Costs and benefits of emotional labor



Download 486.16 Kb.
Page1/6
Date13.05.2016
Size486.16 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6

On the Costs and Benefits of Emotional Labor:


A Meta-Analysis of Three Decades of Research

Ute R. Hülsheger

Maastricht University

Anna F. Schewe

Bielefeld University

Author Note

Ute R. Hülsheger, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Anna F. Schewe, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. Both authors contributed equally to this study.
We would like to thank all researchers providing information about unpublished studies or study details. Furthermore we wish to express our sincere thanks to Günter W. Maier and Joyce E. Bono for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper and Maria Hills for her stylistic advice.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ute R. Hülsheger, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Work- and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: ute.hulsheger@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Abstract

This article provides a quantitative review of the link of emotional labor (emotion-rule dissonance, surface acting, and deep acting) with well-being and performance outcomes. The meta-analysis is based on 494 individual correlations drawn from a final sample of 95 independent studies. Results revealed substantial relationships of emotion-rule dissonance and surface acting with indicators of impaired well-being (ρs between .39 and .48) and job attitudes (ρs between -.24 and -.40) and a small negative relationship with performance outcomes (ρs between -.20 and -.05). Overall, deep acting displayed weak relationships with indicators of impaired well-being, and job attitudes, but positive relationships with emotional performance and customer satisfaction (ρs .18 and .37). A meta-analytic regression analysis provides information on the unique contribution of emotion-rule dissonance, surface acting, and deep acting in statistically predicting well-being and performance outcomes. Furthermore, a mediation analysis confirms theoretical models of emotional labor which suggest that surface acting partially mediates the relationship of emotion-rule dissonance with well-being. Implications for future research as well as pragmatic ramifications for organizational practices are discussed in conclusion.



Keywords: meta-analysis, emotional labor, emotion regulation, well-being, job attitudes, performance

Service plays a vital role in today’s economies. Indeed, service activities now account for about 70% of the gross domestic product in the United States as well as in European countries (Central Intelligence Agency, 2009). Accordingly, more than two third of the labor force in the United States and Europe is working in the service sector (Central Intelligence Agency, 2009) and this proportion is expected to grow even further in the years to come (Paoli & Merllié, 2008). As part of their daily work these employees have to interact with others, be it customers, patients, students, or children. During these interactions they have to perform emotional labor, publicly displaying certain emotions while hiding others (Côté, 2005; Hochschild, 1983). The management of emotions has become part of organizational rules and occupational norms because organizational decision makers as well as employees believe that the expression as well as suppression of certain emotions helps influencing customers and clients in order to meet higher-order performance goals (Holman, Martinez-Inigo, Totterdell, 2008a; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Emotional labor has consequently become part of many individuals’ daily work despite the potential detrimental effects for employees’ psychological health (Hochschild, 1983).

Starting with the seminal work by Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983) and fueled by the developments in the labor market, research into emotional labor has been burgeoning in the last three decades (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Zapf, 2002). However, despite the growth of scholarly work on emotional labor, a number of important questions remain to be answered (e.g. Bono & Vey, 2005; Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Rubin, Staebler Tardino, Daus, & Munz, 2005). Numerous researchers have investigated the link of emotional labor with well-being and different kinds of performance outcomes (e.g. task performance, affective delivery), both theoretically as well as empirically. Yet, findings are inconsistent regarding the size and direction of effects. This makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the nature of the relationships and it impedes the development of clear suggestions for management practices. A statistical integration of extant empirical research by means of a meta-analysis would consequently benefit this field of research in two important regards. First, a meta-analysis will help clarifying whether the relationships of emotional labor facets with well-being and performance are generalizable across samples and settings or whether they are situation specific. Second, it will allow the estimation of mean effect sizes of the relationships between emotional labor facets with well-being and performance outcomes and convey important information on the direction and strength of relationships. Overall, these findings will help evaluating propositions that have been made in models of emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Holman, Martínez-Iñigo, & Totterdell, 2008b; Rubin et al., 2005). Furthermore, they will provide an overview of the benefits and costs of emotional labor and reveal pragmatic ramifications for organizational practices.

