in which these individuals function. We, therefore, treat emotional dissonance as a so-called shared unit property, meaning that the construct is “presumed or hypothesized to originate in individual unit members’ experiences, attitudes, perceptions, values, cognitions, or behaviors and to converge among group members as a function of attraction, selection, attrition, socialization, social interaction, leadership, and other psychological processes” (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 13). Consequently, we approach emotional dissonance from a TMT level of analysis.

Early research applying emotional labor theory to service job contexts already showed that emotional dissonance arising from interactions with clients or patients leads to lower organizational commitment (e.g., Abraham, 1998, 2000; Côté & Morgan, 2002). Côté and Morgan (2002) found that regulating emotions, specifically suppressing negative emotions during interactions with external parties, increased employees’ intentions to quit. The present study is among the first to investigate this relationship in an intra-organizational context, in which interactions usually last longer, tend to be more inherently politically driven, and social acceptance is an important driver of behavior (Ozcelik, 2013). In each team, there is an implicit or explicit top-down influence deciding which emotions are appropriate to express and which emotions should be hidden (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Leaders’ displays of emotions, and thus also those of the CEO, are closely observed by and influence their subordinates, who want to know their leader’s actual attitudes and intentions (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Openness in interactions with supervisors, which in the case of the TMT is the CEO, can add to employees’ feelings of self-worth because they feel as if they are being taken seriously and can consequently influence their identification with the organization (Smidts et al., 2001). This may play a role in the affective organizational commitment of both family and non-family TMT members (Memili & Welsh, 2012). In a recent article on emotional dissonance in team contexts, Becker et al. (2018) proposed that team members who feel as if they need to adjust the expression of their emotions will want to distance themselves from the relationships within the team that they see as unrewarding or socially costly, or in other words will have lower affective organizational commitment.

To summarize, we argue that emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO negatively impacts affective organizational commitment. As such, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Emotional dissonance experienced by TMT members in interactions with their CEO negatively impacts the level of affective organizational commitment of the entire family firm TMT.

The Influence of Emotional Dissonance on Affective Organizational Commitment Through Satisfaction With the CEO

We proposed a negative relationship between emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO and affective organizational commitment. In addition, we are especially interested in how this negative relationship occurs and therefore look further into the mediating role of satisfaction with the CEO. As Bloemen-Bekx et al. (2021) mentioned, affective commitment is the most desirable form of commitment for family firms, but little is known about the underlying processes determining the influence of specific antecedents on the degree of affective commitment family firm members indicate. According to Gagné et al. (2014), the role of the CEO is an often neglected yet highly valuable element in the understanding of organizational behavior in family firms. Managerial choices are based on managers’ personal perceptions (Hambrick, 2007), meaning that top managers’ choice to stay within the family firm may thus be influenced by their perception of the CEO.

Early research on the emotional labor theory highlighted emotional dissonance as an important antecedent of job satisfaction, with high levels of emotional dissonance decreasing the level of job satisfaction employees report, due to the drain of their emotional resources (e.g., Abraham, 1998; Côté & Morgan, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1996). Focusing on one specific element of job satisfaction, namely satisfaction with one’s supervisor, Tewksbury and Higgins (2006) conducted a study on emotional dissonance among correctional staff. They found that the emotional dissonance arising from interactions with prisoners caused high levels of work stress and consequently led to less satisfaction of the staff with their supervisor, particularly the subordinates’ perception about their supervisor’s competence, fairness, interest in their subordinates, and general likeability (Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006).

The abovementioned findings were obtained from studying employees’ interactions with external parties. Only recently, scholars have agreed that organization members also adjust the expression of their emotions in intra-organizational interactions (Becker et al., 2018; Hu & Shi, 2015). Whereas encounters with external parties usually only happen sporadically, internal interactions take place on a daily, ongoing basis (Hu & Shi, 2015). Consequently, as Hu and Shi (2015) mention, the negative consequences of adjusting emotional expressions may be even more potent when stemming from interactions with acquaintances than interactions with strangers. Our study forms an important step in the research on emotional dissonance in intra-organizational relationships by focusing on the unique context of family firm top management teams. The collective dynamic of this team of individuals, often consisting of a mixture of family and non-family members, directly impacts the firm’s working outcomes (Ensley & Pearson, 2005; Minichilli et al., 2010).

The status of the CEO and their control over the subordinates’ careers provide the CEO with the capability to shape the behavior of the rest of the team according to their preferences (Hu & Shi, 2015). Emotional dissonance occurs when team members feel as if they have to display unauthentic emotions in response to the CEO’s preferences that do not match their own internal experiences, which can be emotionally stressful because they experience feelings of duplicity and alienation from themselves (Van Dijk & Brown, 2015). As a result, they will be less willing to establish or maintain a qualitative relationship with the person toward whom they experience this inauthenticity (Butler et al., 2003), in this case, the CEO. Moreover, Fisk and Friesen (2012) argued that emotional dissonance resulting from emotion regulation negatively affected the quality of the leader-member exchange, and lower quality exchange led to lower levels of reported satisfaction.

Consequently, we argue that, if family firm top management team members experience higher levels of emotional dissonance when interacting with their CEO, they will be less satisfied with that CEO, or in other words:

Hypothesis 2: Emotional dissonance experienced by TMT members in interactions with their CEO negatively impacts the level of satisfaction with the CEO.

According to Meyer and Allen (1991) and Meyer et al. (2002), work experiences are among the most important antecedents of affective organizational commitment, and the relationship with the supervisor is a critical aspect of one’s work experience. Employees are more strongly committed to and have thus stronger desires to stay in organizations where they feel supported (Bishop et al., 2000). Rhoades et al. (2001) argued that especially the support employees receive from their supervisor plays an essential role. Employees will show higher levels of affective commitment when they perceive their supervisor as caring and supportive. When TMT members build interpersonal attachment with the CEO, they consequently may experience higher levels of affective commitment to the firm. The importance of satisfaction with the CEO becomes extra relevant in the context of family firms, given that family firm CEOs have an even higher level of dominance (Minichilli et al., 2010), not only in management processes but often also in terms of influencing the overall direction of the firm (Westhead & Howorth, 2006). This makes a positive perception about the CEO an even more determining factor in one’s commitment to the firm.

