Interspecies emotion management: the importance of distinguishing between emotion work and emotional labour ARTICLES

This paper presents the importance of the informed and nuanced distinction and use of the terms “emotion work” and “emotional labour” when referring to interspecies work. When emotional labour is acknowledged as a professional skill across species, two realities can be recognised and therefore acted upon. Firstly, it clarifies that emotional labour is performed by workers with formal jobs during working hours. By extension, the second reality arises, that emotional labour is a professional skill requiring preparation, education, and ongoing support. Using the terms emotion work and emotional labour muddies and weakens this argument. This paper rests at the intersection of emotion management and animal labour studies, two fields that have thus far predominantly run parallel, despite a critical need for their interdisciplinary engagement.


Introduction
In a busy city's centre, a guide dog (Canis familiaris) skilfully leads a visually impaired human (Homo sapien) calmly past visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory distractions which might normally entice them by exciting their sensitive senses. Not too far away, a police horse (Equus caballus) carries a police officer safely through a crowd of fast-paced, loud pedestrians without spooking or fleeing. This guide dog and police horse act as two examples of individuals of other species with formal jobs who regularly encounter and manoeuvre through diverse environments while continuing to carry out tasks with a professional demeanour. To do so successfully, emotion work and emotional labour, two key forms of emotion management, each play a role (see, for example, Macpherson-Mayor, Ba, and Van Daalen-Smith 2020; Coulter 2019Coulter , 2020Coulter , 2016a. More broadly, humans and other social mammals rely greatly on emotion management to manoeuvre, for example, myriad cultural, interpersonal, personal, societal, and work-related interactions (i.e. de Waal 2019). A recognition of this predominantly within animal labour studies has initiated an increase of academic interest on interspecies emotional labour in recent years (see Coulter 2020;Dashper 2019;Taylor and Fraser 2019;Tremoleda and Kerton 2020;Macpherson-Mayor, Ba, and Van Daalen-Smith 2020;Taylor 2010).
Emotional labour is a central element of the majority of formal jobs because, as a professional skill, it is integral to interpersonal work (Hochschild 1983;Leidner 1999;Wharton 2009). Despite being a central labour process, it has become a challenging concept to define within academic discourse, as it is strongly relied on to explain a wide range of complex emotion management, often leading to over-generalisations (Grandey, Diefendorff, and Rupp 2013;Kruml and Geddes 2000;Brook 2009). That emotional labour can impact personal and private lives, blending with emotion work, another form of emotion management, can act as a further complication (C. Knight 2020;Whitaker 2019). In regard to the presence of emotional labour and emotion work in the work-lives of other species, Coulter (2020Coulter ( , 2019 wrote that a blurring and simultaneous presence of these two forms of emotion management can also often be observed across species. Therefore, an acknowledgement that they often go handin-hand is necessary and inherent. This paper nevertheless argues the importance for scholars, particularly within emotion management studies and animal labour studies, to distinguish and use these terms with nuance and informed distinction where possible. This discussion sits at the juncture where emotion management and animal labour studies. Playing a critical role in this, as it pertains to this paper's specific focus, is the lack of research within emotion management studies concerning emotional labour not performed during able-bodied human-human interactions (Wilton 2008) and, more specifically, examining how it may be performed with and for other species as a professional skill. An acknowledgement and clear defining of forms of emotion management performed by species other than humans is needed and long overdue within emotion management studies. Simultaneously, while animal labour studies is increasingly developing and expanding into new domains, the conceptualisation of species other than humans being "at work", beyond mandated, productive labour, is still in its infancy (Porcher and Schmitt 2012, 40). However, scholars are increasingly presenting the importance of valuing interspecific work (Charlotte Blattner, Kymlicka, and Coulter 2020;Coulter 2016a;Hamilton and Mitchell 2018). Recognising forms of emotion management, specifically emotional labour, as labour processes within multispecies workplaces aides in both widening and deepening such debates.
Even so, emotional labour is often confused with other forms of emotion management, such as, most notably, emotion work. Stating that individuals of any species are performing emotional labour when they are not or seldomly acknowledging this skill at all, can cause the performers themselves harm. It can hinder efforts toward fully recognising and supporting individuals of other species as skilled workers not only by the physical tasks they carry out as part of their formal jobs, but the emotional labour they perform to do so professionally, in the manner that it is expected of them by their employers, the general public, their co-workers, and clients. Acknowledging the centrality of emotion management as part of most formal jobs across species, coupled with distinguishing between different forms of emotion management can act as an initial step toward improving interspecies emotional labour education, practices, environment, and broader culture. This paper focuses solely on distinguishing between two of the most referred to forms of emotion management performed across species lines: emotional labour and emotion work. In so doing, it presents why the precise and informed use of these terms is important, specifically in efforts to recognise these efforts and contribute to a discussion that can meaningfully support workers of other species within multispecies workplaces.

