Episodic emotion as a structural requirement

The temporal architecture of AET is central to its theoretical coherence. Emotional experience is conceptualised as episodic, arising in response to discrete events and attenuating as those events recede (Weiss & Cropanzano, Reference Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and Cummings1996). This episodic framing allows affective reactions to be analytically linked to specific triggers and to be modelled as transient states that fluctuate across time. It also underpins the theory’s distinction between affective experience and more stable attitudinal constructs, such as job satisfaction or organisational commitment.

Subsequent empirical work has reinforced this temporal logic, although more recent research increasingly highlights the dynamic and socially embedded nature of emotional experiences in organisational settings (Beal et al., Reference Beal, Weiss, Barros and MacDermid2005; Ilies et al., Reference Ilies, Schwind and Heller2007; Wang, Liu, Ling, Fan & Chen, Reference Wang, Liu, Ling, Fan and Chen2023). Research examining daily affective fluctuations shows that emotions vary across moments and days in response to changing situational demands (Beal et al., Reference Beal, Weiss, Barros and MacDermid2005; Ilies et al., Reference Ilies, Schwind and Heller2007). Even when emotional reactions are intense or recurrent, they are typically assumed to resolve or return to baseline, allowing subsequent events to be experienced afresh. This assumption is not incidental. It is a structural requirement of AET, enabling the theory to explain how discrete events generate affective reactions that shape downstream outcomes without collapsing emotion into a chronic state.

However, this temporal framing also imposes boundaries on what AET can explain. While AET recognises that work environment features may influence affective experience, these features are typically conceptualised as background conditions that shape event appraisal rather than as mechanisms generating sustained affective conditions in the absence of discrete triggering events. By conceptualising affective responses as episodic and typically attenuating as events recede, AET is less well equipped to account for affective experience that persists in the absence of identifiable triggering events or that remains active across extended periods of time. It is important to distinguish the sustained affective conditions described in this study from both emotion and mood as conceptualised within AET. Within AET, affect functions as an umbrella construct encompassing both emotions and moods. Emotions are typically understood as episodic reactions triggered by discrete workplace events, whereas moods are more diffuse affective states that may arise from accumulated experiences but remain largely internal to the individual (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, Reference Ashkanasy, Humphrey, Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson and Uhl-Bien2011; Barsade & Gibson, Reference Barsade and Gibson2007; Weiss & Cropanzano, Reference Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and Cummings1996).

The phenomenon described in this study differs from both constructs and from depletion-based explanations such as burnout, which primarily capture emotional exhaustion resulting from resource loss (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, Reference Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter2001). Participants did not describe episodic emotional reactions tied to identifiable events, nor did they describe diffuse internal mood states. Instead, they described sustained affective conditions that emerged through ongoing supervisory interpretation and institutional accountability pressures. These conditions were relationally structured within supervisory interactions and maintained through continuous interpretive monitoring of tone, silence, and evaluative signals. As such, the affective dynamics observed here reflect a socially embedded and temporally sustained condition rather than an episodic emotion or internally generated mood state as typically conceptualised within AET (Ashkanasy & Daus, Reference Ashkanasy and Daus2005; Maitlis, Vogus & Lawrence, Reference Maitlis, Vogus and Lawrence2013; Weiss & Cropanzano, Reference Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and Cummings1996).

While the theory recognises that emotional reactions may accumulate and influence future appraisal, it continues to privilege discrete incidents as the primary source of affective experience. This raises important questions about the applicability of event-centred models of emotion in organisational environments where emotional experience is structured by sustained conditions rather than by isolated events.

