ArticlePDF Available

Dignity Inherent and Earned: The Experience of Dignity at Work

January 2023
The Academy of Management Annals 17(1):218-267

January 2023
17(1):218-267

DOI:10.5465/annals.2021.0059

Authors:

Bobbi Thomason

Pepperdine University

Show all 6 authorsHide

Content uploaded by Stephen C. Gibson

Content may be subject to copyright.

DIGNITY INHERENT AND EARNED: THE EXPERIENCE

OF DIGNITY AT WORK

CRISTINA GIBSON

BOBBI THOMASON

JACLYN MARGOLIS

KEVIN GROVES

STEPHEN GIBSON

JENNIFER FRANCZAK

Pepperdine University

Few concepts are more poignant than dignity at this point in history due to the conflu-

ence of several profound phenomena that detract from dignity—the pandemic, racial

inequality, and technological dehumanization. Scholars have argued that dignity can be

experienced at work, and prior research has highlighted the means for doing so, includ-

ing work that is connected and inspired, respected and embedded, and valued and

infused with meaning. Yet to our knowledge, no systematic review of scholarship on dig-

nity at work has been published. There is a dire need to develop a science of dignity at

work, as well as a framework that guides research. Our review helps to develop a thor-

ough understanding of the experience of dignity and of the key means by which dignity is

established at, and through, work.

Dignity encompasses an individual’ssenseofworth,

value, or esteem (Hodson, 2001; Lee, 2008). Few con-

cepts are more poignant. In the past decade, we have

witnessed the confluence of several profound phe-

nomena that detract from dignity—the experience of

disaffection and alienation accompanying job loss

and being forced to work remotely necessitated by

the worldwide pandemic (Gibson, 2020; Sikali, 2020);

the inequality and exclusion brought to our attention

through social movements for racial equality and

social justice (Szetela, 2020; Tillery, 2019); and

the dehumanization resulting from the technologi-

cal shifts toward automation, artificial intelligence,

and robotics (Bankins & Formosa, 2020; Ivanov,

Kuyumdzhiev, & Webster, 2020).

The experience of work provides a path forward.

Specifically, our review suggests that in the face of

disaffection and alienation, dignity is experienced

when we are connected and inspired during

our work (Cleveland, Byrne, & Cavanagh, 2015;

Griesin ger, 1990; Hodson, 1996; Lucas, 2015; Mel

2012). As for addressing inequality and exclusion, dig-

nity is experienced when we are respected and

embedded in the workplace (Hodson & Roscigno,

2004; Lucas, Manikas, Mattingly, & Crider, 2017;

Shapiro, 2016; Verhezen, 2010). Finally, when con-

fronted with feeling disposable or expendable, dig-

nity occurs when we experience work as valued and

infused with meaning (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, &

Fugate, 2007; Noronha, Chakraborty, & D’Cruz, 2020;

Thomas & Lucas, 2019; Vogt, 2005; Yeoman, 2014).

Indeed, some organizations have responded to recent

crises in ways that increase dignity at work: teams

have tried to maintain productivity and positive cul-

tures while working remotely, leaders have worked

to craft organizations in which all employees can

experience a sense of belonging and achieve leader-

ship roles regardless of race or ethnicity, and workers

have dealtwith global collaboration and competition

in ways that humanize and make work feel valued

irrespective of status or power (Gibson, 2020).

Yet surprisingly, our review of the research ondig-

nity at work indicated that although many articles in

our field and across related disciplines mentioned

We extend our sincere appreciation to our associate edi-

tor, Gary Ballinger, for his insightful comments and sug-

gestions. We also thank our colleagues and students at

Pepperdine Graziadio Business School for inspiring our

thinking on this manuscript and the Research Incubator

group for helping to create our collaborative culture. We

extend special appreciation to Quinn Webster for her

extensive assistance in retrieving and cataloging articles

and to Stan Fischer for his expert copy editing. We are also

grateful for the research retreat funds provided by the

Office of Research and Sponsored Projects at Pepperdine

University.

218

written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

rAcademy of Management Annals

2023, Vol. 17, No. 1, 218–267.

https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0059

dignity as an ancillary interest, the concept has sel-

dom held center court in the management literature.

Despite its potential to address many basic societal

challenges, we lack a sense of the science of dignity

at work. More specifically, we do not yet have a theo-

retical framework that maps the phenomena that

detract from dignity that are so commonplace onto

features of work through which dignity is experi-

enced. Hence, to continue to support the experience

of dignity, we must develop an integrated and holis-

tic understanding of the specific actions that both

detract from and activate human dignity at work.

In addressing these goals, our review makes four

key contributions. First, we bring both clarity and

synthesis to the conceptualization of dignity at work.

Drawing on related literature from numerous reli-

gious and philosophical traditions as well as man-

agement, psychology, and sociology, we establish

an integrated, interdisciplinary approach applicable

to numerous occupations, contexts, and geographic

locations. We also include research at four levels of

analysis—societal, organizational, interpersonal, and

individual—noting that many approaches to dignity

focus on only one of these. Furthermore, we identify

connections across levels as well as the possibility of

understanding intrapersonal and relational approaches

as embedded in contexts.

Second, we integrate two forms of dignity that pre-

viously have been contrasted in the literature: inher-

ent and earned (Lucas, 2015). Inherent dignity is the

belief in an unconditional dignity whereby all peo-

ple have intrinsic and equal value by virtue of being

human (Brennan & Lo, 2007). This is sometimes sim-

ply called “human dignity”and implies human value

is absolute and accorded to all. In contrast, earned dig-

nity emphasizes differential qualities, abilities, and

efforts, thus acknowledging that some individuals

gain greater dignity than others (Brennan & Lo, 2007).

In this sense, dignity is meritocratic and self-generated.

Prior research has argued that inherent and earned dig-

nity offer different routes to experiencing dignity as

well as different detractions to its pursuit. Scholars

examining the absence of dignity have largely focused

on inherent dignity, while earned dignity has been the

focus of most workplace phenomena designed to acti-

vate dignity (Goodstein, 2019; Lucas, 2015; Rogers,

Corley, & Ashforth, 2017). Ours is a fresh perspective,

integrating both forms. As illustrated by our review,

each of the indicators of an absence of dignity—

alienation, exclusion, and dehumanization—entail

both inherent and earned dignity. At the same time,

prior research that has captured features of work that

indicate the presence of dignity—connectedness,

respect, and meaning at work—also invokes both

inherent and earned dignity.

Third, much of the prior research has focused on

either the absence of dignity or on the means of estab-

lishing it. Rarely has a single study incorporated

both. Yet, a natural response after identifying work-

place phenomena that detract from dignity is to ask

what can be done either to proactively avoid the

indignity or through restorative practices that rees-

tablish it. Because our framework identifies specific

characteristics and features of work that address cer-

tain indicators of the absence of dignity, we inform

both theoretical and practical applications. We allow

for a theorization of an extended causal chain and

sequence of events and for the development of mitiga-

tion strategies. Hence, we contribute an understanding

of the experience of dignity at work, including how

and why it is often compromised, as well as the key

means through which society and the global business

community can cope with each detractor to establish

dignity at, and through, work.

Finally, our analysis of the literature will shape

future research by addressing fundamental challenges

at work that are driven by the megatrends facing our

society, organizations, and workers. As organizations

foresee a post-pandemic hybrid of in-person and

virtual work, our review informs scholarship that

explores the ways in which a “new normal”of

increased virtual work (Gibson, 2020; Gibson &

Gibbs, 2006) may confer dignity. Coinciding with

social movements and United Nations initiatives to

address inequalities (Chotiner, 2020), our review

encourages researchers to explore the fundamental

question: how does enabling employee voice acti-

vate dignity across races, genders, socioeconomic

status, and other identity classifications that influ-

ence the experience of dignity? The impact of tech-

nology and automation has reached a fever pitch

with the onset of Industry 4.0 (Murray, Rhymer, &

Sirmon, 2021; Raisch & Krakowski, 2021; Schneider

& Sting, 2020). Our integrated framework suggests

it will be critical to investigate questions such as

how can technological and increasingly dehuman-

ized work be infused with value and meaning? More

generally, our review encourages future research on

how workplace phenomena that activate the experi-

ence of dignity can motivate individuals and organi-

zations to champion dignity more broadly in society,

government, and the global business community.

Our integration and illumination of insights into the

experience of dignity at work can guide exploration

of these critical domains.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 219

REVIEW SCOPE AND PROCESS

We applied best practice standards to conduct a

systematic literature review (Siddaway, Wood, &

Hedges, 2019; Snyder, 2019). The Preferred Report-

ing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

(PRISMA) is widely used across disciplines and

includes a 27-item checklist as part of its guidance

(Siddaway et al., 2019). Research has shown that

articles that explicitly adopt PRISMA are likelier to

have reporting completeness indexed in PsychINFO

(Leclercq, Beaudart, Ajamieh, Rabenda, Tirelli, &

Bruyere, 2019). We focused on PRISMA standards

dealing with defining research questions, data

collection/search strategy, eligibility/screening criteria,

selection strategy, data extraction, critical appraisal,

and synthesis.

Our research asked: How has dignity been defined

and addressed in the workplace? We applied the

search terms “dignity”AND “workplace”across

databases, including JSTOR and SCOPUS. Our

search included 101 journals ranked highest across

six journal quality reports (see Appendix A in the

online supplement for details regarding journals in

the search). No date range was specified. Our initial

search returned 1,241 articles in the 101 journals.

Next, we applied a series of eligibility criteria (see

Appendix B in the online supplement). Two screen-

ers used these criteria to determine the eligibility

of all the initially discovered articles. After they

reviewed the first third (119 articles), we examined

their eligibility decisions and found they agreed on

103 (87%). Discrepancies were resolved against the

eight criteria before the screeners reviewed the re-

maining articles.

Our screening indicated 523 articles (42% of those

first identified) met the eligibility criteria (all of these

are listed in Appendix C in the online supplement).

Of the 101 journals originally specified, 58 included

one of these articles. Table 1 shows the final number

retained after our eligibility screening. Wealso ascer-

tained whether each article in the final set of 523 was

a review, conceptual, or empirical article. Next, we

categorized the research methods used in the empiri-

cal articles as either quantitative, qualitative, or

mixed. Fifty-three articles (10%) were reviews or

meta-analyses, and 176 (34%) were conceptual. Of

the 295 (56%) empirical articles, 179 (34%) were

quantitative, 89 (17%) were qualitative, and 26 (5%)

were mixed.

Our search did not find any previous systematic

reviews specifically on the topic of dignity. Never-

theless, several previous reviews did inform our

focus. Two articles integrated knowledge regarding

dignity. Pless, Maak, and Harris (2017: 223)provided

an overview of dignity through “the lens of artistic

expression and explores how arts may promote

human dignity in organizational life.”Their essay

was written as an introduction to a symposium on

human dignity from the viewpoint of the visual and

performing arts. In a second review, Zawadzki

(2018) analyzed theoretical approaches to dignity

with the goal of using Western management dis-

course to inform the field of Polish management sci-

ences and identify how work can be humanized.

Neither article claimed to be a systematic review.

Numerous reviews are also available on topics that

influence dignity or are influenced by it. Table 2

highlights the type, focus, and elements of each

review, all of which informed our analysis of dignity.

However, none of them placed dignity front and

center.

Next, we used an abductive approach to develop

a framework that integrated the 523 articles we

reviewed. Abductive processes involve reasoning

from observation of phenomena to creation of an ini-

tial model to arrive at explanations that serve as

plausible starting points rather than tests of a theory

(Behfar & Okhuysen, 2018; Dunne & Dougherty,

2016; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011). The conceptual

articles uncovered in our review were instrumental

in this process, as they helped to clarify a unifying

conceptualization of dignity and integrate extant

empirical work.

We thus arrived at the framework depicted in

Figure 1, consisting of six categories. Three of these

categories indicate an absence of dignity at work,

and we refer to these as dignity detractors. Thirty-

eight percent of the articles in our review addressed

these experiences. The reality in organizations is

that these experiences are increasingly routine and

ubiquitous, which suggests the features of work that

detract from dignity are critical elements of under-

standing dignity at work. Three of the categories in

our framework indicate the presence of dignity at

work, and we refer to these as dignity activators.Sixty-

two percent of the articles in our review addressed

these experiences.

Although prior research has addressed either the

absence or presence of dignity, it is very rare for a

given article to focus on both phenomena that com-

prise an absence of dignity and those that comprise

the presence of dignity. Thus, our framework inte-

grates knowledge across multiple literatures by stip-

ulating, in the same model, the phenomena that

constitute an absence of dignity at work and then

220 Academy of Management Annals January

TABLE 1

Number of Articles Identified and Retained in Systematic Search by Journal

Abbreviated Journal Title Retained Abbreviated Journal Title Retained

Acad. Manag. Ann. 6J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 0

Acad. Manag. Discov. 1J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 0

Acad. Manag. J. 16 J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 0

Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 0J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6

Acad. Manag. Perspect. 3J. Ind. Ecol. 0

Acad. Manag. Rev. 10 J. Ind. Relat. 1

ACM Trans. Database Syst. 0J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1

ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 0J. Int. Manag. 0

Adm. Sci. Q. 8J. Manage. 2

Adv. Exp. Soc. Psych. 0J. Manag. Stud. 2

Am. J. Public Health 0J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 0

Am. J. Sociol. 8J. Organ. Behav. 16

Am. Psychol. 16 J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 6

Am. Sociol. Rev. 11 J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 4

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7J. Vocat. Behav. 20

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1J. World Bus. 6

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 3Leadersh. Q. 19

Appl. Psychol. 0Manag. Organ. Rev. 6

Br. J. Ind. Relat. 3MIS Q. 0

Bus. Ethics Q. 3Manag. Int. Rev. 0

Bus. Soc. 0Manage. Sci. 0

Calif. Manage. Rev. 0Math. Program. 0

Cogn. Psychol. 0Med. Decis. Making 0

Commun. Monogr. 4MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 1

Commun. Res. 0Oper. Res. 0

Commun. Theory 0Organ. Sci. 5

Decis. Sci. 0Organ. Stud. 3

Discret. Appl. Math. 0Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 0

Entrep. Theory Pract. 2Organ. Dyn. 2

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 3Organ. Res. Methods 4

Gov. 1Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 4

Group Organ. Manag. 1Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 0

Harv. Bus. Rev. 1Pers. Psychol. 0

Health Care Manage. Rev. 0Int. Conf. Inf. Syst. 0

Hum. Perform. 0Psychol. Bull. 1

Hum. Relat. 1Psychol. Methods 0

Hum. Resour. Manage. 30 Psychol. Rev. 0

Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 23 Psychol. Sci. 0

Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1Psychometrika 0

IIE Trans. 0Res. Organ. Behav. 6

IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 0Res. Sociol. Organ. 0

IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 0Risk Anal. 2

Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 7Science 3

Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2SIAM J. Control Optim. 0

Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2Small Group Res. 0

Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 6Soc. Sci. Med. 1

J. Appl. Psychol. 3Sociology 8

J. Bus. 1Sociol. Health Illn. 0

J. Bus. Psychol. 9Strateg. Manag. J. 1

J. Bus. Ethics 194 Work Occup. 1

J. Bus. Ventur. 2TOTAL 523

J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 3

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 221

TABLE 2

Summary of Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Citation Core Focus

Relevance to

Dignity

Direct or Indirect

Relationship to Dignity Key Findings

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M.

J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. 2001.

Justice at the millennium: A meta-

analytic review of 25 years of

organizational justice research. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 86: 425–445.

Organizational

justice

Respected and

embedded

Directly related to dignity by

exploring interpersonal

justice and how people

are treated

Meta-analysis reviewing 25 years of

organizational justice literature

Focused on key outcomes of justice and the

effects on organizations in a number of

contexts

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. 2010.

Toward a multi-foci approach to

workplace aggression: A meta-analytic

review of outcomes from different

perpetrators. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31: 24–44.

Workplace

aggression

Disrespected/

excluded

Indirect connection to

dignity related to

treatment of employees

and their individual

outcomes and core values

Meta-analysis uncovered that workplace

aggression in the form of supervisor

aggression strongly impacted attitudinal and

behavioral outcomes of employees

Uncovered coworker aggression strongly

impacted attitudinal and behavioral

outcomes

Organizational and personal strains are

impacted by workplace aggression

differently based on perpetrator of

aggression

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. 2006.

Continuities and extensions of ethical

climate theory: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Business Ethics, 69:

175–194.

Ethical climate Valued and

infused with

meaning

Indirectly related to dignity

though core values of

individuals and

workplaces

Article explores ethical climate and treatments

of ethical climate on individual outcomes

Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. 2016.

Antecedents of abusive supervision:

A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Business Ethics, 139: 455–471.

Abusive

supervision

Disaffected/

alienated

Indirectly related to dignity

through workplace

outcomes and core values

Explores unethical and abusive supervision

leadership and the antecedents

Also uncovers demographic characteristics

of concerns as antecedents to abusive

supervision

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., &

Loewenstein, G. 2015. Privacy and

human behavior in the age of

information. Science, 347: 509–514.

Privacy behavior Disaffected/

alienated

Indirect relationship to

dignity where privacy-

related behaviors can

be influenced or

manipulated by others

Highlights three areas of privacy concerns:

consequences of privacy-related behaviors,

the context of concerns, and how privacy

can be manipulated by others

Explores how privacy concerns impact

individuals and how it relates to concepts of

treatment and issues of dignity, among other

aspects such as intrusion, anonymity, and

protection

Offers ways to protect privacy

Collins, D. 2000. The quest to improve

the human condition: The first 1500

articles published in Journal of

Business Ethics.Journal of Business

Ethics, 26: 1–73.

Human condition

characteristics

Respected and

embedded

Indirect relationship to

dignity in workplace

outcomes and to dignity

on core values

Review highlights popular methodologies

and topics used when researching ways

“to improve the human condition”

Prevalence of ethical behavior

Ethical sensitivities

Ethics codes and programs

222 Academy of Management Annals January

TABLE 2

(Continued)

Citation Core Focus

Relevance to

Dignity

Direct or Indirect

Relationship to Dignity Key Findings

Corporate social performance and policies

HR practices and policies

Fantasia, R. 1995. From class

consciousness to culture, action, and

social organization. Annual Review of

Sociology, 21: 269–287.

Class

consciousness

Connected and

inspired

Indirect connection to

dignity through core

values

Delineates observational, ethnographic, and

historical methodologies to highlight class

consciousness

Gotsis, G., & Kortezi, Z. 2008.

Philosophical foundations of

workplace spirituality: A critical

approach. Journal of Business Ethics,

78: 575–600.

Workplace

spirituality

Valued and

infused with

meaning

Indirect connection to

dignity though core

values and by facilitating

interactional relationships

of respect

Highlights the importance of spirituality in the

workplace

Highlights the importance of dignity in

relation to respectful pluralism and all

humans deserve to be treated with dignity

and with equal respect

Greenberg, J., & Bies, R. J. 1992.

Establishing the role of empirical

studies of organizational justice in

philosophical inquiries into business

ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:

433–444.

Organizational

justice

Respected and

embedded

Indirect relationship on

dignity through

truthfulness and through

justice and fairness

Review articles on organizational justice to

reconcile fairness, the rules of justice, and

suggest ways to integrate different justice

approaches

Greenwood, M. R. 2002. Ethics and HRM:

A review and conceptual analysis.

