Emotional Labour and Occupational Stress in Multicultural Cabin Crew

Introduction: Emotional Display and Cultural Complexity in Aviation

The practice of exhibiting emotions while working in a position for which one receives compensation is not conceptually new. Workers have long understood that projecting a friendly or upbeat attitude can foster positive work outcomes, such as larger tips, commendations from superiors, and repeat business. What is conceptually new is the practice of requiring employees to display particular emotions as part of their performance evaluation and employment contracts. Moreover, defining the preferred emotions and articulating them to employees is not as straightforward as one might imagine.

Wide cultural differences exist with respect to emotional display, interpersonal space during communication, showing deference, and similar behavioural norms. Employees from different cultural backgrounds are likely to interpret the attitudinal recommendations of their common employer in distinct ways. This means that employee training and performance evaluation must necessarily adopt a multicultural orientation. Certain industries and sectors encounter these complexities more than others. The airline sector, in particular, faces multicultural challenges across several dimensions. Airline customers originate from anywhere across the globe, and international carriers must specialize to the extent that customers from several distinct regions or nations are well and comfortably served. Indeed, employees may represent widely different cultures in order to provide culturally sensitive services.

In addition to the multicultural dimensions of the airline business, the nature of airline work—moving masses of people safely and efficiently to destinations around the world on a daily basis—can be quite stressful. Stress is a given for many types of airline employees and certainly is omnipresent for cabin crew, or flight attendants. This paper identifies and discusses sources of occupational stress and emotional labour, examines the relationship between cultural perspective and organization-caused stress, and provides strategic tactics and ideas for addressing the managerial and organizational issues raised by these variables.

Occupational Stress: Sources and Manifestations in Cabin Crew

Occupational stress is fairly well understood, as it has been extensively researched and reported in the literature, and popular periodicals commonly provide articles interpreting scientific research about occupational and life stressors. The phenomenon referred to as emotional labour, however, may be less broadly understood, particularly because it has achieved distinction as a behavioural requirement for specific types of compensated labour. Strazdins (2000) argues that emotional labour is to some degree present in any interaction, suggesting a continuum of emotional labour as an aspect of daily affairs. According to Al-Serkal (2006), the term "emotional labour" was coined by Hochschild in 1983 in The Managed Heart. Because Hochschild's definition is seminal, economical, and broadly applicable, it is worth noting her formulation: "the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display; emotional labour is sold for a wage and therefore has exchange value" (Al-Serkal, 2006: 18; Hochschild, 1983: 7).

The assumption underlying contemporary discussion of emotional labour in the workplace is that when an employee must behave in a certain way—acting as if they are experiencing a particular feeling—while actually feeling to some degree in a different way, it generates internal stress. This discrepancy, termed emotional dissonance, carries real psychological costs.

Kinman (2009) explored the relationship between emotional labour and three strain outcomes: job satisfaction, psychological distress, and work-life conflict. The findings indicate that emotional labour in which service sector workers (flight attendants and call center representatives) engage "may have negative implications for their wellbeing that extend beyond the work context" (Kinman, 2009: 128). Moreover, the research outcomes suggest that the mode of delivery of emotional labour—whether face-to-face or voice-to-voice—may also predict work-related strain. Importantly, independent of the mode of delivery, employees experiencing "greater dissonance" between the emotions they expressed and the emotions they felt when interacting with customers reported higher levels of psychological distress (Kinman, 2009: 130).

Grandey (2003) distinguishes two forms of emotional labour, or acting "as if" one is experiencing a particular emotion on the job: surface acting and deep acting. According to Grandey, surface acting occurs when an employee presents a particular facial expression without modifying inner feelings, while deep acting occurs when an employee actually manages to modify their inner feelings. Taking a dramaturgical perspective, Grandey argued that emotional labour is fundamentally a performance dictated by the organization. As such, employee performance can be critiqued or rated. Grandey found that while surface acting did not necessarily result in high delivery ratings to the extent that deep acting did, deep acting was not related to stress, whereas surface acting was experienced as stressful by employees. This distinction is crucial: organizations that encourage deep acting—genuine emotional engagement—see both better service outcomes and reduced employee stress.