Emotion regulation, emotional labour, and sustained organisational constraint

Parallel streams of organisational research have examined emotional experience through a different lens. Research on emotional labour and emotion regulation has demonstrated that organisational roles and norms prescribe how emotions should be expressed, suppressed, or managed over time (Gabriel, Diefendorff & Grandey, Reference Gabriel, Diefendorff and Grandey2023; Grandey, Reference Grandey2000; Hülsheger & Schewe, Reference Hülsheger and Schewe2011). In these accounts, emotion is not solely a reaction to events but an ongoing aspect of role performance shaped by sustained organisational expectations. Emotional regulation is continuous rather than episodic, reflecting enduring demands for professionalism, composure, and alignment with organisational norms. Recent research has also begun to explore how sustained affective states shape work attitudes and behavioural outcomes within contemporary organisational contexts, extending AET-informed research beyond discrete emotional episodes (Nimon, Shuck, Fulmore & Zigarmi, Reference Nimon, Shuck, Fulmore and Zigarmi2023), including how affective commitment as a persistent emotional state can drive downstream behavioural outcomes such as unethical behaviour (Fulmore, Nimon & Reio, Reference Fulmore, Nimon and Reio2024).

Leadership research has further highlighted the sustained emotional demands associated with positions of authority. Leaders are often required to regulate their emotional display to convey stability, credibility, and control, particularly under conditions of scrutiny or uncertainty (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, Reference Ashkanasy, Humphrey, Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson and Uhl-Bien2011; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Fischer and Hunt2009). These expectations are embedded in organisational structures and reinforced through evaluation and accountability mechanisms. As a result, emotional restraint becomes a normative feature of leadership roles, shaping not only outward expression but also subjective experience.

Importantly, these literatures neither directly challenge AET nor do they seek to replace event-centred accounts of workplace emotion. Instead, they reveal forms of emotional experience that are sustained, regulated, and embedded within organisational roles and expectations. Research on emotional labour and emotion regulation has focused primarily on how individuals manage emotion, and the costs associated with that management (Grandey, Reference Grandey2000; Hülsheger & Schewe, Reference Hülsheger and Schewe2011), rather than on how affective experience itself is generated and sustained over time. As such, these literatures sit alongside AET without being fully integrated into its explanatory framework, leaving unresolved questions about how sustained emotional constraint intersects with event-based affective processes (Voronov & Vince, Reference Voronov and Vince2012).

Supervision as an emotionally consequential and structurally embedded practice

Supervision represents a critical site for examining these unresolved questions. Supervisory relationships are inherently asymmetrical, combining authority, evaluation, and relational engagement (Graen & Uhl-Bien, Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995). As a result, supervisory behaviour is a potent source of emotional experience, shaping how employees interpret feedback, assess personal risk, and regulate their conduct at work (Dasborough et al., Reference Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee and Tse2009). Emotional cues conveyed through supervision, including tone, responsiveness, and attentiveness, play a central role in employee sense-making and affective response (Breevaart & Zacher, Reference Breevaart and Zacher2019).

Supervision is structurally embedded within organisational systems. Supervisors act as intermediaries between institutional demands and everyday work practice, translating formal requirements into relational interaction (Graen & Uhl-Bien, Reference Graen and Uhl-Bien1995; Lupu & Empson, Reference Lupu and Empson2015). This positioning exposes supervisors to competing expectations, including the need to demonstrate compliance, maintain relational credibility, and regulate emotional dynamics within teams (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Fischer and Hunt2009). As a result, supervisory interactions are shaped not only by interpersonal considerations but also by organisational conditions that constrain discretion and emotional expression (Voronov & Vince, Reference Voronov and Vince2012).

Research on leadership and supervision has shown that these structural pressures influence how supervisors manage their emotional presence, often resulting in restrained or carefully modulated forms of interaction (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, Reference Ashkanasy, Humphrey, Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson and Uhl-Bien2011; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Fischer and Hunt2009). Employees, in turn, must interpret supervisory behaviour within these constrained conditions, engaging in ongoing sense-making to infer intent, evaluation, and organisational risk. These dynamics position supervision as a relational practice through which sustained organisational conditions are experienced emotionally.