Based on this argumentation, we propose that, when family firm top management team members are more satisfied with the CEO, they will show higher levels of affective commitment toward the firm. Therefore, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: A higher level of satisfaction with the CEO positively impacts the level of affective organizational commitment of the entire family firm TMT.

The Moderating Role of CEO Ownership Power

In addition to the impact that the level of emotional dissonance has on the level of affective organizational commitment through satisfaction with the CEO, this article further looks into when this effect occurs. Again, we focus on the role of the CEO by studying the moderating role of the level of CEO ownership power.

The CEO is typically considered the most powerful and important organization member (Minichilli et al., 2010). Power can be defined as “the capacity of individual actors – in this case the CEO – to exert their will” (Finkelstein, 1992). An important indicator of CEO power is ownership. CEOs with a significant percentage of shareholdings in a firm will be substantially more powerful since they represent both management and shareholders and can influence the firm's direction from both perspectives (Daily & Johnson, 1997; Finkelstein, 1992). According to Gagné et al. (2014), the construct of power has been neglected in family business research, even though the organizational structure of family firms tends to differ from non-family firms, such that decision-making is more centralized in family firms, stemming from a desire to maintain control (Lindow et al., 2010). Given that family firms are often characterized by a strong owner-centric culture (de Vries, 1993), ownership becomes an extra important indicator of power in this context. According to Westhead and Howorth (2006), the CEOs of family firms are often not only the business owners but also majority shareholders. This potential concentration of control, typical for family firms, where controlling individuals have a strong will for authority and where power differences are significant, may cause tensions and disruptions and a less participative atmosphere in general (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007). Additionally, in case of having a dual role as both owner and leader of the firm, a family firm CEO can impose their beliefs and preferences, and as such, has a dominant influence on the values and goals of the business (Gagné et al., 2014).

In a family firm context in which the CEO has a high level of ownership power, the negative impact of emotional dissonance on the level of satisfaction with the CEO, which, in turn, affects the level of affective commitment, will be even stronger, for the following reasons. When the CEO has a high level of ownership power, the likelihood of power discrepancies among TMT members increases. In the case of a large discrepancy between the CEO and the TMT, there is often a lack of information sharing between the CEO and the other team members (Li & Jones, 2019). Also, the larger the discrepancy between the CEO and the rest of the TMT, the more the CEO is distanced from the course of events of the TMT (Li & Jones, 2019). Additionally, highly powerful CEOs tend to interrupt and direct others’ dialogues and are often overconfident, making them reluctant to seek input or advice from other members of the TMT because they perceive this input as a threat to their power (Tost et al., 2012). As a result, members of the TMT who are already experiencing emotional dissonance in interactions with the CEO due to a CEO’s general ability to influence the TMT members’ behavior (Hu & Shi, 2015) will have an even more negative attitude toward the CEO’s competence, fairness, interest in subordinates, and general likeability. In other words, they will thus be even less satisfied with the CEO, consequently leading to even less affective organizational commitment.

For this reason, we argue that high degrees of CEO ownership, which is an indicator of CEO power, will strengthen the negative effect of emotional dissonance on affective commitment through satisfaction with the CEO. We, therefore, formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The level of CEO ownership power moderates the relationship between emotional dissonance and affective organizational commitment through the satisfaction of the TMT members with the CEO, such that the overall relationship is more negative when CEO ownership power is higher.

Figure 1 shows a summary of the relationships we propose in this study.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Method

Participants

To empirically test our hypotheses, we collected multiple-respondent data from private Belgian family firms. We operationalize family firms as firms which, firstly, are perceived by the CEO as being a family firm and, secondly, in which a single family owns at least 50% of the shares and at least two of its members have an important influence on the firm (Chua et al., 1999; Tagiuri & Davis, 1996). Only family businesses which employ at least ten people and have at least three members in their TMT, defined as the CEO and the managers directly reporting to the CEO (Boeker, 1997), were included in our sample. The participation of the entire TMT was an essential prerequisite for us since, as mentioned by Colbert et al. (2014), the complexity of strategic decisions requires a team of leaders, who all have their role in creating and implementing decisions and whose skills and efforts all combined determine the success of the firm.

Since gaining access to TMTs is typically difficult (Raes et al., 2007), we used the snowball sampling method by first contacting a small group of CEOs from our network, who could then refer us to other CEOs from their network. We ended up contacting 150 Belgian family firms, leading to meetings with 55 CEOs. A requirement for participation in our study consisted of completing a structured questionnaire by all TMT members. The firms that decided not to participate and firms that could not provide completed questionnaires from their entire TMT were excluded from our final sample. Finally, we gathered data from 45 family firms, of which 212 individual managers filled out the survey. Using data from the BelFirst database of Bureau Van Dijk, we could verify that there was no response bias since an independent samples t-test revealed that there were no significant differences regarding firm size (mean difference of 65.05; t(148) = −1.336; p = .185), financial performance in the form of earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT; mean difference of 155452.60; t(148) = −0.959; p = .342), or net result (mean difference of 50,951.27; t(148) = 0.145; p = .885) between the 45 participating firms and the 105 firms that decided not to participate.

As recommended by Pitcher and Smith (2001) and as seen in other studies using this particular data collection approach (e.g., Boone & Hendriks, 2009; Buyl et al., 2011; Vandekerkhof et al., 2018), we asked the CEOs to provide us with a list of the members of their TMT. During the data collection process, we guaranteed complete confidentiality of individual responses because many of the questions had to do with the team’s functioning as a whole and the managers’ perceptions about different affective phenomena. Accordingly, we were very strict in setting up the survey procedures to avoid that team members could see their peers’ answers or that the CEO could see the managers’ perceptions about him/her. As such, our survey procedure was set up in such a way that all the questionnaires were personally distributed by us and picked up in closed envelopes that were opened only by us. Additionally, we included a cover letter with every questionnaire, which highlighted that the responses would solely serve academic research purposes and that none of the answers would be reported back to the CEO or other members of the TMT.

Moreover, it is crucial to note that the questionnaire provided to the CEO was different from the questionnaires that the other managers received. Specifically, the questions related to the CEO himself/herself (e.g., satisfaction with the CEO, emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO, see Section 3.2) were not included in the CEO version since this would distort the data. The rest of the questions were the same for both versions of the questionnaire. As such, we could separate the CEOs’ answers from the other managers’ answers when needed and could thus aggregate the data appropriately for each variable. This implies that no CEO responses were included in the variables of satisfaction with the CEO or emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO. These variables are constructed with the answers of all the TMT members except the CEO.

