Emotional Agency at Work : The Development and Validation of a Measure

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Emotional Agency at Work : The Development and Validation of a Measure © 2022 the Authors Published version Hökkä, Päivi Kristiina; Räikkönen, Eija; Ikävalko, Heini; Paloniemi, Susanna; Vähäsantanen, Katja Hökkä, P. K., Räikkönen, E., Ikävalko, H., Paloniemi, S., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2022). Emotional Agency at Work : The Development and Validation of a Measure. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 852598. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.852598 2022 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 05 July 2022 doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.852598 Edited by: Matheus Perazzo, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil Reviewed by: Raul Ramirez-Vielma, University of Concepcion, Chile Hassan Khajavy, University of Bojnord, Iran *Correspondence: Päivi Kristiina Hökkä [email protected] Specialty section: This article was submitted to Assessment, Testing and Applied Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Education Received: 11 January 2022 Accepted: 09 June 2022 Published: 05 July 2022 Citation: Hökkä P, Räikkönen E, Ikävalko H, Paloniemi S and Vähäsantanen K (2022) Emotional Agency at Work: The Development and Validation of a Measure. Front. Educ. 7:852598. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.852598 Emotional Agency at Work: The Development and Validation of a Measure Päivi Kristiina Hökkä1,2*, Eija Räikkönen3, Heini Ikävalko4, Susanna Paloniemi1and Katja Vähäsantanen5 1Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, 3Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, 4Aalto University School of Business, Center for Knowledge and Innovation Research, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 5Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Despite intensive research on agency in education and work environments, the topic remains underexplored through the lens of emotions. This study conducted the development and validation of a quantitative measure to explore emotional agency in working life. Empirical data (N= 240) were collected via a web-based survey within the professional domains of healthcare and real estate services. The participants’ age, educational level, and gender corresponded to the domain-specific and general employee distribution in Finland. The questionnaire items were based on a theoretical construct of emotional agency at work. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that emotional agency includes two dimensions: Emotional Competence at Work and Influencing Emotions at Work. Exploratory structural equation modeling showed these dimensions to be equivalent across the studied professional domains. Furthermore, the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure was confirmed in relation to the emotional climate at work and work engagement. The study enriches the current theory of agency and emotions at work by exploring their connection. It also proposes a novel measure of emotional agency at work (the E-Ag measure), offered as a useful tool for researching and developing working life and organizational behavior. Keywords: agency, emotion, emotional agency, work engagement, emotional climate, measure INTRODUCTION The concept of agency has been a topic of interest for decades, especially in the fields of social science, psychology, philosophy, and gender studies. In general, agency refers to active human participation that has the power to make a difference, and to influence current circumstances (e.g., Giddens, 1984;Bandura, 1989). This means that individuals are seen as having the capacity to determine their own lives and destiny, and not as subjugated to surrounding structures or forces. In working life and organization studies, the concept of agency has emerged as a construct for understanding how individuals and organizations can survive or even flourish amid rapid societal and organizational changes (Eteläpelto et al., 2013;Hager and Beckett, 2019). As a result of ongoing global and societal transformations, individuals are expected to adopt new orientations toward their work and to enlarge their professional roles, all with a willingness to be flexible and ready for continuous development and learning (e.g., Hökkä et al., 2019). This underlines the meaning of agency as a crucial aspect of continuous learning in workplace contexts (Tynjälä, 2013; Vähäsantanen et al., 2017;Wallin et al., 2022). At the same time, efforts in this direction often have Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 1July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 2 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure to be implemented amid tightening accountability, restructuring, and global competition (e.g., Luo, 2005), and—in recent years— global crises (Li et al., 2020). Everyday activities and interactions at work are crucial at many learning sites throughout individuals’ working lives (Billett and Noble, 2017;Smith, 2017). In these interactions, agency is intertwined with learning at work in a wide range of ways. It encompasses influencing, developing, and transforming existing cultures and practices at work (Billett, 2011;Eteläpelto, 2017). Empirical studies have highlighted the importance of agency in learning at work with regard to creative thinking and innovations (Collin et al., 2017;Messmann and Mulder, 2017), developing occupational knowledge and skills (Smith, 2017), intrapreneurship (Parker, 2011;Wiethe-Körprich et al., 2017), and proactive career planning (Forrier et al., 2009;Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto, 2015). Despite considerable research on agency at work, the topic has remained underexplored in terms of its emotional components. Agency at work has mainly been conceptualized as rational and goal-oriented actions aimed at making a difference to a state of affairs, with little attention given to how emotions enter into agentic actions (Hökkä et al., 2019). This, then, is why we argue the need for a deeper understanding of the relationship between emotions and agency, encompassing in particular emotional agency at work. So far, only a few papers (Krone and Dougherty, 2015;Weenink and Spaargaren, 2016; Hökkä et al., 2019) have dealt with the construct of emotional agency per se, and no study has investigated such a construct via quantitative measurements. Overall, our aim is to enrich the current theory of agency at work by elaborating the concept of emotional agency, and to develop and validate a quantitative measure of it. In this paper we also discuss the implications of emotional agency at work, and how the instrument (EAg measure) might be used in researching working life and in bringing about organizational change. We anticipate that the new instrument may provide new ways for organizations to intentionally focus and improve emotional components of organizational practices and development. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The Conceptualization of Emotional Agency So far, only a few studies have elaborated the relationship between emotions and agency in working life (e.g., Hughes, 2005;Agrawal et al., 2013;Hökkä et al., 2017;Ursin et al., 2020). These have shown that emotions can both enable and constrain the enactment of agency. For example, there is evidence that the emotion of fear exerts a strong power in pushing leaders toward agentic actions, whereas it seems to paralyze employees and prevent them from taking agentic actions even if urgently needed to transform work practices (Hökkä et al., 2017). However, the studies in question have elaborated the relation between emotion and agency one-sidedly and have not addressed how emotions are dealt with and influenced by agency. In addition, in elaborating the relationship between emotions and agency, there have been some tentative attempts to apply and describe the concept of emotional agency (e.g., Krone and Dougherty, 2015;Weenink and Spaargaren, 2016;Hökkä et al., 2017). However, these have failed to give a comprehensive and elaborative description of the concept due to applying an overly narrow focus or rendering a vague theoretical definition. Thus, a more comprehensive conceptualization of emotional agency at work is needed, which could be built on previous conceptualizations of both agency and emotions. Next, we will share our understanding of emotional agency by first focusing on describing our approach to agency at work and then on emotions at work. Agency at Work In general, agency at work has been categorized on the basis of two different approaches. In the first place, agency has been described as a behavioral phenomenon, that is, as something that individuals do with transformative or creative purposes in mind, either on their own or with other people (Eteläpelto et al., 2013;Damsa et al., 2017). Agency at work would thus refer to the ways in which professionals exert influence, take initiatives, make choices, and engage in negotiations regarding (i) their work (i.e., their individual and collective ways of working), and (ii) their professional identity (i.e., their professional interests, goals, and values). Viewed in this light, agency is manifested via renegotiating one’s professional identity (Vähäsantanen et al., 2017), influencing and developing work practices and environments (Kerosuo, 2017), or transforming organizational and institutional structures (Tuominen and Lehtonen, 2018). The recent studies by Vähäsantanen et al. (2017, 2022) have elaborated the concept of agency at work by adopting a subject-centered sociocultural approach (Eteläpelto et al., 2013, 2014) that emphasizes agency as an action-based phenomenon that is enacted within sociocultural conditions by individuals based on their unique life narratives. They have further presented a multidimensional structure of agency at work that consists of three different dimensions: Influencing at work, Developing work practices, and Negotiating professional identity. This structure of agency at work emphasizes agency in the form of intentional actions at work aiming to improve work performance and practices. Current literature also suggests that agency can be understood as an individual capacity, skill, or competence (Goller and Paloniemi, 2017). In this case, agency is notably conceptualized as an individual characteristic encompassing the dispositions and competences that enable individuals to make choices and initiate actions in such a way as to exercise control in their professional lives and work environments (Goller, 2017;Goller and Harteis, 2017). In fact, in building on previous approaches to agency as (i) behavior or (ii) an individual characteristic, we recognize these as complementary. We see emotional agency as encompassing both individual competencies and actual behavior, such as when a person influences emotions or consciously uses emotions in everyday work practices. Emotion at Work In organization and workplace studies, there is a long tradition of studies on the operations and conceptions of emotion at Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 2July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 3 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure work. In these studies, a psychological approach has prevailed wherein emotions are viewed mainly as individual and subjective experiences, emphasizing emotion either as universally shared, discrete states (e.g., Ekman, 2016) or as dimensions of valence and arousal (Harmon-Jones et al., 2016). However, during the last few decades, sociological and sociocultural understandings of emotion have become increasingly prominent. These approaches tend to emphasize emotions as socioculturally and collectively constructed interpersonal entities that are dependent on learned rules, and as socially produced categories and concepts (Barbalet, 2001;Russell, 2003;Boler and Zembylas, 2016). Thus, emotions are not seen primarily as phenomena existing in the mind but rather as entities that shape social interaction and its consequences (Hareli et al., 2008). Despite this, both psychological and sociological approaches have been challenged on the grounds that they offer too narrow a picture of the multidimensional nature of emotion. The sociological approach has been criticized for ignoring the importance of the individual and of subjective feelings, and also for reducing emotion to meanings (Leavitt, 1996). For its part, the psychological approach has been seen as narrowing the scope of emotions to the point that that they become intrapersonal feelings (of a universal nature), separated from social and contextual practices, circumstances, and cultures (e.g., Parkinson, 1995;Schutz and DeCuir, 2002). On the basis of the criticisms above, scholars—notably in the fields of adult education and organizational studies—have called for a more holistic understanding of emotion. This would take into account both individual and social aspects of emotion, and pay attention also to their interactions (e.g., Zembylas, 2007;Butler and Gross, 2009;Rimé, 2009). Our understanding of emotion is in accord with these pleas. We thus understand emotions as subjective experiences, which are at the same time embedded in sociocultural contexts that can act as either triggers or inhibitors of certain emotions. This way of thinking emphasizes also the processual nature of emotions, situated, as they are, within the dynamic everyday actions that take place in the workplace and elsewhere. From this understanding of emotions, plus our understanding of agency at work as encompassing both characteristics and behavior, we see emotional agency through an integrative lens. Emotional agency is thus characterized as individuals’ competences and intentional emotion-related actions that take place within real-life organizational cultures and practices and which can be supported or hindered by the sociocultural affordances of these. This definition takes into account the relationship between agency and emotion as reciprocal; more specifically, it includes a theoretical distinction insofar as it views emotional agency as the intentional influencing of emotions at work. This involves the competence to perceive, understand and take into account both one’s own and other people’s emotions, and influencing emotions in organizational practices, actions and interactions. On the basis of this conceptualization, we assumed emotional agency to encompass two potential dimensions, namely Emotional Competence at Work and Influencing Emotions at Work. Next, we will look at these dimensions in more detail. Potential Dimensions of Emotional Agency Emotional Competence at Work In understanding and studying emotions in workplace contexts, the construct of emotional intelligence has been very popular in recent decades. Emotional intelligence refers to an individual’s ability to perceive, assimilate, understand and manage their own emotions and those of others (Mayer et al., 1999;Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). Despite its popularity, there has been a lively and critical discussion about the topic regarding, for example, whether emotional intelligence is an innate trait or something that can be learned. The scholars that emphasize the idea that emotional skills can be learned and developed prefer the concept of emotional competence (e.g., Goleman, 1998; Kotsou et al., 2011;Wang et al., 2016;Gerbeth et al., 2021). They propose that emotional intelligence offers a foundation, but to enable ongoing development and improvement