Institutional oversight, accountability, and emotional governance

Contemporary organisational research has documented the increasing prevalence of institutional regimes of oversight, audit, and accountability that shape how work is organised and evaluated (Greenwood et al., Reference Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta and Lounsbury2011; Power, Reference Power2007). Organisational actors are required to align their behaviour with formalised standards that extend beyond immediate task demands and are subject to continuous evaluation.

Scholars have begun to examine the emotional implications of these arrangements. Research on institutional work demonstrates that organisational structures shape not only what actions are taken but also how emotions are expressed, regulated, and rendered legitimate (Voronov & Vince, Reference Voronov and Vince2012). Expectations of composure, neutrality, and restraint become embedded within professional roles, shaping emotional experience over time. Emotional conduct is thus governed through institutional norms rather than left to individual discretion.

Under conditions of sustained oversight, emotional experience may therefore be structured by ongoing exposure to evaluation rather than by discrete interactions. Research on accountability and organisational scrutiny highlights how evaluation increasingly operates as a continuous condition, shaping how individuals experience authority, responsibility, and relational engagement over time (Roberts, Reference Roberts2009; Schillemans & Busuioc, Reference Schillemans and Busuioc2015). Within such environments, emotional expression is not only situational but subject to ongoing monitoring and self-regulation, as organisational demands for defensibility and control become embedded in everyday practice (Berti & Simpson, Reference Berti and Simpson2021; Fotaki, Kenny & Vachhani, Reference Fotaki, Kenny and Vachhani2017). These insights suggest that affective experience may be organised around enduring organisational conditions, raising questions about the sufficiency of event-centred accounts of workplace emotion when evaluation and accountability are persistent rather than episodic (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, Reference Ashkanasy, Humphrey, Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson and Uhl-Bien2011).

Reconsidering event-centred accounts of workplace emotion

Taken together, these literatures point to a substantive conceptual tension in event-centred theories of workplace emotion. AET provides a powerful account of how discrete work events generate affective reactions that shape attitudes and behaviour (Beal et al., Reference Beal, Weiss, Barros and MacDermid2005; Weiss & Cropanzano, Reference Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and Cummings1996). However, its explanatory architecture assumes that emotional responses are time bounded and diminish as events recede, an assumption that becomes strained in organisational environments characterised by sustained oversight, emotional regulation, and continuous accountability (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, Reference Ashkanasy, Humphrey, Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson and Uhl-Bien2011; Roberts, Reference Roberts2009).

When affective experience is structured by ongoing organisational conditions rather than punctuated by discrete events, the foundational assumptions of event-centred emotion theories no longer fully hold. Emotional experience does not reliably attenuate between events nor can it be easily traced to identifiable triggers. Instead, affect may persist as a condition that frames interpretation, heightens vigilance, and shapes how subsequent interactions are experienced, as observed in organisational contexts marked by continuous evaluation and constrained discretion (Fotaki et al., Reference Fotaki, Kenny and Vachhani2017; Maitlis & Christianson, Reference Maitlis and Christianson2014). Under such conditions, emotional experience is cumulative and relational rather than anchored to discrete interpersonal encounters.

These observations do not undermine the value of AET. Rather, they indicate the need for empirical examination of affective experience in contexts where the theory’s temporal assumptions are strained. They point to the importance of examining supervision within oversight saturated environments, where emotional cues are sustained and where interpretation itself becomes emotionally consequential (Ashkanasy & Daus, Reference Ashkanasy and Daus2005; Voronov & Vince, Reference Voronov and Vince2012). This paper addresses this need by empirically examining how employees and managers experience supervision under conditions of sustained oversight, providing a basis for extending AET beyond event-centred accounts of workplace emotion.