Journal of Business Ethics, 36:

261–278.

Ethical HRM Disrespected/

excluded

Indirect relationship to

dignity through respect

for individuals and

treatment of workers in

workplaces

Provides suggestions for ways to evaluate HRM

in ways that are fair across all perspectives

of ethics

Larsen, G., & Lawson, R. 2013. Consumer

rights: An assessment of justice.

Journal of Business Ethics, 112:

515–528.

Consumer rights

and justice

Respected and

embedded

Indirect relationship to

dignity through

interpersonal justice in

consumer rights

Reviews 50 years of consumer rights and

justice framework for consumers

Gross, J. A. 2012. The human rights

movement at U.S. workplaces:

Challenges and changes. ILR Review,

65: 3–16.

Workers’rights as

human rights

Disaffected/

alienated

Indirect relationship to

dignity on core values of

individuals

Indirect relationship to

dignity on interactional

and organizational

relationships

Basic human rights are needed to reduce the

power one person may have on the other to

cause harm and damage and leave the other

vulnerable and powerless

Explores how workplace human rights

coincide with U.S. labor policy

Calls for action of more enforcement of

workers’human rights in organizations

Morrill, C., Zald, M. N., & Rao, H.

2003. Covert political conflict in

organizations: Challenges from below.

Annual Review of Sociology, 29:

391–415.

Covert political

conflict

Disrespected/

excluded

Indirect relationship to

dignity on core values

Indirect relationship to

dignity on a societal level

Reviews literature on covert political conflict

which is defined as “contentious politics”

by those who challenge or disagree with

authorities on the shape and governance of

systems of power

Highlights instances where workers fight for

inherent dignity from those who exploit

them by exerting covert political conflict to

defend their dignity

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 223

TABLE 2

(Continued)

Citation Core Focus

Relevance to

Dignity

Direct or Indirect

Relationship to Dignity Key Findings

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Harris, H. 2017.

Art, ethics and the promotion of

human dignity. Journal of Business

Ethics, 144: 223–232.

Artful

expression—

human dignity

as core value

Respected and

embedded

Direct relationship to core

values

Direct relationship to work

outcomes

How dignity is used to humanize the

workplace

How arts and artful expression can promote

human dignity in the organization

Peterson, C., & Park, N. 2006. Character

strengths in organizations. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 27:

1149–1154.

Character strengths Value and

infused with

meaning

Indirect relationship to

work outcomes

Indirect relationship to core

values

Character building and character strength leads

people to make good decisions, choices, and

to “do the right thing”

Character strength can increase productivity,

profitability in an organizational context

Dignity is an organizational-level virtue that

treats all individuals the same and decreases

negative individual outcomes at work

Rowan, J. R. 2000. The moral foundation

of employee rights. Journal of

Business Ethics, 24: 355–361.

Employee rights Value and

infused with

meaning

Direct relationship to

dignity by understanding

moral foundations of

employee rights and

treatment

Discusses employee rights from the

perspective of the bargaining position of the

employee

Ethically sound decision-making regarding

employee and stakeholder equity

St˚ahl, C., MacEachen, E., & Lippel, K.

2014. Ethical perspectives in work

disability prevention and return to

work: Toward a common vocabulary

for analyzing stakeholders’actions and

interactions. Journal of Business

Ethics, 120: 237–250.

Work disability

prevention

Respected and

embedded

Directly related to dignity

by highlighting safe

workplace systems aimed

on providing safe

working conditions

Analyzes work disability prevention and

return to work practices from an ethical lens

Tharenou, P. 2010. Women’s self-

initiated expatriation as a career option

and its ethical issues. Journal of

Business Ethics, 95: 73–88.

Women self-

initiated ex-

patriation

Disrespected/

excluded

Indirectly related to dignity

as lack of virtue shown to

women and lack of

justice during career

advancement

Article explores ethical issues women face

during self-initiated expatriation

Thomas, M., & Rowland, C. 2014.

Leadership, pragmatism and grace: A

review. Journal of Business Ethics,

123: 99–111.

Grace Respected and

embedded

Directly relates to dignity

through grace and

pragmatism in leadership

Reviews articles on leadership and grace

Werner, A., & Lim, M. 2016. The ethics

of the living wage: A review and

research agenda. Journal of Business

Ethics, 137: 433–447.

Living wages Disposable/

expendable

Directly related to dignity

by mistreatment of

employees and worth of

person

Examines literature on living wage from a

philosophical and practical perspective

Discusses ethical implications of living wages

implementation in organizations

Wharton, A. S. 2009. The sociology of

emotional labor. Annual Review of

Sociology, 35: 147–165.

Emotional labor Disrespected/

excluded

Indirectly related to dignity

though core values and

interactional facilitators

Article highlights theory and research on

emotional labor on interactive work and

management of emotions by workers

Workers can strategically manage emotions

and interactions to gain dignity in the

workplace

224 Academy of Management Annals January

maps the features of work through which dignity is

experienced and restored for each detractor.

Specifically, to address the experience of disaffec-

tion/alienation identified in 12% (n563) of the

articles, our review revealed that dignity is activated

in the presence of an experience of work as connected

and inspired; 22% (n5113) addressed these features

of work.

To address the experience of disrespect/

exclusion addressed in 18% (n592) of the articles,

our review revealed that dignity is activated when

workers are respected and embedded; 25% (n5129)

addressed this experience at work. Finally, to address

the disposability/expendability addressed in 7% (n5

37) of the articles, our review revealed that dignity is

activated by the experience of work as valued and

infused with meaning; 16% (n583) reflected this

experience. Before reviewing this literature, we ad-

dress below how dignity has been conceptualized

and operationalized.

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS AND

OPERATIONALIZATIONS

Our review indicates dignity is a subjective experi-

ence shaped by cultural and social norms (Howard

& Donnelly, 1986), and yet a basic sense of what con-

stitutes dignified treatment of people guides busi-

ness practice and international policy (Kotzmann &

Seery, 2017). Across disciplines and applications,

authors are consistent on the centrality of worth,

value, and esteem to their conceptualizations of dig-

nity (Berger, 1970; D€

uwell, Braarvig, & Brownsword,

2014; Habermas, 2010; Hitlin & Vaisey, 2010; How-

ard & Donnelly, 1986). However, the emphasis dif-

fers based on religion, philosophical perspective,

and literature subdomain.

Religious and Philosophical Approaches

The teachings of Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hindu-

ism, Confucianism, and Buddhism contain numer-

ous perspectives on dignity. A common thread is the

juxtaposition of inherent and earned dignity. The

Judeo-Christian perspective sees inherent dignity as

a God-given human value (Genuis, 2016; Li, 2021).

This implies every individual deserves dignity, equal-

ity, and fairness by virtue of being human (Islam,

2012; Pless et al., 2017). Mel

e (2012) noted that within

organizations influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, a

firm is viewed as a community of people, each pos-

sessing a dignity that all must respect. This inherent

value is independent of the group, highlighting the

uniqueness and irreplaceability of individuals (Ip,

2009). Human virtues of benevolence, decorum,

righteousness, and loyalty are emphasized, as is the

unselfish care and well-being of others (Chan, 2008;

Lin, Ho, & Lin, 2013; Luo, 2014).

Inherent dignity is also a focus in the Islamic

tradition, which highlights the importance of

unity, humanness, and respect (Noronha et al., 2020;

Richardson, Sinha, & Yaapar, 2014). Islam holds that

all humans are equal and therefore should be treated

with dignity and equity (Mellahi & Budhwar, 2010;

Saeed, Ahmed, & Mukhtar, 2001).

Fairness and jus-

tice are paramount considerations in Islamic work-

places (Richardson et al., 2014). Like Islam, the

Hindu tradition takes a holistic perspective in which

humanity, society, and the cosmos are interrelated

(Ashok & Thimmappa, 2006). Hindu devotees choose

FIGURE 1

Dignity Framework

DIGNITY AT WORK

Absence of

dignity at work

(Dignity Detractors)

Presence of

dignity at work

(Dignity Activators)

Connected

and Inspired

Disaffected

Alienated

(e.g., incivility, remote

work mandates)

Disrespected

Excluded

(e.g., racism,

immigration, recidivism)

Disposable

Expendable

(e.g., automation and

tech shifts)

Respected and

Embedded

Valued and

Infused with

Meaning

Classifying articles into one of six categories of the

model based on the primary focus was straightforward (see

Appendix C in the online supplement). We labeled each cat-

egory with experiences or characteristics of work that clus-

tered together (e.g., the category “disaffecting/alienating”

contains articles that addressed work that is either disaffect-

ing or alienating). But we do not mean to imply that both

experiences included in the category label must occur

simultaneously in order to detract from dignity.

From an Islamic perspective, in addition to a focus on

inherent dignity, there is also a belief that dignity can be

earned, based on piety, good deeds, and living righteously

(Mozaffari, 2014; Williams & Zinkin, 2010).

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 225

how to practice their faith, resulting in an array of

beliefs and customs, but most practice nonviolence

and believe in respect and human dignity for all

(Ashok & Thimmappa, 2006).

In contrast, a focus on earned dignity emphasizes

moral potential and holds that dignity is acquired

through actions (Koehn & Leung, 2008; Li, 2021). For

example, to live with dignity in the Confucian belief

system depends on personal volition to act virtu-

ously (Luo, 2014). Dignity is neither absolute nor

guaranteed, and failing to cultivate dignity through

one’s actions fails to achieve universal human poten-

tial (Li, 2021; Luo, 2014). The Confucian concept of

“role-based dignity”implies dignity is based on fam-

ily background, occupation, or societal role and

maintains social and moral order based on conform-

ing to social expectations (Lin et al., 2013). As such,

the Confucian work ethic focuses on duty in which

agents are responsible for creating harmony while

meeting external expectations (Lin et al., 2013).

Buddhists have a pragmatic orientation toward

earned dignity, focusing on cause-and-effect rela-

tionships, the solving of problems, and the impor-

tance of verified observation (Weerasinghe, Thisera,

& Kumara, 2014). Buddhists consider mindfulness,

self-discipline, self-sacrifice for the common good,

and mutual respect of the utmost importance, all of

which cultivate wisdom and spirituality toward the

ultimate goal of coping with the earthly suffering

caused by an ever-changing environment. Buddhists

tend to view human equality as a basis for ethical

behavior (Guillory, 2000) and emphasize compas-

sion, flexibility, and open-mindedness (Goffee &

Jones, 2005) to nurture harmony among employees

(Weerasinghe et al., 2014).

Disciplinary Approaches and

Operationalizations

In addition to these perspectives, our review cap-

tured a range of approaches from sociology, organi-

zational theory, industrial relations, and business

ethics. As summarized in Table 3, these disciplinary

approaches correspond with numerous operationali-

zations, including ethnographic analyses, experimen-

tal studies, and cross-sectional surveys. Sociologists

have often emphasized earned dignity as linked to the

value and esteem that comes from working and deriv-

ing self-value from instrumental contributions (Buzza-

nell & Lucas, 2013; Sayer, 2007). For example, using

an ethnographic approach, Hodson (1996) found sup-

port for both task-related (pride in work, on-the-job

learning, and voluntary effort) and coworker-related

(solidarity, informal peer training, and social friend-

ships) strategies to protect and maximize dignity at

work. Hodson and Roscigno (2004: 680) operational-

ized workers’dignity as a result of organizational

practices that establish “a sense of meaning and

accomplishment in work and the creation of positive

and supportive coworker relations.”They concluded

that different configurations of job- and organization-

level practices are associated with both positive and

negative impacts on employees’perceptions of mean-

ingful work and positive coworker relations.

An important contribution of organizational the-

ory scholars (Bolton, 2007; 2010; 2011; Lucas et al.,

2017; Sayer, 2007; Thomas & Lucas, 2019) is an

empirical examination of multidimensional theories

of dignity at work. Defining dignity as “the self-

recognized and other-recognized worth acquired from

(or injured by) engaging in work activity,”Lucas et al.

(2017: 2549) drew upon ethnographic data to contrast

facets of dignity in work and at work. Dignity in work

included meaningful work, autonomy, respectful

social relations, learning and development, and job

satisfaction; dignity at work included secure terms of

employment, safe and healthy working conditions,

just rewards, equality of opportunity, and voice.

Subsequently, Thomas and Lucas (2019) developed

and validated an 18-item, self-report workplace

dignity scale composed of six factors (respectful

interaction, competency-contribution, equality, inher-

ent value, general dignity, and indignity). Expanding

workplace dignity’s nomological net by examining

relationships with incivility, workplace alienation,

indignity, interpersonal justice, workplace status, and

competence, Thomas and Lucas (2019) found that

dignity enhances employee engagement while also

decreasing counterproductive behaviors. They also

found that subjective dimensions of dignity in work

exceed objective dimensions as drivers of employee

engagement. This work lends empirical support to a

core theoretical claim that dignity demands either

protection or insulation from workplace phenomena

that detract from dignity as well as opportunities for

meaningful work (Donaldson & Walsh, 2015; Pirson,

2017). In addition to establishing this dual-factor

nature of workplace dignity, another major contribu-

tion was the validation of a quantitative measure of

dignity at work—and its potential for replication

across contexts and hypothesized relationships.

Adopting a narrower conceptualization, industrial

relations scholars have primarily defined dignity at

work in relation to the psychological contract and

employees’resulting perceptions of organizational

justice (Rousseau, 1995; Wood & Karau, 2009). They

226 Academy of Management Annals January

TABLE 3

Operational Definitions of Dignity at Work Across Disciplines

Citation

Discipline

(Subdiscipline) Definition

Operationalization/

Measure Notes

Thomas, B., & Lucas, K.

2019. Development

and validation of the

Workplace Dignity

Scale. Group &

Organization

Management, 44:

72–111.

Management

(Organizational

behavior)

The self-recognized and other-

recognized worth acquired from

(or injured by) engaging in work

activity (Lucas, 2017: 2549).

18-item Workplace Dignity

Scale (WDS)

WDS comprised of six

factors: respectful

interaction, competence-

contribution, equality,

inherent value, general

dignity, and indignity.

Multi-study scale development using

data from focus groups, expert panel,

and two surveys.

Participants completed the self-report

WDS along with numerous convergent

and discriminant validity scales

across two survey studies.

Workplace dignity associated with

employee engagement, burnout, and

turnover intentions beyond the effects

of meaningful work and

organizational respect.

Frenkel, S. J., Li, M., &

Restubog, S. L. D.

2012. Management,

organizational justice

and emotional

exhaustion among

Chinese migrant

workers: Evidence

from two

manufacturing firms.

British Journal of

Industrial Relations,

50: 121–147.

Industrial relations

(Labor–management

relations)

Definition grounded by psychological

contract (Rousseau, 1995) and

organizational justice (Greenberg,

1990).

The employment relationship is an

exchange process involving a

psychological and material

contract—the worker contributes

effort and cooperation in

exchange for present and future

extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.

This so-called labor process

confers varying degrees of

dignity or respect (Frenkel

et al., 2012: 123).

Distributive justice refers to the

perceived fairness in the

distribution of outcomes;

procedural justice refers to the

perceived fairness of the

procedures, and interactional

justice denotes. Interpersonal

treatment and the quality of

information people receive at work

(Frenkel & Restubog, 2012: 123).

Niehoff and Moorman’s

(1993) 20-item, three-

factor measure of

perceptions of

organizational justice:

distributive (5 items),

procedural (6 items), and

interactional (9 items).

As part of a survey study, participants

self-reported their perceptions of

organizational justice using the

Niehoff and Moorman (1993) scale.

The authors selected organizational

justice as a measure of how

employees perceive the fairness of the

exchange process (psychological

contract). This cognitive and

emotional exchange process grants

varying levels of dignity and respect

to employees.

The study results indicate that strong

HR systems engender favorable

employee perceptions of

organizational justice, while only

distributive injustice is associated

with negative emotions and emotional

exhaustion.

Hodson, R., & Roscigno,

V. J. 2004.

Organizational

success and

worker dignity:

Complementary or

contradictory?

Sociology (Social

psychology)

A sense of meaning and

accomplishment in work and the

creation of positive and supportive

coworker relations. Meaningful

work provides a sense of having

made a useful contribution to the

Coding of organizational

ethnographies (n5204)

that measured worker

dignity as:

Meaningful work: Sense of

purpose and

accomplishment in work

Worker dignity was conceptualized and

measured as a consequence of

successful organizational practices for

the workforce.

Data from a population of book-length

organizational ethnographies were

analyzed via relevant coding and

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 227

TABLE 3

(Continued)

Citation

Discipline

(Subdiscipline) Definition

Operationalization/

Measure Notes

American Journal of

Sociology, 100:

672–708.

organization and to society

(p. 680).

(meaningless or

somewhat meaningful

vs. fulfilling)

Positive coworker relations:

Conflict within or

between work groups

(frequent conflict vs.

occasional or less).

configurations for the work dignity

variable (meaningful work and

positive coworker relations).

The authors examined the effects of

job-level (on-the-job training, abuse,

and firings) and organization-level

(well-run organization, security, and

involvement) practices on both

organizational success (employee

citizenship and peaceful

management/employee relations) and

worker dignity (meaningful work and

positive coworker relations).

The configurations of job- and

organization-level practices are

associated with both positive and

negative outcomes for workers and

organizations.

Lucas, K., Manikas, A.

S., Mattingly, E. S., &

Crider, C. J. 2017.

Engaging and

misbehaving: How

dignity affects

employee work

behaviors.

Organization Studies,

38: 1505–1527.

Business & management

(Organization theory)

The ability to establish a sense of

self-worth and self-respect and to

appreciate the respect of others

(Hodson, 2001: 3).

Two-factor measure of

workplace dignity by

applying Bolton’s

(2007; 2010; 2011)

multidimensional theory

of workplace dignity to

Hodson’s (2004)

Workplace Ethnography

Dignity in work:

Meaningful work,

autonomy, respectful

social relations, learning

and development, and

job satisfaction.

Dignity at work: Secure

terms of employment,

safe and healthy work

conditions, just rewards,

equality of opportunity,

and voice.

Authors selected broad definition and

measurement of workplace dignity

(Bolton, 2007; 2010; 2011) for the

purpose of identifying deeper

theoretical insights.

Authors assessed the Workplace

Ethnography Project codebook to

identify variables that mapped onto

the dimensions of Bolton’s (2007;

2010; 2011) dignity framework.

Workplace dignity is associated with

increases in employee engagement

while also illustrating mixed results

concerning counterproductive

workplace behaviors.

Wood, M., & Karau, S.

2009. Preserving

employee dignity

during the

termination interview:

Business and

management

(Business ethics)

Employee dignity conceptualized as

employee respect, empathy, and

fulfillment versus violation of

psychological contracts.

Employee respect definition adapted

21-item, five-factor

employee dignity scale

developed for a scenario-

based experimental

study.

Via experimental scenario-based study,

participants reviewed scenarios

describing a termination interview

and completed manipulation checks

and the employee dignity scale.