Human-human emotional labour
Both emotional labour and emotion work theory stems most notably from the early sociological work of Hochschild (2009aHochschild ( , 2008Hochschild ( , 1983Hochschild ( , 1979. Emotional labour performed between humans refers to the suppression or induction of emotion that is performed to present appropriate emotion displays in formal work-related interactions and has exchange value (Hochschild 2009a(Hochschild , 2008(Hochschild , 1983(Hochschild , 1979Grandey, Diefendorff, and Rupp 2013). Examples of emotion displays resulting from emotional labour are, for example, tone of voice, facial expressions, and demeanour between workers and the receivers of their performance (Hochschild 1979(Hochschild , 1983. These are deemed appropriate and performed satisfactorily when external expressions of emotion align with social and organisational guidelines, also referred to as feeling rules, a concept which is defined at a later point. In other words, emotional labour is specifically performed by workers within formal jobs to professionally manage their emotions to present the expected emotion displays -recipients of these efforts generally being clients, co-workers, and employers (L. Lee and Madera 2019;Whitaker 2019;Hochschild 1983).

Interspecies emotional labour
This paper initially orients the understanding of interspecies emotional labour around the definition by Hochschild that is mentioned above. However, it acknowledges that the definition can be problematic even within purely human-human interactions and workplaces, because it runs the risk of over-generalising a complex effort (Brook 2009;see, for example, Bolton 2000). Additionally, it is anthropocentric in its reliance on and positioning of exchange value as a centrally defining factor. Indeed, Hochschild's definition is grounded in Marxist definitions of exchange (Callahan and McCollun 2015). According to Marx (1867, 126), something obtains exchange value "appears first of all as the quantitative relation, the proportion, in which use-values of one kind exchange for use-values of another kind". In other words, emotional labour as it is performed in human-human interactions has exchange value when an emotion display (the expected demeanour of a worker in a formal work-related interaction) is exchanged for something that has value (Callahan and McCollun 2015). For humans, this is generally an exchange for monetary income. Therefore, using exchange value to define emotional labour performed between humans can, mostly, be an accurate and tidy approach.
Some individuals of other species with formal jobs do receive what could be considered a monetary exchange for their emotional labour efforts. For example, guide dogs, dependent on the country they work in and the guide dog school they were educated by, can receive a monthly financial deposit, from health insurances (see in Germany, for example, AOK -Die Gesundheitskasse 2020) or the guide dog school, to cover their needs, in addition to an eventual retirement (Berentzen 2016;Bremhorst et al. 2018). Individuals of other species can receive in exchange (although not comparable to that of humans) in the form of, but not limited to, rewards such as food, praise, and acknowledgement, as well as essentials including shelter, food, and water, in addition to some obtaining pensions and yearly funds to cover their needs, as is the case with police dogs (Coulter 2016a). Coulter (2016a) addressed that the money earned by humans, at times resulting from work with other species, is generally additionally spent, to some degree, to fulfil the needs and perceived wants of their multispecies co-workers and the improvement of the workplace for those who work there, as well. Exchange can also refer to interpersonal exchanges. World-renowned trainer Zeligs (2022, 65) refers to a "Relationship Bank Account", which is "the cumulative value the animal assigns to the trainer and their actions (from the animal's point of view)". In a comparable vein, Pemberton (2019, 95) referred to "verbally caressing" a guide dog co-worker can be given and received as "a form of 'pay cheques', units of exchange to give recognition to the dog for an effective thought or safe decision". While not equal to the monetary exchange gained by human emotional labour performers, such considerations draw attention to varied and nuanced forms of exchange received across species for emotional labour performances.
However, as Coulter (2016a, 2020) and others (for example, but not limited to, Charlotte Blattner, Kymlicka, and Coulter 2020; Bachour 2020; Wadiwel 2020) have highlighted, while Marx addressed the, predominantly mandated, productive labour of other species, they primarily did so to highlight the superiority of the work of humans 1 and the role of other species as tools and resources (Marx 1967(Marx , 1990. 2 Whether Hochschild's definition, which later emotional labour definitions have circled around, represents the emotional labour performed by other species is therefore questionable. Therefore, rather than limit an interspecies definition of emotional labour to interactions with exchange value in the sense Hochschild initially proposed, emotional labour across species might best be understood as a professional skill performed during working hours of a formal job to align with social and organisational guidelines, without exchange acting as the core deciding factor. This paper acknowledges emotional labour across species as a form of emotion management performed during work-related interactions as part of formal jobs to present the appropriate and expected emotion displays with and for multispecies 1 "[W]hat distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality" (Marx 1967, 177-78).
2 "A particular product may be used in one and the same process, both as an instrument of labour and as raw material. Take, for instance, the fattening of cattle, where the animal is the raw material, and at the same time an instrument for the production of manure" (Marx 1990, 288). recipients. This is not to say that it is only being performed when an individual of another species is working with a human professional -who might be performing what is known as extrinsic emotional labour, whereby an individual manages the emotions, and therefore emotion displays, of another through cognitive change and modulation of responses (see, for example, Guan and Jepsen 2020). Rather, workers across species can be performing emotional labour as part of formal jobs independently of human professionals (to varying degrees) for recipients who are not professionals, such as children (i.e. riding lessons, therapy, education) or individuals living with a disability (i.e. assistance dogs), to name two common examples.
Workers performing emotional labour are taught to do so by employees and coworkers. As Hochschild (2009b, 31) writes of unique expectations concerning emotion displays, emotional labour can also be, "like differently tuned keys on a piano, allows us to hear different inner notes". Despite their education, workers across species can and will often take their own unique approach to performing emotional labour as a result of their personality, character, intuition, and past experiences, for example (Hochschild 1983;Coulter 2019). Both how and why an individual decides to perform emotional labour in a certain manner is also greatly impacted by the society, culture, and organisation they are part of, as the following section presents.