Brotheridge and Taylor (2006) reported that cross-cultural differences have been observed with respect to emotional labour in flight attendants working multicultural flights. While no differences were observed in flight attendants' faking emotions, there were significant differences in the degree to which they hid their feelings and employed deep acting. Interestingly, deep acting was associated with both vertical and horizontal collectivism (Brotheridge & Taylor, 2006). This finding suggests that cultural orientation fundamentally shapes how employees approach emotional labour requirements.

Circadian rhythm disruption is a well-researched source of stress for airline employees. Although much research has focused on pilots and air-traffic control personnel, some researchers have examined the impact on flight attendants or cabin crew members. Grajewski et al. (2003) found that, as measured by overnight melatonin rates, female flight attendants experienced misalignment of their circadian rhythms and sleep-wake cycle that is likely to be a "chronic occupational condition," and that simply resting after each duty period is insufficient for realignment. As a result, female flight attendants face assured sleep deprivation and may experience concomitant reproductive health problems. Fatigue, reduced alertness, and commission of errors are likely sources of occupational stress for cabin crew members and create safety implications for entire flight operations.

Hahn (2000) found that locus of control—the degree to which individuals believe they control events in their lives—impacts stress levels in low-level service workers and prompts differences in reactivity to workplace stress. Hahn (2000) identified four stress-producing paths associated with locus of control: coping choice, coping effectiveness, exposure, and reactions. When grouped according to their tendency to internalize versus externalize reactions, internals were angrier and had more health-related symptoms when they experienced low locus of control, whereas externals experienced more depression under the same conditions. Hahn argued that this effect was likely related to the different patterns of coping strategies evidenced by the two groups. This finding indicates that one-size-fits-all stress management interventions may be ineffective for employees with different locus-of-control orientations.

Sonnentag and Natter (2004) studied the work recovery patterns of flight attendants in their home towns and when far from home to determine the relationship between these patterns and crew wellbeing. Recovering from job stress is "particularly problematic" for flight attendants, as their jobs require them to adapt quickly to and function effectively in different time zones, continuously practice emotion work, and cope with high levels of physical work and critical discernment while sleep deprived (Sonnentag & Natter, 2004: 367). Moreover, opportunities to recover are marked by an inability to "maintain a regular private life," such that crew members must often spend their off-work recovery time far from home.

Notably, when spending recovery time in hotels far from home, flight attendants spent less time on job-related tasks and did not engage in household or childcare activities. However, when flight attendants did spend time on job-related tasks during their hotel recovery times, they found it harder to disengage with their work, experienced "marginally lower levels of vigour and higher levels of fatigue at bedtime" (Sonnentag & Natter, 2004: 386). Overall, Sonnentag and Natter (2004) found that flight attendants' recovery while overnighting in hotels tended to be of better quality than when recovery took place at home—with one critical exception. When flight attendants engaged in social activities while off-work and away from home, their recovery suffered and they tended to experience depression at bedtime in the evening of the days in which they engaged in social activities while traveling (Sonnentag & Natter, 2004: 386).

Sonnentag and Natter (2004) suggest this is an artefact of the need for flight attendants to continuously engage in emotional labour while working. When off-duty, social activities demand renewed emotional performance, preventing true psychological disengagement from work. Thus, the sources of occupationally caused stress identified and discussed include: (1) emotional labour, (2) locus of control issues, (3) sleep deprivation and circadian rhythm disruption, and (4) patterns and practices of work recovery.

Shavitt, Torelli, and Riemer (2012) explored the relationship between cultural type and psychological processes. The dimensions of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism have implications for the way employees perceive certain work demands. These dimensions are related to employee conformity to employer demands and responsiveness to new management strategies. This relationship is comprehensively outlined in the Curley and Royle (2013) case study on organizational changes at Aer Lingus, where management restructuring encountered employee resistance grounded partly in different cultural values regarding work, autonomy, and organizational loyalty.