Research context

The study was conducted within the Australian financial services sector following the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Australian Government Treasury, 2019). This period was characterised by intensified regulatory scrutiny, expanded accountability requirements, and heightened organisational emphasis on oversight, compliance, and cultural reform (Power, Reference Power2007; Roberts, Reference Roberts2009). Supervisory roles became central to organisational responses to these reforms, positioning managers as key intermediaries between institutional expectations and everyday work practices (Lupu & Empson, Reference Lupu and Empson2015).

While the financial services sector provides a particularly visible example of sustained oversight following regulatory reform, similar conditions of continuous evaluation and accountability exist across many highly regulated organisational environments, including healthcare, aviation, and large-scale service operations (Power, Reference Power2007; Roberts, Reference Roberts2009; Schillemans & Busuioc, Reference Schillemans and Busuioc2015). The context therefore serves as an analytically rich setting through which to examine affective experience under sustained organisational scrutiny rather than as a sector-specific anomaly.

This context provides a theoretically relevant setting for examining affective experience under sustained oversight. Rather than treating financial services sector as exceptional, the study uses the sector as empirically rich environment in which conditions of continuous evaluation, reputational risk, and constrained discretion are particularly visible (Roberts, Reference Roberts2009). These conditions make it possible to examine how emotional experience unfolds when organisational oversight is persistent rather than episodic (Power, Reference Power2007).

Participants and sampling

Participants were recruited using purposive sampling to capture rich accounts of supervisory experience from individuals embedded in oversight intensive organisational roles within the Australian financial services sector (Patton, Reference Patton2002). The study focused on the post–Royal Commission period, a context characterised by heightened regulatory scrutiny, expanded accountability requirements, and intensified managerial oversight.

The study initially recruited and interviewed 44 participants across employee and managerial roles. Two participants, both from the managerial cohort, did not complete the required consent documentation. In accordance with ethical research protocols, the interview data from these participants were excluded from analysis. The final analytic sample therefore comprised 42 participants, including 29 employees and 13 managers.

Employees were recruited from roles involving sustained exposure to evaluative supervision and accountability processes, including compliance, risk management, project-based functions, and business analysis. These roles spanned analyst, manager, and executive positions within compliance, risk, technology, finance, strategy, and program delivery functions. Managers held formal supervisory responsibility within these environments and occupied strategic or operational oversight roles, including senior executives and board-level roles responsible for organisational risk, compliance, technology governance, and financial oversight, positioning them simultaneously as enactors and subjects of organisational control. This dual-cohort design enabled examination of supervisory experience across hierarchical positions, recognising that emotional interpretation and meaning-making are shaped by positional asymmetries.

Interviews were conducted until thematic sufficiency was achieved. Consistent with phenomenological standards, sufficiency was assessed in terms of conceptual depth and recurrence of experiential patterns rather than numerical thresholds (Vagle, Reference Vagle2018). Analysis indicated that novel insights diminished after approximately 35 interviews, with thematic stability observed within and across employee and manager cohorts (Guest, Namey & Chen, Reference Guest, Namey and Chen2020; Hennink, Kaiser & Marconi, Reference Hennink, Kaiser and Marconi2017). Saturation was assessed through iterative comparison of emerging codes and experiential patterns across successive interviews, allowing the researcher to determine when additional interviews were no longer generating substantively new interpretive categories. This suggested that the core experiential structures relevant to supervisory oversight had been adequately captured.

The final sample reflected diversity in gender, hierarchical position, and professional function, with a balanced gender composition (21 men, 21 women). While the study does not seek statistical generalisation, its contribution lies in analytic or theoretical generalisation, whereby insights derived from rich empirical material are used to refine and extend existing theoretical frameworks (Yin, Reference Yin2018). In this study, the empirical analysis is used to examine the temporal assumptions embedded within AET and to develop a conceptual account of sustained affective conditions under oversight intensive supervisory contexts. The diversity of participants across roles and organisational functions supports this analytic generalisation by enabling the identification of recurring experiential patterns and relational dynamics that inform theoretical development rather than population-level inference (Guest et al., Reference Guest, Namey and Chen2020; Hennink et al., Reference Hennink, Kaiser and Marconi2017).