at work (e.g., improved job performance) emotional competence must be developed (Vaida and Opre, 2014). Thus, emotional competence includes how a member of an organization recognizes, expresses, and deals with emotions at work (e.g., Kim et al., 2009;Ikävalko et al., 2020) plus the idea of individuals’ potential to learn to better deal with emotions at work (Kotsou et al., 2011;Brasseur et al., 2013). There is evidence that persons with greater emotional competence are likely to show improved work performance through their actions in the work setting (Kim et al., 2009) and that adults’ emotional competence can be enhanced via emotion training (Kotsou et al., 2011). Clarke (2006) has argued that when the aim is to develop emotional competence at work, one must pay attention to the sociocultural nature of the work setting. In line with this, we consider it important to regard emotional competence as a phenomenon embedded in everyday work practices (Ikävalko et al., 2020). Influencing Emotions at Work In conceptualizing emotional agency, another key principle is how one can influence emotions at work (Hökkä et al., 2017). This includes influencing both one’s own and other people’s emotions. Furthermore, it includes affecting shared emotions as well as the emotional climate of the work organization. Understanding emotional agency as intentional influencing of emotions thus underlines its nature as an action-based phenomenon enacted in certain sociocultural circumstances (cf., Eteläpelto et al., 2014;Vähäsantanen et al., 2017, 2022). The idea of influencing emotions at work can be seen as closely related to another emotion-based construct at work, namely emotion regulation. Emotion regulation refers to ways in which people control and manage their emotional responses in certain social circumstances. Gross (1998) defines emotion regulation as individuals influencing which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they express these emotions. This perspective encompasses how people can manage their emotional responses in order to adjust to prevailing circumstances in contextually and socially acceptable ways. The circumstances and sociocultural contexts in question have an effect on emotion regulation and on the regulation strategies that people use, Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 3July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 4 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure such as how people suppress or inhibit their authentic feelings (English et al., 2017). By including the contextual element of the situation, our conceptualization of emotional agency goes beyond the psychological concept of emotion regulation. We note that despite recent developments within emotion regulation literature—including the recognition of the role that context plays in emotional processes (cf., Brockman et al., 2017;English et al., 2017)—the main emphasis is still on the individual or interpersonal perspective and, further, on control over which emotions are experienced (Gross, 2015). Influencing emotions at work also means strengthening positive emotions in work communities, bearing in mind that a supportive emotional climate is connected, for instance, to better service outcomes (Härtel et al., 2008) and fosters knowledge sharing among people in organizations (Jalili and Salemipour, 2019). In addition, influencing emotions at work means taking constructive actions to deal with difficult and unpleasant emotions like anxiety and frustration. For example, a study by Stephens and Carmeli (2016) showed that when team members were able to constructively express their negative emotions this improved the knowledge creation within the team and performance outcomes. Thus, strengthening positive emotions does not mean enforced positivity, that is, allowing space only for positive emotions and suppressing negative ones (cf., Hochschild, 1983). To the contrary, in line with Parke and Seo (2017), our understanding of emotional agency as influential emphasizes the importance of dealing with all kinds of emotions at work, including negative or unpleasant ones. As just described, we emphasize the integrative nature of emotional agency as encompassing both individual and social aspects of emotion and behavior as well as characteristic aspects of agency at work. Based on this theoretical understanding, we assumed the structure of emotional agency to be comprised of two dimensions: Emotional Competence at Work and Influencing Emotions at Work. Since there is so far no research addressing the structure of emotional agency, we aimed to validate a measure and to explore its structure within different professional domains, the final goal thus being to develop an applicable instrument for studying and developing working life. Emotional Agency and Other Emotion-Related Constructs Through this study, our aim is to validate the dimensions of emotional agency in relation to emotional climate at work and work engagement. In our definition of emotional agency, we emphasize its integrative nature both as an individual and social phenomenon, as socioculturally supported and hindered within everyday work practices, and as an intentional action to influence emotions at work. We propose that all of these concepts (emotional agency, emotional climate at work, work engagement) refer to a positive attachment to work and that they are related to some extent. Accordingly, we assumed that there are positive associations between emotional agency and (i) emotional climate at work as well as with (ii) work engagement, but that emotional agency is distinct from these two phenomena. Due to the absence of previous quantitative studies on emotional agency, clear assumptions regarding the magnitude of these associations were not made. Emotional Climate at Work Emotional climate has been proposed as a useful concept for understanding organizational life and emotions in the workplace (Yurtsever and de Rivera, 2010;Liu et al., 2014). Using the term affect climate,Parke and Seo (2017, p. 335) defined it as “employees’ shared perception of organizational aspects such as policies, practices and routines, as well as the behaviors that are expected, supported or rewarded regarding their affective expressions or experiences.” Following this perspective and aligned to the general use of the “climate” concept (Luria, 2019), in the present study the emotional climate was understood as employees’ perceptions of the extent to which they perceive their organizational environment to be conducive to their emotions and emotion-related behavior. Parke and Seo (2017) constructed a theory of collective affective processes that an organization’s affective climate shapes and sustains. According to Parke and Seo (2017), an authentic experiential climate within an organization allows members to openly discuss their emotions and to resolve negative feelings they have toward one another. The authors described the factors of affect valence and affect authenticity as resulting in different types of affective climates. However, they did not provide measures for evaluating the emotional climate. Previous studies have shown that supportive emotional climate has many positive affects at organizations. For example, a study by Härtel and Liu (2012) presents the positive relationship between emotional climate and workplace effectiveness. A study by Patterson et al. (2004) showed that satisfaction with the organizational climate was strongly connected to company productivity. In our understanding of emotional agency, we underline its nature both as an individual and social phenomenon, and as socioculturally supported and hindered within organizational practices. We therefore assumed that emotional climate at work and emotional agency are positively related but empirically distinct