Measures

Emotional dissonance

To measure the level of emotional dissonance TMT members experience when interacting with the CEO, we used the revised version of the Emotional Labor Scale (ELS) of Brotheridge and Lee (2003). We specifically used the six items measuring the level of surface acting, which indicate the extent to which someone hides or fakes emotions, since it is the felt discrepancy between expressed and experienced emotions that causes emotional dissonance (Grandey, 2003). In particular, all TMT members except the CEO were asked to indicate the degree to which they show certain emotional behaviors during interactions with their CEO on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Examples of items are “When interacting with the CEO, I show emotions I don’t feel” and “When interacting with the CEO, I hide my true feelings about a situation.” We obtained a Cronbach’s alpha for this measurement of .790.

Affective organizational commitment

The level of affective organizational commitment of the family firm TMT members was measured by the Organizational Commitment Scale of Allen and Meyer (1990). Specifically, six items of the affective commitment subscale were used. All TMT members, including the CEO, were asked to mark on a five-point Likert scale to which extent they agree with the statements mentioned, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Examples of statements are “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization” and “I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.” The reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .782 for this scale.

Satisfaction with the CEO

The measurement of satisfaction with the CEO in this study was based on the measure for supervisor satisfaction used by Tewksbury and Higgins (2006). On a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree), all TMT members except the CEO indicated the extent to which they agreed with three statements. Examples of the statements are, “My supervisor is unfair to me” and “My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.” We rephrased the statements such that they would apply to the CEO. A Cronbach’s alpha of .758 was obtained for this measure.

CEO ownership power

According to Finkelstein (1992), the most direct and most widely used indicator of executive ownership power is the percentage of the firm’s shares one owns. We, therefore, asked the CEOs of the participating top management teams to fill out the percentage of shares of the family firm they possessed.

Control variables

Firstly, we included the size of the TMT as a control variable since team size strongly affects the working of a team and influences different outcomes (Simsek et al., 2005). It is therefore an often-used control variable in research focusing on team contexts. This variable was measured as the number of TMT members the CEO reported. Secondly, we included CEO tenure, measured as the number of months the CEO has been active as CEO of the family firm, as a control variable. Besides the fact that CEO tenure is often indicative of the level of CEO power (Finkelstein, 1992), it can also impact the dynamics in the TMT, since leaders’ tenure influences the behavior (thus potentially also the expression of emotions) and attitudes (thus potentially also the level of satisfaction with the CEO and/or the affective organizational commitment) of the rest of the team (Steffens et al., 2014). Lastly, we also controlled for whether the CEO is part of the family or not, using a dummy variable, with 1 indicating the presence of a family CEO and 0 indicating the presence of a non-family CEO, since this could influence the CEO’s degree of ownership (Westhead & Howorth, 2006) and the dynamics between the CEO and the other TMT members (Ensley & Pearson, 2005), thus influencing the degree of other members’ emotional dissonance and satisfaction with the CEO.

Data Reduction and Common Method Variance

Data aggregation

As mentioned before, the specific focus of this study lies with family firm TMTs. Therefore, we follow a multiple-respondent approach, which will increase the reliability of our research (Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997). We collected data through questionnaires which individual TMT members filled out. However, our analyses are performed at the team level, meaning that the individual-level data first had to be aggregated into team-level data. Before this aggregation, we tested the consistency of the responses within a team by calculating the interteam-member agreement (R_wg) and the intra-class correlation coefficients ICC(1) and ICC(2), as recommended by James et al. (1993) and Bliese (2000). Results of these analyses firstly showed that the median interrater agreement scores are 0.83 for emotional dissonance in interactions with the CEO, 0.71 for satisfaction with the CEO, and 0.70 for affective organizational commitment, which are all equal to or higher than the cut-off value of 0.70 (James et al., 1993). Furthermore, the ICC(1) value comprised .21 for emotional dissonance, .25 for satisfaction with the CEO, and .27 for affective commitment, whereas the ICC(2) value was .71 for emotional dissonance, .58 for satisfaction with the CEO, and .75 for affective commitment. This signifies that the between-team variances are larger than the within-team variances. As a result, team-level scores are sufficiently reliable (Bliese, 2000). Data aggregation was unnecessary for our proposed moderator CEO ownership since we assigned each team the percentage of shares their CEO declared to own.

Confirmatory factor analysis

We performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the main variables of our model, namely emotional dissonance, satisfaction with the CEO, CEO ownership, and affective commitment, to check for their construct validity. We first calculated several fit-indicators for our proposed four-factor model and found that χ² = 99.22 (96), p < .01, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.01, SRMR = 0.05, and TLI = 0.99. These scores all meet the cut-off scores and therefore indicate a good fit of our model to the data (Brown, 2006). Furthermore, we compared our four-factor baseline model with alternative models to verify its discriminant validity. Firstly, we compared it to a one-factor model, which provided the following results: χ² = 346.18 (104), p < .01, CFI = 0.55, RMSEA = 0.12, SRMR = 0.11, and TLI = 0.48. We also made the comparison with a two-factor model in which we combined emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO with CEO ownership and affective organizational commitment with satisfaction with the CEO. The obtained scores for the fit-indicators for this alternative model were χ² = 185.25 (103), p < .01, CFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07, and TLI = 0.82. Lastly, we also made a comparison with a three-factor model. In this alternative model, we merged emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO and satisfaction with the CEO into one and found the following results: χ² = 223.35 (102), p < .01, CFI = 0.77, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.10, and TLI = 0.73. The abovementioned comparisons clearly showed that there is construct distinctiveness for the four main variables of our research model and confirmed their discriminant validity.

