How Do Leaders' Interpersonal Emotion Management Strategies Break the Self-Maintaining Effect of Employee Venting? A Venter-Recipient Interaction Perspective

Zhang Shengjun¹, Zhou Jianjun¹, Wan Guoguang², Liu Fangzhou³, Long Lirong³, Pang Xuhong¹

¹ School of Business, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200433, China
² School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China
³ School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

Abstract

Employee venting to leaders is a prevalent phenomenon in workplaces, representing a daily management challenge that leaders must confront. Previous venting literature has primarily adopted a single perspective of either the venter or the recipient, examining how employee venting to leaders affects leaders and employees themselves. Drawing on cognitive neoassociation theory and interpersonal emotion management literature, this paper explains why venting to leaders produces a self-maintaining effect: employees' venting to leaders on a given day intensifies their anger that day, which subsequently leads them to continue venting to leaders the next day. Simultaneously, adopting a venter-recipient interaction perspective, this paper investigates what interpersonal emotion management strategies leaders can employ after receiving employee venting to effectively break this self-maintaining effect. Focusing on daily dyadic interactions between subordinates (venters) and leaders (recipients), this study used a time-based experience sampling method to collect data across 10 workdays. Data from 1032 matched observations of 60 leaders and their 119 subordinates revealed that at the within-person level, employees' venting to leaders on a given day enhanced their anger that day, which in turn prompted them to continue venting to leaders the next day, producing a self-maintaining effect. When leaders adopted situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies following employee venting, this self-maintaining effect was broken, whereas leaders' use of attentional deployment and response modulation strategies proved ineffective.

Keywords: venting, anger, interpersonal emotion management strategies, self-maintaining effect

Classification Codes: B849 C933

Venting—defined as employees expressing negative emotions or feelings about someone or something to others in the workplace (i.e., "venting refers to an emotion-focused coping strategy where individuals discharge their negative feelings by expressing them to others"; Rosen et al., 2021, p. 176)—is prevalent in today's Chinese workplace (Liu et al., 2024). Traditional venting theory advocates the so-called "venting myth," suggesting that venting helps people release dissatisfaction and alleviate negative emotions, and that venting will eventually diminish on its own (Breuer & Freud, 1957; Parlamis, 2012). This proposition has profoundly influenced both practice and academia. In practice, many organizations invest substantial resources to encourage employee venting (including to leaders) as a management tool to relieve employee stress (Zhan et al., 2020). Venting recipients can be either colleagues or leaders (Brown et al., 2005), and recent academic attention has gradually shifted from venting to colleagues to venting to leaders. Unlike venting to colleagues, employees venting to leaders often expect substantive problem resolution, stemming from leaders' authority and problem-solving capabilities (Liu et al., 2024). These studies have primarily focused on impacts on the venting recipient (the leader), such as how employee venting to leaders generates various types of negative effects for leaders, producing general (Rosen et al., 2021) and specific (Gabriel et al., 2025) negative emotions, causing ego depletion (Liu et al., 2024), and ultimately resulting in destructive leadership behaviors (Liu et al., 2024; Rosen et al., 2021).

Although many believe venting releases inner pressure and reduces emotional distress, current academic literature has not systematically examined the effects of employee venting to leaders on employees themselves, particularly given that leaders are important organizational figures with power and resources, making the impact of venting to them especially worthy of in-depth investigation. Moreover, the emergence of social phenomena contradicting the "venting myth" prompts us to reconsider whether venting achieves its intended effects. For instance, Watkins' (2008) research on repetitive negative thinking indicates that repeatedly focusing on distress symptoms produces destructive consequences and emotional distress. This finding suggests venting behavior may create negative cycles. Real-world cases also merit attention. For example, an employee at a Beijing company who vented to their leader not only failed to obtain emotional relief but instead experienced emotional deterioration and behavioral escalation. Such cases, though scattered, are illuminating, suggesting that venting to leaders may not always produce the self-diminishing effect predicted by the "venting myth," but may instead exhibit a self-maintaining effect. Verifying and explaining the self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders will not only help recognize the "other side of the coin" regarding venting's impact on venters themselves but also deepen understanding of venting's potential negative effects and help organizations re-examine the rationality of using venting as a management tool.

Unfortunately, existing literature has not adequately attended to the self-maintaining phenomenon of venting to leaders. Therefore, this study proposes its first core question: Does and why does employee venting to leaders produce a self-maintaining effect? Furthermore, leaders have special roles in organizations—they have both the capability and responsibility to assist employees in solving problems. One important expectation employees have when venting to leaders is to obtain leaders' help, which raises this study's second core question: Faced with employee venting, what measures can leaders take to break the self-maintaining effect of employee venting to leaders? Since existing research treats leaders as passive venting recipients (Liu et al., 2024; Rosen et al., 2021) while neglecting their potential to proactively implement interpersonal influence during interactions with employees, current literature cannot answer this research question.

In view of this, this study adopts a venter (employee)—recipient (leader) interaction perspective, combining cognitive neoassociation theory (Berkowitz, 2012) and interpersonal emotion management literature (Williams, 2007) to answer these two important research questions. First, by introducing cognitive neoassociation theory, this study reveals the underlying psychological mechanism of the self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders: employees' venting to leaders on a given workday enhances their anger that day, which subsequently prompts them to continue venting to leaders on the next workday. Second, by integrating interpersonal emotion management literature and adopting a venter-recipient interaction perspective, this study proposes that leaders can break the self-maintaining effect of employee venting by implementing appropriate interpersonal emotion management strategies. Specifically, when leaders adopt situation modification strategies after receiving subordinate venting, they can more effectively break the self-maintaining effect, whereas attentional deployment and response modulation strategies prove ineffective. This study's research model is shown in Figure 1 [FIGURE:1].

1.1 Employee Venting to Leaders and Employees' Same-Day Anger

In organizational contexts, due to inherent power differences between superiors and subordinates and considerations for maintaining leader authority, venting to leaders is often perceived as an intense, reckless, and less constructive behavior (Rosen et al., 2021). However, it is worth noting that employee venting to leaders has special functional significance: it makes leaders—who possess resources and have a responsibility to help—aware of the difficulties employees face. To accurately understand the conceptual connotation of workplace venting, it is necessary to distinguish it from similar concepts. First, although venting is sometimes viewed as "emotional voice" (Geddes & Callister, 2007, p. 729), it is fundamentally different from voice behavior. Voice behavior, regardless of type, is generally constructive in content and less intense in form than venting. Second, while both venting and "tucao" (complaining) involve expressing dissatisfaction and grievances, "tucao" also contains elements of teasing and jesting (Wang & Wang, 2023), whereas venting is purely negative emotional expression without such lighthearted elements.

Anger is a typical specific negative emotion that usually stems from people's displeasure or dissatisfaction with a situation, event, or others' behavior (Lazarus, 1991). Traditional views suggest that anger is mainly triggered by external stimuli, particularly intentional external events that hinder a person's goal achievement (Deffenbacher, 1993; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Rees & Friedman, 2025; Parlamis et al., 2010). However, cognitive neoassociation theory offers a different explanation for anger generation. This theory posits that anger is influenced not only by external events experienced by individuals but also by the activation of aggression-related cognitive networks (Berkowitz, 2012). The theory suggests that aggression-related thoughts, emotions, cognitions, and behaviors form an interconnected network system in memory. When individuals exhibit hostile behavior, it activates this complex network of aggressive thoughts, emotions, impulses, and behaviors (Berkowitz, 1990; Yang et al., 2011). Cognitive neoassociation theory partially supplements traditional research on anger generation and provides a theoretical foundation for explaining why employee venting to leaders enhances rather than reduces employees' own anger. Existing research indicates that both venting to leaders (Rosen et al., 2021) and anger (Niven et al., 2022) have considerable within-person day-level variance. Therefore, this study attempts to explain why employee venting to leaders increases their same-day anger at the within-person level.

Compared to workdays with lower levels of venting to leaders, workdays with higher levels are often accompanied by further rumination and cognitive processing of negative events and adverse situations (Berkowitz, 2012). According to cognitive neoassociation theory, when people cognitively process and ruminate on hostile situations, it makes these experiences more vivid in their minds (Bushman, 2002), further activating aggressive emotions—anger (Berkowitz, 2012). This means that higher levels of venting to leaders may lead employees to experience more intense anger on the same day. Related empirical research provides indirect support for this argument. For example, Baer et al. (2018) found that when people talk about injustice, it triggers higher levels of anger. Martin and Dahlen (2005) and Bushman (2002) also found that rumination and talking about adverse experiences lead to higher levels of anger. Therefore, this study proposes:

Hypothesis 1: At the within-person level, employees' same-day venting to leaders is positively related to their same-day anger.

1.2 Employees' Same-Day Anger and Next-Day Venting to Leaders

Specific types of emotions are accompanied by dominant behavioral tendencies that ultimately drive people to perform specific behaviors (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman et al., 1994). Anger prompts people to take further action to remove or resolve, rather than avoid, adverse situations that cause them harm (Oh & Farh, 2017; Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). In an organization, direct leaders not only have sufficient resources and legitimate power (Wilson et al., 2010) to help employees solve the adverse situations they encounter, but helping subordinates solve problems is also an important responsibility and requirement of the leader's role (Yukl, 2012; Zaccaro et al., 2001). Therefore, if employees experience higher anger on a given workday, they are more likely to continue venting to leaders on the next workday, hoping to gain leaders' attention and help. Conversely, on workdays with lower anger, employees are relatively less likely to vent to leaders on the next workday. Therefore, this study proposes:

Hypothesis 2: At the within-person level, employees' same-day anger is positively related to their next-day venting to leaders.

According to cognitive neoassociation theory, aggressive behavior activates aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behavioral tendencies. This activation not only makes anger more active but also increases the likelihood of individuals making further aggressive responses (Bushman, 2002). Based on this, this study predicts that when employees vent to leaders on a given workday, they often experience anger on that workday, and this anger drives them to continue venting to leaders on the next workday, ultimately presenting a self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders. Therefore, this study proposes:

Hypothesis 3: At the within-person level, employees' same-day anger mediates the relationship between their same-day venting to leaders and next-day venting to leaders.

1.3 The Moderating Role of Leaders' Interpersonal Emotion Management Strategies

Cognitive neoassociation theory points out that people can manage, suppress, enhance, and change their anger generation through emotion management—defined as "the process by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions" (Gross, 1998, p. 275) (Berkowitz, 1993, 2012). Recently, emotion management research has expanded from self-emotion management to interpersonal emotion management (Niven et al., 2009; Williams, 2007; Zou et al., 2022, 2024). Little et al. (2012) categorized interpersonal emotion management strategies toward others into four types. The first is situation modification, which refers to actors improving the target's situation by removing factors causing negative emotions. The second is cognitive change, which refers to actors guiding targets to reinterpret or view situations more positively, ultimately reducing the harm external situations cause to targets. The third is attentional deployment, which refers to actors helping targets shift attention away from adverse experiences. The fourth is response modulation, which refers to actors attempting to directly suppress targets' negative emotions. Compared to the latter three strategies, situation modification is the most thorough and direct problem-solving strategy because it directly removes factors causing negative emotions for targets (Lazarus, 1993; Little et al., 2012; Little et al., 2013). Research indicates that interpersonal emotion management strategies also have considerable within-person day-level variance (Liu et al., 2021). In interpersonal processes, listeners or recipients shape how people evaluate stressful events and ultimately affect the intensity of specific emotions (Burleson, 2008; Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998). Since venting is employees' expression of negative emotions about adverse situations at work to leaders, this study focuses on leaders' interpersonal emotion management strategies after receiving subordinates' venting. Combining cognitive neoassociation theory and interpersonal emotion management literature, this study establishes a venter-recipient interaction perspective to discuss how leaders' interpersonal emotion management strategies affect the self-maintaining effect of employee venting to leaders. This study argues that when subordinates vent to leaders, leaders' different interpersonal emotion management strategies as recipients will have different effects on the intensity of employees' anger after venting. In other words, this study discusses which interpersonal emotion management strategies are more effective in alleviating the self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders.

Employee venting to leaders is often viewed as a relatively extreme and reckless behavior. However, this behavior actually reflects two important issues: first, employees encounter problems at work that hinder their goal achievement; second, employees cannot solve these problems through their own abilities. Employees hope that by venting, leaders will become aware of their situation and expect leaders to help them handle work problems (Liu et al., 2024). When employees vent during interactions with leaders on a given workday, if leaders adopt situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies as venting recipients, the work factors causing employees' anger will be thoroughly and directly resolved (Little et al., 2012; Little et al., 2013). At this point, employees' expectations align with leaders' responses (Matta et al., 2024). This alignment makes employees feel respected by the organization and leaders, with their special needs being addressed (Bies & Moag, 1986). It also makes employees feel that the previously troubling work situation will not cause them distress in the future, thereby reducing the negative impact of adverse work experiences on employees (Walumbwa et al., 2010), enhancing employees' perceived controllability of negative situations (Roberts et al., 1994), and making them less likely to dwell on negative situations and information (Liu et al., 2022), thus reducing the likelihood and intensity of anger after venting.

This study focuses on leaders' situation modification strategies in interpersonal emotion management. In contrast, although cognitive change, attentional deployment, and response modulation are also common leader interpersonal emotion management strategies, when employees vent during interactions with leaders on a given workday, leaders' adoption of these strategies makes employees feel that leaders are somewhat evasive and unable to substantively respond to employees' appeals and expectations (Matta et al., 2024). The inconsistency between employee expectations and leader responses makes employees feel undervalued by leaders and the organization (Bies & Moag, 1986) and intensifies employees' distrust of leaders and the organization (Mayer, 1995). In this situation, employees will anticipate that the previously troubling adverse experiences will not disappear but will continue to cause them distress in the future. They will also continue to ruminate and think about negative situations and information (Liu et al., 2022). All these factors mean that leaders' implementation of cognitive change, attentional deployment, or response modulation interpersonal emotion management strategies cannot effectively reduce employees' anger after venting. In other words, this study predicts that leaders' adoption of cognitive change, attentional deployment, or response modulation interpersonal emotion management strategies will not achieve the same effectiveness as situation modification. This argument is supported by Scontrino (1972), who found that when leaders violate group members' expectations about leadership style, employees develop negative attitudes. Van den Akker et al. (2009) also found that inconsistency between leader behavior and employee expectations reduces employees' trust in leaders. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes:

Hypothesis 4: Leaders' same-day use of situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies negatively moderates the within-person relationship between employees' same-day venting to leaders and same-day anger. Specifically, the higher the degree of leaders' situation modification strategies, the weaker the positive within-person relationship between employees' same-day venting to leaders and same-day anger.

In summary, according to cognitive neoassociation theory, when employees vent to leaders on a given workday and leaders adopt situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies, employees experience lower levels of anger, thereby reducing the likelihood of employees venting to leaders on the next workday. In other words, leaders' situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies can effectively break the self-maintaining effect of employee venting to leaders. When leaders adopt cognitive change, attentional deployment, and response modulation strategies, they cannot achieve the same effective results as situation modification. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes:

Hypothesis 5: Leaders' same-day use of situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies negatively moderates the within-person indirect effect of employees' same-day venting to leaders → same-day anger → next-day venting to leaders. Specifically, the higher the degree of leaders' situation modification strategies, the weaker the positive within-person relationship of employees' same-day venting to leaders → same-day anger → next-day venting to leaders.

2.1 Sample and Procedure

This study used an interval-based experience sampling method to collect data. The research sample came from gas stations under a western branch of a petroleum company. After obtaining consent and support from senior company leaders, the research team first recruited middle- and lower-level leaders. Middle- and lower-level leaders had to meet the following conditions to participate: first, they needed to have at least two subordinates; second, they needed to communicate with subordinates in daily work to ensure employees had opportunities to vent to leaders and leaders could conduct interpersonal emotion management during interactions. Ultimately, 60 leaders from 60 gas stations agreed to participate.

This study adopts a venter-recipient interaction perspective. To better match this perspective, this study followed procedures similar to those in related research (Liu et al., 2017). Researchers asked each of the 60 leaders to randomly select 2 employees to participate, resulting in 60 leaders and 120 employees participating in the study. Subsequently, researchers introduced the research purpose and procedures to participating gas station leaders and employees and promised strict confidentiality of all information. After full communication, researchers established WeChat groups with participating leaders and employees to facilitate questionnaire distribution. All questionnaires in this study were distributed through the Wenjuanxing platform. Research assistants sent questionnaire links at specified times, and participants clicked the links to answer and submit questionnaires.

In the first week, leaders and employees needed to complete baseline questionnaires measuring between-person level variables. Employees reported demographic characteristics, trait empathy, and leader-member exchange, while leaders reported demographic characteristics and emotional intelligence. All 120 employees and 60 leaders completed the baseline survey. Subsequently, 120 employees and 60 leaders entered a two-week (10 consecutive workdays) daily survey. To reduce common method bias, daily questionnaires were distributed at four time points each day (Gabriel et al., 2019; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Researchers developed the survey schedule based on the company's actual working hours. Time point 1 measured employees' morning anger, with a response window of 9:00-11:00; time point 2 measured employees' venting to leaders, with a response window of 13:00-15:00; time point 3 measured leaders' interpersonal emotion management strategies toward subordinates—leaders were first asked to write down each participating subordinate's name, then anchor on their interaction process with that subordinate and evaluate their interpersonal emotion management after receiving that subordinate's venting that day, with a response window of 17:00-19:00; time point 4 measured employees' evening anger and emotional relief, with a response window of 21:00-24:00. Employees reported anger, emotional relief, and venting to leaders, while leaders reported interpersonal emotion management strategies toward subordinates. On average, time point 1 questionnaires were completed at approximately 9:42, time point 2 at 13:57, time point 3 at 17:35, and time point 4 at 21:56.

This study needed to match employees' venting to leaders data on day t+1; if day t+1 data were missing, day t data were also excluded. Following best practices for experience sampling method data analysis, this study only retained data from participants who completed three or more days of daily surveys (Gabriel et al., 2019). After data matching, one employee was excluded for having fewer than three days of retained data. The final sample consisted of 1032 observations from 119 employees and 60 leaders (averaging 8.67 observations per employee).

The demographic distribution of the 119 employees was as follows: age—18.49% under 30, 39.50% aged 30-40 (excluding 40), 37.82% aged 40-50 (excluding 50), and 4.20% aged 50 or above; gender—24.37% male and 75.63% female; tenure—averaged 3.03 years (SD = 1.51 years). Among the 60 leaders, 11.67% were under 30, 46.67% were aged 30-40 (excluding 40), 36.67% were aged 40-50 (excluding 50), and 5.00% were aged 50 or above; 43.33% were male and 56.67% were female, with an average company tenure of 4.68 years (SD = 1.11 years).

2.2 Measures

All original English scales used in this study were translated into Chinese following Brislin's (1986) translation-back-translation procedure and adapted according to within-person level research needs and survey procedures. All scales used 7-point Likert scales.

Venting to leaders. This study used a 3-item scale from Rosen et al. (2021). Participants reported their agreement with each item, including "Today, I expressed anger to my leader about a work-related problem" and "Today, I vented my negative feelings about work to my leader." Within-person α = 0.88, Omega = 0.88. Next-day venting to leaders had within-person α = 0.88, Omega = 0.89.

Employee anger (evening). This study used a 3-item scale from Tangney et al. (1996). Participants reported their agreement with each item, including "Today, I felt angry" and "Today, I felt irritated." Within-person α = 0.94, Omega = 0.94.

Leader interpersonal emotion management. This study used a 20-item scale from Little (2012), including four dimensions: situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation, with five items each. First, leaders needed to complete the questionnaire for each of the two selected employees based on their interpersonal interaction process that day. The questionnaire content concerned leaders' interpersonal emotion management strategies after subordinates expressed negative emotions or experienced distress. Leaders evaluated their agreement with the following statements:

1. Situation modification strategies, including "Today, I tried to change the situation that had negative effects on this subordinate" and "Today, I attempted to remove adverse factors in the situation this subordinate faced," etc. Within-person α = 0.89, Omega = 0.89.

2. Attentional deployment strategies, including "Today, when this subordinate was troubled by a situation, I shifted this subordinate's attention elsewhere" and "Today, I redirected the focus of my conversation with this subordinate back to other aspects that were more interesting to this subordinate," etc. Within-person α = 0.86, Omega = 0.86.

3. Cognitive change strategies, including "Today, when I wanted this subordinate to have more positive emotions, I would have this subordinate view problems more positively" and "Today, I changed how this subordinate viewed their situation, thereby affecting this subordinate's emotions," etc. Within-person α = 0.86, Omega = 0.86.

4. Response modulation strategies, including "Today, when this subordinate experienced negative emotions, I told this subordinate not to display them" and "Today, I encouraged this subordinate not to show their emotions," etc. Within-person α = 0.81, Omega = 0.81.

Control variables. Given that this study emphasizes changes in employees' anger after venter-recipient interactions, this study controlled for employees' morning anger following requirements for experience sampling method research design (Gabriel et al., 2019, p. 986) and similar studies (e.g., Watkins et al., 2023). Morning anger had within-person α = 0.93, Omega = 0.93. Additionally, following best practices for ESM, this study controlled for within-person variable trends and cycles within a week (Gabriel et al., 2019): day of week, sine, and cosine. Day of week refers to the day from Monday to Friday, as questionnaires were only distributed on workdays. Sine and cosine were calculated following Liu and West (2016): sine = sin(2πt/7), cosine = cos(2πt/7), where t represents the day of the week. Meanwhile, literature on the "venting myth" suggests that venting can effectively relieve venters' inner distress and reduce the likelihood of further venting. To control for this alternative explanation, this study controlled for the path from venting to leaders affecting next-day venting to leaders through emotional relief. The emotional relief scale came from Mitchell et al. (2015), a 2-item scale where participants reported their agreement with each item, including "Today, I felt calm" and "Today, I felt peaceful." Within-person α = 0.90, Omega = 0.90.

At the between-person level, this study first controlled for subordinates' trait empathy. Trait empathy refers to an individual's tendency to understand others' experiences and feel sympathy (Davis et al., 1980). High trait empathy enables individuals to better understand others' intentions and enhances their perception and interpretation of others' behavior (Simon et al., 2022), so individuals with different empathy levels may have different reactions and acceptance of leaders' emotion management strategies. The subordinate trait empathy scale came from Davis et al. (1980), a 4-item scale where participants reported their agreement with each item in the baseline survey, including "I feel sympathy for others' painful experiences of being treated unfairly" and "I am deeply moved by others' painful experiences," etc. α = 0.82.

Additionally, this study controlled for leaders' emotional intelligence level. Emotional intelligence generally includes abilities to identify and express one's own emotions, identify and express others' emotions, manage one's own emotions, and use emotions (Law et al., 2004). Emotional intelligence can affect leaders' ability to accurately identify and respond to subordinates' emotional states (Mayer et al., 2008), thus affecting the effectiveness of leaders' emotion management implementation. The leader emotional intelligence scale came from Law et al. (2004), a 4-item scale. This study focused on leaders' ability to identify and assess emotions displayed during subordinates' venting, so it only measured the "ability to identify and assess others' emotions" dimension. Leaders reported their agreement with each item in the baseline survey, including "I have strong ability to observe others' emotions" and "I can keenly understand others' feelings and emotions," etc. α = 0.91.

Since this study mainly adopts a superior-subordinate interaction perspective, the interaction quality between the two parties affects this process. Therefore, this study also controlled for leader-member exchange, a construct that reflects interaction quality between superiors and subordinates. The leader-member exchange scale came from Bauer et al. (1996), an 8-item scale where subordinates reported their agreement with each item in the baseline survey, including "My supervisor and I are on the same wavelength" and "My supervisor understands my work problems and needs," etc. α = 0.93.

2.3 Analysis Strategy

Given that this study uses nested data (within-person nested within between-person), it employed Mplus 8.3 software (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) for multi-level confirmatory factor analysis (multi-level CFA) to test the validity of core variables. Table 1 [TABLE:1] shows that the eight-factor model fit best: χ² = 1626.35, df = 800, χ²/df = 2.03 (< 5), RMSEA = 0.03 (< 0.08), CFI = 0.96 (> 0.9), TLI = 0.95 (> 0.9), within-person SRMR = 0.03 (< 0.08), between-person SRMR = 0.03 (< 0.08).

This study used multi-level path analysis (Preacher et al., 2010) to test hypotheses. First, it needed to calculate within-person variance, between-person variance, and the proportion of within-person variance (Podsakoff et al., 2019), as well as ICC(1) values for within-person variables (Kim et al., 2023). Results are shown in Table 2 [TABLE:2]. ICC(1) results for within-person variables were: venting to leaders ICC(1) = 0.59, F(118, 913) = 12.67, p = 0.00; anger (evening) ICC(1) = 0.65, F(118, 913) = 16.92, p = 0.00; next-day venting to leaders ICC(1) = 0.62, F(118, 913) = 14.27, p = 0.00; situation modification ICC(1) = 0.65, F(118, 913) = 17.14, p = 0.00; attentional deployment ICC(1) = 0.75, F(118, 913) = 27.59, p = 0.00; cognitive change ICC(1) = 0.68, F(118, 913) = 20.16, p = 0.00; response modulation ICC(1) = 0.87, F(118, 913) = 60.01, p = 0.00; morning anger ICC(1) = 0.59, F(118, 913) = 13.40, p = 0.00; emotional relief (evening) ICC(1) = 0.68, F(118, 913) = 19.59, p = 0.00. The proportions of within-person level variance for venting to leaders, anger (evening), next-day venting to leaders, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, response modulation, morning anger, and emotional relief (evening) were 42.80%, 35.57%, 39.61%, 35.83%, 25.00%, 31.76%, 12.87%, 41.18%, and 32.43%, respectively, indicating significant within-person level variance suitable for multi-level path analysis.

2.4 Results

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for variables are shown in Table 3 [TABLE:3]. At the within-person level, venting to leaders had a significant positive correlation with employee anger (evening) (r = 0.18, p < 0.001), and anger (evening) had a significant positive correlation with next-day venting to leaders (r = 0.23, p < 0.001).

Multi-level path analysis results are reported in Table 4 [TABLE:4]. As shown in Model 2 of Table 4, venting to leaders had a significant positive effect on anger (evening) (B = 0.12, SE = 0.02, p = 0.00), supporting Hypothesis 1. As shown in Model 15 of Table 4, anger (evening) had a significant positive effect on next-day venting to leaders (B = 0.27, SE = 0.04, p = 0.00), and the mediating effect of anger (evening) on the relationship between same-day venting to leaders and next-day venting to leaders was significant (B = 0.03, SE = 0.01, p = 0.00). Using R 4.3.1 software, the Monte Carlo method with 20,000 parameter samplings estimated the mediation effect, yielding a 95% confidence interval of [0.02, 0.05], supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3.

This study treated leaders' four interpersonal emotion management strategies in two ways in data analysis: piecewise regression to test each strategy's moderating effect separately, and simultaneous regression to test the moderating effects of all four strategies comprehensively. Results are shown in Models 3 and 5 of Table 4. In piecewise regression, both situation modification (B = –0.13, SE = 0.04, p = 0.00) and cognitive change (B = –0.15, SE = 0.06, p = 0.02) had significant negative moderating effects, indicating that both strategies could alleviate the effect of venting to leaders on anger when used alone. However, considering the complexity of actual management work, leaders likely need to use multiple interpersonal emotion management strategies simultaneously. Therefore, this study simultaneously regressed all four strategies to test leaders' effects when using them comprehensively. Results are shown in Model 7 of Table 4. Only situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies had a significant negative moderating effect on the relationship between venting to leaders and anger (evening) (B = –0.11, SE = 0.05, p = 0.03), indicating that in complex management work, compared to other strategies, the more effective strategy for leaders to reduce employee anger is improving employees' current situation.

The moderating effect and simple slope analysis of situation modification are shown in Figure 2 [FIGURE:2]. When leaders used situation modification strategies to a high degree, the relationship between employee venting and anger (evening) was not significant (slope = –0.01, SE = 0.06, p = 0.86). Conversely, when leaders used situation modification strategies to a low degree, the relationship between venting to leaders and anger (evening) was significantly positive (slope = 0.24, SE = 0.06, p = 0.00). The difference between the two was significant (d = –0.25, SE = 0.11, p = 0.03), supporting Hypothesis 4.

As shown in the moderated mediation analysis results in Table 4, when leaders used situation modification strategies to a low degree, the indirect effect of venting to leaders on next-day venting to leaders through anger (evening) was significantly positive (B = 0.06, SE = 0.02, p = 0.00), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.03, 0.10] that did not include 0. When leaders used situation modification strategies to a high degree, the indirect effect of venting to leaders on next-day venting to leaders through anger (evening) was not significant (B = –0.00, SE = 0.02, p = 0.86), with a 95% confidence interval of [–0.04, 0.03] that included 0. Moreover, the difference between the two was significant (B = –0.07, SE = 0.03, p = 0.03), with a 95% confidence interval of [–0.13, –0.006] that did not include 0. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

As shown in Model 9 of Table 4, venting to leaders had no significant effect on emotional relief (evening) (B = –0.01, SE = 0.02, p = 0.54). As shown in Model 15 of Table 4, emotional relief (evening) had no significant effect on next-day venting to leaders (B = –0.01, SE = 0.04, p = 0.78). As shown in Models 10 and 14 of Table 4, whether used alone or comprehensively, situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies had no significant moderating effect on the relationship between venting to leaders and emotional relief (evening) (used alone: B = –0.02, SE = 0.04, p = 0.58; used comprehensively: B = 0.02, SE = 0.05, p = 0.62).

2.5 Supplementary Experiment and Analysis

To further verify the causal relationship between venting behavior and anger, this study conducted a supplementary experiment and analysis aimed at examining the effect of workplace venting on individual anger through experimental manipulation. Specifically, by simulating workplace problem scenarios in a laboratory setting and controlling for baseline anger levels triggered by events themselves, this study attempted to clarify whether venting behavior affects individuals' anger. This research design not only helps establish causality between venting and anger but also excludes the influence of confounding variables.

2.5.1 Sample and Procedure

Since this study is the first to adopt this manipulation, it assumed a medium effect size, i.e., Cohen's d = 0.5 (Richard et al., 2003). Based on Cohen's d = 0.5, α = 0.05 (two-tailed test), and power = 80%, statistical power analysis indicated that this study needed to recruit 128 participants. This study recruited working adults in China through the Wenjuanxing platform to participate in the experiment, ultimately receiving 134 valid questionnaires, including 68 valid questionnaires in the experimental group and 66 in the control group. Among these 134 participants, 39.55% were male, 94.03% had bachelor's degrees or above, with an average age of 34.46 (SD = 6.13).

Before the experiment formally began, researchers explained the experiment's purpose, procedures, and potential risks to all participants in detail and informed them that they had the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time without any negative consequences. All participants signed informed consent forms. This study was approved by the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Ethics Committee (Approval No.: 2014000268-202501).

The experiment used scenario simulation methods. First, in the first stage of the experiment, each participant needed to read a series of scenario materials about BM Company and imagine they were project management engineers at BM Company. The scenario materials detailed the company background, specific project content, and problems encountered during project execution. Specifically, participants needed to handle challenges such as the R&D department's failure to complete design optimization on time, causing production delays, and quality problems discovered by the production department during trial production requiring rework. In project meetings, department heads blamed participants for poor coordination (see appendix for details). After reading the scenario materials, participants reported their anger at that time to assess baseline anger levels triggered by negative events.

In the second stage of the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group (venting group) or control group. In the experimental group, participants completed the task following these instructions:

"Please imagine you are expressing your emotions and thoughts to your leader. You can completely open up and express your views on the project delay and your negative emotions and thoughts about the R&D and production departments' performance in the project without reservation. Please write at least three specific items to vent your emotions or dissatisfaction."

In the control group, participants completed the task following these instructions:

"Please review the specific work content and project progress in the project. Please write at least three specific tasks or work content, and ensure your writing focuses on objective work descriptions."

This study limited each participant to spending at least 2 minutes completing this task. After task completion, participants needed to report their anger level again.

2.5.2 Measurement Scales

Manipulation check. To assess the effectiveness of the venting manipulation, this study invited three trained undergraduate students as independent raters to code participants' writing content using the workplace venting scale developed by Rosen et al. (2021). Before formal coding, the study authors systematically trained the three raters, explaining the definition of workplace venting in detail, providing the workplace venting scale, and establishing specific coding criteria. Cronbach's α values were 0.98-1. Raters showed high consistency (median rwg = 1, mean rwg = 0.76, ICC[1] = 0.87, F(133, 268) = 20.94, p < 0.001). Therefore, this study used the average rating of the three raters as each participant's venting level indicator. ANOVA results showed that venting levels in the experimental group (M = 6.29, SD = 1.37) were significantly higher than in the control group (M = 1.05, SD = 0.25, F(1, 131) = 3070.39, p < 0.001). Therefore, the venting manipulation was successful.

Anger. The anger measurement scale was consistent with the scale used in the main study. Cronbach's α for anger in the first stage was 0.81, and for the second stage was 0.91.

2.5.3 Hypothesis Testing

This study aimed to examine the effect of workplace venting on anger while controlling for baseline anger levels triggered by negative events (covariate). ANCOVA results showed that, after controlling for baseline anger levels, the venting manipulation had a significant overall effect on anger (F(1,131) = 6.15, p < 0.05). Additionally, comparison of adjusted means indicated that, after controlling for baseline anger levels, the adjusted mean anger level in the experimental group (EM = 5.95, SE = 0.12) was significantly higher than in the control group (EM = 5.52, SE = 0.12), t(131) = 2.53, p = 0.02. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

3.1 Theoretical Contributions

This study makes three important contributions to venting-related literature. First, compared to the self-diminishing effect of emotional venting proposed in existing literature, this study identifies a different path, demonstrating that employee venting to leaders may also produce a self-maintaining effect. Therefore, this study further supplements and enriches existing literature's understanding of what outcomes venting may produce. Specifically, existing research mainly points out the negative effects of employee venting to leaders on leaders themselves. For example, receiving subordinate venting causes leaders to experience threat appraisal, general negative emotions (Rosen et al., 2021), personal sadness (Gabriel et al., 2025), and ego depletion (Liu et al., 2024), ultimately leading to negative leadership behaviors (Liu et al., 2024; Rosen et al., 2021). Meanwhile, traditional venting theory suggests venting has positive functions, such as relieving negative emotions (Breuer & Freud, 1957; Parlamis, 2012) and making leaders aware of employees' adverse situations (Geddes & Callister, 2007), but discusses less the negative effects of venting to leaders on employees themselves. The self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders found in this study indicates that venting to leaders may not only harm leaders but also produce negative effects on employees themselves. This expands the traditional perspective's understanding of the possible negative effect scope of venting to leaders.

Second, early research on venting to leaders mainly treated leaders as passive venting recipients (Rosen et al., 2021). Recently, Liu et al. (2024) began viewing leaders as recipients with subjective agency, suggesting that by treating subordinate venting as a learning opportunity, leaders can effectively reduce the negative effects of subordinate venting on themselves. This study further expands research on leaders' subjective agency as recipients, extending the understanding of leaders' subjective agency as venting recipients from self-management to other-management. As discussed in this study, leaders can help employees break the self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders through interpersonal emotion management strategies, particularly situation modification.

Finally, existing research on venting to leaders either adopts a single venter perspective, discussing what effects venting brings to venters (Brown et al., 2005; Lohr et al., 2007), or adopts a single recipient perspective, discussing how recipients evaluate venting and what emotional and behavioral reactions they adopt (Liu et al., 2024; Rosen et al., 2021). This study, by adopting a venter (employee)—recipient (leader) interaction perspective, discusses how the interaction process between employee emotional venting to leaders and leaders' interpersonal emotion management shapes employees' anger and their continued venting to leaders the next day. This interaction perspective emphasizes how leaders, as venting recipients, can break employees' self-maintaining effect of venting to leaders through situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies. The proposal of the venter-recipient interaction perspective opens new research directions for venting-related literature.

This study's discussion of how leaders can use interpersonal emotion management strategies to break the self-maintaining effect of employee venting to leaders also has two important contributions. First, this study expands the application boundary of cognitive neoassociation theory (Berkowitz, 1993, 2012) by integrating it with interpersonal emotion management literature. Cognitive neoassociation theory points out how individuals can manage anger generated by hostile behaviors and intentions through various types of self-management strategies, including but not limited to dealing with sources causing distress (Leventhal et al., 1998), cognitive adjustment (Deffenbacher et al., 1994), and attention adjustment (Berkowitz & Troccoli, 1990). This study finds that leaders, as venting recipients, can effectively reduce a series of subsequent negative reactions brought by employee venting through situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies. This study reveals that others' (leaders') intervention can also positively affect cognitive association processes beyond the behavior agent's (employees') self-regulation. This theoretical expansion not only enriches the connotation of cognitive neoassociation theory but also provides a new theoretical perspective for understanding the social interaction dimension of emotion regulation.

Additionally, existing research mainly treats interpersonal emotion management strategies as independent variables, discussing how they directly shape people's positive or negative emotions and interpersonal relationships (Little et al., 2013; Little et al., 2016). Different from previous research, this study finds that when employees vent to leaders, leaders' interpersonal emotion management strategies, as responses to employees' negative emotional expression, can effectively shape employees' specific emotions (anger) after venting and their subsequent behavior. Therefore, this study enriches the context of interpersonal emotion management research, responding to Gabriel et al.'s (2023, p. 536) call to focus on interpersonal emotion management strategies.

3.2 Practical Implications

Influenced by the "venting myth," many enterprises today often encourage employees to vent negative emotions to release pressure as an important management measure (Zhan et al., 2020). However, this study finds that employee venting to leaders does not relieve employees' negative emotions but instead makes them angrier, ultimately causing them to continue venting to leaders the next day. Therefore, this study's first warning to organizations and their leaders is the need to re-examine organizational encouragement of employee venting, especially venting to leaders. Encouraging employees to vent to leaders may not achieve the desired effect but may instead trigger stronger employee anger and create a venting continuation phenomenon. Meanwhile, organizations should promptly identify signs of employee venting to leaders, establish early warning mechanisms, and timely identify and intervene in employee venting to leaders. Allowing it to develop may lead to problem deterioration and expansion. Today, many artificial intelligence tools already have the function of identifying employees' negative emotions (Raveendhran & Fast, 2021). Therefore, with the assistance of AI and algorithmic tools, it is no longer an impossible task for organizations to timely detect employees' negative emotions. These technological means can help organizations discover employees' negative emotions earlier, enabling preventive intervention.

Additionally, this study has implications for what types of interpersonal emotion management measures organizations and managers should choose to address the challenge of employee venting. When facing subordinate venting, leaders should promptly adopt situation modification rather than attentional deployment or response modulation interpersonal emotion management strategies. For leaders, to effectively implement situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies after receiving subordinate venting, on the one hand, leaders need to resist their internal tendency to evaluate subordinate venting as threatening and view it as a learning opportunity to improve work effectiveness (Liu et al., 2024), thus facing subordinate venting with a more open and inclusive mindset. On the other hand, leaders should also master communication skills to guide employees to calm down from pure negative emotional venting, enabling them to describe work problems they encounter more objectively, and on this basis, adopt effective interpersonal emotion management measures to improve their adverse situations and remove adverse factors they encounter. For organizations, to effectively address challenges brought by employee venting, organizations should conduct interpersonal emotion management training for leaders. Specifically, organizations can familiarize leaders with, help them master, and distinguish different interpersonal emotion management strategies through expert lectures. On this basis, organizations can incorporate subordinate venting and related scenario simulation training and role-playing into leadership training, enabling leaders to deeply experience the differential effects that different interpersonal emotion management measures may produce and guiding them to adopt situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies when encountering subordinate venting.

3.3 Limitations and Future Directions

First, this study finds that when leaders adopt situation modification interpersonal emotion management strategies, they can effectively reduce subordinates' continued venting to leaders the next day, while attentional deployment and response modulation strategies cannot achieve the same effect. This study speculates that the above effects may be due to the latter two strategies' inability to effectively match subordinates' expectations. However, due to space limitations and research design constraints, this study cannot verify this speculation. Additionally, when leaders adopt cognitive change strategies, the moderating effect results for single strategies and comprehensive consideration of four strategies are inconsistent. Therefore, this study calls for future research to design more refined studies and deeply explore the internal mechanisms causing differential effectiveness among different interpersonal emotion management strategies.

Second, this study's sample comes from a petroleum company in western China, with the research context being superior-subordinate interactions at gas stations. Although this study's hypotheses were supported in this sample and context, the particularity of the research sample and context also somewhat limits the external validity and generalizability of this study's conclusions. On the one hand, petroleum companies are large state-owned enterprises. On the other hand, in gas station organizations, except for the station manager, all others are contract workers. In this company, the power distance between superiors and subordinates is relatively high. According to Farh et al. (2007), employees in high power distance contexts may rely less on reciprocity norms for their evaluation and perception of authority figures due to strong respect for them. This means that in this study's context, the effects of situation modification and other interpersonal emotion management strategies may be underestimated. In organizations with lower power distance, these strategies may show stronger effects. It is particularly worth noting that this study still found significant effects of situation modification strategies in the context of high power distance organizations (large state-owned enterprises) and significant leader-employee status gaps (station manager vs. contract workers), which actually constitutes a more rigorous test of this study's hypotheses. Therefore, this special organizational context is not simply a limitation but may instead enhance the persuasiveness of this study's conclusions. Of course, this study still calls for future research to test this theoretical framework in different types of organizations to fully understand the moderating effects of power distance and organization type on the effectiveness of interpersonal emotion management strategies.

Third, beyond the continuation of subordinates' venting to leaders on day t affecting venting on day t+1 as discussed in this study, future research can also use latent growth curve models to detect whether subordinates' venting to leaders shows a declining or increasing trend over 10 workdays (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002; Zhang et al., 2023). On this basis, future research can also discuss what factors influence this declining or increasing trend. For example, does the initial level of employees' venting to leaders affect its trend? Can between-person level variables such as leaders' emotional intelligence level and within-person variables such as using certain interpersonal emotion management strategies affect the strength of this trend? This study believes that exploring these questions will deepen existing literature's understanding of the venting phenomenon and constitute a very valuable future direction.

References

Baer, M. D., Rodell, J. B., Dhensa-Kahlon, R. K., Colquitt, J. A., Zipay, K. P., Burgess, R., & Outlaw, R. (2018). Pacification or aggravation? The effects of talking about supervisor unfairness. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1793–1816.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of a leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567.

Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4), 494–503.

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 277–293.

Berkowitz, L. (2012). A different view of anger: The cognitive ‐ neoassociation conception of the relation of anger to aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4), 322–333.

Berkowitz, L., & Troccoli, B. T. (1990). Feelings, direction of attention, and expressed evaluations of others. Cognition and Emotion, 4(4), 305–325.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 362–387.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1957). Studies on hysteria. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner., & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp.137–164). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Brown, S. P., Westbrook, R. A., & Challagalla, G. (2005). Good cope, bad cope: Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical negative work event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 792–798.

Burleson, B. R. (2008). What counts as effective emotional support? Explorations of individual and situational differences. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 207–227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Anderson & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1993). General anger: Characteristics and clinical implications. Psicologia Conductual, 1(1), 49–67.

Deffenbacher, J. L., Thwaites, G. A., Wallace, T. L., & Oetting, E. R. (1994). Social skills and cognitive-relaxation approaches to general anger reduction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(3), 386–396.

Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729.

Gabriel, A. S., Diefendorff, J. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2023). The acceleration of emotional labor research: Navigating the past and steering toward the future. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 511–545.

Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006.

Gabriel, A. S., Lee, Y. E., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., Dutli, A., & Bush, J. T. (2025). The Receipt of Venting at Work: A Multi‐Study Investigation of Affective and Behavioral Reactions for Venting Recipients. Personnel Psychology, 78(2), 439–470.

Geddes, D., & Callister, R. R. (2007). Crossing the line (s): A dual threshold model of anger in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 721–746.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.

Jiang, W. Y., Zhao-Ding, A., & Qi, S. (2024). Breaking Free or Locking In: How Socially Disadvantaged Individuals Achieve or Reject an Aspired Identity in an Entrepreneurial Context. Academy of Management Journal, 68(1), 162-190.

Kim, S., Cho, S., & Chung, W. (2023). Benefits of leaders’ pleasurable recovery activities on follower performance via emotional contagion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(8), 1336–1355.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483–96.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(3), 234–247.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Leventhal, H., Leventhal, E. A., & Contrada, R. J. (1998). Self-regulation, health, and behavior: A perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychology and Health, 13(4), 717–733.

Little, L. M., Gooty, J., & Williams, M. (2016). The role of leader emotion management in leader–member exchange and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 85–97.

Little, L. M., Kluemper, D., Nelson, D. L., & Gooty, J. (2012). Development and validation of the interpersonal emotion management scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(2), 407–420.

Little, L. M., Kluemper, D., Nelson, D. L., & Ward, A. (2013). More than happy to help? Customer-focused emotion management strategies. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 261–286.

Liu, D. P., Pang, X. H., Song, J., Li, J. X., Yang, Y. Y., Zhang, S. J. (2024). How leaders reduce abusive supervision caused by subordinates' venting through cognitive change? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(11), 1556–1567. [刘德鹏, 庞旭宏, 宋杰, 李珏兴, 杨椅伊, 张生军. (2024). 领导者如何通过认知调整减少由下属宣泄引起的辱虐管理行为？心理学报, 56(11), 1556–1567.]

Liu, D. Y., Strube, M. J., & Thompson, R. J. (2021). Interpersonal emotion regulation: An experience sampling study. Affective Science, 2(3), 273–288.

Liu, F., Li, P., Taris, T. W., & Peeters, M. C. (2022). Creative performance pressure as a double‐edged sword for creativity: The role of appraisals and resources. Human Resource Management, 61(6), 663–679.

Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. (2017). Why and when leaders’ affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 238–263.

Liu, Y. & West, S. G. (2016). Weekly cycles in daily report data: An overlooked issue. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 560–570.

Lohr, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The psychology of anger venting and empirically supported alternatives that do no harm. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 5(1), 553–564.

Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of depression, anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1249–1260.

Matta, F. K., Frank, E. L., & Muir, C. P. (2024). “Seeing eye to eye” about our relationship is good for us and everyone else: An examination of LMX agreement and views of fair treatment. Organization Science, 35(4), 1489-1511.

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 507–536.

Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Niven, K., Connolly, C., Stride, C. B., & Farley, S. (2022). Daily effects of face-to-face and cyber incivility via sadness, anger and fear. Work and Stress, 36(2), 147–163.

Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of controlled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4), 498–509.

Oh, J. K., & Farh, C. I. (2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 207–232.

Parlamis, J. D. (2012). Venting as emotion regulation: The influence of venting responses and respondent identity on anger and emotional tone. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 77–96.

Parlamis, J. D., Allred, K. G., & Block, C. (2010). Letting off steam or just steaming? The influence of venting target and offender status on attributions and anger. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(3), 260–280.

Podsakoff, N. P., Spoelma, T. M., Chawla, N., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). What predicts within–person variance in applied psychology constructs? An empirical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 727–754.

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.

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.

Raveendhran, R., & Fast, N. J. (2021). Humans judge, algorithms nudge: The psychology of behavior tracking acceptance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 164, 11–26.

Rees, L., & Friedman, R. (2025). Not your garden (hose) variety emotion: An integrative review of the flows of anger and a path forward. Academy of Management Annals, 19(1), 132–179.

Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363.

Roberts, B. L., Dunkle, R., & Haug, M. (1994). Physical, psychological, and social resources as moderators of the relationship of stress to mental health of the very old. Journal of Gerontology, 49(1), S35–S43.

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 206–221.

Rosen, C. C., Gabriel, A. S., Lee, H. W., Koopman, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2021). When lending an ear turns into mistreatment: An episodic examination of leader mistreatment in response to venting at work. Personnel Psychology, 74(1), 175–195.

Scontrino, M. P. (1972). The effects of fulfilling and violating group members' expectations about leadership style. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(1), 118–138.

Simon, L. S., Rosen, C. C., Gajendran, R. S., Ozgen, S., & Corwin, E. S. (2022). Pain or gain? Understanding how trait empathy impacts leader effectiveness following the provision of negative feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(2), 279–297.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking an exam. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 475–488.

Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are Shame, Guilt, and Embarrassment Distinct Emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1256–1269.

Van Den Akker, L., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K. M., & Six, F. E. (2009). Ethical leadership and trust: It's all about meeting expectations. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102–122.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.

Wang, Q. Q., & Wang, R. Q. (2023). A Study on the Word Class Labeling and Definition of Tucao. Journal of Longdong University, 34(3), 43–47. [王琪琪 & 王仁强. (2023). “吐槽”的词类标注与释义研究. 陇东学院学报, 34(3), 43–47.]

Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 163–206.

Watkins, T., Kleshinski, C. E., Longmire, N. H., & He, W. (2023). Rekindling the fire and stoking the flames: How and when workplace interpersonal capitalization facilitates pride and knowledge sharing at work. Academy of Management Journal, 66(3), 953–978.

Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 595–621.

Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35(5), 358–372.

Yang, L. Z., Du, W. X., & Shen, Y. (2011). A review on the integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(9), 1249–1258. [杨丽珠, 杜文轩 & 沈悦. (2011). 特质愤怒与反应性攻击的综合认知模型述评. 心理科学进展, 19(9), 1249–1258.]

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483.

Zhan, Y., Xu, H. F., Ren, J., & Luo, J. (2020). Is catharsis beneficial or harmful? The psychological intervention effect and potential harm of catharsis. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(1), 22–32. [詹鋆, 徐宏飞, 任俊, & 罗劲. (2020). 心理宣泄究竟是有益还是有害? ——宣泄的心理干预效果及潜在危害. 心理科学进展, 28(1), 22–32.]

Zhang, X., Yu, K., Li, W. D., & Zacher, H. (2023). Sustainability of passion for work? Change-related reciprocal relationships between passion and job crafting. Journal of Management, 51(4), 1349–1383.

Zou, Y. C., Chen, Q. Y., Peng, J., & Zeng, X. Q. (2024). Benefits and costs of problem-focused leader interpersonal emotion management: An integrative perspective of employees and leaders. Journal of Psychological Science, 47(3), 630–638. [邹艳春, 陈启瑶, 彭坚 & 曾晓晴. (2024). 问题导向领导人际情绪管理的收益与代价：基于员工与领导的差异化视角. 心理科学, 47(3), 630–638.]

Zou, Y. C., Zhang, H. M., Chen, X., & Zeng, X. Q. (2022). How to manage subordinates’ emotions? The strategies and influences of leader interpersonal emotion management. Human Resources Development of China, 39(7), 88–106. [邹艳春, 章惠敏, 陈晓 & 曾晓晴. (2022). 如何管理下属情绪？领导者人际情绪管理的策略与影响. 中国人力资源开发, 39(7), 88–106.]

Appendix: Measurement Scales

Employee Anger (Morning)
Please rate the extent to which each adjective describes your current feelings based on your actual situation at this moment.
1 = Very Inconsistent, 2 = Relatively Inconsistent, 3 = Somewhat Inconsistent, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Consistent, 6 = Relatively Consistent, 7 = Very Consistent
1. Angry
2. Irritated
3. Annoyed

Venting to Leaders
Please select your level of agreement with the following statements based on your interactions with your superior from the beginning of work today until now.
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree
1. Today from the beginning of work until now, I expressed anger to my leader about a work-related problem
2. Today from the beginning of work until now, I vented my negative feelings about work to my leader
3. Today from the beginning of work until now, I expressed my negative feelings about work to my leader

Leader Interpersonal Emotion Management
Today, after your subordinate (…) expressed something negative they experienced or negative emotions to you, you might adopt the following strategies to help them cope. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements.
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree

Situation Modification
1. Today, I tried to change the situation that had negative effects on this subordinate
2. Today, I planned to remove adverse factors in the situation this subordinate faced
3. Today, I eliminated situational factors that were negatively affecting this subordinate
4. Today, I changed the situation that was causing this subordinate's negative emotions
5. Today, I took action to solve the problems this subordinate encountered

Attentional Deployment
1. Today, when this subordinate was troubled by a situation, I shifted this subordinate's attention elsewhere
2. Today, I redirected the focus of my conversation with this subordinate back to other aspects that were more interesting to this subordinate
3. Today, I shifted this subordinate's attention away from what was causing their negative emotions
4. Today, when this subordinate faced unpleasant matters, I discussed positive things with this subordinate to shift their attention
5. Today, when I felt a situation would cause this subordinate negative emotions, I found ways to prevent this subordinate from focusing on it

Cognitive Change
1. Today, when I wanted this subordinate to have more positive emotions, I would have this subordinate view problems more positively
2. Today, I changed how this subordinate viewed their situation, thereby affecting this subordinate's emotions
3. Today, when I wanted this subordinate to have fewer negative emotions, I would change the meaning of the situation for this subordinate
4. Today, when I wanted this subordinate to have more positive emotions, I would change the meaning of the situation for this subordinate
5. Today, when I wanted this subordinate to have fewer negative emotions, I would have this subordinate view problems more positively

Response Modulation
1. Today, when this subordinate experienced negative emotions, I told this subordinate not to display them
2. Today, I encouraged this subordinate not to show their emotions
3. Today, when this subordinate complained to me about a problem, I told this subordinate to stop complaining
4. Today, when this subordinate was experiencing negative emotions, I suggested this subordinate adopt some strategies to suppress these emotions
5. Today, I encouraged this subordinate not to express their emotions

Employee Anger (Evening)
Please rate the extent to which each adjective describes your feelings today based on your actual situation.
1 = Very Inconsistent, 2 = Relatively Inconsistent, 3 = Somewhat Inconsistent, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Consistent, 6 = Relatively Consistent, 7 = Very Consistent
1. Today, I felt angry
2. Today, I felt irritated
3. Today, I felt annoyed

Employee Emotional Relief (Evening)
Please rate the extent to which each adjective describes your feelings today based on your actual situation.
1 = Very Inconsistent, 2 = Relatively Inconsistent, 3 = Somewhat Inconsistent, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Consistent, 6 = Relatively Consistent, 7 = Very Consistent
1. Today, I felt calm
2. Today, I felt peaceful

Leader-Member Exchange
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements based on your true feelings.
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree
1. My supervisor and I are on the same wavelength
2. My supervisor is satisfied that he/she and I are on the same wavelength
3. My supervisor understands my work problems and needs
4. My supervisor knows my potential
5. Regardless of how much formal authority my supervisor has built in his/her position, he/she will use his/her power to help me solve work problems
6. Regardless of how much formal authority my supervisor has, he/she is willing to pay the price to protect me
7. I have confidence in my supervisor; even when he/she is not present, I will defend his/her decisions
8. My supervisor and I have a good relationship

Employee Trait Empathy
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements based on your true feelings.
1 = Completely Disagree, 2 = Basically Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Basically Agree, 7 = Completely Agree
1. I feel sympathy for others' painful experiences of being treated unfairly
2. I am deeply moved by others' painful experiences
3. When someone is taken advantage of by others, I feel protective toward them
4. Seeing others encounter unfortunate events, I have warm and caring feelings toward them

Leader Emotional Intelligence
Please select the number that best reflects your actual feelings and experiences to indicate your level of agreement with the following descriptions.
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Hard to Say, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree
1. I can usually guess my friends' emotions from their behavior
2. I have strong ability to observe others' emotions
3. I can keenly understand others' feelings and emotions
4. I understand the emotions of people around me very well

Experimental Materials

Company Background: BM Company is an automotive parts manufacturer with major clients being well-known domestic and international automobile manufacturers. The company uses a matrix management structure internally, requiring close collaboration between different departments to complete projects. You are a project management engineer at BM Company, responsible for daily project progress tracking and cross-departmental organizational coordination.

Project Background: Recently, you are responsible for an important project: the development and production task of the "A-Series New Brake Pads." This project is one of BM Company's key projects this year, aiming to develop a high-performance brake pad for a large automobile manufacturer to meet the needs of its new vehicle model. The project cycle is 6 months, involving close cooperation between the R&D and production departments. Project content mainly includes R&D and production phases, where the R&D department is responsible for designing the initial brake pad plan and conducting multiple rounds of optimization to ensure the design meets customer performance requirements, and the production department initiates trial production based on the R&D department's design plan and conducts quality testing. As the project management engineer for the "A-Series New Brake Pads," your responsibilities are: 1. Develop project schedules to ensure each department completes tasks on time; 2. Organize cross-departmental meetings to coordinate work between R&D and production departments; 3. Timely identify and solve problems in the project to ensure on-time project delivery.

Problems Encountered: During project execution, you encountered the following problems:
- R&D Department Problems: The R&D department failed to complete design drawing optimization on time, causing delays in production start. The R&D department head explained that technical difficulties were encountered during design optimization but did not inform you in advance, preventing you from timely adjusting the project schedule.
- Production Department Problems: The production department discovered quality problems during trial production, with some brake pads' performance failing to meet customer requirements, causing trial production to be suspended and reworked. The production department head indicated that the problem might be related to the design plan provided by the R&D department but did not provide specific improvement suggestions, causing the problem to remain unresolved for a long time.

Due to problems in both R&D and production departments, the project schedule was seriously delayed, and the client repeatedly urged delivery times, putting you under great work pressure. In a recent project management meeting, attendees expressed strong dissatisfaction with the project delay and asked you to explain the reasons. When you tried to elaborate on problems in the R&D and production departments, the heads of these two departments not only failed to acknowledge the problems but instead shifted blame onto you, accusing you of poor coordination that caused the project delay.

Venting Group Task:
Please imagine you are expressing your emotions and thoughts to your leader. You can completely open up and express your views on the project delay and your negative emotions and thoughts about the R&D and production departments' performance in the project without reservation. Please write at least three specific items to vent your emotions or dissatisfaction. Here are some prompts to help you express:

What do you think are the main reasons for the project delay?
What are your views on the R&D and production departments' performance in the project?
How do you feel about the R&D and production department heads' behavior of shifting responsibility?

Example: "The problems in the R&D and production departments caused the project delay, but they shifted responsibility onto me. This makes me very angry! I feel I was wronged. I have tried my best to coordinate, but they simply wouldn't listen to my arrangements."

Control Group Task:
Please review the specific work content and project progress in the project. Please write at least three specific tasks or work content, and ensure your writing focuses on objective work descriptions. Here are some prompts to help you review:

What are the main content and objectives of the project?
What are your main responsibilities in the project?
What are the phases of the project, and how is each phase arranged?

Example: "Our project is about the development and production task of the 'A-Series New Brake Pads,' which is BM Company's key task this year."