Feeling rules
Feeling rules, at times referred to as display rules (Geddes and Lindebaum 2020), act as the skeleton of emotion management: the social and organisational guidelines that steer the extent (expressing "too much" happiness or "too much" anger), direction (sad, but "supposed" to express happiness), and duration of emotion displays (Geddes and Lindebaum 2020;Hochschild 1979Hochschild , 2009b. Feeling rules are taught during the training and education for a specific job, as workers learn what is or is not desired from their emotion displays and other actions. Feeling rules are critical in work performance (Fouquereau et al. 2019, 268) and, Liu et al. (H. Liu et al. 2019, 580) stated, in developing professional identities. It is therefore paramount that feeling rules are acknowledged and individuals are reflexively and thoroughly prepared to actively align their emotion displays with them. Other times, however, feeling rules may have become so deeply ingrained in the subconscious of humans or other species, that they may align with them without being fully aware that they are doing so (Gosserand and Diefendorff 2005).
Nevertheless, even feeling rules, Colombetti (2009) highlighted, are generally not set in stone. They can and may need to be revised, because, "as people change their behaviour, labels and descriptions change accordingly" (Colombetti 2009, 13). Part of this is that individuals do not consistently perceive or have identical feeling rules, nor are those they share always important to the same extent (Austin, Dore, and O'Donovan 2008). For example, German Shepherds are a restricted breed in parts of Ireland (Cork City Councel 2021, para 2; Irish Statute Book 2021). They are also historically highly respected in the United States with a mixture of both awe and fear (Putnam 1954). As a direct result of these often deep-held cultural and historical perceptions, their ability to manage their emotions and present appropriate emotion displays tends to be held to a higher standard than that of a Labrador Retriever, for example (for a related discussion, see Rosenberg 2011). If a guide dog who is a German Shepherd, for example, does not align themselves with their feeling rules while working, even momentarily, this may be perceived more negatively by some of the general public than if a Labrador Retriever did the same. However, if the German Shepherd is especially skilled in their emotional labour performances, this might benefit their breed's broader image, as the general public encounters what they perceive to be an exception.