Common method variance

Given that the data for both our independent and dependent variables were collected from the same source, it was essential to take multiple procedural measures, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), to minimize the risk that common method variance, a potential problem in behavioral research, would affect our study. Besides the preliminary measures we took, we also looked into the actual level of common method variance present in our study by performing two ex-post tests. Firstly, we performed a Harman single-factor test on the data concerning emotional dissonance, satisfaction with the CEO, and affective organizational commitment. This is one of the most widely used tests to address the issue of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The Harman single-factor test indicated that one general factor would explain 18.89% of the total variance among the measures, which distinctively lies below the cut-off value of 50%. Additionally, we estimated an unmeasured latent factor model for the three variables mentioned above (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This second ex-post common method variance test revealed a common factor of 0.135, which equals a common variance of 0.135² = 0.018 or 1.8%. Based on these results, we conclude that common method bias does not form an issue in this study.

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of all included variables. We found that, on average, family firms participating in our study have 304 employees, while on average, the TMT consists of five members, including the CEO. On average, a TMT is a mixed team comprised of two family members and three non-family members. The mean levels are 4.08 for affective commitment, 1.91 for emotional dissonance in interactions with the CEO, 4.11 for satisfaction with the CEO, and 48.46% for CEO ownership. As displayed by Table 1, there is a significant negative relationship between emotional dissonance and affective organizational commitment. There is, as predicted, also a significant negative relationship between emotional dissonance and satisfaction with the CEO and a significant positive link between satisfaction with the CEO and affective commitment. Furthermore, we can verify that multicollinearity does not form a problem for our study (Mansfield & Helms, 1982). Firstly, the correlations are all below 0.8. Besides, the highest variance inflation factor (VIF) found for the variables is 1.24, which is substantially lower than the cut-off value of 10.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Pairwise Correlations.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Affective organizational commitment	4.08	0.37	1
2	Emotional dissonance	1.91	0.37	−.349*	1
3	Satisfaction with CEO	4.11	0.50	.421**	−.363*	1
4	CEO ownership	48.46	0.35	−.043	.083	.055	1
5	TMT size	4.71	1.69	−.588**	−.330*	.156	−.493**	1
6	CEO tenure^a	143.40	124.22	−.048	.059	−.147	.325*	−.324*	1
7	Family CEO	0.80	0.405	.012	.102	.115	.607**	−.519**	.403**	1
8	Family members in TMT^b	0.48	0.26	.448**	−.040	.177	.033	−.497**	.409**	.259^†	1

Note. N = 45 teams.

Measured in months.

Measured as the ratio of family members in the TMT compared to the total number of members in the TMT.

†

p, *p, and **p refers to correlation is significant at the .1 level, .05 level, and .01 level (two-tailed).

The first step of our regression analyses was to test the direct effect of emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO on the level of affective organizational commitment of family firm top management team members. The results of this linear regression analysis can be found in Table 2. Whereas the coefficient of the effect of emotional dissonance on affective commitment is significant (β = −.347 p = .022), the linear model as a whole is not. The low F-value (F = 1.963) and the insignificant p-value (p = .119) indicate that this model is not the most appropriate. For this reason, we cannot confirm Hypothesis 1. Nevertheless, Hayes (2013), whose approach we follow, argues that a lack of a direct relationship between the dependent and independent variables does not automatically preclude an indirect effect through a mediating variable. For this reason, we do not draw conclusions on the effect of emotional dissonance on affective commitment through satisfaction with the CEO at this point yet.

Table 2.

OLS Regression Results for the Effect of Emotional Dissonance on Affective Organizational Commitment.

Model	b coefficient	SE	t
Constant	5.043	0.378	13.347**
Emotional dissonance	−.345	0.145	−2.377*
TMT size	−.051	0.038	−1.340
CEO tenure	.000	0.001	−0.545
Family CEO	−.034	0.164	−0.207
R² = .164, F = 1.963, and p = .119

Note. N = 45 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Next, the mediation model was tested using the PROCESS codes of Hayes (2013), which assess the statistical significance of the proposed effects by using bootstrapping methods. As shown by Table 3, there is a significant negative effect of emotional dissonance in interactions with the CEO on the level of satisfaction with the CEO. Hypothesis 2 of our research model can thus be confirmed. Moreover, there is also a significant positive relationship between satisfaction with the CEO and affective organizational commitment, meaning that also Hypothesis 3 can be confirmed. In other words, as predicted, satisfaction with the CEO plays a mediating role in the relationship between emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO and the level of affective organizational commitment. This mediating effect is confirmed by the bootstrap results at a 95% confidence interval, which do not contain zero for the indirect effect of emotional dissonance on affective commitment through satisfaction with the CEO (−0.3067, -0.0015).

Table 3.

Regression Results for the Simple Mediation Model of Emotional Dissonance on Affective Organizational Commitment Through Satisfaction With CEO.

Model	b coefficient		SE		t
Mediator variable model (DV = CEO satisfaction)
Constant	4.9706		0.4619		10.7617**
Emotional dissonance	−.5020		0.1778		−2.8238**
TMT size	−.0018		0.0384		−0.0477
CEO tenure	−.0009		0.0008		−1.2027
Family CEO	.2979		0.1729		1.7229
R² = .1960, F = 3.3373, and p = .0189
Dependent variable model (DV = affective organizational commitment)
Constant	3.7728		0.5673		6.6510**
Emotional dissonance	−.2169		0.1419		−1.5284
Satisfaction with CEO	.2556		0.0937		2.7275**
TMT size	−.0504		0.0362		−1.3915
CEO tenure	.0000		0.0004		−0.0713
Family CEO	−.1102		0.1655		−0.6661
R² = .2590, F = 4.2515, and p = .0035
	Effect	SE	t	LLCI	ULCI
Total direct and indirect effects
Direct effect of emotional dissonance on affective commitment	−0.2169	0.1419	−1.5284	−0.5039	0.0701
Indirect effect of emotional dissonance on affective commitment through satisfaction with CEO	−0.1283	0.0767		−0.3067	−0.0015

Note. N = 45 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Results reported at a 95% significance level. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000. LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval.