In 2005, Bono and Vey provided a first quantitative summary of antecedents and consequences of emotional labor. They conducted a bare-bones meta-analysis based on 11 studies and 16 independent samples. Goal of the present study is to build upon and extend their research in five crucially important regards: First, as Bono and Vey (2005; p. 220) pointed out, the research field was not mature enough to compute robust estimates of associations between emotional labor and its consequences when they conducted their first meta-analysis. Yet, research on emotional labor has been blossoming in the last years and many studies have been published since 2005. We will therefore base our meta-analysis on a considerably enlarged sample of primary studies which will benefit the reliability and stability of meta-analytic estimates (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Second, in their bare-bones meta-analysis Bono and Vey corrected studies for sampling error only, i.e. they estimated sample size weighted mean correlations between the variables in question. In addition to sampling error we will correct for predictor and criterion unreliability. Third, we will investigate not only well-being but also performance outcomes and their relationship with the three central emotional labor facets of emotion-rule dissonance, surface acting, and deep acting. Fourth, we will conduct a meta-analytic regression analysis, testing the unique contribution of each of the three emotional labor facets in statistically predicting well-being and performance outcomes. Fifth and finally, we will test whether surface acting (partially) mediates the relation between emotion-rule dissonance and outcome variables.



Deep Acting, Surface Acting, and Emotion-rule Dissonance

Extant models of emotional labor conceptualize emotion regulation--the process of managing expressions and feelings by the two emotional labor strategies of surface and deep acting--as the core of emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Holman et al., 2008b; Rubin et al., 2005).

Deep acting is an antecedent-focused form of emotion regulation that affects the perception and processing of emotional cues at the onset of an emotion, i.e. before they elicit behavioral, experiential, or physiological response tendencies (Gross, 1998). Antecedent-focused emotion regulation occurs before an emotion develops and it aims at changing the situation or the perception of a situation (Grandey, 2000; Gross, 1998). When engaging in deep acting, individuals try to align required and true feelings. To reach this goal, they can direct attention towards pleasurable things or thoughts to stir up the required emotion (attentional deployment), or reappraise the situation to induce the required emotion (cognitive change; Grandey, 2000). Consequently, deep acting results in genuine emotional displays of the required emotions.

Surface acting, on the other hand, is a response-focused form of emotion regulation that is applied when the emotion has already developed. It does not involve an adjustment of one’s actual feelings, but refers to the management of the emotional expression. Individuals engaging in surface acting put on a mask. They adjust the emotional response by suppressing, amplifying, or faking emotions. In consequence, the emotional experience and the emotion expression remain discordant when individuals engage in surface acting (Grandey, 2000; Gross, 1998; Totterdell & Holman, 2003).

