cultures that valued advancing the mission of the organization and viewed anger as one of the tools to do this. In two settings, however, anger norms differed from our original expectations and did not reflect either extreme. Consequently, these two work units suggested a third theoretical grouping in which anger is expressed contingently. These work units generally viewed anger as inappropriate or damaging but allowed exceptions. Anger expressed in front of those that the work unit serves (e.g., patients, clients, customers) was viewed as inappropriate, whereas anger expressed in an effort to promote the goals of the organization was more likely to be viewed as appropriate.
The sources of anger norms were varied. Both social work units and the coaches reported elements of occupational socialization. This occurred because each member of the work unit had the same occupation so previous training was easily carried into the current work place. The differences between the two hospital social work departments indicated this variance had come from national culture. The nursing home and the labor union both had strong organizational socialization processes. The nursing home transmitted clear rules in formal training of new hires. The labor union used an acculturation process of sharing stories of past successes. Finally, in the hospital surgical center a variety of occupations were represented and the organization did not communicate anger norms to employees. As a result, employees in the hospital surgical center drew upon norms from their previous experiences including those from their childhood, to guide their anger expression.
Anger Episode Outcomes. -- MDS Results.
Our respondents provided copious information about the outcomes of the anger episodes they witnessed or participated in. As noted in the methods section, we used open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) to code their descriptions of the various outcomes and then used MDS to see if there were patterns in the data. For the MDS, the solution with the smallest STRESS criterion (Kruskal 1964) was a two- dimensional solution with STRESS of 0.2. This solution revealed four distinct groups of outcomes. (See Figure 1.) The horizontal dimension in Figure 1 conveys the valence of the outcomes and corresponds to past research on anger outcomes that distinguishes positive and negative outcomes (Averill, 1982, Glomb