phenomena. Work Engagement Work engagement is a well-established and widely used measure, comprising the components of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). When first developed, work engagement was seen as a relatively stable phenomenon involving a positive work-related state of mind. However, recent studies have shown that both social and individual factors (e.g., job resources and personal resources) play a pivotal role and are important drivers for work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002). This implies the situational nature of work engagement. Previous research on work engagement and its relation to various work-related phenomena gives due weight to the idea that emotional agency and work engagement are positively related. Work engagement has been found to have a positive association, for example, with job performance (Bakker and Bal, 2010), creativity (Demerouti et al., 2015), and job crafting (Petrou et al., 2017). Furthermore, emotion-related resources such as positive affect (Laguna et al., 2017) and the psychological safety Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 4July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 5 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure climate (Garrick et al., 2014) have been conceptualized as types of workplace resources that moderate the negative relationship between job demands and work engagement. There is strong evidence that work engagement can enhance both individual and organizational outcomes in terms of, for example, promoting health and wellbeing at work (Bakker and Bal, 2010;Hakanen and Schaufeli, 2012). Furthermore, there is evidence that work engagement is positively connected to productivity at work (Bakker et al., 2014) and to the sustainability of organizations (Schaufeli, 2013). Since positive job-related emotions and work engagement are both positive (work-related) dimensions, it is reasonable to assume that they are conceptually closely related. There are nevertheless grounds for viewing them as conceptually and empirically distinct (see Van Wijhe et al., 2011). We anticipated that a similar distinction applies to emotional agency and work engagement, that is, that they would be positively related but conceptually and empirically distinct phenomena. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS In the present study, our aim was to develop and validate a measure for investigating emotional agency in working life. In addition, we examined whether employees from two different professional domains interpreted the measure of emotional agency in a conceptually similar manner. Overall, we aimed to validate the measure of emotional agency in relation to the (i) emotional climate at work and to (ii) work engagement. The research questions (RQ) were set as follows: RQ1. What dimensions can be identified in terms of emotional agency at the workplace? RQ2. Do employees in two different work contexts interpret the measure of emotional agency in a similar manner? RQ3. Does emotional agency show adequate convergent and discriminant validity in relation to emotional climate at work and work engagement? MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants and Procedure This study was conducted as part of a larger research project encompassing two organizations: real estate services (227 participants in total) and healthcare (118 participants in total). The data were gathered before the global COVID-19 pandemic, in 2018 and 2019. The topic was related to the companies’ internal development projects, and the data collection was supported by the top management. To collect the data, the authors sent a personal e-mail to the employees, introducing the study and inviting them to respond anonymously to the questionnaire via a separate link. Participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time. The participants did not receive any financial or professional benefit from their participation. The study was conducted in line with the instructions and ethical principles laid down by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Academy of Finland, and the authors’ home university. The participants were informed of these points in the questionnaire, and the consent forms were collected in conjunction with the information. Ethical issues, such as voluntary participation and comprehensive information on the study (e.g., its purpose and ethical principles), were taken into account throughout the study. The data were gathered from two different professional domains. The questionnaire was filled in by 240 participants. The participants in data set 1 (n= 138) came from real estate services, with a response rate of 61%. Those in data set 2 (n= 102) were from the healthcare sector, with a response rate of 86%. The respondent profiles of the participants from the two organizations were fairly similar (see Table 1). However, they differed notably in terms of gender (data set 1 was male-dominated, while data set 2 was female-dominated) and education (data set 1 participants had a lower education level than those in data set 2). Furthermore, in data set 1 more of the employees had a vocational education, and they also had longer work experience in the organization than did the employees in data set 2. The participants’ age, education level, and gender corresponded to the domain-specific and general employee distribution in Finland (Lehto and Sutela, 2014). Measures Emotional Agency at Work When we set up this study, there were no measures to investigate emotional agency at work. Hence, the first step was to develop a questionnaire with relevant items. From the inception of this development and validation study, our aim was to work toward a concise, rigorous, and user-friendly measure. This included the idea that when addressing the content validity of the measure the number of items must remain within reasonable limits. Moreover, in order to reduce potential method biases, we carried out several procedural methods (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, we paid attention to the careful construction of the items themselves by avoiding ambiguous terms, vague concepts and double-barreled questions, and by keeping the questions as simple and concise as possible. Second, in the information letter shared via e-mail and in the online questionnaire’s preface sheet we informed the participants that the answers are anonymous and that there are no “right or wrong” answers. In addition, we underlined that the collected data will be available only to the authors of this research project. These procedural methods were used to protect the respondents’ anonymity, reduce possible evaluation apprehension, and improve the scale items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In designing the questionnaire, we referred to (i) previous research on emotions at work (e.g., Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000; Zembylas, 2007;Butler and Gross, 2009;Kim et al., 2009; Hodzic et al., 2018;Hökkä et al., 2019, 2020), (ii) research on agency at work (e.g., Billett, 2011;Eteläpelto et al., 2013, 2014;Damsa et al., 2017;Goller and Harteis, 2017;Goller and Paloniemi, 2017;Vähäsantanen et al., 2017), (iii) our own prior studies, understandings and observations, and (iv) close collaboration with a team of experts with expertise in emotion training in a variety of work organizations and professional Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 5July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 6 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics (frequencies, n; percentages, %) for background variables (N= 219–236). Background factors Descriptive statistics Real estate services (n= 138) Healthcare services (n= 102) n%n% Gender (n= 236) Men 103 75 23 24 Women 30 22 70 71 Other 5 3 5 5 Missing 