228 Academy of Management Annals January

TABLE 3

(Continued)

Citation

Discipline

(Subdiscipline) Definition

Operationalization/

Measure Notes

An empirical

examination. Journal

of Business Ethics,

86: 519–534.

from Kant (1785: 420): “Act so that

you will treat humanity, whether

in your own person or in that of

another, always as an end and

never as a means only.”

Empathy definition adapted from

Goleman (1998): “The thoughtful

consideration of employees’

feelings in the process of making

intelligent decisions”(Wood &

Karau, 2009: 521).

Psychological contract fulfillment

versus violation definition adapted

from Morrison & Robinson, 1997):

“The employee’s perception that

the organization has failed to

fulfill one or more of its

obligations”(Wood & Karau, 2009:

521).

Scale factors include: (1)

Perception of being

treated with respect, (2)

perception of being

treated with empathy,

(3) anger. (4) likelihood

to complain to others

about the employer, and

(5) likelihood to take

legal action against the

employer.

Given the literature review failed to

identify existing measures for the

study’s definition of workplace

dignity that were brief, face valid,

internally consistent, and adaptable to

examining termination interview

contexts, the authors developed a new

survey measure of employee dignity.

Malvini Redden, S., &

Scarduzio, J. A. 2018.

A different type of

dirty work: Hidden

taint, intersectionality,

and emotion

management in

bureaucratic

organizations.

Communication

Monographs, 85:

224–244.

Communication

(Organizational

communication)

Employee dignity conceptualized

as dirty work and examined

in the context of bureaucratic

organizations.

Dirty work definition adapted from

Ashforth and Kreiner (1999; 2014):

Dirty work is labor considered

physically, morally, or socially

stigmatized.

Content analysis of

observational,

ethnographic, and semi-

structured interview data

from municipal

courthouses (judges) and

airports (passengers &

transportation security

officers [TSOs]).

New measure of dirty work

defined as “hidden

taint”embedded in

professional contexts

(judges and TSOs) via

intersection of identity

markers and

coconstruction of

emotion norms and

power dynamics.

The study’s measure of worker dignity

was derived from the emotion norms

and power relationships that are

embedded in the professions of

municipal court judges and airport.

Emotion norms and power dynamics are

coconstructed between employees and

patrons, exposing the “hidden taint”

of these professional roles and

potential assaults on employee

dignity.

Authors conclude that the severity of the

“hidden taint”of these roles is highly

interdependent with gender, race, and

class.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 229

have focused on the implicit exchange of effort

between employees and their organizations for pre-

sent and future rewards that “confers varying degrees

of dignity or respect”(Frenkel, Li, & Restubog, 2012:

123). As such, employees experience dignity at work

when they perceive the employment relationship as

fair or just across multiple dimensions of organiza-

tional justice (Eisenberger, Rhoades Shanock, &

Wen, 2020). Similarly, business ethics scholars have

examined the features of work through which dig-

nity is experienced and preserved, including human

resource policies or practices.

Toward an Integrative Definition of Dignity

at Work

Given these prior conceptualizations, we define

dignity at work as the inherent and earned worth,

value, and esteem experienced by individuals at

work in the absence of disaffection, exclusion, and

expendability, andin the presence of connectedness,

respect, and meaningfulness. This definition tran-

scends traditional approaches to conceptualizing

dignity by encompassing both inherent and earned

dignity and integrating indicators of the absence as

well as the presence of dignity at work. Hence, it

offers management researchers a conceptualization

and construct to use as a starting point for research

that examines the causal chain of workplace detrac-

tors as well as activators of dignity. Our integrative

definition and framework offer scholars a path for-

ward for extending theory on dignity at work, chart-

ing a course for future research that encompasses

multilevel workplace phenomena through which

dignity is experienced and reestablished.

REVIEW OF RESEARCH RELATED TO DIGNITY

AT WORK

With this conceptualization as a foundation, we

review the research within each of the three sections

of our framework. Each section summarizes the liter-

ature related to detractors that indicate an absence of

dignity (i.e., feelings of disaffection, exclusion, and

of being expendable) along with activators of the

presence of dignity (i.e., work that is connected and

inspired, respect and being embedded, and work that

is valued and infused with meaning). As summarized

in Figure 2, topics and studies within each section

are addressed at four levels of analysis: societal,

FIGURE 2

Summary of the Literature on Dignity at Work at Each Level of Analysis

Societal Level

Disaffected/Alienated

Connected and Inspired

Detractor

• Social and economic

dislocation

• Remote work

mandates

• Societal

exclusionary

norms

• Minority stress

• Automation

• Profit maximization

at expense of fair

living wage

• Vocational injustices

• Layoffs and

dismissals

• Reactions to

unions

• Ethical climate

• Voluntary

organizational

support

• Ageism

• Invisibility

• Coercive

control

• Supervisor resources

and communication

• Supervisory

normalization of

morally tainted work

• Ethical leadership

• Employee voice

• Protection of

employee rights

• Social movements

• Workplace

spirituality

• Ill-defined ethical

codes

• Symbolic CSR

• Exclusionary

human resource

management

policies

• Interactional

injustice

• Criticism

• Recognition

• Equality-based respect

• Respectful engagement

• Reciprocity

• Community

embeddedness

• Humanizing ethical

codes culture

• CSR with social

impact

• Equitable HR

practices

• Economic/regulatory

systems

• Legal mandates

• Refugee employment

• Employee

monitoring

• Cost-cutting

measures

• Pay policies

• Abusive treatment

from leaders

• Incivility

• Workplace

ostracism

• Idiosyncratic

work

arrangements

• Role-based

status

• Personality traits

• Political skills

• Orientations to

participation

• Identity-based

exclusion

• Identity tensions

• In-group vs. out-group

membership

• Occupation

• Stigmatized jobs

and tasks

• Developing alternative

meaning for tasks

• Job crafting

• Personal

characteristics

• Ethical idealism

• Superordinate

identity

• Interpersonal

connections

• Empowerment

• Authentic leadership

behaviors

• Participatory

corporate

structures

• Humanizing

narrative devices

• Care in connecting

• Redefinition of

decent work

Activator Detractor Activator Detractor Activator

Disrespected/Excluded

Respected and Embedded

Disposable/Expendable

Valued and Infused with Meaning

Organizational Level

Interpersonal Level

Individual Level

230 Academy of Management Annals January

organizational, interpersonal, and individual. Detrac-

tors and activators at the societal level include those

that occur within countries or cultures that are

beyond the organization and often associated with

governments, religious traditions, and social norms.

These mechanisms include government policies

(e.g., COVID-19 lockdowns) and public attitudes

(e.g., deeming frontline workers to be “heroes”).

Mechanisms of detracting or activating dignity at

the organizational level include those that occur

within the bounds of an organization but beyond

the interpersonal or dyadic level. As such, the orga-

nization is the actor or context for the experience.

Organizational-level mechanisms include organiza-

tional policies (e.g., pay transparency), structures

(e.g., participatory structures), routine practices (e.g.,

electronic monitoring), and even infrequent actions

(e.g., layoffs). Mechanisms of detracting or activating

dignity at the interpersonal level include those that

occur between people, either within groups or dyads.

They often occur within the bounds of an organiza-

tion, such as two team members collaborating, but

also could also go beyond these bounds (e.g., when

independent contractors have an experience that

affirms their dignity with a client). Interpersonal

mechanisms include behaviors or statements directed

at another individual (e.g., a statement that a su-

pervisor says to a subordinate), as well as long-term

relationships (e.g., connection between colleagues).

Detractors and activators of dignity at the individual

level include those that occur within a single indi-

vidual. Individual-level mechanisms include per-

sonality traits (e.g., agreeableness), individual skills

(e.g., political tools), or individual orientations (e.g.,

learning orientation).

Importantly, we note that several of these topics

and related research could be categorized in multiple

ways; however, rather than a definitive statement,

we view our categorization as a means of integrating

and making sense of the literature. Table 4 summa-

rizes articles illustrating each component of the

framework. Similarly, the detractors and activators

of dignity at work may occur at one level and be im-

pacted by phenomenon at another level. For exam-

ple, a janitor in a hospital may be treated as lower

status in interactions with a doctor. However, in the

midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the broader socie-

tal attitude that frontline workers are heroes may

lead to the janitor experiencing more dignity through

their work than they did prior to the pandemic. For

the sake of clarity, we organize the following sections

by the primary level at which dignity is detracted or

activated.

DISAFFECTION/ALIENATION DETRACTING

DIGNITY AND CONNECTION/INSPIRATION

ACTIVATING DIGNITY

In the first section of our model, we explore the

ways in which disaffection and alienation detract

dignity and relatedly how connection and inspira-

tion activate dignity. To do so, we rely on the follow-

ing definitions. Disaffection is becoming detached

from one’s employer and those in charge (McCann,

2014), while alienation refers to estrangement from

one’s work (Luhman & Nazario, 2015; Podsakoff &

Organ, 1986). In contrast, connection is character-

ized by in-the-moment feelings of positive regard,

mutuality, and vitality (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003),

which are often experienced as elevating or inspiring

(Bacha & Walker, 2013; Miller & Stiver, 1997).

Societal Level

The key societal phenomena that detract from dig-

nity in this section of the framework pertain to social

and economic dislocation and remote work man-

dates resulting from governmental policy or national

and global social forces. The key means of restoring

dignity involve a societal norm for connecting with

care across remote locations and inspiring workers

through a redefinition of what constitutes decent

work. We discuss each of these in turn.

Societal disaffection and alienation detract dig-

nity. Scholars have argued that alienation has socie-

tal origins (Nair & Vohra, 2012), and research has

documented that those who are lonely tend to experi-

ence alienation (Amarat, Akbolat,

€

Unal, & G€

unes¸

Karakaya, 2019). Research has most recently explored

the societal experience of disaffection and alienation

prompted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions

were “quarantined, desperate, and despairing, lead-

ing to social and economic dislocation not seen since

the Great Depression,”such that the pandemic “tested

the boundaries of dignity’sroleunderthelaw”(May

& Daly, 2020: 1). A global survey in 2020 by the World

Dignity Project found the pandemic’s most common

impact was a decrease in mental health brought on by

social isolation (Ivbijaro, Brooks, Kolkiewicz, Sunkel,

& Long, 2020); this was a byproduct of remote work

mandates and social distancing that were considered

a medical necessity (Zhang, Yu, & Marin, 2021). By

the end of 2020, 71% of workers who reported they

could perform their jobs remotely were working

remotely (Parker, Horowitz, & Minkin, 2020). Although

some workers enjoyed avoiding a long commute,

even experiencing greater productivity as a result,

others suffered under the mandates, especially those

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 231

TABLE 4

Articles Illustrating the Components of the Integrative Framework for Dignity in the Workplace

Connected/Inspired Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan,

H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., &

Hong, Y. 2013. Self-love’s

lost labor: A self-

enhancement model of

workplace incivility.

Academy of Management

Journal, 56: 1199–1219.

Quantitative;

survey

Study 1: 235

technicians—

large

manufacturing

company

Study 2: 204 sales

clerks—property

company and

department store

How incivility thwarts

self-enhancement at

work, tempering

engagement and

performance, espe-

cially for those high

in narcissism.

Dignity is connected to

engagement from a self-

enhancement theoretical

perspective.

Hodson, R. 1996. Dignity in

the workplace under

participative management:

Alienation and freedom

revisited. American

Sociological Review, 61:

719–738.

Quantitative;

analysis from

coding of

published

ethnographies

86 published

workplace

ethnographies

Examines the workplace

experiences and

coworker relations

under different forms

of production.

Worker dignity as a

consequence of certain

organizational forms for

production (craft

organization of work,

participative organizations

of production).

Shapiro, B. 2016. Using

traditional narratives and

other narrative devices to

enact humanizing business

practices. Journal of

Business Ethics, 139: 1–19.

Qualitative; case

study

Manufacturing

company

How organizations can

embed humanizing

narrative in

management control

systems to enact

humanizing business

practices.

Humanizing narrative

devices respect a person’s

dignity and capacity for

personal growth, respect

human rights, promote

care and service for

others, and improve an

organization’s ability to

serve the common good

rather than only narrow

special interests.

Disaffected/Alienated Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Agassi, J. B. 1986. Dignity in

the workplace: Can work

be dealienated? Journal of

Business Ethics,5:

271–284.

Conceptual N/A Discusses the harm done

by alienating work

and remedies through

gradual de-alienation.

Alienating work is defined

as that which employees

incur mental,

psychological, or

psychosomatic damage,

reducing dignity.

Farh, C. I., & Chen, Z. 2014.

Beyond the individual

victim: Multilevel

consequences of abusive

supervision in teams.

Journal of Applied

Psychology, 99: 1074–1095.

Quantitative;

survey and

scenario study

Study 1: 295

employees in 51

teams across 10

firms

Study 2: 276

undergraduate

business majors

Examines how abusive

supervision exhibits

in the team setting

and its implications

for employee voice,

performance, and

turnover.

Leader treatment of team

members with regards to

dignity, respect, and

politeness.

Respected and Embedded Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Hodson, R., & Roscigno, V.

2004. Organizational

success and worker dignity:

Complementary or

contradictory? American

Journal of Sociology, 110:

672–708.

Qualitative;

workplace

ethnographies

204 work groups

across

industries,

occupations, and

organizations

Examines the degree to

which organization-

and job-level practices

can advance the goals

of organizational

success and worker

dignity.

Configurations of organization-

and job-level practices can

produce both positive and

negative outcomes for

organizational success and

worker dignity. The

configuration with the greatest

negative impact on worker

dignity is the lack of

workplace involvement

practices, poor organizational

functioning, and significant

supervisory abuse.

232 Academy of Management Annals January

TABLE 4

(Continued)

Respected and Embedded Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Lucas, K., Manikas, A. S.,

Mattingly, E. S., & Crider,

C. J. 2017. Engaging and

misbehaving: How dignity

affects employee work

behaviors. Organization

Studies, 38: 1505–1527.

Qualitative;

ethnographic

Hodson’s (2004)

Workplace

Ethnography

Project, 204

ethnographic

cases from 156

books

The influence of

workplace dignity on

employee work

behaviors and the

subsequent effects on

organizational

performance.

Applies a multidimensional

theory of dignity, which

identifies conditions of work

and the workplace that are

essential for human dignity.

Mel

e, D. 2014. “Human

quality treatment”: Five

organizational levels.

Journal of Business Ethics,

120: 457–471.

Conceptual N/A Defines “Human Quality

Treatment”(HQT) as

acting with respect for

human dignity and

rights, caring for their

problems and

legitimate interests,

and fostering their

personal

development.

Identifies five different levels of

HQT in organizations based

on: (a) maltreatment, (b)

indifference, (c) justice, (d)

care, and (e) development.

Disrespected/Excluded Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Hollensbe, E., Khazanchi, S.,

& Masterson, S. 2008. How

do I assess if my supervisor

and organization are fair?

Identifying the rules

underlying entity-based

justice perceptions.

Academy of Management

Journal, 51: 1099–1116.

Qualitative; semi-

structured

interviews

33 graduating

seniors about to

begin new full-

time jobs.

Identifies the rules that

new job entrants use

to form entity-based

justice perceptions

(organization and

supervisor) beyond

the four traditional

justice dimensions.

Employees perceive their

organizations as unfair when

organization support,

flexibility, and diversity are

low; they perceive supervisors

as unfair when support,

flexibility, and valued traits

are lacking. Entity-based

justice perceptions are

important factors in how

employees experience dignity

through work.

Henry P. J. 2009. Low-status

compensation: A theory for

understanding the role of

status in cultures of honor.

Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 97:

451–466.

Quantitative;

archival, survey,

and

experimental

data

Study 1: 280 U.S.

counties

Study 2: 92

countries

Study 3: 1807

participants from

the General

Social Survey

Study 4: 96 men

Shows that herding

regions ascribe to a

culture of honor based

on the role of status

and that when

threatened, this is

linked to violence.

Those who experience low

status attempt to re-establish

dignity by placing great

importance on honor in the

face of insults and

humiliation, showing lower

status groups respect,

recognition, and dignity,

protects integrity of the group,

reducing the probability of

violent reactions toward the

source of threats to their

worth.

Valued/Infused with Meaning Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G.,

Clark, M., & Fugate, M.

2007. Normalizing dirty

work: Managerial tactics for

countering occupational

taint. Academy of

Management Journal, 50:

149–174.

Mixed methods;

interviews and

survey

54 managers from

18 “dirty work”

occupations; 350

MBA students at

U.S. universities

Identifies the challenges

of performing the role

of a manager in tainted

work and the practices

or tactics that

managers use to

normalize tainted or

“dirty”work.

Managers of tainted work

experience high levels of role

complexity and stigma

awareness and utilize four

primary tactics for

normalizing: occupational

ideologies, defensive tactics,

social buffers, and confronting

clients/public.

Noronha, E., Chakraborty, S.,

&D’Cruz, P. 2020. “Doing

dignity work”: Indian

Qualitative; semi-

structured

interviews

31 security guards

and four

managers

Examines the dynamics

of workplace dignity

in a country (India)

Security guards serving bank

AMTs experienced loss of

dignity compared to guards

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 233

that had no choice but to work at home under

cramped conditions with fewer resources (Gibson,

2020). Technological challenges, including equip-

ment issues or intermittent internet access, caused

a sense of disaffection (Fu, Greco, Lennard, &

Dimotakis, 2021) and constituted a major source of

stress (Shao, Fang, Wang, Chang, & Wang, 2021).

Working remotely and collaborating virtually also

increased the permeability of the work–life boundary

which presented challenges, particularly for working

parents who were forced to simultaneously manage

both work and childcare, and sometimes worsened

relationships with coworkers due to miscommunica-

tions that occurred in the online environment,

or lengthened the workday beyond healthful limits

(Zhang et al., 2021). Thus, at a societal level,

disaffection or alienation from work became more

widespread than ever (Gibson, 2020).

Societal connection and inspiration activate dig-

nity. Societal-level responses to disaffection and

alienation include efforts to support and connect

workers across a variety of occupations, such as

what occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indeed, many societies and governments joined

together to support work from home (Gibson, 2020)

as well as connection among workers (Gibson,

Gibson, & Webster, 2021). Service providers, includ-

ing schools, healthcare organizations, and local busi-

nesses, collaborated to combat the widespread

disaffection. Online and curbside service became

commonplace across schools and businesses. Health-

care benefits were extended, and flexible working

TABLE 4

(Continued)

Valued/Infused with Meaning Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

security guards’interface

with precariousness.

Journal of Business Ethics,

16: 553–575.

employed as

contracted labor

in India

and job context

(security guards)

characterized by low

status, disrespect, and

precariousness.

who served large, reputable

organizations; the latter engaged

in multiple practices for

reclaiming dignity through their

work and relationships at work.

Wood, M. S., & Karau, S. J.

2009. Preserving employee

dignity during the

termination interview: An

empirical examination.

Journal of Business Ethics,

86: 519–534.

Quantitative;

experiment

296 undergraduate

business

students

How the presence of a

third party (an HR

manager or a security

guard) affected

employee dignity

during a termination

interview.

Employer treatment impacts how

workers experience dignity.

Disposable/Expendable Methods Sample Study Focus Treatment of Dignity

Crowley, M. 2012. Control

and dignity in professional,

manual and service-sector

employment. Organization

Studies, 33: 1383–1406.