Data collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, typically lasting between 45 and 90 min. Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via secure virtual platforms, depending on participant availability and organisational constraints. The semi-structured format allowed participants to narrate their experiences in their own terms while ensuring coverage of supervisory interactions, emotional responses, and interpretive processes.

The interview protocol incorporated the Critical Incident Technique to elicit concrete examples of emotionally salient supervisory encounters (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, Reference Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson and Maglio2005). Participants were invited to describe specific interactions that stood out as meaningful, challenging, or emotionally impactful, and to reflect on how these experiences influenced their perceptions of supervision and their own behaviour at work. This approach anchored discussion in lived experience rather than abstract evaluation. While Critical Incident Technique was used to anchor discussion in concrete experiences, participants frequently moved beyond isolated incidents to describe ongoing supervisory conditions and affective states that persisted across interactions. In this sense, the critical incidents served primarily as entry points into broader narratives through which participants articulated sustained and ambient affective experiences.

Throughout the interviews, attention was paid to non-verbal cues, including pauses, changes in tone, facial expression, and bodily posture. These cues were noted contemporaneously and treated as part of the interpretive material, recognising that emotional experience is often conveyed through embodied expression rather than explicit description. Interviews were audio recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were maintained to capture contextual observations and initial analytic impressions.

Data analysis

Data analysis followed an iterative, interpretive process consistent with phenomenological methodology (Finlay, Reference Finlay2002). Analysis proceeded through several stages. Transcripts and field notes were read repeatedly to develop a holistic understanding of participants’ experiences. Initial coding focused on how participants described supervisory interactions, emotional responses, and interpretive processes. Codes were then iteratively refined and grouped into higher-order themes that captured recurring patterns of affective experience across both employee and manager accounts. Interpretations were revisited and adjusted across successive readings of the data, with attention to patterns across cases and between employee and manager cohorts (Maitlis & Christianson, Reference Maitlis and Christianson2014). AET informed analysis by sensitising attention to emotionally salient moments within supervisory narratives, without constraining interpretation to predefined event categories (Blumer, Reference Blumer1954). Critical Incident Technique supported analytic focus on episodes that participants themselves identified as meaningful (Butterfield et al., Reference Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson and Maglio2005), while non-verbal cues were used to enrich interpretation of emotional significance and intensity. Non-verbal data (e.g., pauses, gaze shifts, posture changes, and changes in tone) were coded as indicators of emotional intensity and persistence and were interpreted alongside participants’ verbal narratives during theme development, consistent with phenomenological approaches that attend to embodied experience (Finlay, Reference Finlay2011).

Analysis remained grounded in participants’ accounts, with conceptual development emerging through engagement with the data rather than through theoretical imposition (Finlay, Reference Finlay2002). Differences and convergences between employee and manager accounts were examined to illuminate how positional location shaped emotional experience and meaning-making (Maitlis & Christianson, Reference Maitlis and Christianson2014).

Rigour and trustworthiness

Several strategies were employed to enhance the rigour and trustworthiness of the study. Reflexivity was maintained throughout data collection and analysis, with the researcher documenting assumptions, emotional responses, and analytic decisions in reflexive memos (Finlay, Reference Finlay2002). This process supported ongoing examination of how the researcher’s positioning informed interpretation. Given the researcher’s professional background in financial services, reflexive journaling was used to document assumptions and interpretive challenges throughout the research process to ensure that emerging themes remained grounded in participant accounts rather than researcher expectations.

Triangulation was achieved through the integration of multiple sources of interpretive material, including interview narratives, critical incidents, and non-verbal observations. An audit trail was maintained to document analytic decisions and coding development, supporting transparency and dependability (Lincoln & Guba, Reference Lincoln and Guba1985). Together, these strategies support the credibility and interpretive integrity of the findings.