**p < .01 (two-tailed).

The final step in our regression analyses is to test Hypothesis 4, which looks into when this indirect effect occurs by suggesting the level of CEO ownership power as a moderator. The results of this moderated mediation analysis can be found in Table 4. Looking into the bootstrap results at a 95% confidence interval for the moderated mediation, we see that for a low level of ownership power (9.9705%), these contain zero (−0.2159 and 0.0403), indicating an insignificant conditional effect at this value of CEO ownership. However, for the two other values of ownership power, namely the mean level and 1SD above the mean (48.4591% and 86.9477%), these bootstrap results do not contain zero (−0.2596, −0.0155 and −0.3456, −0.0187), illustrating a significant moderating effect at these values. Through an additional Johnson and Neyman analysis, as recommended by Hayes (2013), we could detect the values of CEO ownership at which the moderating effect is significant. Specifically, the moderating effect arises when the CEO owns 20% or more of the shares of the family firm. Our dataset shows that this is the case for 73.33% of the participating firms. In other words, as predicted, for high values of CEO power (i.e., 20% or more of shares), the negative effect of emotional dissonance on affective organizational commitment through the degree of satisfaction with the CEO becomes stronger. Hypothesis 4 of our research model can thus be confirmed.

Table 4.

Bootstrap Results for the Moderated Mediation Model of Emotional Dissonance on Affective Organizational Commitment Through Satisfaction With CEO, Including CEO Ownership Power as Moderator.

Conditional indirect effects of the degree of CEO ownership power
CEO ownership	Bootstrap indirect effect	Bootstrap SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
9.9705	−0.0790	0.0825	−0.2159	0.0403
48.4591	−0.1323	0.0760	−0.2596	−0.0155
86.9477	−0.1856	0.1030	−0.3456	−0.0187

Note. N= 45 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Results reported at a 95% significance level. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000. LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval.

Given the unique context of family firms, it is important to acknowledge that family involvement in a TMT potentially creates complex dynamics within the team. Family firm TMTs typically consist of a mixture of family and non-family members (Minichilli et al., 2010), potentially causing complicated family relationships or divisions between family and non-family members (Cruz et al., 2010; Minichilli et al., 2010). As an additional robustness test, we, therefore, conducted our analyses again while controlling for the family involvement in the TMT to verify if this family involvement led to a potential bias in our results. In line with Cruz et al. (2010), we controlled for family involvement in two ways: whether or not the CEO is part of the business family and the ratio of family members in the TMT compared to the total number of members. Detailed results are not reported here (full results are available in the online Supplemental Material) but confirm the mediating role of satisfaction with the CEO in the relationship between emotional dissonance and affective organizational commitment. Also, the moderating role of a high level of CEO ownership was confirmed at a 90% significance level.

Discussion

This study aimed to unravel the impact of the degree of emotional dissonance experienced by TMT members when interacting with the CEO on the level of affective organizational commitment of a family firm TMT. We were especially interested in how the relationship between emotional dissonance and affective organizational commitment arises. Therefore, we included satisfaction with the CEO as a mediator. Lastly, we also wanted to look further into when the relationship occurs. Thus, we added the level of CEO ownership, a determinant of the CEO’s power, as a moderator. We first looked into the direct relationship between emotional dissonance and affective organizational commitment but did not find proof for a significant (negative) relationship. However, we did find a significant indirect relationship in which satisfaction with the CEO plays a mediating role. Moreover, our results showed that the negative effect of emotional dissonance on affective organizational commitment via satisfaction with the CEO is even stronger if the CEO owns a significant part of the shares of the family firm.

Theoretical Implications

With these findings, we contribute to the existing literature in several ways. Firstly, this study forms an important contribution to the still scarce literature on emotions in family firms. In particular, we are among the first to incorporate emotional labor theory in family firm research (Brundin & Härtel, 2014). Whereas general organizational research has been convinced for a while now that emotions are an essential part of organizational life (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017), family business research still neglects the topic of emotions too often, despite its blatant importance in this context (Rafaeli, 2013). As a result, the impact of emotions, and in particular emotional labor, in family firms remains rather unclear (Rafaeli, 2013).

Specifically, we unravel the impact emotional dissonance, a well-studied element of the emotional labor theory, has on affective organizational commitment in family firm TMTs. Smidts et al. (2001) mentioned that the communication climate, of which openness and trust are important determinants, will influence team members’ identification with, and in turn, their attachment to, an organization. Our results showed that family firm TMT members will indeed emotionally withdraw themselves from a firm when they perceive the interactions with the CEO as burdening. As indicated by our results, the explanation lies with the fact that emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO lowers TMT members’ satisfaction with the CEO. Fisk and Friesen (2012) argued that emotional authenticity, referring to the genuine expression of emotions, is an important element of leader-member exchanges, which refers to the relationship between leaders and their subordinates. Moreover, these authors state that the quality of these exchanges also determines the satisfaction with the supervisor, which is thus in line with our findings.

Second, we contribute to contemporary research that studies emotional dissonance in intra-organizational relationships (e.g., Becker et al., 2018; Ozcelik, 2013) by following a unique team-level approach, in which all of the analyses were conducted at the team level. This allowed us to take into account the reciprocal influence team members have on each other’s genuineness in the expression of emotions (Becker et al., 2018). By doing this, we respond to calls highlighting the importance of studying emotional labor in work groups (e.g., Becker et al., 2018; Hu & Shi, 2015). As such, we approach the emotional labor theory from a contemporary point of view, since this theory for a long time has solely focused on intra-personal consequences of emotional dissonance, such as the individual’s well-being, and most of its findings have been obtained from studies in service contexts.

Whereas research in service contexts analyses the employee’s one-off interactions with external parties, in which the expression of certain emotions is part of the job, in team interactions, expectations regarding the expression of emotions can be different, and the emotional dissonance arising from hiding or faking certain emotions in this context will most likely also impact future team interactions (Hu & Shi, 2015). Furthermore, individual team members transfer their emotional states to the rest of the team, resulting in collective-level emotional states arising. The existence of collective level emotions distinguishes teams from mere groups of individuals (Barsade, 2002; Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Therefore, more insights into the interpersonal consequences of emotional dissonance are necessary (Troth et al., 2018). Thus, our study contributes to emotional labor theory by providing important contemporary insights on this matter. The process of individual-level emotions transferring to the team level is called emotional contagion (Barsade, 2002; Barsade & Knight, 2015). While outside the scope of this particular study, it would be interesting for future research to unravel emotional contagion dynamics in family firm TMTs.

Furthermore, even though family firm TMTs usually consist of a mixture of family and non-family members (Minichilli et al., 2010), previous research on commitment in family firms too often only focuses on family members (Sieger et al., 2011). On the other hand, our study focuses on the whole team as a collective. Altogether, this study confirms the need to better integrate the social dynamics of emotions into emotional labor theory and to further expand our understanding of emotional labor in that direction, that is, capturing more social complexity involved in emotional labor by studying it in intra-organizational settings (Becker et al., 2018).