Qualitative;

workplace

ethnographies

154 work groups

across many

industries,

occupations, and

organizations

(1940–1999)

Examines how complex

combinations of

control approaches

compare in

professional, manual,

and service-sector

employment, and how

these approaches

impact the

multidimensional

work experience.

Professionals experience

persuasive “bundles”of

control that enhance how

dignity is manifested while

manual and service employees

encounter coercive control

approaches that dehumanize

job incumbents while

weakening pride and effort.

Hamilton, P., Redman, T. &

McMurray, R. 2019. “Lower

than a snake’s belly”:

Discursive constructions of

dignity and heroism in

low-status garbage work.

Journal of Business Ethics,

156: 889–901.

Qualitative; semi-

structured

interviews

51 garbage

collectors

Considers how dignity is

discursively

constructed in the

context of work

dominated by

physicality and dirt.

Garbage workers respond to

occupational indignities through

discourses of “everyday

heroism”with three narratives:

(a) affirmation—reframing and

recalibration to renegotiate

status, and the inherent value to

be had in working with dirt; (b)

imposition of favorable social

and occupational comparisons

to elevate social position; and

234 Academy of Management Annals January

hours became normative. Widespread recognition that

“care in connecting”through technology was critical

spurred efforts to reduce feelings of isolation and

hopelessness associated with the social distancing

(Gibson, 2020). These collaborations helped increase

workers’psychological resilience and coping strat-

egies (Park, Finkelstein-Fox, Russell, Fendrich,

Hutchinson, & Becker, 2021). Indeed, with these fea-

tures in place, as remote work mandates lifted, large-

scale polls indicated that 65% wanted to remain

remote and did not want to return to the office on a

full-time basis (Brenan, 2020).

Another societal-level response entails a redefini-

tion of “decent work.”Sociological accounts of the

meaning of “working class”(Lucas, 2011) revealed a

social construction that imbues the term with four

values: strong work ethic, provider orientation, dig-

nity of all work, and workers and humility. Based on

in-depth interviews, Lucas (2011) argued that this

constellation of values elevates the working class to

the highest position in the social class hierarchy but

at the same time fosters ambivalence toward class

mobility. The comments from this study indicated

“the very act of going to work, performing a needed

(even if underappreciated) service, and doing so

with respect for self and others . . . made all jobs ‘real’

and bestowed on workers a sense of dignity”(Lucas,

2011: 356). Indeed, this perspective was highlighted

during the COVID-19 pandemic as the public began

to recognize traditionally underappreciated jobs, such

as food service and cleaning crews.

In vocational psychology, the concept of decent

work has also become integral to understanding

sociocultural determinants of people’scareerdeci-

sions and work experiences. Decent work is consid-

ered an essential component of well-being and work

fulfillment (Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016).

In a South Korean context, Nam and Kim (2019)

found that societal norms dictated that recognition

of one’s individuality and dignity (in-gyuk)areakey

component of decent work. Community-based norms

also shape employees’experiences of dignity, with

the community influencing organizations’ability to

create a culture that values decent work (Bourne &

Snead, 1999).

Organizational Level

Beyond governments’policies or normative forces,

organization-level phenomena that detract from dig-

nity include disaffection and alienation formed in

reaction to monitoring, cost-cutting, and inequitable

pay. Dignity is restored when businesses undertake

efforts to connect and inspire employees with par-

ticipatory corporate structures and humanizing

narratives.

Organizational disaffection and alienation

detract dignity. Although most organizations pur-

port to “act in a way that promotes or advances prin-

ciples of human dignity and justice”(Butterick

& Charlwood, 2021: 7), a disconnect often exists

between espoused values and enacted practices

(Francis & Keegan, 2006). One category of practices

that can lead to disaffection and alienation includes

those that intrude on employees’privacy, such as

electronic performance monitoring or health screen-

ing (e.g., Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015;

Kellogg, Valentine, & Christin, 2020; O’Rourke,

Teicher, & Pyman, 2011). Whereas monitoring has

evolved over the years, current algorithmic control

allows employers to direct, evaluate, and discipline

employees (Kellogg et al., 2020: 366). Employees may

be influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, to accept

intrusive privacy norms at work (Acquisti et al.,

2015). Although some employees’reactions to moni-

toring are stronger than others (Alder, Schminke, &

Noel, 2007), privacy concerns increasingly lead them

to feel alienated and marginalized (Brown, 1996)

because “the right to human dignity generally implies

the principles of respect for privacy and con-

fidentiality”(Alder et al., 2007: 206).

Cost-cutting is another category of organizational

practices that can detract from dignity by creating

disaffection and alienation. For example, one study

showed that when companies offshored financial

service jobs, it led to employees feeling detached and

disaffected toward both management and the union

(McCann, 2014). Disaffection also occurs when re-

wards are unequal (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018) and

when pay policies are secretive (Smit & Montag-

Smit, 2018). Greenberg (1982; 2010) explored pay

equity and concluded that negative emotional states

can result from either too little or too much pay

(anger and guilt, respectively). Researchers have also

found that mismatches between organizations’secre-

tive pay policies and employees’preferences result

in perceptions of indignity (Smit & Montag-Smit,

2018).

Organizational connection and inspiration acti-

vate dignity. Outside of pandemic times, Lawrence

and Pirson (2015) suggested participatory corporate

structures can create the conditions through which

dignity is experienced by organizing teams and sup-

porting collaboration to build cultures focused on

integrity as a cornerstone of relational exchanges

with all stakeholders. In businesses from retail stores

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 235

(i.e., The Body Shop; Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman,

1998) to kibbutzim (Warhurst, 1998) to production

organizations (Hodson, 1996) to the papal social tra-

dition (Naughton, 1995), researchers have found par-

ticipatory structures foster connection, exchanges of

perspectives, and expertise. Also, Shapiro (2016: 1)

explored how organizations that use humanizing

narrative devices, defined as “complete studies as

well as fragments that may under certain circumstan-

ces invoke a shared narrative context,”can enact par-

ticipatory business practices.

Interpersonal Level

Work unfolds within interpersonal relationships,

and dignity is detracted through abusive leaders,

uncivil coworkers, and ostracism in these relation-

ships that cause disaffection and alienation. The lit-

erature pertinent to this section of the framework

indicates dignity is activated interpersonally when

workers are connected and inspired through high-

quality interpersonal connections, empowerment,

and authentic leadership.

Interpersonal disaffection and alienation detract

dignity. Abusive leaders influence how people per-

ceive their own dignity and value as well as that of

others (Eddleston & Kidwell, 2011; Ezzy, 1997; Farh

& Chen, 2014). These leaders exhibit “behaviors that

are directed toward subordinates and involve pub-

licly ridiculing, belittling, and other similar behav-

iors...[that]violatethedignityofthesubordinates”

(

€

Unal, Warren, & Chen, 2012: 9). Abusive supervisors’

hostile behavior encourages employees’withdrawal

and decreased well-being (Bies & Moag, 1986; Tepper,

2000). This disregard for employees’dignity interferes

with job performance and is an interpersonal abuse of

power (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998).

Transactional leaders, excessively rule-based man-

agerial policies, and the inability to be one’s self

around leaders is associated withalienation from the

organization (Holtz & Harold, 2013; Nair & Vohra,

2010). Employees often retaliate, even if the retalia-

tion is of no real benefit to them or their dignity

(Litzky, Eddleston, & Kidder, 2006). The damage

such indignities inflict on the self-worth of subordi-

nates is recognized in cultures including Pakistan,

Israel, Japan, and the United States (Severance et al.,

2013). Yet other studies have been inconclusive

about the impact of abusive supervisors on perfor-

mance (Tepper, Simon, & Park, 2017). One reason

may be that the shared discomfort of abusive super-

vision in teams may increase team cohesiveness

(Stoverink, Umphress, Gardner, & Miner, 2014). Yet,

researchers have noted that when abusive supervi-

sion relates positively to performance, “it is in spite

of their hostility and not because of their hostility”

(Tepper et al., 2017: 135).

Other forms of destructive interactions between

leaders and employees often result from undermin-

ing autonomy and, by extension, dignity (Valcour,

2014). Accounts of psychological contract breach

and the resulting counterproductive behaviors have

illustrated workplace phenomena that detract from

dignity. Because managers receive little direction in

maintaining employee dignity (Hodson, 2001), orga-

nizational paternalism may prevail (Fleming, 2005).

This is common in non-Western organizations, lead-

ing to a distinct lack of autonomy and individuality

for employees (Chou, 2002; Hunter, 1995; Johnson &

Gill, 1993). Such practices can lead to employee dis-

engagement and increased cynicism, lessened self-

image, and dilution of individual dignity (Naus, van

Iterson, & Roe, 2007). As a result, employees engage

in a downward spiral of vulnerability and frustration,

leading managers to incorrectly perceive employees

as petulant and corrupt, then treating them with even

less dignity (Kant, Skogstad, Torsheim, & Einarsen,

2013).

Building on these findings, it is unsurprising that

dignity is centrally featured in the literature on inci-

vility, with the very definition of civility being the

treatment of others with dignity and respect (Ander-

sson & Pearson, 1999). In many instances, manifesta-

tions of negative workplace practices lead to uncivil

behavior because of increased demands placed

on employees that harm effectiveness (Blau &

Andersson, 2005; Scott, Zagenczyk, Schippers,

Purvis, & Cruz, 2014; Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang,

2011). Scholars have concluded that expressions of

incivility or the perception of incivility in the receiver

can be attributed to individuals’approach to their sta-

tus in the organization (G€

unsoy, 2020; Moon, Weick,

& Uskul, 2017; Wasti & Erdas, 2019). Dignity can even

be compromised when employees see the dignity

or indignity with which their coworkers are treated

(Liao & Rupp, 2005; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara &

Su

arez-Acosta, 2014).

Incivility emanating from superiors apparently has

no national boundaries, leading to an increased

frequency of anger and retaliation (G€

unsoy, 2020).

But in high power distance settings, Moon et al.

(2017) observed that incivility from a high-ranking

superior was perceived to be more acceptable than

similar actions from a low-ranking perpetrator, with

many occurrences of this latter interaction leading to

misunderstandings, conflict, and lost productivity.

236 Academy of Management Annals January

Misunderstandings can also occur in perceptions of

workplace incivility because of inconsistent cultural

norms (Moon et al., 2017). In a Turkish context,

Wasti and Erdas (2019) found uncivil treatment was

delivered across three dimensions: honor threaten-

ing (i.e., those that were very hurtful, such as public

humiliation) versus ordinary (i.e., more typical in

the workplace, such as withholding information);

excluding versus intruding; and inoffensive versus

offensive. Organizational chaos generates opportuni-

ties for such abuses of power (Hodson, Roscigno, &

Lopez, 2006).

Lastly, workplace gossip has been shown to influ-

ence self-perceptions and adversely impact organi-

zation-based self-esteem, leading to negative behavior

toward the organization and its members (Wu, Birtch,

Chiang, & Zhang , 2018). Belittling or reductionist lan-

guage also detracts from the experience of dignity at

work, even if it is not from supervisors (Gist-Mackey &

Dougherty, 2021), and workplace ostracism has been

shown to negatively impact employees’self-esteem

and performance (Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison,

2015). Schumann and Walton (2022) questioned the

ability of victimized individuals to restore their sense

of humanity and concluded that interpersonal con-

texts prevail in generating both subtle and blatant

forms of indignity.

Interpersonal connection and inspiration acti-

vate dignity. In response to these interpersonal

detractors of dignity at work, the literature has

highlighted numerous means of developing connec-

tion and inspiration at the relational level to restore

dignity. Of all the connections a focal employee

maintains at any given time, coworker relationships

generally outnumber all others; thus, coworker rela-

tionships are especially consequential (Liden, Anand,

& Vidyarthi, 2016). Stephens and Kanov (2017) noted

that because people’s sense of dignity emerges from

their relational experiences with others, interpersonal

connections (and disconnections) can be especially

revealing for understanding dignity at work. They

drew attention to the influence that small, everyday

moments of interrelating with different people have

on the experience of dignity. Although a certain sense

of dignity might characterize a long-term pattern of

exchanges, theory on connections suggests their qual-

ity is characterized by in-the-moment feelings of posi-

tive regard and mutuality (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003).

Stephens and Kanov (2017) described how personal

stories of episodes of interpersonal (dis)connections at

work—moments of mutual appreciation and empow-

erment or a sense of separation and distancing—can

help better understand the felt experience of dignity

at work.

Connection with individuals of shared demo-

graphics and social identities is another way to expe-

rience and restore dignity. DiBenigno and Kellogg

(2014) found that when occupational membership is

uncorrelated with demographic group membership,

there is looser attachment to the occupational iden-

tity and status order. This allows members of cross-

occupational dyads to draw on other shared social

identities, such as race, age, or immigration status, in

their interactionsand to establish connections across

otherwise disparate groups. Sguera, Bagozzi, Huy,

Boss, and Boss (2016) identified factors that enable

employees to buffer the ill-effects of general inci-

vility in the workplace. Their research found that

organization-provided interpersonal resources, such

as team building and personal interviews with man-

agement, reduced the frequency with which employ-

ees quit the organization or implied an intent to do

so (Sguera et al., 2016).

Kanungo (1992) argued that an antidote to disaf-

fection and alienation is empowerment, which must

be understood in terms of the relational dynamics of

power sharing between workers and management.

Scholars have highlighted several empowerment prac-

tices such as self-determination and jobs with task

variety, personal relevance, autonomy, and control

(Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Management can show

also confidence in workers through high perfor-

mance expectations, encouraging worker participa-

tion in decisions, and setting inspirationalgoals.

There has also been growing interest in the behav-

iors associated with authentic leadership, which are

a promising means of experiencing and restoring dig-

nity (Liang, Brown, Lian, Hanig, Ferris, & Keeping,

2018; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015; Whiteside

& Barclay, 2016). Authentic leadership promotes

both positive psychological capacities and ethical

climate, including fostering greater self-awareness,

internalized moral perspectives, and relational trans-

parency (Avolio & Luthans, 2006), as well as develop-

ing greater self-identity and expression of one’s

true self (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens,

2011; Gardner, Karam, Alvesson, & Einola, 2021;

Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson,

2008). Hannah, Avolio, and Walumbwa (2011) found

that when leaders demonstrate authentic behaviors, fol-

lowers are more likely to display moral courage as well

as ethical and prosocial behaviors. In turn, managers are

more likely to treat employees with dignity when they

experience higher positive affect and when they are

concerned about their social identity (Scott et al., 2014).

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 237

However, the nuances in these relationships may

differ across cultures. Cheng, Jiang, Cheng, Riley,

and Jen (2015) compared subordinates’commitment

to a supervisor between the United States and China.

They found that in the United States, perceived super-

visor support increases commitment to the supervisor

more when a high degree of supervisor integrity is

also perceived. In contrast, a compensatory effect can

be observed for Chinese subordinates—perceived

supervisor support increases commitment to the

supervisor more when a lower degree of supervisor

integrity is perceived. Li, Yu, Yang, Qi, and Fu

(2014) found authentic leaders engaging in self-

disclosure cultivate subordinates’feelings that their

leaders like and trust them, especially among highly

traditional Chinese subordinates, perhaps due to a

cultural emphasis on “face,”which involves pre-

serving one’s positive reputation in the eyes of others

(Ho, Welbourne, & Howard, 2014).

Individual Level

Disaffection and alienation can also occur because

of individual-level differences, such as idiosyncratic

work arrangements and status differences, but can

likewise be restored by factors such as personality

traits, political skills, and orientations to participation

when such characteristics result in greater capacity

for connection and inspiration.

Individual disaffection and alienation detract

dignity. An employee may become disaffected due

in part to negotiated nonstandard, individualized

work arrangements that employers typically grant

to motivate and retain highly valued employees,

known as “i-deals”(Hornung & Rousseau, 2008;

Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006).

Rousseau noted that those who do not receive such

“i-deals”may perceive them to be unfair (Rousseau,

2005), especially when they pertain to pay discrep-

ancies and when individuals are targeted based on

membership in social groups with different status

(i.e., based on gender).

Status is also associated with the role that an indi-

vidual occupies at work, including the hierarchical

level in the organization, the subunit affiliation (e.g.,

headquarters versus offshore), and even specific pro-

ject assignments (e.g., coveted high-profile or particu-

larly lucrative opportunities) (Daniels, Miller, Mian, &

Black, 2022; Hays & Bendersky, 2015). When individ-

uals perceive that these status indicators are awarded

inequitably, this can result in disaffection and an

absence of dignity (Yap, Madan, & Puranam, 2022).

Perceptions of pay raise decisions and other human

resource practices concerning status and pay policies

can also undermine or restore dignity (Folger &

Konovsky, 1989). As noted earlier, role-based dignity

is prevalent in East Asia, and the Confucian li (or rules

of propriety) imply that dignity is based on one’ssoci-

etal roles as well as family background and occupa-

tions (Koehn & Leung, 2004: 269).

Individual connection and inspiration activate

dignity. In response to the absence of dignity via dis-

affection and alienation, personality traits can shape

how individuals activate dignity. Narcissists, for exam-

ple, because of their high desire for self-enhancement,

can sometimes mitigate the effects of incivility by dis-

regarding and ignoring incivility or diminishing the

standing of their detractors (Chen, Ferris, Kwan,

Yan, Zhou, & Hong, 2013). Agreeableness also likely

strengthens dignity. Ilies, Scott, and Judge (2006)

found agreeable employees reported engaging more

often in organizational citizenship behavior and

found them more consistent in such behavior.

Other research has investigated “workplace inter-

personal relatedness”(WIR), a personality trait dis-

tinct from the Big Five personality taxonomy, which

captures the propensity to promote and manage

interdependent and harmonious social connections

to obtain social resources, meet expectations at

work, and seek to establish a favorable image in the

workplace (Ho et al., 2014). Initially considered a

trait indigenous to Mainland China, research has

also shown WIR is relevant among Taiwanese and

U.S. employees. A key component of WIR is face,

and a person often tries to manage or enhance face by

“engaging in behaviors such as attributing faults to

associates; offering favors to associates; and using

the favorable images of significant others to enhance

his or her own image”(Ho et al., 2014: 1253).

Political skills are also useful. Distinguishing

between political skills and cultural skills, Kellogg

(2011) argued that cultural toolkits (defined as sym-

bolic elements, such asframes, identities, and tactics

that any organizational member can introduce) may

let less powerful organization members see tradi-

tional practices as counter to their interests but

still leave them powerless to significantly influence

change, which requires political toolkits (defined as

material elements, such as staffing, accountability,

and evaluation systems that depend on the formal

authority of powerful organizational members) that

support change (Kellogg, 2011). Cultural tools serve

to build bonds with other reformers, but political

tools confer the skills to battle the status quo without

damage to their careers, thus restoring their dignity

through greater connection.

238 Academy of Management Annals January

Finally, although status differences based on cul-

ture, language, or region sometimes serve to under-

mine dignity through a reluctance to speak up and

exercise voice in the workplace, research has indi-

cated this can be overcome through individually

held “orientations to participation,”especially during

online and remote work (Gibbs, Gibson, Grushina, &

Dunlop, 2021). Individual orientations toward “help”

and “learn”were contrasted with an “engage”orien-

tation consisting of bidirectional and mutual relating.