Apart from deep and surface acting, emotional dissonance is considered in models of emotional labor (Holman et al., 2008b; Rubin et al., 2005). Indeed, many researchers ascribe emotional dissonance a central role in the emotional labor process (e.g. Côté, 2005; Morris & Feldman, 1996; van Dijk & Kirk, 2006). However, researchers have used different and sometimes ambiguous conceptualizations of the concept (cf. van Dijk & Kirk, 2006). Early work on emotional labor described emotional dissonance as the discrepancy between felt emotions and emotions that are expressed to meet organizational display rules (Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Thus, emotional dissonance does involve three different aspects: emotions required by display rules, expressed emotions, and felt emotions (Zerbe, 2000). Researchers have used different combinations of these three aspects to conceptualize and measure emotional dissonance. Some view emotional dissonance as the discrepancy between required and felt emotions (e.g. Morris & Feldman, 1996; Zapf & Holz, 2006), which has also been referred to as “emotion-rule dissonance” (Holman et al., 2008b), others conceptualize it as the discrepancy between expressed and felt emotions (Côté 2005; van Dijk & Kirk, 2006), which has been circumscribed as “fake emotion display” by Holman and colleagues. These differences in conceptualizations of emotional dissonance have important implications for the role ascribed to emotional dissonance in the emotional labor process. While emotion-rule dissonance is an antecedent to emotion regulation in terms of deep and surface acting, fake emotion display is a consequence of emotion regulation (Holman et al., 2008; Côté, 2005). Although different points of views exist regarding the conceptualization of emotional dissonance, the majority of research assesses emotional dissonance as emotion-rule dissonance (Dormann & Kaiser, 2002; Holman, Chissick, & Totterdell, 2002; Zapf & Holz, 2006). This is also in line with theoretical models of emotional labor defining emotional dissonance as an antecedent to surface and deep acting (Holman et al., 2008b; Rubin et al, 2005). In the following we will therefore focus on emotional dissonance in terms of emotion-rule dissonance.

Emotion-rule dissonance is a form of person-role conflict (Abraham, 1999; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987) stemming from the incongruence between emotions that are actually felt and emotions that are required by display rules (Abraham, 1999; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Morris & Feldman, 1996; Morris & Feldman, 1997; van Dijk & Kirk, 2006) and resulting in an unpleasant state of tension. Although there are conceptual and empirical relations between emotion-rule dissonance and surface acting, the concepts are to be carefully differentiated. While emotion-rule dissonance describes a “state of being” (p. 97; Grandey, 2000), surface acting describes the effortful process of managing one’s emotions. Thus, emotion-rule dissonance is an emotional state, while surface acting is the active process of managing emotions.



Consequences of Emotional Labor

Emotional labor is a multi-faceted construct which has been argued to have positive as well as negative consequences for individuals and organizations (Côté, 2005; Zapf & Holz, 2006). Emotion-rule dissonance, surface acting, and deep acting are expected to relate differentially to well-being and performance outcomes. These differential relationships can be explained by different mechanisms underlying emotion-rule dissonance, surface, and deep acting and by the extent to which these threaten or conserve internal resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Holman et al., 2008b). In deriving our hypotheses about the link of these three central aspects of emotional labor with well-being and performance outcomes we draw on established theoretical models of emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Holman et al., 2008b; Rubin et al., 2005). An overview of our theoretical framework is depicted in Figure 1.



The Relation of Surface Acting and Deep Acting with Well-being and Performance

Various mechanisms may be put forth explaining the relationships of surface and deep acting with well-being and performance outcomes.



Ego-depletion. According to Baumeister and colleagues, purposeful self control and regulatory processes are effortful and deplete mental resources (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Surface acting involves the constant monitoring of actual and desired emotions. Consequently, regulating emotions by surface acting is an effortful process that can be expected to drain mental resources. Indeed, fundamental research on emotion regulation has revealed that regulating emotions by faking, suppression, or exaggeration impairs subsequent performance on diverse tasks, such as hand-grip or anagram tasks (Baumeister et al., 1998; Muraven et al., 1998; Schmeichel, Demaree, Robinson, & Pu, 2006; Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003). Researchers have also contrasted the depleting effects of response-focused and antecedent-focused emotion regulation. Their studies revealed that in contrast to antecedent-focused emotion regulation, response-focused emotion regulation was effortful and led to impaired mental performance, for instance on memory and complex decision making tasks (Richards & Gross, 1999; Richards & Gross, 2000; Zyphur, Warren, Landis, & Thoresen, 2007). It has therefore been argued that surface acting, a response-focused form of emotion regulation, requires considerable mental effort. When employees engage in surface acting actual and desired emotions need to be constantly monitored and the individual needs to invest continuous effort to change the emotional expression. This continuous effort drains mental resources and thereby enhances strain and diminishes well-being (Côté, 2005; Grandey, 2003; Martínez-Iñigo, Totterdell, Alcover, & Holman, 2007). Moreover, it has been argued that, to the extent that surface acting draws on a limited reservoir of mental resources (Sideman Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Zyphur et al., 2007), these resources are lacking for the performance of other job-related tasks that involve executive functioning. Surface acting can therefore be expected to impair not only employee well-being but also performance.