0 4 χ2(2) = 61.79, p<0.001 Age group (n= 228) 20–29 years 11 8 10 11 30–39 28 20 23 25 40–49 29 21 26 29 50–59 50 36 23 24 60 +19 14 9 11 Missing 1 11 χ2(4) = 5.32, n.s. Level of education (n= 233) Lowa45 33 12 13 Mediumb78 57 59 61 Highc14 10 25 26 Missing 1 6 χ2(2) = 18.20, p<0.001 Work experience (n= 219) 0–9 years 72 53 57 69 10–19 26 19 22 27 20 +38 28 4 5 Missing 2 19 χ2(2) = 17.82, p<0.001 Position (n= 232) Leaders 22 16 14 15 Employees 116 84 80 85 Missing 0 9 χ2(1) = 0.047, n.s. Valid frequencies and percentages are presented in the table. aUpper secondary school diploma. bDegree from vocational college or polytechnic, or a bachelor’s degree from a university. cAt least a master’s degree from a university or an equivalent degree from a polytechnic. fields. The questionnaire development was also partly based on existing literature addressing measuring emotions, notably emotional competence (Kotsou et al., 2011;Brasseur et al., 2013;Wang et al., 2016) and emotional intelligence (EI) in teams (Jordan and Lawrence, 2009). However, as our focus was on emotions and agency, the previously validated scales were not appropriate for our purposes due to their individual focus and/or psychology-related orientation. Note also that although some existing EI measures are connected to teams (e.g., Jordan and Lawrence, 2009), but our aim was to more broadly capture the social and shared aspects of emotions at the workplace, and also the behavioral aspects of emotional agency. We chose altogether 12 items to represent emotional agency in the initial item pool, following a consensus on content validity and appropriateness. These items are presented in Table 2 (variables 1.1–2.5). The response options for the items ranged from 1 (I strongly disagree)to5(I strongly agree). The initial questionnaire and the web-based implementation of it were pilottested with seven professionals working in the field of education in order to ensure the clarity and face validity of the items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). On the basis of the pilot testing, we made some modifications to the item formulations and to the general instructions. Originally, the items were developed and presented in Finnish. The English translations and back-translations were made by a native English linguistics expert who is also an expert in the Finnish language. These translations were further triangulated and discussed by the research team. Emotional Climate at Work There exist a few validated measures to assess emotional climate at work. However, these are focused on measuring either emotions at the workgroup level (Liu et al., 2014) or on the predominant collective emotions of the majority of the organizations’ members (Yurtsever and de Rivera, 2010). In our study, we were interested in finding out about individuals’ own perceptions concerning how emotions are taken into account, permitted and expressed at their workplace. Thus, we formulated four items to assess how encouraging individuals perceive their organization to be in terms of emotion and emotion-related behavior by utilizing existing literature and theory (Parke and Seo, 2017). The emphasis was on developing items that would capture constructive aspects of the emotional climate at the organizational level. The items are: (1) “Emotions are taken into account in my workplace,” (2) “In my workplace, people are able to discuss emotions in a constructive way,” (3) “In my workplace, people are permitted to express different emotions,” and (4) “In my workplace, emotions are expressed in a variety of ways.” The participants rated the items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 5 (I strongly agree). The factor structure of the measure is shown in Figure 1. McDonald’s ωreliability for the scale was 0.83. Work Engagement Work engagement was assessed with the Ultra-Short Measure for Work Engagement UWES-3 (Schaufeli et al., 2019). The ultra-short version of the measure was chosen to enhance the conciseness and user-friendliness of the questionnaire. The items for measuring the three subscales are: (1) “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor), (2) “I am enthusiastic about my job” (dedication), and (3) “I am immersed in my work” (absorption). UWES-3 allowed us to use advanced statistical methods applicable to our data size, and to limit the length of the questionnaire. The response options ranged from 0 (never) to 6 (every day). The validity and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.77 to 0.88) of the UWES-3 measure was confirmed by Schaufeli et al. (2019). In our study, the reliability assessed Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 6July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 7 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure TABLE 2 | Descriptive statistics for the studied variables (N= 240). Variables M SD Skewness Kurtosis Emotional agency (1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree) Hypothesized Dimension of Emotional Competence at Work 1.1 I pay attention to emotions in my workplace. 3.93 0.83 –0.72 0.50 1.2 I have good awareness of my own emotions at my work. 4.13 0.73 –0.74 0.81 1.3 I can describe the various emotions I experience at my work. 3.55 0.91 –0.28 –0.15 1.4 At my workplace, I can express how I feel if necessary. 3.76 0.90 –0.75 0.31 1.5 I have good skills in recognizing emotions at my workplace. 3.86 0.77 –0.73 1.14 1.6 I have ways of dealing with emotions in my workplace. 3.55 0.79 –0.52 0.25 1.7 I am able to deal with negative emotions in my workplace. 3.61 0.78 –0.72 0.80 Hypothesized dimension of influencing emotions at work 2.1 I am able to influence the emotions I experience at my work. 3.80 0.79 –0.59 0.43 2.2 I am able to influence other people’s emotions in my workplace. 3.43 0.85 –0.42 0.27 2.3 I can contribute to the emotional climate of my workplace. 4.14 0.79 –1.23 2.95 2.4 I am able to strengthen positive emotions at my workplace. 3.75 0.76 –0.57 1.13 2.5 I am able to create a good atmosphere at my workplace. 3.95 0.77 –0.81 1.74 Emotional Climate at Work (1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree) 3.1 Emotions are taken into account in my workplace. 3.23 0.99 –0.28 –0.40 3.2 In my workplace, people are able to discuss emotions in a constructive way. 2.76 0.99 –0.74 –0.65 3.3 In my workplace, people are permitted to express different emotions. 3.43 0.96 –0.52 –0.03 3.4 In my workplace, emotions are expressed in a variety of ways. 3.27 0.90 –0.31 –0.37 Work Engagement (0 = never, to 6 = every day) 4.1 At my work, I feel bursting with energy. 5.39 1.35 –1.09 0.81 4.2 I am enthusiastic about my work. 5.61 1.40 –1.10 0.85 4.3 I am immersed in my work. 5.27 1.60 –1.03 0.45 FIGURE 1 | Dimensions of emotional agency in relation to Work engagement (N= 240). Standardized estimates are presented (∗p<0.05, ∗∗∗p<0.001). The numbers before the emotional agency items refer to the original item numbers shown in Table 1. Fit statistics: χ2(53) = 68.32, p= 0.08; RMSEA = 0.04 [90% CI = 0.00–0.06], CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.04. via McDonald’s ωwas 0.84. This corresponds to the range of reliability reported by Schaufeli et al. (2019). In general, in developing the new measure and deciding what constructs to use for validating the structure of the measure of emotional agency, we carefully considered the possible method biases. In this regard, we focused on considering how to avoid social desirability and reducing item ambiguity as described. In addition, we aimed to improve the scale items by using scales that Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 7July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 8 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure have different endpoints and formats (i.e., 5-point and 7-point scales) in order