These orientations can even be gained in the course of

collaborations. Increasing participation among collab-

orators is a means of activating dignity through con-

nectedness and inspiration.

DISRESPECT/EXCLUSION DETRACTING

DIGNITY AND RESPECT/EMBEDDEDNESS

ACTIVATING DIGNITY

Moving on to the second slice of our framework

(Figure 2), when faced with disrespect or exclusion,

being respected and embedded in a community acti-

vates the experience of dignity at work (Gibson,

2022; Melton, 2005). Respect has been conceptual-

ized as “an individual’s assessment of how they are

evaluated by those with whom they share common

group membership”(Huo & Binning, 2008: 1571).

At its core, respect involves the perception of one’s

treatment by another and is created through interper-

sonal interaction (Friedman, Carmeli, & Dutton,

2018). Embeddedness consists of three hallmarks:

formal and informal connections among partici-

pants, congruence and compatibility among them,

and a commitment to the community in the sense

that leaving it involves material and psychological

sacrifice (Singh, Shaffer, & Selvarajan, 2021). A com-

munity is often defined geographically (e.g., town,

city, or suburb) (Singh, Shaffer, & Selvarajan, 2018)

but is increasingly recognized in other forms such as

online communities (Gibson et al., 2021).

Societal Level

As with disaffection and alienation, societal norms

that legitimize exclusion also endanger the experi-

ence of dignity, as does stress from minority status. As

illustrated by our review, restoring dignity socie-

tally requires respect and embeddedness that can

be realized through specific economic and regula-

tory systems, legal mandates, and policies that favor

underrepresented groups and truly integrate minori-

ties instead of simply “checking the box.”

Societal disrespect and exclusion detract dig-

nity. Societies are often compared according to the

extent they are characterized by exclusionary norms

and practices, usually based on social identities

(such as race, gender, or sexual orientation) or dis-

ability status. For example, Sue (2004) identified a

general belief in equality and fairness in the United

States yet noted that the decoupling of these two con-

cepts is difficult for most, which therefore perpetu-

ates many unjust actions such as discriminatory

microaggressions in interracialencounters (Sue et al.,

2007). Studies conducted in the Middle East have

identified challenges to gender status and the social,

cultural, and economic justifications for doing so

in typically patriarchal work contexts (Al-Kazemi

& Zajac, 1999; Metcalfe, 2008; Thomason, 2021).

Despite advancements for women in leadership and

political roles, culturally embedded barriers remain

and are made more complex bynational and transna-

tional interrelations. The phenomenon of “minority

stress”reflects the hostility and anxiety generated

within a stigma- and prejudice-filled social environ-

ment that leads to declining mental health as indi-

viduals hide and internalize their experiences to

ameliorate their coping strategies (Hershberger &

D’Augelli, 1995; Kertzner, 2001; Meyer, 2003).

Of the many sources of potential exclusion, the

role of gender remains critical. Scholars have asked

why gender inequality remains so pervasive, espe-

cially at a time when women are meeting if not

exceeding the educational qualifications of their male

peers (Ridgeway, 2011). Gender inequality extends

beyond the organization because it is also a function

of the roles men and women play elsewhere in soci-

ety—specifically with women cast as caregivers and

men as breadwinners—societal norms also con-

tinue to legitimize disproportionate responsibili-

ties for women at home (Blair-Loy, 2009; Jackman,

1994). Although advancing women into leadership

roles is important, researchers posit that if these roles

are only symbolic, this has a negative impact on

respect, authority, and dignity (Mendelberg & Karpo-

witz, 2016).

Societal respect and community embeddedness

activate dignity. How societies afford respect and

approach community,at least in part, determines the

extent and means by which dignity is experienced

(e.g., Alder & Gilbert, 2006; Pirson, Goodpaster,

& Dierksmeier, 2016; Zetlin & Whitehouse, 2003).

Strong arguments have been made for placing human

dignity at center stage in society by institutionalizing

respect (Margolis, 1998; 2001). Pirson et al. (2016)

contended that dignity represents the cornerstone of

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 239

an alternative view of economic relationships. Bowie

(1998) suggested that an economic system that values

human dignity provides for market relationships as

well as respectful human interactions. Other research-

ers advocated global labor standards and a public

responsibility to protect human dignity in multina-

tional organizations (Arnold & Bowie, 2007; Kobrin,

2009). Krueger (2008) empirically analyzed the ethical

norms and regulatory compliance components in the

global supply chains of multinationals in the toy, tex-

tile, and consumer electronic industries in China. He

concluded “global firms face several constraints in

their full capacity to enhance the dignity and character

ofworkplaceconditions...[yet]codesofconduct and

their compliance systems . . . strengthen the rights, dig-

nity and position of Chinese workers”(Krueger (2008:

119), which is important in the absence of enforced

government regulations that protect human rights.

Dignity also appears in the literature on work-

related legal mandates. Specifically, Creed, Scully,

and Austin (2002) examined U.S. congressional tes-

timony from the hearing on the Employment Non-

Discrimination Act and found “the right to be treated

with dignity and respect”was central to multiple

frames used to invoke support for the Act, including a

logic that exemplar companies recognizing their com-

petitive edge is tied to the fair and enlightened treat-

ment of their employees. In these frames, respect and

dignity were closely tied to civil rights and invoked to

support collective action, and in so doing, they influ-

enced the identities of the participants.

Researchers have also examined societal influen-

ces on dignity among specific subpopulations of the

workforce such as refugees. Lack of employment or

underemployment represents the highest migratory

stressor among all refugee groups, to the detriment of

their physical and mental health (Dhalimi, Wright,

Yamin, Jamil, & Arnetz, 2018). Loon and Vitale

(2021) argued societiesand firms often view refugees

as a valuable talent pool but may fail to integrate

them into the workplace. Restoring dignity entails

building respect and embeddedness in the commu-

nity, which is likelierwhen refugees rebuild an iden-

tity as productive employees (Zeno, 2017) and find

work that allows them to internalize a sense of

belonging and self-worth (Bloch & Hirsch, 2017).

Gibson (2022) found the same to be true for Indige-

nous workers in at-risk communities for whom pro-

ductive employment and self-determination were

intertwined with dignity; community embeddedness

was central to regenerating lives and communities.

Scholars have cautioned that societal phenomena

that detract from dignity are complex and at times

even counterintuitive. Examining the giving and

receiving of compassion, Simpson, Pina e Cunha,

and Rego (2015) argued that receiving another’said

may cause recipients to lose their sense of personal

pride and dignity and can create relationships of

dependency. Drawing upon examples of Western

“aid”to developing nations, they found such aid can

humiliate recipients “even at a person-to-person level,

receiving charity induces a sense of pity and shame in

the recipient”(Simpson et al., 2015: 484). They con-

tended that compassion will be well received (i.e., and

therefore promote, rather than erode, dignity) when

profit is of little concern in providing support, the

deliverer has a legitimate relationship with the

receiver (i.e., colleague or authorized caregiver),

the receiver experiences positive outcomes from

the support, and the provision of support is not

linked to conditions designed to give the provider

advantage and control over the receiver.

Organizational Level

Although society is demanding an increase in ethi-

cal conduct within many facets of organizations

(Perryer & Scott-Ladd, 2014), many corporate actions

still detract from the experience of dignity at work.

These include ill-defined or nonactioned ethical

codes, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs

that are purely symbolic, and exclusionary HR practi-

ces. Dignity is restored when respect and embedded-

ness are promoted through humanizing corporate

codes and cultures, CSR that focuses on social impact,

and HR practices that promote equity.

Organizational disrespect and exclusion detract

dignity. Larger organizations frequently have codes

of ethical conduct, but many are ill-defined or poorly

enforced, and as a result disrespect and exclusion

may occur, rather than the equitable treatment of all

employees that such codes often intend to promote.

Skubik and Sterling (2009) contemplated the reasons

why new codes are promulgated, the content, pro-

cess of development, and expressed purpose of the

codes and what these actions articulate to stakehold-

ers, clients, and the public. They cautioned that the

mechanisms for communicating the values of the

organization through codes of ethics must be care-

fully considered to ensure dignity is protected. Other

research stressed the importance of enforcing of

codes. For example, despite codes of ethics, an exten-

sive body of research has documented the pervasive-

ness of harassment at work based on gender (Berdahl,

2007a; 2007b; Cortina & Areguin, 2021; Leskinen

& Cortina, 2014; Leskinen, Cortina, & Kabat, 2011).

240 Academy of Management Annals January

Studies also have investigated corporate misuse, the

exchange of favors for personal gain, and the deceit of

clients or the public (Perryer & Scott-Ladd, 2014).

Talaulicar (2009) further noted that these issues

become more complex and undergo scrutiny by a

wider audience when companies expand into the var-

ious legal and cultural environments that make up the

global market.

Corporate social responsibility programs are con-

sidered a way to operationalize corporate ethical

codes, but experts agree it is highly unlikely the past

wrongs of industry will be addressed by symbolic

CSR programs (Humby, 2016). Because of their vaga-

ries in purpose, implementation, and measurement,

many CSR programs do nothing but burnish the

firm’s reputation (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). A grow-

ing body of literature has explored the components

of CSR with real social impact (Wang, Gibson, &

Zander, 2020) and called for programs to address

the failures of previous programs, especially in

developing countries (Gibson et al., 2021), and for

remedial actions to overcome negligence that has

resulted in the disrespect, diminished safety,

health, and dignity of workers.

Scholars have also identified ethical deficiencies

in the application of exclusionary HR policies. For

example, although diversity programs have the poten-

tial to enhance dignity, those of many organizations

fall short. Kaiser, Major, Jurcevic, Dover, Brady, and

Shapiro (2013) found that perceptions of the existence

of structural support for diversity can be enough to

convince high-status individuals that an organization

embraces inclusion despite evidence that the program

is ineffective. This false legitimization of organiza-

tional credentials perpetuates discrimination and fur-

ther entrenches it (Kaiser et al., 2013). Likewise,

research has shown diversity programs impact work-

place attitudes but may also provoke interactions

detracting from dignity (Ellis & Sonnenfeld, 1994).

Human resource practices and the actual needs and

priorities of workers are also often misaligned, thus

contributing to exclusion rather than its mitigation.

For example, Morgan and King (2012) investigated

psychological and supervisory contract breach, find-

ing that there was a disconnect for many employed

mothers regarding perceived arrangements relating to

family care. As a result, when work structure agree-

ments for parents of younger children were not met, it

created the impression of unfair treatment. Percep-

tions of the gravity of specific breaches are typically

amplified when the relationship between parties and

the processes of the transaction are complex (Jensen,

Opland, & Ryan, 2010). According to Melton (1987),

child and family policies often represent conflicting,

irrational, and unrealistic opinions on the role of chil-

dren in the social order, leading to misaligned HR pol-

icies and diminished dignity for employees. Lavelle,

Folger, and Manegold (2016) also found unethical

approaches to “HR messenger”delivery of bad news

to employees, especially when the news involved a

refusal to divulge information or distancing behavior

in communication, both of which infringe upon doc-

trines of fair treatment.

Organizational respect and community embedd-

edness activate dignity. When constructed in a

thoughtful and meaningful manner, codes of ethics,

CSR, and HR practices can also be means of confer-

ring respect and restoring dignity (e.g., Hollensbe,

Wookey, Hickey, & George, 2014; Hoover & Pepper,

2015; Kleynjans & Hudon, 2016; Mathew, Ogbonna,

& Harris, 2012; Verhezen, 2010; Zhang, 2015). Valen-

tine and Fleischman (2002: 307) highlighted the

importance of written codes that emphasize that all

employees are to be treated with dignity and respect,

arguing “building productive working relationships

through mutual respect must first be codified, and

then these principles must be discussed extensively

in diversity and ethics training.”When companies

had a code of ethics of this nature, respondents

reported greater tolerance for diversity. Mel

e (2012)

argued that a view of the organization as a community

of people with dignity extends a manager’smoral

responsibilities to respect workers’rights, develop

them through training and education, and involve

them in decision-making. Such “humanistic”man-

agement supports positive treatment of humans at

three levels: (a) respect for persons and their rights, (b)

care and concern for people’s interests and support

for resolving their issues, and (c) development of vir-

tuous behavior (Mel

e, 2014). Pless et al. (2017: 223)

argued that “dignity plays a crucial role as both a fun-

damental value and as an end state in the process of

humanizing organizational cultures, workplaces and

relationships.”

Likewise, CSR that exceeds symbolic representation

presents an opportunity to show respect and commu-

nity embeddedness (e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, &

Ganapathi, 2007; Bansal & Song, 2017; Cornelius,

Todres, Janjuha-Jivraj, Woods, & Wallace, 2008; Obara

& Peattie, 2018). For example, the literature on CSR

has discussed a “social license to operate,”aconcept

originating in extractive industries but which the

World Bank has broadly applied (Cui, Jo, & Velasquez,

2016). The term generally refers to a community’s

acceptance or approval of a firm’s operations (Black,

2013). How stakeholders, including employees, are

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 241

treated is a key to achieving this license. Cui et al.

(2016) found the religiosity of the local community,

including attention to human dignity, related posi-

tively to employee-friendly practices that improved

the likelihood a firm would gain approval to operate.

Such an approach is central to corporate–community

codevelopment that confers mutual benefits (Gibson,

2022).

Dignity can also be activated through HR practices

that ensure employees feel both respected and embed-

ded within the organization (e.g., Clarke, Alshenalfi,

& Garavan, 2019; Farndale & Kelliher, 2013; Islam,

2012; Moore, McDonald, & Bartlett, 2017; Morand &

Merriman, 2012; Schmidt, Pohler, & Willness, 2018).

Lippel (2012) concluded in examining the preserva-

tion of dignity in workers’compensation systems that

those best at promoting claimants’dignity provided

both protection and fewer adversarial interactions.

This is also true for performance appraisals (Byrne,

Pitts, Wilson, & Steiner, 2012), high performance

work systems (Heffernan, & Dundon, 2016), and hir-

ing practices (Walker, Helmuth, Feild, & Bauer, 2014).

Interpersonal Processes

Within work relationships, dignity is experienced

by individuals in the absence of injustice and criti-

cism, both of which convey disrespect and exclu-

sion. The literature has also indicated means for

restoring dignity interpersonally through recogni-

tion, equality-based respect, respectful engagement,

reciprocity, and community building.

Interpersonal disrespect and exclusion detract

dignity. Dignity has been mentioned in the large

body of literature on organizational justice (e.g., see

reviews by Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007;

Pawar, 2009; Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki, &

Shao, 2017).Among the three forms ofjustice (proce-

dural, distributive, and interactional), dignity is con-

sidered part of interactional justice (also known as

interpersonal justice). This line of research contains

evidence as to when and why a lack of interactional

injustice detracts from dignity at work. The primary

source of indignity in relation to workplace aggres-

sion occurs during interactions with a supervisor as

opposed to colleagues (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010;

Wood, Braeken, & Niven, 2013). Reactions are influ-

enced by an employee’s attributes, affective state,

and awareness of social information about theperpe-

trator, as well as difficulty in recovering from these

stressors at home (Ahmed, Eatough, & Ford, 2018;

Hollensbe, Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2008; Wang,

Ford, Wang, & Jin, 2019). Employees’perceptions of

injustice often result in aggression and bullying or

turnover, which is compounded by aggression and

violence in the community surrounding the work-

place (Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz,

2003; Leineweber, Peristera, Bernhard-Oettel, & Eib,

2020). A related literature examined what is deemed

as “fair”in the workplace (Brockner, 2002). For

example, an individual’s perceptions of what is and

is not fair affect the experience of dignity (Khazanchi

& Masterson, 2011). Differences in what is deemed

as fair are based in part on educational background,

marital and parental status (Wilkinson, Tomlinson,

& Gardiner, 2018), as well as self-esteem (Wiesen-

feld, Swann, Brockner, & Bartel, 2007).

Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn (2011) examined

criticism and unwanted advice as phenomena that

detract from dignity and cautioned that a conflicted

employee may see advice as a challenge to his or her

autonomy and self-worth, thus potentially inciting

more conflict. This research also found that rather

than gracefully accepting or embracing advice as

beneficial, European Americans were more suscepti-

ble to interpreting it as intrusive and might take

offense. For these employees, advice may threaten

face, which in turn affects dignity; hence, reactions

to advice are a way to protect one’s self-image

(Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).

Interpersonal respect and community embedd-

edness activate dignity. Scholars have argued for

understanding dignity through an “ethics of recog-

nition,”including emotional recognition (expressed

through love, friendship, and emotional intelligence),

social recognition (in groups, communities, and the

workplace), and political recognition (expressed in

civil and human rights) (Pless et al., 2017). Nonrecog-

nition in any of these spheres undermines a person’s

sense of self-worth and detracts from the experience of

dignity at work. This research illuminates that while

dignity is inherent to every human being, its activation

requires recognition from others, and “it is at the same

time a radical individualized and a socialized moral

concept”(Pless et al., 2017: 225).

Respect is a key component of interpersonal ap-

proaches to restoring dignity. Research has found

that respect is a key antecedent to the experience of

self-determination (Renger, Renger, Mich

e, & Simon,

2017); in turn, self-determined behavior predicts

well-being and satisfaction with one’slifeacrosscul-

tures (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In a series of three studies,

Renger et al. (2017) concluded equality-based respect

increased perceived autonomy and social coopera-

tion. Equality-based respect was operationalized as

agreement with statements such as “Other people

242 Academy of Management Annals January

always communicate with me as with a person of

equal worth”and “Other people always treat me as a

human being with equal worth.”Renger et al. (2017)

reasoned that equality-based respect provides a basis

to decide and act autonomously, representing a

socially negotiated model of interaction (Honneth,

2012) that reinforces the institutionalization of dig-

nity. Equality-based respect enables individuals to

see themselves as possessors of equal rights and

worth. Hence, they are more likely to view them-

selves as the authors of their own lives (Anderson &

Honneth, 2005).

Relatedly, respectful engagement, defined as “being

present to others, affirming them, communicating

and listening in a way that manifests regard and an

appreciation of the other’sworth”(Dutton, 2003: 22),

is a powerful means of activating dignity. In a study of

employees across 13 Israeli organizations using time-

lagged data, Friedman et al. (2018) found respectful

engagement between employees and their supervisors

to be key to fostering help-seeking, especially when

employees reported lower levels of psychological

safety. Help-seeking in turn improved employees’

performance. The authors concluded that leaders

should “deliberatelyworktobecomemorepsycho-

logically present when interacting with subordinates,

exhibit more effective listening, and develop a more

civil approach that preserves and enhances subordi-

nates’sense of dignity and worth”(Friedman et al.,

2018: 193). Recent research in China, where social

harmony is an important cultural value (Resick, Mar-

tin, Keating, Dickson, Kwan, & Peng, 2011; Wong,

Ngo, & Wong, 2006), has similarly emphasized the

importance of respectful engagement (

€

Unal, Chen, &

Xin, 2017). For example, Resick and colleagues (2011)

found “consideration and respect for others”is the

most common leadership theme among six men-

tioned by Chinese followers. Other research has indi-

cated cultural values and institutional environments

shape interpersonal experiences of dignity through

their influence on justice judgments. In one study,

non-Chinese participants focused more on an individ-

ual employee’s treatment in contrast with Chinese

participants’focus on overall fairness, interpersonal

interactions, and caring for employees personally

(Guo & Giacobbe-Miller, 2015).