Power dynamics
Most formal work environments are established and managed by the business or other organisation itself, who can directly dictate the extent and intensity with which, frequency of, and strategy for emotional labour performances (Fouquereau et al. 2019;Grandey 2000; J. Y. Lee and Nam 2016). Therefore, feeling rules -their existence, content, and who establishes and regulates them -rest on power dynamics in favour of employers and the organisations they work for and with (Brotheridge and Lee 2003;Hochschild 1983;Whitaker 2019). As a result, emotional labour does, as well, between employees and, predominantly, their employer or client, as well as across co-workers. This becomes increasingly so concerning emotional labour performed within multispecies workplaces, because of the innate power dynamics present in such dynamics (for example, but not limited to, Charlotte Blattner, Kymlicka, and Coulter 2020; Coulter 2016a). Exploring the power dynamics between humans and other species fully would expand past the scope of this paper. However, when discussing emotional labour, it is nevertheless worth recognising its inherent role within such dynamics. Concerning emotional labour, some power dynamics and the consequences experienced by individuals of other species when not aligning with them accordingly may not immediately seem clear. For example, humans working with and for them may state that they allow their canine, horse, or other co-workers to "be themselves". However, as the Academy of Management Insights (2019) recognised, this is not attainable in a comparable or equally beneficial manner across individuals. Many, such as individuals who identify as women, are disabled, are part of racial and religious minorities, are members of other species, or are part of the LGBTQ+ community, for example, often face more rigid expectations of their emotion displays from their society and organisation. To use guide dogs as an example, are they able to be "themselves" during working hours to the extent that their human instructor is? Do they need to be more vigilant with their emotional labour performances to avoid any lapses, as a result? Examining such power dynamics within the emotion management of formal interspecies jobs is an area in great need of further research.
As it relates to the emotion displays of canines with a formal job, Horowitz (2019, 62-63) acknowledged the common phenomenon whereby humans "profess to love the animal, [but] despair at their animalness". This observation is central when considering the role of power dynamics that guide dogs, quite notably, manoeuvre. Broadly speaking, guide dogs are expected to present emotion displays while guiding a visually impaired individual that speak quite strongly against their instincts and, therefore, how they might normally behave (Berentzen 2016;Foraita, Howell, and Bennett 2021a). Therefore, as Cha et al. (2019, 657) recognised, workers both being asked to follow rigid feeling rules or "be themselves", although they may at times benefit from feeling rules, can encounter differing degrees of "power tradeoffs".

Emotion work
So far, the discussion has focused on emotional labour. However, not all animals partake in formal work or do so at all times (Coulter 2016a). As a result, not each individual performs emotional labour, nor do they rely solely on it when managing emotions. The second most commonly referred to form of emotion management, as mentioned previously, is emotion work. It is concerned with internal emotion management with use value (Hochschild 1983;Gong 2020). Something has use value when it can provide pleasure or other personal use (Callahan and McCollun 2015). As Blattner (2020, 50) noted, other species may also find value in "decision-making power at work, taking over responsibility, cultivating meaningful work relationships, learning new things, having opportunities for identity-building and self-realization, having options for growth, making important contributions to their community, being able to help others through work, having flexible working hours, being creative, and many more". They may, then, gain use value in one of these ways during working hours, as well, as a result of emotion work.
It is worth noting here, as well, that varied interpretations of the definition of emotion work exist. Some have interpreted Hochschild's (1983, 7 emphasis in original) formulation as meaning that emotion work is solely practiced in private, personal contexts, perhaps because Hochschild wrote that emotion work is "done in a private context where they have use value". This choice of wording may have created some confusion which has, at times, resulted in simplistic interpretations (Callahan and Mc-Collun 2015). Callahan and McCollun (2015) drew the focus back to the distinction between emotional labour and emotion work, in particular for organisational researchers and those focusing on formal work between humans, which is that of each emotion management form's value. In this way, they wrote, it can be better understood how, why, and when a worker oscillates between emotion work and emotional labour almost seamlessly throughout their workday and, more broadly, their work-lives.
For example, it is often beneficial and generally provides social use value to be friendly to co-workers, regardless of their species, even when you are having a bad day. Callahan and McCollun (2015, 223) stated that emotion work can therefore act as "the social lubricant of our everyday lives". However, its outcome is often not necessarily expected as part of a formal job. Emotional labour, they (Callahan and McCollun 2015) clarified, can be seen when the flight attendant nevertheless smiles at and offers a friendly, professional service to a passenger who is being rude to them or, in contrast, a dept collector who needs to present a stern demeanour to ensure that bills are paid (see also Hochschild 1983). These are examples of humans performing emotional labour for other humans to supplement the limited literature on interspecific emotional labour performances.
This discussion applies to workers of other species as well, however, as Coulter (2016aCoulter ( , 2020Coulter ( , 2019 most notably differentiated in the field of animal labour studies. For example, a calm canine companion walking on a loose lead is performing emotion work. They may spot a tempting distraction or are walking at a pace slower than that which they would prefer. The canine companion will nevertheless manage their emotions to present a calm demeanour and maintain or improve the communication and relationship with their human partner for a wide range of motivations. A guide dog presenting a similarly calm display while wearing a harness and guiding their visually impaired human partner is performing emotional labour. They have been taught extensively over a long period what the expectations are of their emotion displays are during the time spent working and how they need to present these in a wide range of scenarios -even when they do not feel like doing so momentarily. Instead of, or in addition to, the use value of performing this emotional labour, the guide dog is expected to do so to an extent that stretches beyond the upholding of friendship or the enjoyment of offering the emotion display.