Prior to discussing cultural perspectives on emotional labour and occupational stressors, it is worthwhile to consider the fundamentals of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism as they relate to psychological processes. Societies characterized as horizontal are understood to value equality, while societies characterized as vertical are believed to emphasize hierarchy (Shavitt et al., 2012). Cultures that are located on the same planes with respect to individualism or collectivism differ in important ways, particularly along the horizontal-vertical distinction.

Cultural Perspectives: Individualism, Collectivism, and Workplace Perception

American, British, Danish, and Swedish cultures can all be said to represent individualism. However, upon closer inspection, the American or British version of individualism is quite different from that of Danish or Swedish individualism (Shavitt et al., 2012). Cultures or societies that promote the importance of individual status—with citizens distinguishing themselves in substantive ways—include Great Britain, France, and the United States. In these countries, people tend to be fairly focused on standing out in terms of achievement, competition, or power. This is vertical individualism (VI).

In contrast, countries such as Australia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have developed societies that embrace horizontal-individualist (HI) culture, in which people consider themselves to be equals. They do not seek or simply eschew status differentiation, preferring to be seen as unique and yet still an important member of the group who is fully capable of being self-reliant. The airline flight attendants who most closely resemble individuals in these categorical groups are long-term employees who have stood firm on principles of professionalism and pride in service.

Although individualist societies share a focus on self-reliance, independence, and personal achievement, Scandinavians and Australians (HI societies) show aversion to conspicuously successful persons and to self-promotion, emphasizing instead the virtues of modesty. In contrast, people in the U.S. (VI) have been shown to aspire to distinction, achievement, success, and being or having "the best." In the U.S., "success is communicated, shared and displayed because it is natural to show off" (de Mooij, 1998: 195).

In vertical-collectivist societies or cultural contexts (VC; for example, Korea, Japan, India), people focus on complying with authorities and on enhancing the cohesion and status of their in-groups, even when that entails sacrificing their own personal goals. In horizontal-collectivist societies or cultural contexts (HC; exemplified historically by the Israeli kibbutz), the focus is on sociability and interdependence with others within an egalitarian framework.

Although collectivists share an interdependent worldview, Koreans and other East Asians (VC) emphasize deference to authority and preservation of harmony in the context of hierarchical relations with others. Indeed, the status of one's family and other key in-groups establishes one's individual social standing in VC cultures. In contrast, in the Israeli kibbutz (HC), the emphasis is neither on harmony nor status. Instead, honesty, directness, and cooperation are valued within a framework of assumed equality (Gannon, 2001; Kurman & Sriram, 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).

The finding that deep acting is associated with both horizontal and vertical collectivism (Brotheridge & Taylor, 2006; Shavitt et al., 2012) deserves close examination. Deep acting—the genuine modification of inner feelings to align with organizational emotional display rules—represents an attempt to conform to accepted standards as put forth by the employer. It stands to reason that deep acting is more likely to be practiced by those who want to blend in and not make waves. Employees from collectivist backgrounds may view deep acting as demonstrating group loyalty and harmony, while employees from individualist backgrounds might view it as a way to stand out or demonstrate self-reliance and professional mastery. The critical insight is that the same behaviour (deep acting) may be psychologically motivated and experienced differently across cultural groups.

Understanding the sources of occupational stress and their cultural modulation is necessary but insufficient without explicit managerial response. Organizations must translate evidence into strategy while recognizing the contradictions and complexities of modern airline operations.

The following framework synthesizes the empirical findings with cultural analysis to guide organizational strategy. For each of the four stressor categories identified, the framework specifies the cultural dynamics at play and suggests managerial approaches.

Emotional Labour: The mode and duration of emotional display delivery, and the type of emotional display required—particularly in face-to-face situations—play a major role in the experience of stress. Deep acting is more effective and less stressful than surface acting (Grandey, 2003). However, employee perception of fairness regarding emotional display rules serves as a key moderator of the relationship between emotional labour performance and strain. Substantive participation by employees in establishing organizational display policies enhances their sense of personal control over this aspect of their work and helps reduce perceptions of emotional dissonance when communicating with customers.