Reciprocity and trust are also important interper-

sonal processes that activate the experience of dig-

nity while also representing means of establishing

respect and embeddedness (e.g., Brockner, Siegel,

Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Chan, 2008; Jones, &

Martens, 2009; Kickul, Gundry, & Posig, 2005). In

Confucianist Asian contexts, the concept of guanxi

reflects principles of reciprocity and interdepend-

ence (Chan, 2008). Guanxi is a system of personal

connections that carry long-term social obligations; a

central characteristic of guanxi is the reciprocal obli-

gation to exchange favors (Yang, Ho, & Chang, 2013).

Guanxi frequently also refers to the special relation-

ships between two people in which at least one per-

son needs something and the other person has the

ability to give that something, including both expres-

sive and instrumental transactions (Bu & Roy, 2005).

If favors given by one party are not reciprocated by

the other party, the latter may suffer a loss of face

(mianzi) (Su & Littlefield, 2001). Thus, guanxi is

a means of establishing and maintaining dignity.

Actions of reciprocity within organizations have also

been studied by scholars of moral identity. Barclay,

Whiteside, and Aquino (2014) investigated moral

identity and the likelihood of predicting revenge.

They found an individual’s moral identity determines

the likelihood of revenge or aggressive reaction; an

individual’s internal framework guides the direction

of the reaction.

Otherresearchexaminedhowtorebuilddamaged

relationships in a context in which respect has been

contravened. Pate, Morgan-Thomas, and Beaumont

(2012) studied a senior management team’s attempt to

regain trust by addressing workplace bullying. The

firm developed a policy titled “Dignity at Work,”

which involved pursuing incidents of bullying and

resulted in high-profile dismissals of senior staff, as

well as compulsory training that emphasized the

organization’s code of behavior. The program resulted

in increases in loyalty, benevolence, and openness

but not integrity, competence, consistency, or respect.

The authors concluded that the repair of damaged

relationships requires a long-term commitment and

not “one-off”solutions.

Fostering relationships via community embedded-

ness is also a means of establishing the features of

work through which dignity is experienced, which

results in psychological flourishing, positive mental

health, and citizenship behaviors within the com-

munity (Singh et al., 2021). Singh et al. (2021) found

spillover effects in which embeddedness in the orga-

nization has a positive effect on embeddedness in

the community. Gibson(2022) documented a similar

cascade of mutual positive benefits in her longitudi-

nal study of corporate–community codevelopment

through deep ongoing interpersonal relationships.

Volunteers from the organizations experienced

growth in thriving and prosocial behavior while com-

munity members gained dignity and proactivity.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 243

Individual Level

Employees’expressions of individuality in the

workplace are how they define themselves in rela-

tion to others, and this self-identity can be a source

of pride and honor. Yet, many employees are con-

flicted over how they and others are categorized.

Indeed, disrespect or exclusion, including on the

basis of their identity, detracts from the experience of

dignity. Key means of regaining respect and establish-

ing embeddedness to restore dignity pertain to beliefs

in ethical idealism and superordinate identity.

Individual disrespect and exclusion detract dig-

nity. When individuals feel excluded based on iden-

tity, they may disengage in tasks that fail to garner

respect or shift their self-identity to regain dignity

(Margolis & Molinsky, 2008). Passing, which refers to

“a cultural performance whereby one member of a

defined social group masquerades as another in order

to enjoy the privileges afforded to the dominant

group”(Leary, 1999: 85) is an indicator of identity-

based exclusion. For example, Black workers rou-

tinely face pressure to de-emphasize or hide parts of

their identities and assimilate to White cultural norms

(DeJordy, 2008; Reid, 2015). In the extreme, lighter-

skinned Black workers may attempt to hide their

racial identity altogether, whereas others may de-

emphasize what they believe to be stereotypical

aspects of their identity as an impression manage-

ment technique in order to avoid stigmatization, dis-

crimination, and social exclusion (Randel, Galvin,

Gibson, & Batts, 2021).

Similarly, Roitenberg (2020) considered individu-

als’internalized comparisons and negotiations as

generating opposite strategies of making and unmak-

ing personal vocational boundaries. These contra-

dictory strategies create conflict across ethnic values

(Sasson-Levy, 2013), boundaries between classes

(Van Eijk, 2013), and gender identities (Morash &

Haarr, 2012), all of which generate identity tensions

that can detract from dignity. For example, one study

noted that lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees expe-

rienced an absence of dignity, as psychological stres-

sors arose when they perceived their family identity

was stigmatized at work (Sawyer, Thoroughgood, &

Ladge, 2017).

Gibson’s (2022) study of Indigenous workers and

organizations revealed profound intrapersonal iden-

tity tensions and documented negative impacts on

experiences of dignity. The same conflicts occurred

more broadly in global teams whose members identi-

fied strongly with multiple groups (i.e., culture, orga-

nization, profession, and team) that were often in

conflict (Gibson, Dunlop, & Raghav, 2021). Studies

of refugees revealed that their various identities and

strengths were often challenged. For example,

Wehrle, Klehe, Kira, and Zikic (2018) found that ref-

ugees’needs for value, uniqueness, permanence,

and control were threatened as they attempted to

reestablish themselves in their host country and

required individuals to either protect or recreate an

identity, directly impacting their potential for psy-

chological growth. These threats to both individual

and group identity activated negative attitudes or

behaviors in individuals.

Individual respect and community embedded-

ness activate dignity. Numerous studies found that

the presence of respect and feelings of embedded-

ness as features of work through which dignity is

experienced tend to vary based on individual differ-

ences. Concern for dignity is considered a component

of ethical idealism, which refers to the belief that there

is a morally correct alternative that will not harm

others (Forsyth, 1980). The precursors of ethical ideal-

ism include personal values of tradition (respect,

commitment, and acceptance of the customs and

ideas that the traditional culture or religion provide),

conformity (restraint of actions inclinations, and

impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate

social expectations or norms), and security (safety,

harmony, and stability of society, of relationships,

and of self) (Schwartz, 1992). Ethical idealism has

been related to judgment of unethical consumer prac-

tices (Steenhaut & Van Kenhove, 2006).

A superordinate identity can also be leveraged to

support respect and embeddedness. For example,

Huo’s (2003) relational model of authority suggests

people are inclined to accept the decisions of ethnic

out-group authorities when they identify with a

superordinate category they share with the authority

and when the authority satisfies their relational jus-

tice concerns. Those who highly identified with

the superordinate category of “American”indicated

greater reliance on relational concerns and less on

instrumental concerns. Gibson (2022) found that

corporate–community codevelopment projects are a

means of helping multicultural workers navigate

identity tensions, develop greater synergy across

their different identities, and restore dignity.

DISPOSABILITY/EXPENDABILITY

DETRACTING DIGNITY AND VALUE/MEANING

ACTIVATING DIGNITY

Moving on to the final slice of our framework

(Figure 2), dignity is experienced in the absence of

244 Academy of Management Annals January

feelings of being disposable and expendable, and

an experience of work as valued and infused with

meaning can activate dignity. Employees may feel

expendable because of technology shifts and the

changing nature of work. Automation and artificial

intelligence have brought about massive layoffs, sin-

gling out whole groups and demographics of work-

ers, especially low-skill workers (Lindsay, 2005).

Similarly, after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic,

workers unable to work from home or who had tem-

porary contracts were treated as disposable (Butterick

& Charlwood, 2021).

In contrast to feelings of being disposable and

expendable, the experience of dignity at work is

activated when relevant stakeholders value it and

employees perceive it as meaningful (Lips-Wiersma &

Morris, 2009). Although meaningful work is defined

in many ways, we adopted May, Gilson, and Harter’s

(2004: 14) integrative conceptualization of it as “the

value of a work goal or purposes, judged to the indi-

vidual’sownidealsorstandards.”The experience of

work as meaningful is directly associated with an

individual’s subjective judgment of it according to

their existential concerns, which is strongly associ-

ated with mental and physical well-being (e.g., Wong

& Fry, 1998). As such, we consider meaningful work

to be a fundamental human need (Yeoman, 2014).

Societal Features

Primary features of society that detract from dig-

nity include making employees feel expendable due

to automation, profit maximization over wages, and

vocational injustices. Scholars have considered soci-

etal efforts to protect employee rights, support social

movements, and societal legitimization ofworkplace

spirituality to be means of activating and reestablish-

ing dignity.

Societal disposability and expendability detract

dignity. Machines are transforming business world-

wide, ranging from the automation of assembly lines

to the use of robots to staff hotels (Rajesh, 2015). The

McKinsey Global Institute reported that most occu-

pations are susceptible to partial automation, equal

to about $15 trillion in vanished wages (Manyika

et al., 2017). This “radical reshaping of work”will

especially impact low-skilled jobs, which has led

policymakers to struggle with protecting the most

vulnerable while also encouraging business advance-

ment (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2016). This reshaping

of work will also affect consumers. For example, more

than half of the service experiences that enrage cus-

tomers involve automated services, though some

companies are working to develop more humanlike

robots to help alleviate this (Yam et al., 2021).

Scholars have argued that another potential phe-

nomenon detracting from dignity is when there is a

societal tendency among firms to put corporate prof-

its above paying workers a fair living wage (Hosmer

& Masten, 1995; Werner & Lim, 2016). Treating

employees as a means to an end “runs counter to the

belief that people should be treated as an end unto

themselves”(Lucas, 2015: 624) and contrasts with a

belief that the ability to earn a decent livelihood is a

right, grounded in the intrinsic dignity and worth of

the person (Werner & Lim, 2016). For example, off-

shoring production to developing countries (Egels-

Zand

en & Hyllman, 2007) or to sweatshops to evade

labor and safety regulations or cut labor costs(Powell

& Zwolinski, 2012) detract dignity.

Societal-level vocational injustices also result in a

sense of being disposable or expendable, reflecting

an absence of dignity (e.g., Colquitt, Greenberg, &

Zapata-Phelan, 2005; Prilleltensky, 2012). The struc-

tural origins of social injustice emerge from poverty,

unemployment, and forced movement of employees

(McWhirter & McWha-Hermann, 2021) and signal

marginalizing conditions. The results of these condi-

tions, according to scholars, include less safe work

environments (Flynn, Eggerth, & Jacobson, 2015)

and perpetuation of overall poor working conditions

(Duffy, Blustein, Allan, Diemer, & Cinamon, 2020),

as well as increased work and income inequality

(Thompson & Dahling, 2019).

Societal value and meaning activate dignity.

Countering these phenomena that detract from dig-

nity requires a commitment at the societal level to

the protection of employees’rights. Rowan (2000)

and others (Gibson, 2000; Kirby, 1985) have con-

tended that the moral foundation of employee rights

stems from focusing on employees “as persons”—

human beings with basic rights. These include per-

sonal autonomy, the means to achieve one’sgoals,

freedom and protection from coercion or physical

confinement, and equality. Scholars have argued

these rights are a matter of morality because “they

may or may not be conventionally recognized, either

legally or in corporate policy”(Rowan, 2000: 357).

Similarly, Gibson’s (2000) discussion of stakeholder

theory reflected a deontological approach to ethics

that obligates respecting employees as “ends in

themselves.”In this view, societies and organizations

have a moral duty to ensure a level of dignity in the

workplace (Bowie, 1998; Micewski & Troy, 2007). For

example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many coun-

tries introduced national legislation to compensate

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 245

and acknowledge frontline workers, including many

minimum wage and part-time workers who were most

vulnerable to furloughs and layoffs in the wake of

the coronavirus (Alon, Doepke, Olmsted-Rumsey, &

Tertilt, 2020). This compensation was important in

acknowledging the value of care workers, who are

chronically undervalued and underpaid (Thomason

&Macias-Alonso,2020).

Social movements can also change how individu-

als experience dignity. Social movements are an ele-

ment of the frames people develop as ways to shape

systems of meaning that mobilize collective action

to accomplish social change. Isaac, McDonald, and

Lukasik (2006) found that the new left activism dur-

ing the 1960s in the name of civil rights, women’s

equality, and opposition to the Vietnam War extended

beyond college campuses to also inspire workers’

activism, including unionization, which instilled dig-

nity among the affected workers.

Societal attitudes that allow workplace spiritual-

ity, defined as a framework of “values evidenced in

the culture that promote employees’experience of

transcendence through the work process, facilitating

their sense of being connected to others in a way that

provides feelings of completeness and joy”(Gotsis &

Kortezi, 2008: 577), help to counteract the feelings

of expendability that detract from dignity. Displays

of spirituality are liberating and increase a sense of

meaning (Hicks, 2002). An often-neglected feature,

spirituality is centered on universal traditions (deon-

tology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics), not specific

faiths or religions. When spirituality is legitimized

as a societal norm, it allows for the integration of

one’s personal and professional identities in ways

that align with personal values (Brophy, 2015; Gotsis

& Kortezi, 2008).

Organizational Level

In addition to societal norms, expendability may

also be implied when organizations implement lay-

offs or undermine union activity. However, the litera-

ture also documents ways to address these workplace

activities that detract from dignity, including estab-

lishing ethical climates and voluntary organizational

support, which help employees feel they are valued

and that their work has meaning.

Organizational disposability and expendability

detract dignity. Workforce reductions (i.e., layoffs

or downsizing) detract from the experience of dig-

nity at work (Chadwick, Hunter, & Walston, 2004;

Harcourt, Hannay, & Lam, 2013; Lucas, 2015). Those

who are dismissed are likely to feel humiliated and

injured if they view their dismissal as unjustified

(Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000; Wiesen-

feld et al., 1999). Further, when survivors of an orga-

nizational layoff think those dismissed were treated

unfairly, it lessens their own commitment to the firm

(Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992). In con-

trast, perceptions that those dismissed were treated

with dignity and compassion by the organization

bolsters survivors’faith in the firm’s fairness and

fosters increased commitment and productivity

(Chadwick et al., 2004). The importance of fair and

transparent communication from the organization

during unionization activities has also been docu-

mented, and organizational-level reactions to union-

ization can threaten dignity by creating perceptions

of injustice if the collective interests of employees

have not been protected (Martin & Dixon, 2010;

Moore & Read, 2006). Individuals who felt disre-

spected in collective bargaining were likelier to

go against negotiations and strike versus those

who were treated with dignity (Cloutier, Denis, &

Bilodeau, 2013).

Organizational value and meaning activate dig-

nity. Norms and expectations are the ingredients of

an ethical climate that encourages decision-making

and behavior around shared values(Martin& Cullen,

2006). Organizations with a “caring”climate culti-

vate the conditions necessary for experiencing work

that is valued and infused with meaning. A meta-

analysis concluded that such a climate, character-

ized by “an overarching concern for the well-being of

others . . . within the organization as well as society”

(Martin & Cullen, 2006: 179), is strongly associated

with organizational commitment and psychological

well-being. Importantly, employees in a caring cli-

mate perceive the organization’s policies, practices,

and strategies as aligned with general concern for

others, activating dignity. Scholars have identified

five virtues that characterize such organizations: pur-

pose, safety, fairness, humanity, and dignity. The

focus on dignity as an organizational virtue is defined

as “the treatment of all people in the organization as

individuals regardless of their position”(Peterson &

Park, 2006: 152).

A study of perceived organizational support also

suggested a range of organizational factors drives

the experience of work as valued and meaningful

(Eisenberger et al., 2020). Perceived organizational

support is defined as “employees’perceptions that the

organization values their contributions and cares

about their well-being”(Eisenberger, Huntington,

Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Employees are more likely

to report perceived organizational support when they

246 Academy of Management Annals January

think their organization is engaging voluntarily in spe-

cific practices such as fair pay, equitable HR practices,

and leadership support—not because they are

mandated.

Interpersonal Level

Individuals feeling disposable in the context of

specific relationships and interactions detract from

the experience of dignity. The literature has identi-

fied ageism, invisibility, and coercive control as con-

tributors to this experience. As we discuss below,

remedies include supervisor provision of resources,

normalizing morally tainted work, ethical leadership,

and employee voice—defined as constructive, change-

oriented communication intended to improve a situa-

tion (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

Interpersonal disposability and expendability

detract dignity. Not being seen or being misunder-

stood during interpersonal interactions are features of

work that detract from dignity (Rabelo & Mahalingam,

2019). Because of ageism, older workers often feel

they do not have the same status as their younger col-

leagues and their sense of meaningfulness suffers

(Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011). In the case of

workers in certain vocations, the stigma associated

with their jobs often causes a sense of invisibility and

reduces their sense of belonging. This has been docu-

mented for so-called “dirty work”based on physical

taint (e.g., janitor, funeral director, miner, or sweat-

shop worker), social taint (e.g., prison guard, cus-

tomer services, or maid), or moral taint (e.g., exotic

dancer, pawnbroker, or bill collector) (Ashforth &

Kreiner, 1999).

Meaningfulness may be reduced when employees

are mainly motivated by power, money, and social

acceptance and display these motivations in inter-

acting with others (Michaelson, 2008; Tang, 2016).

Labor processes, especially coercive control, may

also complicate achieving workplace dignity. Coer-

cive control dehumanizes workers and is conducive

to abuse and powerlessness (Crowley, 2012).

Interpersonal value and meaning activate dig-

nity. An employee’s direct supervisor is one of the

most important persons in shaping the interpersonal

sensemaking process individuals use to establish the

meaning and significance of their work through cues

and evaluations of their job, role, and self (Ashforth

et al., 2007; Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, 2012; Cald-

well & Dixon, 2010; Dust, Resick, Margolis, Mawritz,

& Greenbaum, 2018; Kahn, 1990; Wrzesniewski, Dut-

ton, & Debebe, 2003). The experience of dignity

is activated when managers thoughtfully provide

developmental opportunities, provide appreciation,

and communicate that an employee is valued during

difficult events, such as a missed promotion or even

in exit interviews (Wood & Karau, 2009). Further, the

work of Ashforth and colleagues (Ashforth et al.,

2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999) examined the practi-

ces managers use to counter or normalize “taint.”

Managers are critical to creating the conditions that

help employees who do dirty work become and

remain positive and overcome the stigma of their

occupations. These managerial practices include

developing occupational ideologies, building social

buffers, defending workers before clients or the pub-

lic, and other defensive tactics (Ashforth et al.,

2007). As some “dirty”work is completed outside of

organizational boundaries, research has suggested

interactions among clients and independent contrac-

tors are also critical to the experience of dignity

(Cameron, Thomason, & Conzon, 2021; Petriglieri,

Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

The concept of ethical leadership holds that both

the character and behaviors of leaders create the con-

ditions necessary to achieving results while main-

taining ethical standards, which can activate an

experience of dignity. Honest, caring, and principled

leaders influence their followers by openly discus-

sing ethical standards and appropriately recognizing

and rewarding ethical behavior (Brown & Trevino,

2006). They also create the conditions for employee

voice and psychological ownership, positively in-

fluencing employees’psychological well-being and

job satisfaction (Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, 2012).