Third, we contribute to research on the determinants of family firm continuity. The fact that we found significant empirical evidence for our theorizing that emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO influences affective organizational commitment through satisfaction with the CEO clearly shows that leadership plays an unmistakably important role in the phenomenon of affective organizational commitment in family firms. Moreover, as mentioned before, having shares causes a CEO to represent the managerial perspective and the owner perspective (Finkelstein, 1992). These so-called “simultaneous roles” are typical for family firms (Tagiuri & Davis, 1996, p. 201). As predicted, high levels of CEO ownership power create disparity within the TMT (Harrison & Klein, 2007) and make TMT members who have to adjust the expression of their emotion toward the CEO even less satisfied about the CEO, in turn leading to lower levels of affective organizational commitment. Dawson et al. (2014) mentioned that family firm members’ organizational commitment plays a crucial role in the family firm’s survival, success, flexibility, and longevity. Given that family firms are characterized by a long-term orientation and a focus on creating a lasting family legacy through passing the business on to the following generations (de Vries, 1993), a high level of commitment is thus an essential asset for this type of firm. By demonstrating the decisive role of the CEO in the arising of commitment, we are thus making a significant contribution not only to research on organizational commitment in family firms, a topic which has been largely neglected for a long time by family firm scholars (Sharma & Irving, 2005), but also to research into the durability of family firms as a whole.

Lastly, our findings form an important contribution to the general TMT literature, and specifically to upper echelons theory, which states that top management team members’ “experiences, values, and personalities greatly influence their interpretations of the situations they face and, in turn, affect their choices” (Hambrick, 2007, p. 334). Our research shows that, in addition to TMT members’ personalities and values, which research mainly concentrates on, their emotional experiences also influence their perceptions and thus their choices. Until now, little was known about the influence of psychological elements, specifically in relation to job demands (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick et al., 2005), in the TMT literature. By showing the detrimental impact of emotional dissonance on affective commitment, we thus make a significant contribution to upper echelons theory.

Practical Implications

Besides its theoretical contributions, this study also entails implications for practice. In today’s “war for talent” (Michaels et al., 2001), a firm’s employees are more than ever a crucial, distinguishing asset. Therefore, it is in the best interest of family firms that their employees, and certainly their TMT members, who often combine operational and strategic roles within the firm, are emotionally committed to the firm and have a strong desire to stay. Our results show that the CEO strongly impacts this emotional attachment to the firm. In particular, the CEO should provide the TMT members with the space and comfort to openly express their emotions during their interactions. Moreover, the CEO themselves must also openly express emotions, as the CEO’s behavior often serves as exemplary role behavior for others. This openness in emotional expression requires a certain level of emotional intelligence from the CEO, which will enable them to be empathetic and deal not only with their own emotions but also the emotions of others (Humphrey, 2013). Thus, a CEO should pay active attention to the development of their emotional intelligence and, if necessary, they can be assisted in this effort by an external coach. Actively developing the emotional intelligence of the CEO will benefit the openness of the emotional climate within the entire TMT, which will enhance the overall functioning of the team (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).

The extent to which TMT members are satisfied with the CEO turns out to be an essential explaining mechanism of the impact the members’ emotional dissonance has on their affective commitment. Accordingly, it is important to periodically assess the TMT members’ satisfaction with the CEO. This can be done in several ways. For example, satisfaction with the CEO can be the subject of a direct and open joint conversation among the CEO and all other TMT members. Or TMT members can fill out a survey that indicates their satisfaction with the CEO, which can then be discussed in the entire TMT. The CEO and the other TMT members may find it helpful to be assisted by an external facilitator who can facilitate the process of the conversation so that team members learn to do this better themselves in the future (Lambrechts et al., 2009). The fact that a CEO is willing to participate in such initiatives sends a strong indirect positive signal to the other TMT members, which in itself will also help to create a more open, positive team climate in which emotions can be discussed openly.

Limitations and Future Research

Due to our unique, multiple-respondent dataset, we provided meaningful contributions to existing literature. Nevertheless, we are aware that there are limitations to our study, which can serve as exciting avenues for future research. First, we empirically validated our research model through a sample of 212 managers of 45 top management teams. Even though this is in line with other studies conducting this type of research, one could consider this a relatively small dataset. While TMTs, in general, are already difficult to reach, our criterion of having the entire TMT’s participation did not ease the data collection process. Using only a small selection of top managers per team would have most likely increased our sample size, even though this might be at the expense of the accuracy and reliability of the results (Buyl et al., 2011). Future research on larger samples could contribute to the generalizability of our findings.

Second, it would be very interesting to collect similar data from non-family firms as well. When studying organizational behavior, it is crucial to take into consideration the context in which the behavior arises (Johns, 2006). Gathering data from both family and non-family firms would allow researchers to compare these two distinct types of firms and determine whether there are similarities and differences regarding the determinants of affective organizational commitment. Precisely, one could, for example, add the (non)family firm character as a moderator in the research model we propose. While outside of the scope of our present study, this could significantly strengthen our understanding of affective organizational commitment in different types of contexts.

Third, given that our study focuses on the unique setting of family firms, family dynamics will play a role in the TMT as well. We saw, for example, that family involvement (i.e., ratio of family members in the TMT) is correlated with the level of affective organizational commitment in the team. Therefore, we controlled for family involvement in the same way previous studies did (Cruz et al., 2010). However, we are aware that some family dynamics are tough to capture, especially through surveys. As a result, there might be family dynamics that transcend our research. Therefore, for future research, we recommend using a case study approach, an approach that goes beyond the study of isolated variables (Yin, 2011). As such, researchers could zoom in further into the intricacy of family involvement in a TMT and its impact on the functioning of the TMT and, consequently, the firm.