In contrast, building on Gross and colleagues’ research on the cognitive costs of suppression and reappraisal (Gross, 1998; Richards & Gross, 1999; 2000) researchers have argued that deep acting requires less cognitive resources than surface acting (Totterdell & Holman, 2003). This contention rests on two assumptions, namely that deep acting is similar to reappraisal and that the reappraisal processes involved in deep acting diminish mental resources only at the onset of an emotion when an alternative reality is construed. It has consequently been argued that the amount of cognitive (e.g. attention) and motivational (e.g. drive, resilience) resources invested is considerably lower for deep acting than for surface acting (Sideman Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). However, recently, this assumption has been challenged by Liu and colleagues (Liu, Prati, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2008) who argued that the suppression and reappraisal mechanisms investigated in laboratory settings cannot be compared to the workplace where employees need to regulate their emotions. They suggest that in contrast to the reappraisal manipulations in typical laboratory studies, actual deep acting might require “a great deal of mental energy in the form of motivation, engagement, and role internalization” (p. 2416) and might therefore be even more psychologically demanding than surface acting. Since no study has examined the actual cognitive and motivational energy demand of deep and surface acting directly, the question whether deep acting consumes more or less mental resources than surface acting cannot be answered yet. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that deep acting is an effortful regulatory process that drains mental resources to a certain extent.



Felt inauthenticity. People strive towards authenticity and self-expressive behavior, but display rules might impede an employee’s genuine experience and expression (Hochschild, 1983). Especially surface acting may constrain personal authenticity, because employees’ emotional expressions and actual feelings are at odds (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002). Empirical studies illustrated that the suppression of negative feelings and the simulation of positive emotions lead to lower self-authenticity (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Simpson & Stroh, 2004). Inauthenticity in turn, is associated with depressed mood and stress (Erickson & Wharton, 1997; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). In contrast to surface acting, there is no discrepancy between felt and displayed emotions when employees engage in deep acting. When employees use deep acting strategies their sense of authenticity is consequently not compromised. These theoretical arguments and empirical findings suggest a negative relationship between surface acting and well-being but not between deep acting and well-being.

Authenticity of the emotion display. Satisfying organizational display rules is an important element of performance in jobs involving interactions with clients. A customer service representative who is cheerful and friendly, a judge who has a neutral demeanor, a debt collector who displays anger, and a doctor who shows sympathy, they all adapt their emotional displays to job- and organization-specific display rules to fulfill their job roles. Display rules exist because it is assumed that displaying these specific emotions will influence clients and customers in a particular way: The customer service representative is friendly because he wants an angry customer to calm down and abide by the organization, the debt collector expresses anger because he wants the debtor to pay her bill, and the doctor wants to give her patients hope and confidence. This is in line with the Emotion as Social Information Model positing that emotional displays provide observers with important information and influence their behavior (van Kleef, 2009; see also Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Yet, emotional displays differ in the extent to which they are authentic or faked and individuals are able to differentiate between genuine and fake emotional displays (Ekman, Friesen, & O’Sullivan, 1988). Only authentic emotional expressions entail the relevant cues that serve important social functions and have the desired effects on other individuals. A debt collector can only achieve his goal of enforcing a debt if the expressed anger is perceived as authentic by the debtor. Similar lines of argument apply when organizations prescribe the display of positive emotions. Positive emotional displays evoke positive reactions only to the extent that others perceive them as authentic (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005a; Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, & Gremler, 2006). Fundamental as well as applied experimental research revealed that authentic smiles elicit favorable reactions from interaction partners as opposed to inauthentic smiles (Frank, Ekman, & Friesen, 1993; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Evoking positive emotions in customers helps building up a strong employee-customer rapport which is central to performance in terms of customer satisfaction and future loyalty intentions (Grandey, 2003; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Surface acting is associated with inauthentic emotional expressions while deep acting involves the authentic expression of emotions. These lines of arguments suggest surface acting to be negatively and deep acting to be positively related to performance outcomes, especially emotional performance and customer satisfaction.