Employee voice is especially consequential because it

represents meaningful opportunities for employees to

advocate to management for constructive changes in

unsatisfactory work conditions (Brockner et al., 1998),

thus permitting management and the organization to

benefit from their sense of dignity at work rather than

creating frustrated employees who may then leave for

other jobs (Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002).

Individual Level

As a final consideration, perceptions of out-group

membership, specific occupations, and stigmatized

tasks contribute to a sense of disposability and thereby

detract from the experience of dignity. These experien-

ces are mitigated when individuals develop alternative

meaning for tasks, craft their jobs, and develop certain

personal characteristics that serve to reinforce their

value to the organization and therefore restore dignity.

Individual disposability and expendability

detract dignity. Perceptions of in-group versus out-

group membership affect the experience of dignity;

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 247

being part of the in-group increases self-worth

(Dittmann, Kteily, & Bruneau, 2021). Perceivers’attri-

butions about the behavior of the groups to which they

belong help to determine their perceived worthiness,

although unfavorable attributions may threaten one’s

perception of the dignity of the group. In addition

to the research on dirty work by organizational schol-

ars, sociologists have also examined phenomena that

detract from dignity that are associated with specific

tasks (Anteby, Chan, & DiBenigno, 2016). Stigmatized

tasks create negative employee reactions that threaten

personal dignity (Jermier et al., 1989; Malvini Redden

& Scarduzio, 2018). Such employees often experience

physical deprivations in their work, which detracts

dignity (Cameron et al., 2021; Hamilton et al., 2019).

The perceptions others have of certain tasks also create

conditions that detract from dignity; for example, gar-

bage collectors’sense of expendability stems from the

low social esteem of many tasks involved in their jobs.

Individual value and meaning activate dignity.

When faced with tasks that overwork or impinge on

autonomy, workers may resist to maintain a sense of

dignity (Hodson, 2001). Workers may also take action

that increases a sense of pride in their achievements,

create alternative meaning systems that ascribe greater

value to tasks, and espouse rhetoric that influences the

way they and others justify and view their tasks (Fine,

1996). Others have documented that forms of job craft-

ing, such as “stretchwork”among contract workers

identified by O’Mahony and Bechky (2006: 919), are a

way of extending skills in a new direction to shape

perceptions of their work.

A final set of means to activate dignity include the

core personal characteristics that shape the value and

meaning of an employee’s work experience: wisdom,

courage, humanity, temperance, and transcendence

(Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005; Peterson &

Park, 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). All of these

characteristics are associated with satisfaction with

work, life, academic success, health and well-being,

leadership success, and a sense of work as a “calling”

(Peterson & Park, 2006; Wrzesniewski, McCauley,

Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997). In turn, when individuals

have these experiences at work, dignity is likely to be

activated. Peterson and Park (2006) concluded that

specific strengths of character—gratitude, hope, zest,

curiosity, and love—are also instrumental to viewing

one’s work as a calling from which dignity can be

gained.

DISCUSSION

Our review contributes to the organizational litera-

ture by developing an integrative conceptualization

of dignity and centralizing it in a multilevel frame-

work; by incorporating both inherent and earned dig-

nity; by mapping the phenomena that detract from

dignity, along with the features of work through

which dignity is activated; and by delineating multi-

ple cross-disciplinary areas for research guided

by our framework. We suggest research designs for

extending the nomological net ofdignity atwork and

offer practical organizational applications that we

hope our review and framework will inspire.

Integrating Conceptualizations to Establish

Dignity at Center Court

Our review brings dignity at work to center court

in organizational studies and beyond. Scholarship

addressing dignity has remained fragmented despite

dignity’s potential to address the many critical issues

facing modern workplaces, including the accelerating

digital transformation, growing economic inequality,

and related calls for remote work, racial justice, and

automation (Barley, Bechky, & Milliken, 2017; Nkomo,

2021; Singh & Lakhani, 2020). Few of these fragmented

approaches have addressed dignity in any fundamen-

tal or comprehensive manner. This prior work has typ-

ically focused on inherent or earned dignity (but not

both) and addressed either detractors or activators of

dignity (but not both). Our conceptualization recog-

nizes the criticality and necessity of each of these

components to the coherent integration of the many

approaches to dignity to allow further development

of theory and practical applications.

We began with an overview of dignity within vari-

ous religious and philosophical traditions, and we

posited that understanding the origins of the concept

of dignity is critical to comprehending its manifesta-

tion across societal, organizational, interpersonal,

and individual levels of analysis. For example, a

multinational company trying to implement pro-

cesses and policies to ensure the dignity of employ-

ees may function differently with Confucian versus

Judeo-Christian values as a backdrop. The Confucian

concept of role-based dignity implies dignity may be

based on family background, occupation, or societal

role (Chan, 2008) and social and moral order may be

pursued to conform to social expectations (Lin et al.,

2013). Given that Confucianism emphasizes rela-

tionships and societal peace, policies that support

connection may resonate most with those employ-

ees. In contrast, the Judeo-Christian tradition empha-

sizes a person’s value independent of the group and

highlights the uniqueness of individual capabilities

(Ip, 2009). Thus, meritocratic policies may be accepted

248 Academy of Management Annals January

more readily, even if they do not truly protect the dig-

nity of all employees (Castilla & Benard, 2010). The

Islamic belief that a fair minimum wage is one that is

adequate to cover the cost of necessities (Beekun &

Badawi, 2005; Possumah, Ismail, & Shahimi, 2013)

is a practice frequently reflected in HR and manage-

rial decisions. In contrast, Confucians relate dignity

directly to virtuous conduct (Li, 2021; Luo, 2014).

Accordingly, a tradition focused on duty and hold-

ing agents responsible for creating harmony, moral,

and social order may not welcome a minimum wage

(Lin et al., 2013).

Given these differences, our framework provides an

integrated, culturally sensitive road map for examin-

ing dignity at work across geographic and labor market

contexts. This framework is likely to be especially use-

ful for organizations that are global or multinational,

are characterized by increasing diversity in religious

and philosophical beliefs, or are working to integrate

refugees and immigrants with differing cultural back-

grounds. We encourage scholars to recognize that dif-

ferent employees, managers, and organizations relate

differently across cultural and geographic contexts

with respect to cross-cultural phenomena that may

detract from dignity and the features of work through

which dignity is experienced.

Recognizing someone else’s approach to dignity

provides an inclusive way to protect dignity. Indeed,

our review’s connections across levels show that

intrapersonal and relational approaches to dignity are

embedded in societal and organizational contexts.

This perspective allows for a greater understanding of

the complexities of dignity across occupations, geog-

raphies, and cultures. Our framework recognizes and

honors the many religious and philosophical tradi-

tions and approaches that inform both inherent dig-

nity and earned dignity. Simultaneously, detractors

and activators of dignity encompass both inherent

and earned dignity. Accordingly, we provide a path-

way to overcome the perils of ethnocentricity or sin-

gle disciplinary perspective.

Incorporating Inherent and Earned Dignity

Our review incorporates both inherent dignity,

which is a belief that all people have intrinsic and

equal value, and earned dignity, which is a belief that

dignity is meritocratic and at least partially based on

individuals’differential qualities, abilities, and efforts

(Brennan & Lo, 2007; Lucas, 2015). We underscore

that considerable prior research has positioned inher-

ent and earned dignity as different routes by which

dignity is detracted and as different pathways to

activating dignity (e.g., Goodstein, 2019; Hodson &

Roscigno, 2004; Lucas et al., 2017; Rogers et al., 2017).

Specifically, scholars focused on phenomena that

detract from dignity emphasized that inherent dignity

is degraded when privilege and opportunity are con-

ferred based on individual characteristics or social

status. For example, research that underscored dig-

nity detractors in the form of racial or gender bias

implored scholars and practitioners to treat inherent

dignity as a moral obligation. In contrast, our review

confirms that the means of activating and restoring

dignity presented in the literature address earned dig-

nity through recommendations to change recognition

or compensation policies to favor fairness and justice

without attention to inherent dignity.

Nevertheless, we contend this bifurcation ignores

that the modern phenomena and workplace conditions

that detract from dignity—alienation, exclusion, and

dehumanization—put both forms of dignity at risk.

And importantly, by extension, this means the most

successful means of activating dignity must also

address both forms. This is where much of theory and

practice fails. However, our review unveiled specific

pathways advocated in prior literature, such as increas-

ing connectedness, respect, and meaning at work, that

can invoke both inherent and earned dignity. By map-

ping dignity detractors and specific features of society,

organizations, interpersonal interactions, and individ-

uals that activate the pathways through which dignity

is experienced, we bridge the past divide between

inherent and earned dignity. Our framework depicts a

more extensive causal chain and sequence of events to

help both scholars and practitioners understand how

to avoid or minimize indignity, proactively enhance

dignity, and engage in restorative practices for reestab-

lishing dignity when lost or violated. Ours is the first

such integrative perspective proposed in the manage-

ment literature.

Integrating Dignity Approaches Across

Disciplines

We opened this review with the claim that to sup-

port the experience of dignity at work, we must

develop an integrated and holistic understanding

of the specific actions that encourage and protect

human dignity at work. We also recognized such an

understanding must reflect multiple disciplinary

approaches that typically do not talk to one other.

We do not yet have a coherent science of dignity at

work, and this lack of communication across disci-

plines is a key culprit. We have taken a first step by

mapping scholarship from certain disciplines about

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 249

multilevel phenomena that detract from dignity onto

scholarship from other disciplines that addressed

the features of work that establish dignity. We hope

our framework opens new lines of interdisciplinary

inquiry.

For example, as we highlighted in our section on

dignity detractors in the form of disaffection and

alienation, psychologists have examined the loneli-

ness and anxiety brought on by social distancing dur-

ing the pandemic. But these scholars have rarely

communicated with organizational researchers exam-

ining technology use or work design, although this

work directly informs how best to connect and inspire

workers, which our framework identifies as an impor-

tant pathway to activating and restoring dignity. Like-

wise, research on decent work, participatory corporate

structures, and authentic leadership all have the poten-

tial to address ostracism and the psychological impacts

of abusive supervisors. Identifying the research from

other disciplines that has addressed such threats to

dignity enables more comprehensive theorizing and

potentially useful approaches to workplace reform.

Similarly, sociologists have long been concerned

with the indignity individuals may experience in

being disrespected or excluded, such as when they

are victimized by racism, immigrate, lose their jobs,

or are denied opportunities for advancement or

development based on dispositional characteristics.

But although they have the potential to directly

address these very threats to dignity, the scholarship

on respectful engagement, reciprocity, and commu-

nity development as a form of CSR have not been

informed by, nor contributed back to, the work in

sociology. The concepts reviewed in the section of

the framework on exclusion (e.g., humanizing and

ethical codes of conduct; community embedded-

ness) show promise for activating and restoring dig-

nity that could add to the work on exclusion and

disrespect in other disciplines.

Finally, technologists and ethicists have been

struggling with concerns regarding individual expe-

riences of being disposable or expendable when

work is automated. But rarely has the work of organi-

zational scholars on topics such as developmental

opportunities or voluntary organizational support

been brought to bear on these issues. Neither has

scholarship on automation been informed by the

work of occupational psychologists on the develop-

ment of meaning in tainted occupations and tasks.

By identifying the important pathway to activating

the experience of dignity at work, through instilling

value and meaning, we shed light on a way to

address the concerns confronting other disciplines.

As such, we present a truly interdisciplinary frame-

work that not only diagnoses the conditions of work

that detract from dignity but also offers evidence-

based pathways to protect and restore dignity at

work.

Directions for Future Research

Our review offers numerous arenas for future

research. First, we note that much of the literature on

dignity is philosophical and conceptual; 44% of the

articles identified in our search were nonempirical.

We hope future work will provide empirical evi-

dence regarding the activators and detractors of dig-

nity at work. Empirical work is particularly scarce

for features at the societal level, representing an area

ripe for additional study. We also note that across

the six sections of our model, research addressing

the activation of dignity through work that is valued

and infused with meaning is more heavily domi-

nated by conceptual articles rather than empirical

studies (i.e., this section contained 49% conceptual

articles). The other five sections were less character-

ized by conceptual work (i.e., 40% conceptual articles

for work as disaffected and alienated, 26% conceptual

articles for work as connected and inspired, 26% for

work as disrespected and excluded, 35% for work as

respected and embedded, and 32% for work as dis-

posable and expendable). Therefore, we particularly

encourage empirical studies that investigate features

of work that infuse it with value and meaning as a

promising means of activating dignity. Furthermore,

even within the empirical work that examines dignity,

there is room to further clarify the concept of dignity,

especially in relation to other concepts describing

human treatment. For example, dignity and respect are

often paired together and sometimes used interchange-

ably. We propose respect as a means of restoring dig-

nity in the face of exclusion. But in the absence of

empirical evidence on whether dignity and respect are

distinct, we encourage research along these lines.

Additionally, research on dignity at the individual

level is limited. Perhaps this is because dignity

is fundamentally a relational construct (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988). However, as illustrated in our review,

much more research is needed to understand the key

individual dispositions or traits that insulate or protect

from workplace phenomena that detract from dignity,

prompt a willingness to pursue solutions or pathways,

and engage in restorative practices when dignity is

lost or damaged. We encourage future research that

questions whether there are individual attributes,

mindsets, or behaviors that can protect one’sown

250 Academy of Management Annals January

dignity, regardless of the interpersonal, organiza-

tional, or societal context. Similarly, are there dispo-

sitions or other trait-like characteristics that enable

individuals to seek out and sustain effort on work

activities that provide elevated perceptions of respect,

value, and dignity in their work? For example, future

scholars could examine the role of character strengths,

such as gratitude and hope, that have shown associa-

tions with employees’ability to overcome uncertainty

and sustain efforts in work contexts threated by major

disruptions—downsizing, mergers and acquisitions,

and terrorism—and other environments that threaten

individuals’dignity (Peterson & Park, 2006; Selig-

man, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).Individual-level

predictors are particularly important as individuals

increasingly work on-demand and as contractors

(Petriglieri et al., 2019).

Furthermore, our review and framework offer

scholars an integrated approach to examining the pro-

tective mechanisms (policies, procedures, and practi-

ces) that insulate individuals from work conditions

detracting from inherent dignity and whether such

protection is predominantly a function of stable per-

sonal characteristics, positional power or status, or

job skills, competencies, and functional/disciplinary

backgrounds. Dispositional factors related to one’s

identity can represent dignity detractors that are

entirely outside of one’s control, including gender

(Ridgeway, 2011), race and ethnicity, sexual orienta-

tion or identity (Meyer, 2003), physical disability

(Stone & Colella, 1996), or immigration status. How

can such individuals be shielded from indignity and

by what entities? Along a similar vein as dispositional

characteristics, an individual’s primary skills, disci-

plinary training, and other job-related capabilities

represent relatively stable facets that potentially con-

tribute to features of work that detract from dignity.

As technological advancements accelerate (Bankins

& Formosa, 2020; Ivanov et al., 2020), our review

encourages research into how organizations can avoid

violations of the fundamental value of being human.

Thus, there is much intellectual ground to explore not

only individual traits but also individual behaviors

and organizationally based roles.

Future research could further examine how organi-

zations eliminate unnecessary electronic performance

monitoring, surveillance, and other privacy violations

(Acquisti et al., 2015; Kellogg et al., 2020). We also

encourage further examination of the link between

consistency, transparency, and equality of pay poli-

cies and dignity. Given the wealth of evidence suggest-

ing that dignity detractors are often perpetrated by

supervisors and others in leadership roles (Holtz &

Harold, 2013), future studies could examine how

whistleblowing policies and other measures allow

individuals—especially those most vulnerable—to

protest when disrespected or abused by persons in

positions of authority.

As an integrative approach to examining the protec-

tive mechanisms (policies, procedures, and practices)

that shield or insulate individuals from phenomena

that detract from inherent dignity, our review also

captures the proactive mechanisms (solutions, path-

ways, and routes) through which multiple stakehold-

ers (organizations, governments, trans-organizations,

leaders, teams, etc.) can provide meaningful opportu-

nities for individuals to earn or secure dignity in

work. This research can directly investigate the poten-

tial impact of participatory structures, such as

organizing teams, projects, networks, and learning

organization practices (Lawrence & Pirson, 2015;

Shin, Picken, & Dess, 2017), as dignity activators.

These structural participatory practices, which in-

clude exchanges with internal and external stake-

holders across organizations and collaborative

opportunities for addressing enterprise-wide chal-

lenges, offer great potential for understanding the

features of work through which dignity is experi-

enced. We also see research on employee recognition

practices as fertile ground for dignity scholarship,

particularly across cultural and geographic contexts

in which appropriate displays of recognition differ,

to help our understanding of the pathways through

which dignity is experienced.

In these pursuits, we encourage the study of proac-

tive solutions across the societal, organizational, and

leader, or interpersonal levels. Given the many dis-

ruptions to the nature of work due to automation,

artificial intelligence, and related technological ad-

vancements, we see this as promising research into

the provision of job-relevant training and develop-

ment opportunities to activate or reestablish dignity

as new workforce requirements potentially detract

from the experience of dignity at work (Eisenberger

et al., 2020; Hodson & Roscigno, 2004). Automation

may be implemented with the best of intentions to

free up employee time for more valued pursuits, and

yet the unintended consequences may be that these

top–down shifts in the nature of work detract from

dignity. Aligned with the ethical perspective that

employees have a basic right to pursue their own

goals and self-interests (Gibson, 2000; Rowan, 2000),

future studies might also examine the nature and

efficacy of job crafting, job enlargement, job rota-

tions, and related pathways to enhancing the mean-

ingfulness of work through “stretch roles”that offer

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 251

skills development, exposure to new markets or

regions, and cross-functional or business unit experi-

ences (Lucas et al., 2017; O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006).

For example, research is needed to understand

how dignity at work is activated or restored when

individuals are selected for coveted development

opportunities as well as the interpersonal (leader–

follower relationship) and individual factors that

drive adaptation to new work requirements (Church,

Guidry, Dickey, & Scrivani, 2021). As illustrated by

our framework, the pursuit and provision of relevant

learning and development opportunities as a means

of restoring dignity is an important future research

direction to advance our understanding of feeling

disposable and expendable as phenomena that de-

tract from dignity. From the perspective of industrial

relations and business ethics (Frenkel et al., 2012;

Wood & Karau, 2009), future studies should examine

how the psychological contract is changing with the

increasing learning and development needs of the

workforce. However, in parallel, our review also

encourages research that examines the potential

exclusionary impact of providing career advance-

ments and development opportunities to selected

individuals (in-group) and necessarily excluding most

others (out-group). As organizations continue to adopt

talent management policies and practices that offer

limited and invaluable opportunities to employees

rated as “high potential”(Church et al., 2021), we

implore scholars to examine the unintended conse-

quences of such policies for those not chosen, which

too often includes women, disabled persons, under-

represented ethnic and racial minorities, immigrants,

and other persons with inherent dispositional charac-

teristics (Bowles, Thomason, & Bear, 2019; Groves,

2019; Lacey & Groves, 2022). Research may examine

how dignity is experienced as a function of percep-

tions of organizational justice based on skills training

and related development initiatives.