Related to the previous concern, we focus on only one specific antecedent of affective organizational commitment: the degree of emotional dissonance experienced in interactions with the CEO. Whereas the choice of this antecedent contributed to both the research on commitment in family firms and emotions in family firms, we propose looking into other potential antecedents as well. One example is the presence of different family governance practices. Focusing on family firm succession processes, Bloemen-Bekx et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of informal family governance practices in developing affective commitment among the next generation. We recommend expanding these findings beyond the succession context and looking into formal family governance practices such as the family institution. Given that family institutions increase social interaction and help develop a shared vision among family firm members (Mustakallio et al., 2002), one could expect a positive influence on affective commitment. Another example of a determinant could be the degree of relationship conflicts in the TMT. In family firms, conflicts tend to escalate more quickly and shift to the personal level due to the complex familial relationships in the firm (Frank et al., 2011). One might expect that a high degree of relationship conflicts in a family firm TMT will most likely negatively impact the members’ enthusiasm to stay within the firm. However, concrete findings on this link are still lacking.

Furthermore, whereas the level of emotional dissonance turned out to be an important antecedent of affective organizational commitment among family firm TMT members, future research could add to our research model by proposing antecedents of emotional dissonance with a focus on the role of the CEO. For example, as Kelleci et al. (2019) show, the personality of the CEO plays a vital role in strategic decisions and performance of the family firm, and there are notable differences in personalities between family CEOs and non-family CEOs. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate if these differences also affect the level of emotional dissonance TMT members experience when interacting with the CEO and if certain CEO personality traits positively or negatively affect TMT members’ openness in emotional expression.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgr-10.1177_10464964221098952 – Supplemental material for Emotional Dissonance and Affective Organizational Commitment in Family Firm Top Management Teams

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgr-10.1177_10464964221098952 for Emotional Dissonance and Affective Organizational Commitment in Family Firm Top Management Teams by Laura Hoekx, Frank Lambrechts, Pieter Vandekerkhof and Wim Voordeckers in Small Group Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Laura Hoekx

Frank Lambrechts

Wim Voordeckers

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Laura Hoekx is a postdoctoral researcher at the Research Center for Entrepreneurship & Family Firms of Hasselt University (Belgium), where she obtained her Ph.D. on emotions in family firms. She has a specific research interest in family firm top management teams and studies the phenomenon of emotional dissonance in this context.

Frank Lambrechts is a professor in change management and family business at Hasselt University, Business Economics (Belgium). At the Research Center for Entrepreneurship & Family Firms, he focuses on change and family firms. Frank has published several articles and books and is an associate editor of the Journal of Family Business Strategy.

Pieter Vandekerkhof is an assistant professor in entrepreneurship and governance at Hasselt University, Business Economics (Belgium). At the Research Center for Entrepreneurship and Family Firms, he focuses on entrepreneurial and governance dynamics in start-ups, scale-ups, and family firms. Pieter has published several articles and books within his research domain.

Wim Voordeckers is a professor of entrepreneurial finance and family firm governance at the Research Center of Entrepreneurship and Family Firms (RCEF) at Hasselt University in Belgium. His primary research interests include financing decisions, leadership, and corporate and family governance in family firms.

References

Abraham

(1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 124(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739810210185

Abraham

(2000). The role of job control as a moderator of emotional dissonance and emotional intelligence–outcome relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 134(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009600860

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

(1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

(1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Dorris

A. D.

(2017). Emotions in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113231

Barsade

(2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Barsade

Gibson

(2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.24286163

Barsade

Knight

A. P.

(2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(14), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316

Becker

W. J.

Cropanzano

Van Wagoner

Keplinger

(2018). Emotional labor within teams: Outcomes of individual and peer emotional labor on perceived team support, extra-role behaviors, and turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 43(1), 38–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117707608

10.

Bennedsen

Pérez-González

Wolfenzon

(2010). The governance of family firms. In Baker

H. K.

Anderson

(Eds.), Corporate governance: A synthesis of theory, research, and practice (pp. 371–390). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118258439.ch19

11.

Bishop

J. W.

Scott

K. D.

Burroughs

S. M.

(2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600603

12.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new direction (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

13.

Bloemen-Bekx

Van Gils

Lambrechts

Sharma

(2021). Nurturing offspring’s affective commitment through informal family governance mechanisms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(2), 100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.100309

14.

Boeker

(1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.2307/257024

15.

Boone

Hendriks

(2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0899

16.

Bowman

Ambrosini

(1997). Using single respondents in strategy research. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.0045

17.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Lee

R. T.

(2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647229

18.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.

19.

Brundin

Härtel

C. E. J.

(2014). Emotions in family firms. In Melin

Nordqvist

Sharma

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of family business (pp. 529–548). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247556.n27

20.

Butler

E. A.

Egloff

Wlhelm

F. H.

Smith

N. C.

Erickson

E. A.

Gross

J. J.

(2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48

21.

Buyl

Boone

Hendriks

Matthyssens

(2011). Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO characteristics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00932.x

22.

Carmeli

Schaubroeck

(2006). Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality, and organizational decline. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.06.001

23.

Chua

J. H.

Chrisman

J. J.

Sharma

(1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300402

24.

Colbert

A. E.

Barrick

M. R.

Bradley

B. H.

(2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12036

25.

Côté

(2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. The Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159142

26.

Côté

Morgan

L. M.

(2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.174

27.

Cruz

C. C.

Gómez-Mejia

L. R.

Becerra

(2010). Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036975

28.

Daily

C. M.

Johnson

J. L.

(1997). Sources of CEO power and firm financial performance: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Management, 23(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90039-8

29.

Dawson

Sharma

Irving

P. G.

Marcus

Chirico

(2014). Predictors of later-generation family members’ commitment to family enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12052

30.

de Vries

M. F. R. K.

(1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad news. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90071-8

31.

Eddleston

Kellermanns

(2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.06.004

32.

Ensley

M. D.

Pearson

A. W.

(2005). An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00082.x

33.

Finkelstein

(1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/256485

34.

Fisk

Friesen

J. P.

(2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as predictors of followers’ job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.001

35.

Fox

Dwyer

Ganster

(1993). Effects of stressful job demands and control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/256524

36.

Frank

Kessler

Nosé

Suchy

(2011). Conflicts in family firms: State of the art and perspectives for future research. Journal of Family Business Management, 1(2), 130–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/20436231111167219

37.

Frijda

N. H.

Mesquita

(1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In Kitayama

Markus

H. R.

(Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 51–87). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10152-002

38.

Gagné

Sharma

De Massis

(2014). The study of organizational behaviour in family business. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.906403

39.