Enhancement vs. impairment of social interactions. With his social interaction model of emotional labor, Côté (2005) drew attention to interpersonal processes that may explain how emotional labor relates to well-being. Côté’s model builds upon a transactions framework (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987), taking both interaction partners, i.e. the employee and the customer, into account. The model suggests that the employee’s emotional display is appraised by the customer who in turn responds accordingly and thereby re-affects the employee and his or her emotional and psychological state of health. As mentioned earlier, interaction partners are able to differentiate between authentic and inauthentic emotional displays (Grandey et al., 2005a), and they react more unfavorably to inauthentic compared to authentic displays of emotions (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Surface acting involves inauthentic emotional displays and thereby hinders positive interactions and evokes negative reactions from interaction partners. These negative reactions, for instance anger, disappointment, or disrespect, are stressors that re-affect the employee and impair his or her well-being.

In contrast to surface acting, amplifying positive emotions through deep acting should result in favorable responses by the interaction partner (Coté, 2005). As clients or customers perceive authentic emotional displays, they respond favorably and express positive emotions towards the employee. The result is an overall positive, satisfying interaction between employees and clients that is experienced as rewarding and provides the employee with a feeling of efficacy and personal accomplishment (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002). According to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), experiencing rewarding social relationships at work is a resource that serves as a buffer against stress and enhances favorable job attitudes. These lines of arguments suggest surface acting to be negatively and deep acting to be positively related to well-being.



The power of positive and negative emotions. Surface acting alters the facial and bodily expression while leaving the felt emotion intact. The individual therefore still feels the original inner emotion that is only suppressed and disguised by a faked outer expression. As emotional labor usually involves the suppression of negative emotions, the individual will continue to experience this very negative emotion which remains unresolved beneath the masked face and thus continuing to negatively affect the individual and his or her psychological well-being (Gross & John, 2003).

In contrast, deep acting truly alters the inner emotional state and turns the negative emotion into a positive one. This makes the individual actually experience positive emotions which should lead to further increases of positive affect and happiness. In her broaden-and-build theory, Fredrickson (1998) posited that positive emotions are not only pleasurable in the present, but that they trigger upward spirals, thereby leading to higher future levels of well-being (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Positive emotions create a positive mind-set, broaden attention and cognition and thereby build up personal resources and coping mechanisms (Fredrickson, 1998; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Having a positive look on unpleasant events and finding benefits in adverse circumstances has been shown to predict decreases in distress even after such tragic events as losing a family member (Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998). Following these lines of arguments, actively inducing positive emotions in oneself by means of deep acting can thus buffer employees against stress induced by emotional job demands.

Summing up, surface acting depletes mental resources, compromises employee’s sense of authenticity, leads to unpleasant social relationships with customers and to a prolonged experience of negative emotions. These four mechanisms are the key reasons to expect a negative relationship between surface acting and well-being. In our meta-analysis we will differentiate between two distinct aspects of well-being, namely more general indicators of personal ill-being and job-related aspects of well-being. Addressing personal aspects of ill-being, we will consider various indicators that have been investigated in primary studies into emotional labor and that tab different aspects of the construct: The burnout facets of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment; psychological strain; and psychosomatic complaints.

Hypothesis 1: Surface acting displays a positive relationship with indicators of personal ill-being, i.e. (a) emotional exhaustion (b) depersonalization, (c) lack of personal accomplishment, (d) psychological strain, and (e) psychosomatic complaints.

