中文摘要：

如何开展员工情绪劳动管理,避免负面行为结果,是服务行业面对的重要问题。以788名呼叫中心员工为研究对象,本文获得的结果表明：1）表层动作显著促进主动破坏行为,而深层动作的影响不显著。2）政策强度感知显著调节表层动作与主动破坏行为间关系;当政策强度感知较低时,表层动作对主动破坏行为的正向影响更为显著。3）情感社会分享显著调节深层动作与主动破坏行为间关系;当情感社会分享水平较高时,深层动作对主动破坏行为的负向影响更为显著。本研究从资源保存视角提出工作场所开展情绪劳动管理的有效策略。

英文摘要：

Companies in the service industry have greater pressure now to improve the quality of their customer service. Employees in service organizations usually should display an appropriate emotion toward their customers. Previous studies on emotional labor strategies （surface acting and deep acting） examined mainly their impacts on employees＇ attitudes and cognition. Till now, the impacts of emotional labor strategies on employee sabotage behavior have not been studied thoroughly yet. Moreover, insufficient attention has been paid on understanding the boundary conditions that may enhance or mitigate the effects of emotional labor strategies on employees＇ sabotage behavior. Therefore, based on the conservation of resources theory and the emotion theory,this study attempted to examine the impacts of emotional labor strategies on employees＇ sabotage behavior, as well as on the moderating roles of policy strength perception and the social sharing of emotions. Data was collected from employees working in call centers of two companies in Beijing, China. Two waves of the survey were conducted. In the first wave, participants were required to complete a questionnaire including demographic information （e.g., gender, age, and education）, control variables （neuroticism and negative affectivity）, emotional labor strategies （surface acting and deep acting）, policy strength perception, and social sharing of emotions. In the second wave, participants reported the levels of service sabotage behavior. We invited 1014 employees to participate in the first wave of the survey, and 899 employees in the second wave. The final sample consisted of 788 employees who completed both two waves. We examined our hypotheses with the SPSS 18.0 software. Results showed that： 1） surface acting was positively related to employee sabotage behavior, but aeep acting was not significantly associated with employee sabotage behavior. 2） The relationship between surface acting and employee sabotage behavior was significantly modera