Supervision as a sustained affective condition

Across accounts, supervision was experienced as a sustained affective condition that accumulated over time. Emotional experience was rarely anchored to a single meeting or interaction. Instead, participants described supervision as an ongoing presence that shaped anticipation, vigilance, and self-regulation across the workday and beyond. Affect did not dissipate between encounters. It lingered, framing how subsequent interactions were approached and interpreted.

Employees frequently described this condition as one of gradual emotional narrowing. P10 reflected on how prolonged exposure altered her orientation towards supervision: For me, bit by bit, I’m like, I actually don’t believe anything you’re saying anymore … I felt like I was being sent on a wild goose chase, as she repeatedly shifted her gaze around the room, making frequent self-adjustments to her posture and eyewear. Her account conveyed an erosion of emotional certainty that unfolded incrementally rather than in response to a single precipitating event.

A similar sense of affective carryover appeared in P14’s account. He described how an early supervisory interaction continued to shape his emotional state long after it had passed: It was from that moment, literally, that things went off the rails … I started second-guessing myself constantly, with visible flushing and frequent shifts in seated posture as he spoke. Rather than resolving, the emotional impact of supervision persisted, prompting ongoing self-monitoring and behavioural caution.

This sustained emotional alertness was also evident in how employees described anticipation rather than reaction. P06 explained, You’re always on edge. Even when nothing’s happening, you’re waiting for something to happen, while maintaining an averted orientation from the camera, engaging in repetitive tapping movements on the table surface and regularly scanning the surrounding environment. In his account, supervision was experienced as ambient rather than episodic, with emotional vigilance becoming habitual rather than situational.

Managers described parallel experiences of sustained affective exposure, though articulated through the demands of accountability and emotional containment. P33 spoke about the emotional toll embedded in her supervisory role: I hate that part of my role… I find the conversations very stressful… it takes a lot of effort really to have those difficult conversations, maintaining a sustained direct gaze into the camera and periodically adjusting her seated position. Her account reflected the ongoing effort required to regulate emotional expression across repeated supervisory interactions, rather than strain arising from isolated incidents.

For many managers, the cumulative nature of this affective condition extended beyond the workplace. P34 described the personal impact of sustained organisational pressure: There were nights that I couldn’t sleep because I was so despondent and upset … it wasn’t a good time, with recurrent visible flushing as he alternated his gaze between the surrounding environment and the camera, repeatedly adjusting his glasses. His account illustrated how emotional strain accumulated over time, crossing the boundary between work and personal life.

Employees often described adapting their behaviour pre-emptively in response to this sustained affective environment. P14 explained, You don’t want to ask questions anymore. You don’t want to be visible. You just try to get through, with continued visible flushing and frequent shifts in posture demonstrating how withdrawal emerged gradually as a form of emotional self-preservation rather than as an immediate response to a specific supervisory act.

Managers recognised similar patterns of endurance and containment in their own experiences. P41 described the emotional pressure of operating under continuous scrutiny: I didn’t feel safe … I was being micromanaged to the minute of my life, speaking with highly animated hand movements, frequent self-adjustments of posture, and repeated shifts of attention across the room. Her account reflected an affective condition shaped by ongoing oversight rather than discrete supervisory encounters.

P43 similarly characterised supervision as a persistent backdrop rather than a sequence of peaks: The regulatory burden has been relentless … it never really stops, maintaining a focused and intent demeanour while regularly scanning the surrounding environment. The language of relentlessness captured the temporal continuity of emotional experience, reinforcing the sense that supervision was lived as an enduring condition rather than a series of isolated moments.

Across both employee and manager accounts, supervision was experienced as a sustained affective condition embedded within everyday organisational life. Emotional experience accumulated through repeated exposure to oversight, accountability, and constrained emotional expression. Rather than resolving between interactions, affect was carried forward, shaping anticipation, interpretation, and engagement over time. For both employees and managers, supervision was lived as an enduring emotional presence that framed how work itself was experienced.