Furthermore, we consider job-related aspects of well-being, specifically job satisfaction, and organizational attachment. Job satisfaction describes the extent to which employees evaluate their job and job situation in a positive or negative way (Weiss, 2002) while organizational attachment refers to an employee’s psychological and behavioral involvement in and identification with an organization (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). Organizational attachment subsumes organizational commitment and intentions to stay with the organization (Gonzales & Denisi, 2009). Job satisfaction and organizational attachment reflect the degree to which individuals feel that their jobs and organizations allow them to satisfy their needs and act in accordance with their values (Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) suggests that affective experiences at work influence employees’ evaluative judgments about their jobs. Indeed, research has shown that the experience of positive and negative emotions at work is related to employees’ overall job satisfaction (Fisher, 2002). The mechanisms discussed above suggest that surface acting is a source of negative affective events at work in that it depletes employees’ mental resources, undermines their sense of authenticity, promotes the experience of negative emotions, and hinders the creation of rewarding social relationships. The repeated experience of negative events at work impedes the satisfaction of employees’ needs and may thereby negatively affect their job satisfaction and organizational attachment.

Hypothesis 2: Surface acting displays a negative relationship with indicators of job-related well-being, i.e. (a) job satisfaction and (b) organizational attachment.

Regarding deep acting, the picture is more complex. On the one hand, deep acting is an effortful regulatory process that involves mental effort and drains cognitive resources (although possibly to a lower extent than surface acting). Building upon Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources model, one could argue that deep acting results in a resource loss and could therefore be expected to be positively related to indicators of personal ill-being, such as emotional exhaustion and psychological strain. Yet, on the other hand, deep acting helps creating rewarding social interactions with customers. Furthermore in the case of positive display rules, individuals engaging in deep acting elicit and actually experience positive emotions. These two mechanisms should help building up and restoring resources. Deep acting thus involves opponent processes leading to a resource loss and gain at the same time resulting in no net gain or loss (cf. Grandey, 2003; Hülsheger, Lang, & Maier, 2010; Martínez-Iñigo et al., 2007). In consequence, we do not hypothesize to find a relationship between deep acting and indicators of personal ill-being or job-related well-being. Yet, for exploratory reasons, we will analyze these relationships meta-analytically.

With regard to performance outcomes, arguments presented above suggest a negative link with surface acting. First, surface acting depletes mental resources which are lacking for the execution of other job-related tasks and may thereby impair employees’ task performance (Sideman Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Zyphur et al., 2007). Second, surface acting involves inauthentic emotional displays which elicit less positive reactions from interaction partners than authentic emotional displays (Frank et al., 1993; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Surface acting thereby impairs employees’ emotional performance and disturbs the employee-customer rapport which is central to customer satisfaction (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Third, surface acting may negatively affect performance, especially task performance, by impairing job-related well-being, specifically job attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment which have previously been shown to be related to job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Riketta, 2002; Riketta, 2008).

Hypothesis 3: Surface acting displays a negative relationship with performance outcomes, i.e. (a) task performance, (b) emotional performance, and (c) customer satisfaction.

In contrast to surface acting, deep acting yields authentic emotional displays which should facilitate social interactions and benefit performance. Displaying authentic emotions helps employees to convey important social information to customers and to influence their behavior and attitudes (van Kleef, 2009; Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Research has shown that displaying authentic positive emotions in customer service interactions elicits favorable reactions from customers, helps establishing a strong employee-customer rapport and favors positive customer evaluations (Grandey et al., 2005; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). We therefore expect deep acting to be positively related to performance outcomes, especially emotional performance and customer satisfaction. Since affective delivery is a central component of task performance in most jobs involving interactions with clients and customers we also expect deep acting to be positively related to task performance.

Hypothesis 4: Deep acting displays a positive relationship with performance outcomes, i.e. (a) task performance, (b) emotional performance, and (c) customer satisfaction.




Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page