Challenging distinctions
Distinguishing between emotion work and emotional labour allows for an acknowledgement that both can be done in multispecies workplaces and, at times, simultaneously. A police dog is often expected to present a stern, alert emotion display. While they might be asked not to react and remain neutral toward their police dog colleagues, it would be considered emotion work if they presented friendly emotion displays for them or wagged at pedestrians. These efforts may not be taught to them or otherwise expected as part of their formal job. Nevertheless, such emotion displays may improve the social aspect of their work and increase the likelihood that it is enjoyable for them and their multispecies co-workers and recipients of their work to some extent. In other words, it can have use value.
In this sense, emotion work and emotional labour are often woven tightly together. It is not always clear when or where one ends and another begins, as we begin to untangle their definitions. This is because, just as we are unable to truly understand what another human is feeling (Barrett 2018), we will not always be able to do so across species either (de Waal 2019), beyond being empathetic and egomorphic (Milton 2005;Hurn 2012). Nevertheless, as Coulter (2019, 24) wrote, "we cannot know exactly what is going inside horses' minds as they approach a new object on a trail, [...] but they are likely actively assessing the situation in real time and making choices about how to react". Not knowing how another, regardless of species, is feeling, clearly challenges the ability to distinguish when, why, or how they are managing their feelings and emotions to perform emotional labour or emotion work. Do they simply have a friendly personality and a calm temperament or are they suppressing their energetic self to present this demeanour? Observation alone is therefore generally an unreliable mode of assessment as to whether a worker is performing predominantly emotional labour or emotion work during a given moment. Here too, it is most easily recognised through considering whether their performance is expected of their formal job or solely has use value. If they tend to be energetic, yet are acting calm and friendly toward the receiver of their performances, is the nature of this exchange part of their job description and therefore expected or is it something which has value of another kind? For example, does it strengthen and upkeep their relationship with co-workers or enrich their personal experiences within the workplace?

Power of distinction
A fine balance needs to be found between acknowledging the emotional labour performed by other species, while refraining from using the term too liberally. If we use the terms "emotion work" and "emotional labour" interchangeably, we effectively eliminate any acknowledgement of emotional labour as a professional skill. In lacking nuance, emotional labour is swept under the rug of emotion work. It is then presented as though this professional skill, often requiring extensive preparation, and education, is the equivalent to niceties exchanged at the water cooler or water trough. This is not to downplay emotion work, either, as it plays a critical role in supporting emotional labour and building, as well as sustaining, relationships both in the work sphere and private domain.
Recognising workers of all species acts as an initial step toward offering them improved working conditions, rights, protections, retirement, and humane jobs which are mutually beneficial across species (see, for example, Coulter 2020Coulter , 2016aCoulter , 2016bCharlotte Blattner 2020;Charlotte Blattner, Kymlicka, and Coulter 2020). A fundamental component of recognising formal work involving interpersonal exchanges is acknowledging emotional labour as an essential labour process. Workers can then be supported in their emotional labour efforts through preparation, education, support, and appropriate resources. There is much to be done both within academia and industry to achieve this, as it is not common even amongst human workers. Regarding officers, Boyle (2005, 58) wrote that, "formal training for emotional labor is still a rare occurrence. At the shop floor level, emotional labor may be considered 'the best tool to have.' However, in terms of resource allocation for training, technical skills are still given primacy". The same can be said for other species. It is clear to most that a guide dog or police horse, as classic examples of other species conducting formal work, will need to manage their emotions to an exceptional level. In the same breath, however, their educators often do not prepare and educate them for their work in a manner which considers emotional labour.

