Based on a three-year inductive field study of an attempt at radical change in a large firm, I show how middle managers displayed two seemingly opposing emotion-management patterns that facilitated beneficial adaptation for their work groups: (1) emotionally committing to personally championed change projects and (2) attending to recipients' emotions. Low emotional commitment to change led to organizational inertia, whereas high commitment to change with little attending to recipients' emotions led to chaos. The enactment of both patterns constituted emotional balancing and facilitated organizational adaptation: change, continuity in providing quality in customer service, and developing new knowledge and skills.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1,098 citations exist upstream.