Gomez-Mejia

L. R.

Cruz

Berrone

De Castro

(2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.593320

40.

Grandey

(2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678

41.

Grandey

(2015). Smiling for a wage: What emotional labor teaches us about emotion regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.962444

42.

Griffin

M. A.

Patterson

M. G.

West

M. A.

(2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.101

43.

Hambrick

D. C.

(2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254

44.

Hambrick

D. C.

Finkelstein

Mooney

A. C.

(2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159139

45.

Harrison

Klein

(2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096

46.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press

47.

Hochshild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

48.

Shi

(2015). Employees’ surface acting in interactions with leaders and peers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(8), 1132–1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2015

49.

Humphrey

R. H.

(2013). The benefits of emotional intelligence and empathy to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0057

50.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306

51.

Johns

(2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159208

52.

Kelleci

Lambrechts

Voordeckers

Huybrechts

(2019). CEO Personality: A different perspective on the nonfamily versus family CEO debate. Family Business Review, 32(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518811222

53.

Kelly

J. R.

Barsade

(2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974

54.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

55.

Labaki

Michael-Tsabari

Zachary

R. K.

(2013). Emotional dimensions within the family business: Towards a conceptualization. In Smyrnios

K. X.

Poutziouris

P. Z.

Goel

(Eds.), Handbook of research on family business (2nd ed., pp. 734–763). Edwards Elgar Publisher. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009383.00047

56.

Lambrechts

Grieten

Bouwen

Corthouts

(2009). Process consultation revisited: Taking a relational practice perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308326563

57.

Lawrence

S. A.

Troth

A. C.

Jordan

P. J.

Collins

A. L.

(2011). A review of emotion regulation and development of a framework for emotion regulation in the workplace. In Perrewé

P. L.

Ganster

D. C.

(Eds.), The role of individual differences in occupational stress and well being (pp. 197–263). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2011)0000009010

58.

Jones

C. D.

(2019). The effects of TMT faultlines and CEO-TMT power disparity on competitive behavior and firm performance. Group & Organization Management, 44(5), 874–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118813790

59.

Lindow

C. M.

Stubner

Wulf

(2010). Strategic fit within family firms: The role of family influence and the effect on performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.08.004

60.

Mann

(1999). Emotion at work: To what extent are we expressing, suppressing, or faking it? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398221

61.

Mansfield

E. R.

Helms

B. P.

(1982). Detecting multicollinearity. The American Statistician, 36(3a), 158–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1982.10482818

62.

Memili

Welsh

D. H. B.

(2012). Towards a theory of nonfamily employees’ organizational identification and attachment in family firms. Journal of Technology Management in China, 7(3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468771311325167

63.

Memili

Zellweger

T. M.

Fang

H. C.

(2013). The determinants of family owner-managers’ affective organizational commitment. Family Relations, 62(3), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12015

64.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

65.

Meyer

J. P.

Maltin

(2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.007

66.

Meyer

J. P.

Parfyonova

N. M.

(2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.09.001

67.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

68.

Michaels

Handfield-Jones

Axelrod

(2001). The war for talent. Harvard Business Press.

69.

Minichilli

Corbetta

MacMillan

I. C.

(2010). Top management teams in family-controlled companies: ‘Familiness’, ‘faultlines’, and their impact on financial performance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00888.x

70.

Morris

J. A.

Feldman

D. C.

(1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 986–1010. https://doi.org/10.2307/259161

71.

Mustakallio

Autio

Zahra

S. A.

(2002). Relational and contractual governance in family firms: Effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15(3), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00205.x

72.

Ozcelik

(2013). An empirical analysis of surface acting in intra-organizational relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1798

73.

Pearson

A. W.

Bergiel

Barnett

(2014). Expanding the study of organizational behaviour in family business: Adapting team theory to explore family firms. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.911174

74.

Pitcher

Smith

A. D.

(2001). Top management team heterogeneity: Personality, power, and proxies. Organization Science, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.1.10120

75.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

76.

Raes

A. M. L.

Glunk

Heijltjes

M. G.

Roe

R. A.

(2007). Top management team and middle managers: Making sense of leadership. Small Group Research, 38(3), 360–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301969

77.

Rafaeli

(2013). Emotion in organizations: Considerations for family firms. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0061

78.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

Armeli

(2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825

79.

Sharma

Chrisman

J. J.

Chua

J. H.

Steier

L. P.

(2020). Family firm behavior from a psychological perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719879675

80.

Sharma

Irving

P. G.

(2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00067.x

81.

Sieger

Bernhard

Frey

(2011). Affective commitment and job satisfaction among non-family employees: Investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2011.03.003

82.

Simsek

Veiga

J. F.

Lubatkin

M. H.

Dino

R. N.

(2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993139

83.

Smidts

Pruyn

A. T. H.

van Riel

C. B. M.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069448

84.

Steffens

N. K.

Shemla

Wegge

Diestel

(2014). Organizational tenure and employee performance: A multilevel analysis. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 664–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114553512

85.

Tagiuri

Davis

(1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1996.00199.x

86.

Tewksbury

Higgins

G. E.

(2006). Examining the effect of emotional dissonance on work stress and satisfaction with supervisors among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405282961

87.

Tost

L. P.

Gino

Larrick

R. P.

(2012). Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.001

88.

Troth

A. C.

Lawrence

S. A.

Jordan

P. J.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation in the workplace: A conceptual and operational review and future research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12144

89.

Vandekerkhof

Steijvers

Hendriks

Voordeckers

(2018). Socio-emotional wealth separation and decision-making quality in family firm TMTs: The moderating role of psychological safety. Journal of Management Studies, 55(4), 648–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12277

90.

Van Dijk

P. A.

Brown

A. K.

(2015). Emotional labour and negative job outcomes: An evaluation of the mediating role of emotional dissonance. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1833367200004053

91.

Westhead

Howorth

(2006). Ownership and management issues associated with family firm performance and company objectives. Family Business Review, 19(4), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00077.x

92.

Wharton

(1993). The affective consequences of service work. Work and Occupations, 20(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888493020002004

93.

Yin

R. K.

(2011). Applications of case study research. SAGE.

94.

Zellweger

Eddleston

Kellermanns

(2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB