We may be living in a free-market economy, but that does not mean we are encouraged to express our emotions freely and authentically in organizations. Instead, societal and organizational norms, behavioral expectations (especially in customer service interactions), and even political considerations (e.g. laughing at a boss’s boring joke) put employees’ emotional resilience to the test. Thus how well employees can regulate, or manage, their emotions has implications for their performance and well-being at work and, given that work tends to occupy a central role in most adults’ lives, also for their effectiveness and well-being overall (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In this chapter, we attempt to synthesize recent research on the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation by developing an integrative mindful emotion management framework.

This chapter addresses shareholders’ claims for reflective loss in the context of international investment law. It starts by analyzing the treatment of shareholders and shares in international investment agreements and under the ICSID Convention. In this regard, it sets forth the extent to which shares are considered as covered investments and to which shareholders qualify as foreign investors in investment treaty practice, as well as whether shares qualify as investments under article 25 of the ICSID Convention as interpreted by investment tribunals. This chapter also studies the difference between shareholders’ claims for reflective loss and claims brought under article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention, as well as derivative actions in investment arbitration. Finally, this chapter undertakes an exhaustive analysis of investment arbitration cases that have addressed shareholders’ claims for reflective loss and highlights the reasons relied upon by investment tribunals to generally accept such claims.

The concept of emotional labor or emotion work, first introduced by Hochschild (1983), has received enormous attention among researchers in recent decades (e.g. Grandey, 2000; Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Holman, Martínez-Iñigo, & Totterdell, 2008; Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Zapf, 2002). It refers to emotional job requirements that service employees are exposed to when interacting with customers or clients. Social interaction with customers is one of the core aspects of service work. Here, as in any social interaction, requirements about regulating one’s emotions play a central role. Hochschild (1983), who coined the term “emotional labor” for this requirement, investigated the work of flight attendants and demonstrated that a substantial part of the job involved dealing with passengers and their emotions, and that displaying emotions that were not felt had a negative effect on both the health and the performance of service providers. As this finding was of high theoretical and practical importance, it stimulated research in the field.

Gender continues to be a dominant organizing framework in contemporary society. Like most aspects of everyday life, people’s experiences with emotions are highly influenced by gender norms, and this is strikingly the case in workplace contexts. In this chapter, we review the existing literature related to how people experience and express (or suppress) emotions at work as a function of gender. In line with most contemporary literature we reviewed, we use the terms “affect” and “emotions” relatively interchangeably. Indeed, the majority of the research we identified was focused on state-level affect and not on trait-level or stable affect (often referred to as “mood”).

Workers can have bad days at work. Frustration, sadness, and fear are naturally occurring emotions in daily work life (Bledow, Schmitt, Frese, & Kühnel, 2011; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and they often depend on the occurrence of events at work such as frustrating interactions with customers, receiving negative feedback, or frequent interruptions (Ohly & Schmitt, 2015; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In general, the affective repertoire of individuals is skewed toward negativity (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenhauer, & Vohs, 2001): four of the six basic emotions (fear, anger, disgust, sadness) are negative (Ekman, 1992), and workers report a greater variety in their negative emotions than in their positive emotions (e.g. Dasborough, 2006). Even though positive emotions happen more frequently at work, negative ones are more easily recalled and have a stronger effect on overall affective outcomes at work (Miner, Glomb, & Hulin, 2005).

The modern workplace is continually adopting technological innovations that change the way work is done. These changes involve “new ways of working” that rely on technology-mediated communications with coworkers, supervisors, and clients (Demerouti, Derks, Lieke, & Bakker, 2014). In particular, a considerable amount of work is now being conducted through email exchanges, online messaging, and videoconference meetings either in place of, or in addition to, face-to-face work tasks. Organizations are motivated to adopt electronic communications because of expected productivity and employee well-being gains associated with increased work flexibility (Lewis, 2003). Yet technologically facilitated work can result in both positive and negative consequences for employee productivity and well-being (Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano, & Michailidis, 2019; Day, Scott, & Kelloway, 2010; Ter Hoeven, van Zoonen, & Fonner, 2016).

Research on organizational behavior and occupational health has undergone an “affective revolution” highlighting the crucial role of affective work-related experiences for individuals and organizations (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). In this chapter, we present a process model of work-related affect, stress, and health (see Figure 8.1). We review and integrate organizational stress and affect research, covering cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (i.e., focusing on chronic processes and between-person differences) as well as experience-sampling studies (i.e., focusing on transient processes and within-person variability). We discuss complex relationship patterns and causal pathways, and offer avenues for future research.

Humans have an interdependent existence as a fundamentally social species. To coordinate and cooperate, or even simply to avoid retribution, each individual must take into account the reactions of others toward his or her conduct. Moreover, accommodating those reactions often requires that the individual curb the pursuit of otherwise unfettered self-interest. When such conduct occurs in an exemplary fashion (e.g. involving self-sacrifice for the sake of others’ interests), it can elicit approbation; when sufficient suppression of self-interest fails to take place (e.g. exploiting others), it can elicit negative reactions from others that backfires – perhaps in ways detrimental to attaining the personal goals pursued.

This chapter addresses the issue of the calculation of damages in shareholders’ claims for reflective loss. The particularities of such claims and of the nature of the investment (i.e., shares) raise intricate questions that must often be dealt with by investment tribunals. In this regard, this chapter first addresses the specificities associated with the calculation of damages in multiparty proceedings, such as in mass claims and consolidated proceedings. It also explains the methods that have been used by investment tribunals to assess the damages suffered by shareholders in investment arbitration and proposes more cooperation among courts and tribunals at the damage phase in order to reduce the risks of double recovery. This chapter also analyses an innovative means of answering risks of double recovery: the share purchase option.