Managerial Implications: Toward Culturally Tailored Strategies

Managerially, this suggests several interventions: stress management programs tailored to mode of delivery (face-to-face requiring different support than voice-only); peer support programs and team debriefings that allow healthy emotional catharsis; and critically, participatory policy-setting in which crew members from different cultural backgrounds contribute to defining emotional display expectations. Different types of training and interventions are needed due to the heterogeneity of the workforce.

Locus of Control: Coping strategies differ for externals and internals, which is related to their different patterns of reactivity (Hahn, 2000). Some employees attribute outcomes to their own efforts and choices (internals), while others attribute outcomes to external forces beyond their control (externals). These groups respond to stress differently and require different support structures. Interventions designed for internals—emphasizing personal agency and control—may increase distress for externals, who may benefit more from peer support and clear external structure.

Sleep Deprivation and Circadian Rhythm Disruption: This stressor presents unique challenges because it is physiologically rooted rather than psychologically or culturally mediated. Americans are notably unlikely to make systemic adjustments regarding this problem, despite evidence that "Americans are a nation of tired workers" and that "indirect costs resulting in stress-related, reduced workplace productivity were estimated at US$150 billion" (Grajewski et al., 2003). However, some international carriers based in Europe have experimented with roster modifications, fatigue risk-management systems, and crew rest protocols. These structural interventions must be prioritized as they address a non-negotiable occupational hazard.

Work Recovery Patterns and Practices: Study participants in Sonnentag and Natter (2004) were employed by German, Austrian, or Swiss airlines. Most participants did not have children, and 38% lived alone. The activities in which participants engaged and how they subjectively felt about those activities are core to recovery and wellbeing. Physical activities, sports, and exercise had positive impacts on vigour, depression, and wellbeing. However, social activities need to support recovery and not be demanding; social support and rewarding personal relationships can counter social withdrawal during off-work time.

This finding has profound cultural implications. Employees from individualist societies may prioritize solo recovery activities (exercise, solitude, personal projects), while employees from collectivist societies may find that solitary recovery is itself stressful and may prefer group activities. However, the Sonnentag and Natter (2004) finding that social activities away from home led to depression suggests that the type of social activity matters. Non-work-related social interaction that does not demand emotional labour appears critical. Organizations might facilitate crew access to cultural and social groups during layovers, particularly for international employees far from home, ensuring these activities genuinely support recovery rather than creating further demands.

It is important not to underestimate human agency, which is characterized by intentionality and choice. Attempts to control worker identity are precarious and presumptuous due to pluralistic, fluid, complex, and contradictory identities within constraining or sustaining social contexts (Curley & Royle, 2013). Organizations must therefore recognize the contradiction inherent in intensifying work loads, following cost-cutting strategies, while simultaneously advertising increased service quality and driving up customer expectations. Training tailored to the strengths of employees can maintain a degree of skilled emotional labour, encourage professionalism, and support cabin crew autonomy.

The critical managerial insight is that standardized policies and interventions are likely to fail. A stress management program designed for crew socialization from vertical-individualist (American) backgrounds may alienate crew from horizontal-collectivist (Israeli kibbutz-influenced) backgrounds. A performance evaluation system emphasizing individual achievement and visible success may demoralize Scandinavian crew who value modesty and equality. Conversely, policies that emphasize hierarchy and deference may be perceived as unfairly limiting autonomy by crew from egalitarian backgrounds.

Rather than imposing uniform policies, organizations should establish participatory mechanisms through which crew of different cultural backgrounds contribute to defining stress-management strategies, emotional labour expectations, and recovery support. This approach simultaneously addresses the theoretical finding (participation reduces emotional dissonance) and the practical reality (crew diversity demands plural approaches).

Conclusion: Integration and Organizational Viability

Managing occupational stress and emotional labour in multicultural cabin crew populations requires strategic integration of evidence-based interventions with cultural sensitivity. The four stressor categories—emotional labour, locus of control, circadian rhythm disruption, and work recovery patterns—are not equally malleable. Circadian rhythm disruption, rooted in biology, demands structural (roster) and physiological (fatigue management) interventions. The other three stressors are substantially mediated by individual differences, coping strategies, and cultural orientation.