Building on the persistence of affective conditions described above, the second theme examines how these conditions are generated and sustained through ambiguity and interpretive labour within supervisory interaction.

Emotional restraint, ambiguity, and interpretive labour

Where supervision was experienced as a sustained affective condition, its emotional consequences were produced and maintained through restraint, ambiguity, and the continuous effort required to interpret meaning in the absence of explicit cues. Participants did not describe emotionally charged encounters marked by overt hostility, confrontation, or expressive outbursts. Instead, emotional experience emerged through what was withheld, softened, delayed, or left unresolved. Meaning was constructed through inference rather than instruction, requiring ongoing interpretive labour that carried its own emotional weight.

Employees described working environments in which clarity was scarce, and communication was carefully managed. P19 reflected on how ambiguity shaped her experience of supervision and decision-making over time: I realised I couldn’t run the project the way I needed to. I couldn’t share things without worrying – have I shared too much, have I shared too little? As she spoke, she appeared visibly flushed and increasingly nervous, her voice wavering before she paused briefly to regain composure. Her account illustrates how emotional strain was not triggered by a single exchange, but by the sustained effort required to continuously calibrate what was safe to say and what needed to remain unsaid.

This interpretive burden was echoed in P20’s account. He described how mixed signals and shifting expectations required constant monitoring of tone and intent: One-minute things were fine, then suddenly they weren’t. You start questioning yourself – did I misunderstand something; did I miss a cue? He spoke rapidly, frequently scanning the room while clenching his fists, alternating between averted gaze and moments of intense focus on the camera. His embodied tension reflected the cognitive and emotional effort involved in trying to reconcile contradictory messages over time, where certainty was elusive and meaning had to be continually reconstructed.

P22 similarly described how emotional restraint on the part of leaders shifted responsibility for meaning-making onto employees. She explained, You end up fitting yourself into a very narrow box. You stop challenging things because it’s clear that there’s only one acceptable way of thinking. She appeared visibly uncomfortable, struggling to maintain eye contact with the camera while repeatedly adjusting her hair. Over time, she noted, this narrowing of expression became habitual, with emotional energy redirected towards compliance rather than engagement.

Managers’ accounts revealed that ambiguity was often produced intentionally and framed as professionalism under sustained accountability. P32 described the cumulative strain of operating under continuous regulatory and organisational scrutiny, reflecting on a period in which emotional containment became increasingly difficult: It was terrible. It was very stressful … I hated coming into work … I didn’t know what else I could do. Nothing I tried worked. As he spoke, his voice lowered noticeably, his face became visibly red, and his gaze shifted around the room, indicating the effort involved in maintaining composure while remaining credible and defensible. His account suggested that emotional restraint was not confined to isolated incidents but sustained across time, shaping how emotion was managed and withheld.

P31 described a similar dynamic in her own leadership role, explaining how regulatory pressure narrowed the space for relational engagement and required constant focus on delivery: There’s method in the madness behind everything… you’ve just got to talk through the impacts … and keep things moving. As she recalled these moments, her body language became increasingly restless; she played with her hair, cleaned her keyboard, and pulled her shoulders back, her posture tightening as she spoke. While she framed this restraint as necessary at the time, her account suggested that emotional cues were constrained, leaving team members to infer reassurance, intent, and risk in the absence of explicit expression.

Across both employee and manager accounts, ambiguity functioned as an emotional amplifier rather than a neutral absence. Employees described expending significant emotional effort attempting to interpret silence, delayed responses, and shifts in tone. Managers described consciously limiting emotional expression to remain professional, defensible, and focused on delivery. This combination produced an environment in which emotional experience was shaped less by overt interaction and more by continuous interpretive labour.