Organised emotional care
A form of emotion management worth noting that can overlap with and incorporate both emotion work and emotional labour is organised emotional care. It is not discussed much in emotion management studies, but can be traced to Lopez (2006, 148). They ask for more nuance within the concept of emotional labour, rather than using it as an umbrella term to cover and muddy many motivations, interpretations, and outcomes simultaneously: [E]motional relationships with clients are often more complicated and nuanced than the notion of emotional labor implies. Even in work situations where managers are attempting to extract emotional labor, workers and clients are often capable of constructing and enjoying relationships that are experienced as belonging to the participants and not to the organization (Lopez 2006, 148, emphasis added).
Further scholars have also argued for the term "emotional labour" not to be used as an all-encompassing term, calling for more specific labels be given for the nuanced, yet impactful and varied forms that emotion management within formal jobs can take (see, for example, the edited volume of Grandey, Diefendorff, and Rupp 2013). Within such discussions, organised emotional care is "an approach in which, rather than prescribing expectations for workers' interactions with others, employers instead aim to create opportunities for caring relationships to emerge on their own" (Lopez 2006; Grandey, Diefendorff, and Rupp 2013; R. T. Lee and Brotheridge 2011;Wharton 2009, 154).
Organised emotional care is mentioned here to bring it to the fore of future discussions concerning interspecies emotion management. Work done with and for other species may not have rigid expectations of emotion displays that are part of the job description and enforced by employers. Often, a rather dynamic exchange between performer and recipient across species can develop, where "organized emotional care[, emotion work,] and emotional labor coexis[t]" (Lopez 2006, 156). This paper nevertheless places a focus on emotional labour and emotion work, because they act as the two most often referred to forms of emotion management both in academia and by practitioners. They therefore act as strong initial examples when distinguishing forms of emotion management across species.

Conclusion
[R]ecognising that horses are making choices about how to act and present themselves, actively learning from their experience and/or assessing situations as they arise -that is, engaging in emotional labour and emotion work -can open up new areas of inquiry, allow us to see horses as multi-dimensional actors, and better appreciate their collaboration, participation, and, in key cases, leadership (Coulter 2019, 24).
Acknowledging that workers across species with formal jobs perform emotional labour during working hours aides in establishing and strengthening two statements. Firstly, it distinguishes emotion management efforts done either in informal work or otherwise for use value (emotion work) from that which requires the development of a professional skill as part of formal work (emotional labour). Secondly, and as an extension of the first statement, it highlights the need for workers performing emotional labour to receive preparation, education, and ongoing support to be able to offer this service. Recognising emotional labour as a skill and as distinct, at times, from emotion work acts as a necessary step to understanding what is needed to support multispecies workers in their performances. If it is stated that all individuals perform emotional labour or that workers do so outside of working hours, this muddies and weakens arguments in favour of proper recognition of emotional labour as a professional skill between species.
This article advances debates around emotion management, which have previously been strongly focused on management within able-bodied human-human interactions (Wilton 2008), to consider not only the distinctions between different forms of emotion management across species, but how doing so may be of benefit. Within animal labour studies, it speaks to the growing body of literature that acknowledges the management of emotion displays as a central element of interspecies jobs. Specifically, it argues that the acknowledgement and educated use of the terms within the field has the potential to result in meaningful, applied value through supporting the development of improved practices, legislation, regulation, and therefore work-lives of workers across species. For future research, increased attention needs to be paid to the emotion work carried out by animals both in private, personal contexts, as well as organisational and otherwise professional spheres. Additionally, further considerations of organised emotional care within multispecies workplaces is suggested. Doing so can assist in unravelling understandings of and then making sense of the often-enmeshed nature of emotion work and emotional labour during formal interspecies work-related interactions.