to avoid method biases caused by commonalities in scale endpoints (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Data Analysis We conducted the analyses using Mplus software, version 8.6 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998/2018). Descriptive statistics of the studied variables are shown in Table 2. The robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) was chosen as a method of estimation since some of the items were slightly skewed. There were no missing values among the analyzed variables. For our first research question, we used data set 1. We examined the factor structure of emotional agency on the basis of 12 items, applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA; Fabrigar and Wegener, 2012; Tabachnik and Fidell, 2013). We chose EFA as the method of analysis because we were developing a new measure and hence had no firm hypotheses concerning either the number of dimensions of emotional agency at work or how the items would reflect these potential dimensions. An oblique geomin rotation was chosen, since it allowed the factors of emotional agency to be correlated. To identify possible factor structures, we relied on several criteria: the eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule of thumb (Kaiser, 1960) in combination with Cattell’s (1966) scree plot test, parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) and fit indices (see further on regarding the fit indices for exploratory structural equation modeling, ESEM), plus having an adequate number of items per factor (which should be at least three; see Fabrigar and Wegener, 2012). We also considered the interpretability of the solutions and their consistency with theoretical predictions (Gorsuch, 1983). Moreover, items that cross-loaded (i.e., those with a loading of 0.32 or higher; see Tabachnik and Fidell, 2013) on two or more factors were excluded from the final solution. After deciding on the final factor structure, McDonald’s ω(McDonald, 1999) was computed for each factor. Our second research question concerned whether employees in two different work contexts interpreted the measure of emotional agency similarly. Hence, it was necessary to examine whether the structure of emotional agency was invariant across work contexts. For the purposes of the third research question, we examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure of emotional agency in relation to emotional climate at work and work engagement. For both of these examinations, we utilized data sets 1 and 2. A typical approach to these kinds of research questions has been the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM). However, increasing research evidence shows that instruments assessing multidimensional constructs seldom manage to achieve a reasonable fit, an adequate differentiation of factors or measurement invariance across groups within this traditional framework (e.g., Marsh et al., 2009; for a review, see Marsh et al., 2014). The primary reason for this is that such instruments have had cross-loadings, indicating that some of the items are reflecting not only their respective factor but also one or more other factors. Thus, they are imperfect indicators of a latent construct. Although these cross-loadings have been coherent with the underlying theory, in CFA modeling they are forced to be zero due to assumptions inherent in CFA. Previous research has shown that if cross-loadings are not estimated, CFA produces overestimated latent factor correlations that might further result in biased estimates in SEM incorporating the CFA measurement model and other variables (e.g., Asparouhov and Muthén, 2009;Marsh et al., 2009). As all of the aforementioned issues were relevant to our investigations, we decided to use exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM; Asparouhov and Muthén, 2009;Marsh et al., 2009) instead the CFA/SEM framework, especially since ESEM can overcome these limitations by integrating EFA factors with the analytical possibilities of CFA and SEM in a single framework. Thereby, we could conduct invariance examinations for the EFA measurement model of emotional agency using multigroup analysis, and we were able to compare these competing models through tests of statistical significance and fit indices as well as to include both EFA and CFA factors within the same analysis. We investigated the measurement invariance of the structure of emotional agency between data sets 1 and 2 via four steps, evaluated successively (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000;Marsh et al., 2009). In the first step, the configural invariance (i.e., the equivalence of the model form) was tested by estimating factor loadings, intercepts, and residual variances of the items freely, constraining the latent variances to 1 and the latent means to 0 across the data sets. The second step was to test weak invariance. This included the preceding step plus the setting of equal factor loadings across the data sets. The third step included a test of strong invariance, within which item intercepts (in addition to the constraints operating in the preceding steps) were constrained to be equal across data sets. The fourth step, strict invariance, was tested by also constraining item residual variances so that they would be equal. Finally, factor variances/covariances were set as equal in order to test their invariance across the data sets. In each step, the model of the preceding step served as a reference. We assessed the goodness-of-fit of all estimated models on the basis of the χ2-test, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR). Fit with the data was considered acceptable if the p-value for the χ2-test was non-significant, if CFI and TLI values were greater than 0.95, if an RMSEA value was less than 0.06, and if an SRMR value was less than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Yet, it is important to note that these cut-offs were established for the traditional CFA/SEM framework, and ESEM scholars (e.g., Marsh et al., 2009, 2010) have suggested that fit indices which include a correction for parsimony (TLI and RMSEA) may be particularly important in ESEM, given that the number of estimated parameters is much larger than in CFA. However, research regarding the adequacy of these criteria for EFA and ESEM is still lacking (Arens and Morin, 2016). Hence, in line with previous ESEM applications (e.g., Marsh et al., 2009, 2010;Arens and Morin, 2016), we used these criteria only as rough guidelines for facilitating the model evaluation and, at the same time, considered the theoretical adequacy of the model for determining the fit of our ESEM models. We compared the models at each step of the invariance testing process using the scaled χ2difference test Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 8July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 15 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure Fabrigar, L. R., and Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory Factor Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199734177.001. 0001 Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312 Forrier, A., Sels, L., and Stynen, D. (2009). Career mobility at the intersection between agent and structure. A conceptual model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82, 739–759. doi: 10.1348/096317909X470933 Garrick, A., Mak, A. S., Cathcart, S., Winwood, P. C., Bakker, A. B., and Lushington, K. (2014). Psychosocial safety climate moderating the effects of daily job demands and recovery on fatigue and work engagement. J. Occup Organ. Psychol. 87, 694–714. doi: 10.1111/joop.12069 Gerbeth, S., Stamouli, E., and Mulder, R. H. (2021). Development of the short scale of the multidimensional emotional competence questionnaire in a German sample. Sage Open 2021, 1–15. doi: 10.1177/21582440211009220 Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. doi: 10.1002/ltl.40619981008 Goller, M. (2017). Human Agency at Work: An Active Approach Towards Expertise Development. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-18286-1 Goller, M., and Harteis, C. (2017). “Human agency at work: towards a clarification and operationalisation of the concept,” in Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 85–104. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_5 Goller, M., and Paloniemi, S. (2017). “Agency at work, learning and professional development: an introduction,” in Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 1–14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_1 Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis, 2nd Edn. New Jersey, NY: Erlbaum. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 224–237. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224 Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: current status and future prospects. Psychol. Inq. 26, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781 Hager, P., and Beckett, D. (2019). The Emergence of Complexity. Rethinking Education as a Social Science. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31839-0 Hakanen, J., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. J. Affect. Disord. 141, 415–424. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043 Hareli, S., Rafaeli, A., and Parkinson, B. (2008). “Emotions as social entities: interpersonal functions and effects of emotion in organizations,” in Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations, eds N. M. Ashkanasy and C. L. Cooper (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 349–359. Harmon-Jones, C., Bastian, B., and Harmon-Jones, E. (2016). The discrete emotions questionnaire: a new tool for measuring state self-reported emotions. PLoS One 11:e0159915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159915 Härtel, C. E., and Liu, X. Y. (2012). How emotional climate in teams affects workplace effectiveness in individualistic and collectivistic contexts. J. Manag. Organ. 18, 573–585. doi: 10.5172/jmo.2012.18.4.573 Härtel, C. E., Zerbe, W. J., and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Emotions in Organizational Behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi: 10. 4324/9781410611895 Härtel, C. E. J., Gough, H., and Härtel, F. (2008). Work-group emotional climate, emotion management skills, and service attitudes and performance. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 46, 21–37. doi: 10.1177/1038411107086541. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Hodzic, S., Scharfen, J., Ripoll, P., Holling, H., and Zenasni, F. (2018). How efficient are emotional intelligence trainings: a meta-analysis. Emot. Rev. 10, 138–148. doi: 10.1177/1754073917708613 Hökkä, P., Vähäsantanen, K., and Paloniemi, S. (2020). Emotions in learning at work: a literature review. Vocat. Learn. 13, 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s12186-01909226-z Hökkä, P., Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., and Eteläpelto, A. (2017). “The reciprocal relationship between emotions and agency in the workplace,” in Agency at work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 161–181. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_9 Hökkä, P., Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., Herranen, S., and Eteläpelto, A. (2019). Emotions in leaders’ enactment of professional agency. J. Workplace Learn. 31, 143–165. doi: 10.1108/JWL-07-2018-0086 Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30, 179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447 Horrocks, A., and Callahan, J. L. (2007). The role of emotion and narrative in the reciprocal construction of identity. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 9, 69–83. doi: 10.1080/13678860600563382 Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for Fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 Hughes, J. (2005). Bringing emotion to work: emotional intelligence, employee resistance and the reinvention of character. Work Employ. Soc. 19, 603–625. doi: 10.1177/0950017005055675 Ikävalko, H., Hökkä, P., Paloniemi, S., and Vähäsantanen, K. (2020). Emotional competence at work. J. Organ. Change Manag. 33, 1485–1498. doi: 10.1108/ JOCM-01-2020-0024 Jalili, Y. A., and Salemipour, F. (2019). Group organizational citizenship behavior and knowledge sharing: the moderating role of workgroup emotional climate. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 50, 117–135. doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-12-20180117 Jordan, P. J., and Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). J. Manag. Organ. 15, 452–469. doi: 10.1017/S1833367200002546 Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116 Kerosuo, H. (2017). “Transformative agency and the development of knotworking in building design,” in Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 331–349. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_17 Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M., Kim, S.-P., and Wang, J. (2009). Emotional competence and work performance: the mediating effect of proactivity and the moderating effect of job autonomy. J. Organ. Behav. 30, 983–1000. doi: 10.1002/job.610 Kotsou, I., Nelis, D., Grégoire, J., and Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Emotional plasticity: conditions and effects of improving emotional competence in adulthood. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 827–839. doi: 10.1037/a0023047 Krone, K. J., and Dougherty, D. S. (2015). Re-claiming an unfinished past: from emotional labor to critical emotional agency. Electron. J. Commun. 25, 3–4. Laguna, M., Razmus, W., and ˙ Zali´ nski, A. (2017). Dynamic relationships between personal resources and work engagement in entrepreneurs. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 90, 248–269. doi: 10.1111/joop.12170 Leavitt, J. (1996). Meaning and feeling in the anthropology of emotions. Am. Ethnol. 23, 514–539. doi: 10.1525/ae.1996.23.3.02a00040 Lehto, A.-M., and Sutela, H. (2014). Työolojen Muutokset 1977–2013, [Changes in Working Conditions 1977–2013]. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Li, J., Ghosh, R., and Nachmias, S. (2020). A special issue on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work, worker, and workplace!? Implications for HRD research and practices in time of crisis. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 23, 329–332. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2020.1752493 Liu, X.-Y., Härtel, E. J., and Sun, J. J.-M. (2014). The workgroup emotional climate scale: theoretical development, empirical validation, and relationship with workgroup effectiveness. Group Organ. Manag. 39, 626–663. doi: 10.1177/ 1059601114554453 Luo, Y. (2005). How does globalization affect corporate governance and accountability? A perspective from MNEs. J. Int. Manag. 11, 19–41. doi: 10. 1016/j.intman.2004.11.003 Luria, G. (2019). Climate as a group level phenomenon: theoretical assumptions and methodological considerations. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 1055–1066. doi: 10. 1002/job.2417 Marsh, H., Morin, A., Parker, P., and Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10, 85–110. doi: 10.1146/ annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700 Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., and Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit Evaluation, eds A. Maydeu-Olivares and J. McArdle (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 275–340. Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 15 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598 feduc-07-852598 June 29, 2022 Time: 14:41 # 16 Hökkä et al. Emotional Agency at Work Measure Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., et al. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychol. Assess. 22, 471–491. doi: 10.1037/ a0019227 Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., et al. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Struct. Equ. Model. 16, 439–476. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008220 Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., and Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence 27, 267–298. doi: 10.1016/ S0160-2896(99)00016-1 McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Messmann, G., and Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 15, 43–59. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011. 646894 Messmann, G., and Mulder, R. H. (2017). “Proactive employees: the relationship between work-related reflection and innovative work behaviour,” in Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 141–159. doi: 10.1007/978-3319-60943-0_8 Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. (1998/2018). Mplus user’s Guide, 8th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Parke, M. R., and Seo, M. G. (2017). The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42, 334–360. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0424 Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 19–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.003 Parkinson, B. (1995). Ideas and Realities of Emotion. Abingdon: Routledge. Patterson, M., Warr, P., and West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: the role of employee affect and employee level. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77, 193–216. doi: 10.1348/096317904774202144 Petrou, P., Bakker, A. B., and van den Heuvel, M. (2017). Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting: implications for meaning-making and work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 90, 129–152. doi: 10.1111/joop.12160 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010. 88.5.879 Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: theory and empirical review. Emot. Rev. 1, 60–85. doi: 10.1177/1754073908097189 Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol. Rev. 110, 145–172. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145 Satorra, A., and Bentler, P. (1999). A Scaled Difference Chi-Square Test Statistic for Moment Structure Analysis, Technical Report. Oakland, CA: University of California. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.199064 Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). “What is engagement?,” in Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, eds C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, and E. Soane (London: Routledge), 15–35. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Contzalez-Roma, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:101563093 0326 Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., and De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: the UWES-3 validation across five countries. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 35, 1–15. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000430 Schutz, P. A., and DeCuir, J. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education. Educ. Psychol. 37, 125–134. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_7 Smith, R. (2017). “Three aspects of epistemological agency: the socio-personal construction of work-learning,” in Agency at work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 67–85. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_4 Stephens, J. P., and Carmeli, A. (2016). The positive effect of expressing negative emotions on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 862–873. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.003 Tabachnik, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th Edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tuominen, T. M., and Lehtonen, M. H. (2018). The emergence of transformative agency in professional work. Organ. Stud. 39, 1601–1624. doi: 10.1177/ 0170840617717093 Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: a literature review. Vocat. Learn. 6, 11–36. doi: 10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z Ursin, J., Vähäsantanen, K., McAlpine, L., and Hökkä, P. (2020). Emotionally loaded identity and agency in Finnish academic work. J. Further High. Educ. 44, 311–325. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2018.1541971 Vähäsantanen, K., and Eteläpelto, A. (2015). Professional agency, identity, and emotions while leaving one’s work organization. Prof. Prof. 5, 1–16. doi: 10. 7577/pp.1394 Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., Hökkä, P., and Eteläpelto, A. (2017). Agentic perspective on fostering work-related learning. Stud. Contin. Educ. 39, 251–267. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2017.1310097 Vähäsantanen, K., Räikkönen, E., Paloniemi, S., and Hökkä, P. (2022). Acting agentically at work: developing a short measure of professional agency 1. Nord. J. Work. Life Stud. 12, 49–69. doi: 10.18291/njwls.127869 Vähäsantanen, K., Räikkönen, E., Paloniemi, S., Hökkä, P., and Eteläpelto, A. (2019). A novel instrument to measure the multidimensional structure of professional agency. Vocat. Learn. 12, 267–295. doi: 10.1007/s12186-0189210-6 Vaida, S., and Opre, A. (2014). Emotional intelligence versus emotional competence. J. Psychol. Educ. Res. 22, 26–33. Van Rooy, D. L., and Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: a metaanalytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. J. Vocat. Behav. 65, 71–95. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9 Van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., Schaufeli, W., and van den Hout, M. (2011). Understanding workaholism and work engagement: the role of mood and stop rules. Career Dev. Int. 16, 254–270. doi: 10.1108/13620431111140156 Vandenberg, R. J., and Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 3, 4–69. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002 Wallin, A., Nokelainen, P., and Kira, M. (2022). From thriving developers to stagnant self-doubters: an identity-centered approach to exploring the relationship between digitalization and professional development. Vocat. Learn. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1007/s12186-022-09288-6 Wang, N., Wilhite, S., and Martino, D. (2016). Understanding the relationship between school leaders’ social and emotional competence and their transformational leadership: the importance of self–other agreement. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 44, 467–490. doi: 10.1177/1741143214558568 Weenink, D., and Spaargaren, G. (2016). “Emotional agency navigates a world of practices,” in Practice Theory and Research: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Life, eds G. Spaargaren, D. Weenink, and M. Lamers (New York, NY: Oxfordshire), 6–100. doi: 10.4324/978131565690 Wiethe-Körprich, M., Weber, S., Bley, S., and Kreuzer, C. (2017). “Intrapreneurship competence as a manifestation of work agency: a systematic literature review,” in Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, eds M. Goller and S. Paloniemi (Cham: Springer), 37–65. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_3 Yurtsever, G., and de Rivera, J. (2010). Measuring the emotional climate of an organization. Percept. Mot. Skills 110, 501–516. doi: 10.2466/pms.110.2.501-516 Zembylas, M. (2007). Theory and methodology in researching emotions in education. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 30, 57–72. doi: 10.1080/ 17437270701207785 Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Copyright © 2022 Hökkä, Räikkönen, Ikävalko, Paloniemi and Vähäsantanen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 16 July 2022 | Volume 7 | Article 852598