In these accounts, emotion did not arise from discrete affective events, it emerged through sustained engagement with uncertainty, where individuals were required to monitor themselves, manage expression, and infer meaning in the absence of clear signals. Emotional restraint and ambiguity thus operated as central mechanisms through which supervision was experienced as emotionally consequential, even in the absence of explicit conflict or confrontation.

While the preceding theme shows how affective conditions emerge through supervisory ambiguity and restraint, the third theme examines how these emotional dynamics circulate across hierarchical roles within oversight-saturated environments.

Affective transmission and recursive emotional effects across roles

The affective conditions described in the preceding analysis did not remain confined to individual experiences or discrete supervisory encounters. Instead, emotional strain circulated across organisational roles, moving through hierarchical relationships and re-emerging in altered form. Participants described how pressure, restraint, and ambiguity were absorbed, regulated, and passed on, generating recursive emotional effects that sustained the very conditions they were attempting to manage.

Employees frequently described experiencing pressure as something that travelled through layers of authority rather than originating in a single interaction. P19 reflected on how accountability and emotional strain were displaced downward through the organisation: They’d say, ‘It’s alright, we’ll solve it here so I don’t have to go to my boss.’ Then all that pressure just comes down on you. As she spoke, she briefly paused to regain composure before continuing. Her account located emotional strain not in individual supervision, but in a cascading process through which pressure was repeatedly absorbed and redistributed.

This sense of affective transmission was echoed in P20’s account. He described how emotional cues were communicated through atmosphere rather than explicit instruction: You could feel it … even when nothing was being said … you start replaying things in your head, trying to work out what changed or what you missed. As he revisited this moment, he appeared visibly distressed, repeatedly adjusting his hands on the keyboard. In his account, emotional information travelled indirectly, shaping behaviour through vigilance rather than direct communication.

P22 similarly described learning how to regulate her behaviour by observing how pressure landed on others: It was very common to be ridiculed openly for thinking differently… and after a while you just learn not to do that … you just become a yes person. While speaking, she appeared visibly uncomfortable, her gaze turning away from the camera as she adjusted her jumper. Emotional restraint was learned vicariously, reinforcing conformity and narrowing expression across the team.

Managers described parallel processes of affective absorption and redistribution under sustained accountability. P36 articulated how pressure was experienced at senior organisational levels and subsequently channelled through supervision, framing accountability as unavoidable rather than discretionary: You’ve been dealt something that’s not palatable. You didn’t want to do it, but it’s got to be done. As this account was delivered, P36’s demeanour was stern and controlled, with sustained eye contact and minimal expressive variation. The account conveyed a clear awareness that pressure had to be carried and located somewhere within the system, even when doing so narrowed relational engagement and intensified supervisory firmness.

P35 described experiencing this process acutely in her own leadership role, particularly when translating regulatory expectations into action within teams. Reflecting on the cumulative nature of pressure, she explained: I can do all the inspirational things in the world, but there are certain people who just refuse to prioritise … and at some point you still have to get it done. Throughout her response, P35 struggled to maintain eye contact, frequently smiling while speaking and only intermittently looking towards the camera. Her gestures were restless, and her delivery suggested an effort to soften the weight of what she was describing. While this persistence was framed as necessary at the time, the account indicated that emotional consequences were not always immediately visible, with strain and fatigue often remaining unspoken within teams.

Across participants’ accounts, affective transmission was described as a routine feature of supervisory practice within oversight saturated environments. Emotional restraint at senior levels shaped how pressure was managed and redistributed, with accountability demands refracted through supervisory relationships rather than contained at their source. Employees described adjusting behaviour in anticipation of supervisory tone shaped by upstream pressures, while managers described regulating emotional expression as part of meeting organisational expectations, often becoming aware of downstream emotional effects only in retrospect.

Through these processes, emotional experience was reproduced across roles and carried forward over time. Vigilance, restraint, and interpretive effort were sustained through hierarchical relationships, such that supervision was experienced as a conduit for organisational affect rather than as a series of isolated emotional encounters.