It would also be worthwhile to consider how dif-

ferent roles in organizations influence how employ-

ees do or do not experience dignity. For example,

several studies in our review found a supervisor is

central to experiences of dignity (Hershcovis & Barl-

ing, 2010; Hollensbe et al., 2008; Stoverink et al.,

2014). Undoubtedly, managers are often central to

how employees interface with their organizations.

Moreover, the impact of managers on their team

members is often most influential during highly dis-

ruptive work contexts and events (Hannah, Uhl-Bien,

Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009). As such, we recommend

future research that adopts process models using lon-

gitudinal designs to examine the important role of

leaders through major crises or transitions and the

associated experiences of worker dignity. It could be

illuminating to unpack the ways dignity at work is

activated and restored via leader–follower interac-

tions across the major phases of organizational crises

(Jaques, 2012). Such inquiries might also explore how

subordinates, peers, and superiors to whom one does

not report can also influence individuals’experiences

of dignity. Locklear, Taylor, and Ambrose (2021)

found that simply prompting people to journal about

what they are grateful for at work brought reports

of greater self-control and, according to their cow-

orkers, subsequent less rudeness, gossip, and ostra-

cism. Indeed, the simplicity of this intervention

suggests organizations can indeed create the features

of work to foster dignity.

Finally, we note that our framework ends where

the experience of dignity begins. Indeed, in many

ways, our research takes the approach that dignity is

an end in and of itself. Nonetheless, we hope future

work will explore the consequences of experiencing

dignity at work. Similar to how diversity scholars

have explored diversity and inclusion as a moral

issue (K€

ollen, Kakkuri-Knuuttila, & Bendl, 2018) in

addition to identifying the business case for it (Rob-

inson & Dechant, 1997), it will be important for orga-

nizational scholars to consider the consequences of

dignity for employees, leaders, and organizations. In

this quest, scholars might seek to consider different

interventions that activate or detract from the experi-

ence of dignity. Notably, it is possible that well-

intentioned policies and practices may not actually

restore dignity but deliver unintended consequen-

ces. For example, an organization might move to

remote work with the intention of supporting work-

ing parents or primary caregivers with flexibility but

find some employees feel disconnected from their

colleagues. Or, an organization might automate parts

of its process to support efficiency but make the indi-

viduals who were in charge of that task feel expend-

able. Hence, we encourage future empirical studies

that extend prior work by assessing a broader range

of antecedents to workplace dignity (dirty work de-

mands, organizational rank, income insufficiency)

and outcomes of workplace dignity (employee engage-

ment, turnover, well-being, resilience, productivity).

We also note that capturing the experience of activa-

tors and detractors for dignity at multiple levels of

analysis will require creative methodologies and quite

likely a mixed-methods design. We encourage studies

that examine contexts using qualitative or ethno-

graphic investigation combined with that which

seeks to understand interventions or policy changes

252 Academy of Management Annals January

and their impact on the interpersonal and individual

level. Such studies would help to ensure coverage

across the full experience of dignity at work.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we integrated the rich but frag-

mented literature ondignity atwork. The conceptual

framework that we have proposed synthesizes a vast

body of research that has considered the activators

and detractors of dignity at work across societal,

organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels

and integrates both inherent and earned dignity. At

the time of publication, the world is grappling with

“building back better”after the COVID-19 pandemic,

confronting racial justice and rising immigration

concerns, and increasing dehumanization of work via

automation, artificial intelligence, and the digital

transformation. We hope our review supports both

scholars and practitioners in infusing work and organ-

izations with dignity while inspiring individuals to

advocate for dignity more broadly across society, gov-

ernments, and the global business community.

REFERENCES

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. 2015. Pri-

vacy and human behavior in the age of information.

Science,347:509–514.

Agassi, J. B. 1986. Dignity in the workplace: Can work be

dealienated? Journal of Business Ethics,5:271–284.

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., & Ganapathi, J. 2007.

Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A

multilevel theory of social change in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 32: 836–863.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don’t

know about corporate social responsibility: A review

and research agenda. Journal of Management,38:

932–968.

Ahmed, S. F., Eatough, E. M., & Ford, M. T. 2018. Relation-

ships between illegitimate tasks and change in work-

family outcomes via interactional justice and negative

emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104:

14–30.

Alder, G. S., & Gilbert, J. 2006. Achieving ethics and fair-

ness in hiring: Going beyond the law. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 68: 449–464.

Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., & Noel, T. W. 2007. The impact

of individual ethics on reactions to potentially inva-

sive HR practices. Journal of Business Ethics,75:

201–214.

Al-Kazemi, A., & Zajac, G. 1999. Ethics sensitivity and aware-

ness within organizations in Kuwait: An empirical

exploration of espoused theory and theory-in-use.

Journal of Business Ethics, 20: 353–361.

Alon, T. M., Doepke, M., Olmsted-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M.

2020. The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality.

Working Paper No. 26947. NBER. Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic Research.

Amarat, M., Akbolat, M.,

€

Unal,

€

O., & G€

unes¸ Karakaya, B.

2019. The mediating role of work alienation in the

effect of workplace loneliness on nurses’performance.

Journal of Nursing Management, 27: 553–559.

Anderson, J., & Honneth, A. 2005. Autonomy, vulnerability,

recognition and justice. In J. Christman & J. Anderson

(Eds.), Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism:

127–149. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. The spiraling of

incivility in the workplace. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 24: 452–471.

Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. 2016. Three lenses

on occupations and professions in organizations:

Becoming, doing, and relating. Academy of Manage-

ment Annals, 10: 183–244.

Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Schlosser, F. 2011. Perceived

organizational membership and the retention of older

workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior,32:

319–344.

Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. 2007. Respect for workers in

global supply chains: Advancing the debate over

sweatshops. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 135–145.

Ashok, H. S., & Thimmappa, M. S. 2006. A Hindu world-

view of adult learning in the workplace. Advances in

Developing Human Resources,8:329–336.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. 1999. “How can you do

it?”Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a

positive identity. Academy of Management Review,

24: 413–434.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. 2014. Dirty and dirtier

work: Differences in countering physical, social, and

moral stigma. Management and Organization Review,

10: 81–108.

Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G., Clark, M., & Fugate, M. 2007.

Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for coun-

tering occupational taint. Academy of Management

Journal, 50: 149–174.

Avey,J.B.,Wernsing,T.S.,&Palanski,M.E.2012.Explor-

ing the process of ethical leadership: The mediating

role of employee voice and psychological ownership.

Journal of Business Ethics,107:21–34.

Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. 2006. Thehighimpactleader:

Moments matter for accelerating authentic leader-

ship development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bacha, E., & Walker, S. 2013. The relationship between

transformational leadership and followers’perceptions

of fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 116: 667–680.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 253

Bankins, S., & Formosa, P. 2020. When AI meets PC:

Exploring the implications of workplace social robots

and a human-robot psychological contract. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,29:

215–229.

Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. 2017. Similar but not the same:

Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate

responsibility. Academy of Management Annals,11:

105–149.

Barclay, L. J., Whiteside, D. B., & Aquino, K. 2014. To

avenge or not to avenge? Exploring the interactive

effects of moral identity and the negative reciprocity

norm. Journal of Business Ethics,121:15–28.

Barley, S., Bechky, B., & Milliken, F. 2017. The changing

nature of work: Careers, identities, and work lives in

the 21st century. Academy of Management Discov-

eries,3:111–115.

Beekun, R. I., & Badawi, J. A. 2005. Balancing ethical

responsibility among multiple organizational stake-

holders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business

Ethics, 60: 131–145.

Behfar, K., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2018. Discovery within vali-

dation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing,

and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-

deductive inquiry. Organization Science,29:323–340.

Berdahl, J. L. 2007a. The sexual harassment of uppity

women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 425–437.

Berdahl, J. L. 2007b. Harassment based on sex: Protecting

social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 32: 641–658.

Berger,P.L.1970.A rumor of angels: Modern society

and the rediscovery of the supernatural.Garden

City, NY: Anchor.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Commu-

nication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation

in Organizations,1:43–55.

Black, L. 2013. The social license to operate: Your man-

agement framework for complex times. Oxford, U.K.:

Sedition Publishing Ltd.

Blair-Loy, M. 2009. Competing devotions: Career and

family among women executives.Cambridge,MA:

Harvard University Press.

Blau, G., & Andersson, L. 2005. Testing a measure of insti-

gated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 78: 595–614.

Bloch, A., & Hirsch, S. 2017. “Second generation”refugees

and multilingualism: Identity, race and language trans-

mission. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40: 2444–2462.

Bolton, S. C. 2007. Dignity in and at work: Why it matters.

In S. C. Bolton (Ed.), Dimensions of dignity at work:

3–16. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bolton, S. C. 2010. Being human: Dignity of labor as the

foundation for the spirit-work connection. Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion,7:157–172.

Bolton, S. C. 2011. Dimensions of dignity: Defining the

future of work. In K. Townsend & A. Wilkinson (Eds.),

Research handbook on the future of work and

employment relations:370–384. Cheltenham, U.K.:

Edward Elgar.

Bourne, S., & Snead, J. D. 1999. Environmental determi-

nants of organizational ethical climate: A community

perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 21: 283–290.

Bowie, N. E. 1998. A Kantian theory of capitalism. Busi-

ness Ethics Quarterly,8:37–60.

Bowles, H. R., Thomason, B., & Bear, J. B. 2019. Reconcep-

tualizing what and how women negotiate for career

advancement. Academy of Management Journal,62:

1645–1671.

Brenan, M. 2020, April 3. US workers discovering affinity

for remote work. Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.

gallup.com/poll/306695/workers-discovering-affinity-

remote-work.aspx.

Brennan, A., & Lo, Y. S. 2007. Two conceptions of dignity:

Honour and self-determination. In J. Malpas & N. Lick-

iss (Eds.), Perspectives on human dignity: A conver-

sation:43–58. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Brockner, J. 2002. Making sense of procedural fairness:

How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten

the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of

Management Review,27:58–76.

Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Mar-

tin, C., Grover, S., Reed, T., & Bjorgvinsson, S. 1998.

The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to

voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 394–407.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P., Daly, J., Tyler, T., & Martin, C.

1997. When trust matters: The moderating effect of

outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 42: 558–583.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T., & Cooper-Schneider, R. 1992. The

influence of prior commitment to an institution on

reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are,

the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 37: 241–261.

Brophy, M. 2015. Spirituality incorporated: Including con-

vergent spiritual values in business. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics,132:779–794.

Brown, S. P. 1996. A meta-analysis and review of organiza-

tional research on job involvement. Psychological

Bulletin,120:235–255.

Brown, M., & Trevino, L. 2006. Ethical leadership: A

review and future research directions. Leadership

Quarterly,17:595–616.

Bu, N., & Roy, J. P. 2005. Career success networks in China:

Sex differences in network composition and social

exchange practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Manage-

ment, 22: 381–403.

254 Academy of Management Annals January

Butterick, M., & Charlwood, A. 2021. HRM and the COVID

19 pandemic: How can we stop making a bad situation

worse? Human Resource Management Journal,31:

847–856.

Buzzanell, P. M., & Lucas, K. 2013. Constrained and con-

structed choices in career: An examination of communi-

cation pathways to dignity. Annals of the International

Communication Association, 37: 1–31.

Byrne, Z. S., Pitts, V. E., Wilson, C. M.,& Steiner, Z. J. 2012.

Trustingthefairsupervisor:Theroleofsupervisory

support in performance appraisals. Human Resource

Management Journal,22:129–147.

Caldwell, C., & Dixon, R. D. 2010. Love, forgiveness, and

trust: Critical values of the modern leader. Journal of

Business Ethics,93:91–101.

Cameron, L., Thomason, B., & Conzon, V. 2021. Risky busi-

ness: Gig workers and the navigation of ideal worker

expectations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 106: 1821–1833.

Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. 2010. The paradox of meritoc-

racy in organizations. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 55: 543–576.

Chan, G. K. Y. 2008. The relevance and value of Confucian-

ism in contemporary business ethics. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics,7:347–360.

Chadwick, C., Hunter, L., & Walston, S. 2004. Effects of

downsizing practices on the performance of hospitals.

Strategic Management Journal, 25: 405–427.

Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., &

Hong, Y. 2013. Self-love’s lost labor: A self-enhancement

model of workplace incivility. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 56: 1199–1219.

Cheng, C. Y., Jiang, D. Y., Cheng, B. S., Riley, J. H., & Jen,

C. K. 2015. When do subordinates commit to their

supervisors? Different effects of perceived supervisor

integrity and support on Chinese and American

employees. Leadership Quarterly,26:81–97.

Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., & Vaughn, A. 2011. Let me tell

you what to do: Cultural differences in advice-giving.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43: 687–703.

Chotiner, I. 2020, June 3. A black lives matter co-founder

explains why this time is different. The New Yorker.

Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-

and-a/a-black-lives-matter-co-founder-explains-why-

this-time-is-different.

Chou, W. C. G. 2002. The transformation of industrial

authority and paternalistic capitalism in the global

economy: Case studies of Taiwan’s textiles industries.

International Journal of Human Resource Manage-

ment, 13: 550–568.

Church, A., Guidry, B., Dickey, J., & Scrivani, J. 2021. Is

there potential in assessing for high-potential? Evalu-

ating the relationships between performance ratings,

leadership assessment data, designated high-potential

status and promotion outcomes in a global organiza-

tion. Leadership Quarterly, 32: 1–13.

Clarke, N., Alshenalfi, N., & Garavan, T. 2019. Upward

influence tactics and their effects on job performance

ratings and flexible working arrangements: The medi-

ating roles of mutual recognition respect and mutual

appraisal respect. Human Resource Management,

58: 397–416.

Cleveland, J. N., Byrne, Z. S., & Cavanagh, T. M. 2015.

The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at

work. Human Resource Management Review, 25:

146–161.

Cloutier, J., Denis, P., & Bilodeau, H. 2013. The dynamics

of strike votes: Perceived justice during collective bar-

gaining. Journal of Organizational Behavior,34:

1016–1038.

Collins, D. 2000. The quest to improve the human condi-

tion: The first 1500 articles published in Journal of

Business Ethics.Journal of Business Ethics,26:1–73.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., &

Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A

meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational jus-

tice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,86:

425–445.

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2005.

What is organizational justice? A historical review. In

J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of orga-

nizational justice:3–56.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErl-

baum Associates.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment

process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of

Management Review, 13: 471–482.

Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., &

Wallace, J. 2008. Corporate social responsibility and

the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics,81:

355–370.

Cortina,L.M.,&Areguin,M.A.2021.Puttingpeopledown

and pushing them out: Sexual harassment in the work-

place. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior,8:285–309.

Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M., & Austin, J. 2002. Clothes make

the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and

the social construction of identity. Organization Sci-

ence, 13: 475–496.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. 2007. The

management of organizational justice. Academy of

Management Perspectives,21:34–48.

Crowley, M. 2012. Control and dignity in professional,

manual, and service-sector employment. Organiza-

tion Studies,33:1383–1406.

Cui, J., Jo, H., & Velasquez, M. G. 2016. Community reli-

gion, employees, and the social license to operate.

Journal of Business Ethics,136:775–807.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 255

Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. 2005.

Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human

strengths across culture and history. Review of

General Psychology,9:203–213.

Daniels, R. A., Miller, L. A., Mian, M. Z., & Black, S. 2022.

One size does NOT fit all: Understanding differences

in perceived organizational support during the

COVID-19 pandemic. Business and Society Review,

127: 193–222.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The “what”and “why”of

goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination

of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 227–268.

DeJordy, R. 2008. Just passing through: Stigma, passing,

and identity decoupling in the work place. Group &

Organization Management, 33: 504–531.

Dhalimi, A., Wright, A. M., Yamin, J., Jamil, H., & Arnetz,

B. B. 2018. Perception of discrimination in employ-

ment and health in refugees and immigrants. Stigma

and Health,3:325–329.

DiBenigno,J.,&Kellogg,K.C.2014.Beyondoccupational

differences: The importance of cross-cutting demo-

graphics and dyadic toolkits for collaboration in a

U.S. hospital. Administrative Science Quarterly,59:

375–408.

Dietz, J., Robinson, S., Folger, R., Baron, R., & Schulz, M.

2003. The impact of community violence and an

organization’s procedural justice climate on work-

place aggression. Academy of Management Journal,

46: 317–326.

Dittmann, A., Kteily, N. S., & Bruneau, E. G. 2021. When

getting more makes groups seem worth less: Negotiat-

ing a “better”deal in prisoner swaps can ironically

signal low self-regard and engender disrespect.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,92:

1–14.

Donaldson, T., & Walsh, J. P. 2015. Toward a theory of

business. Research in Organizational Behavior,35:

181–207.

Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D., Allan, B. A., Diemer, M., & Cina-

mon, R. G. 2020. Introduction to the special issue: A

cross cultural exploration of decent work. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 116. Published online ahead of

print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103351.

Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L.

2016. The psychology of working theory. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 63: 127–148.

Dundon, T., & Rafferty, A. 2018. The (potential) demise of

HRM? Human Resource Management Journal,28:

377–391.

Dunne, D. D., & Dougherty, D. 2016. Abductive reason-

ing: How innovators navigate in the labyrinth of

complex product innovation. Organization Stud-

ies, 37: 131–159.

Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., Margolis, J. A., Mawritz, M. B.,

& Greenbaum, R. L. 2018. Ethical leadership and

employee success: Examining the roles of psychologi-

cal empowerment and emotional exhaustion. Leader-

ship Quarterly, 29: 570–583.

Dutton,J.E.2003.Energize your workplace: How to cre-

ate and sustain high-quality connections at work.

San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high-

quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,

and R. E. Quinn Positive organizational scholarship:

Foundations of a new discipline:263–278. San Fran-

cisco: Berret-Koehlar Publishers.

D€

uwell, M., Braarvig, J., Brownsword, R. & Mieth D.

(Eds.). 2014. The Cambridge handbook of human

dignity: Interdisciplinary perspectives.Cambridge,

U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Eddleston, K. A., & Kidwell, R. E. 2011. Parent-child rela-

tionships: Planting the seeds of deviant behavior in

the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-

tice, 36: 369–386.

Egels-Zand

en, N., & Hyllman, P. 2007. Evaluating strate-

gies for negotiating workers’rights in transnational

corporations: The effects of codes of conduct and

global agreements on workplace democracy. Journal

of Business Ethics, 76: 207–223.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.

1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71: 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Rhoades Shanock, L., & Wen, X. 2020.

Perceived organizational support: Why caring about

employees counts. Annual Review of Organiza-

tional Psychology and Organizational Behavior,7:

101–124.

Ellis, C., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1994. Diverse approaches to

managing diversity. Human Resource Management,

33: 79–109.

Ezzy, D. 1997. Subjectivity and the labour process: Con-

ceptualising “good work.”Sociology, 31: 427–444.

Fantasia, R. 1995. From class consciousness to culture,

action, and social organization. Annual Review of

Sociology,21:269–287.

Farh,C.I.C.,&Chen,Z.2014.Beyondtheindividual

victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervi-

sion in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,99:

1074–1095.

Farndale, E., & Kelliher, C. 2013. Implementing perfor-

mance appraisal: Exploring the employee experience.

Human Resource Management, 52: 879–897.

Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., & Morrison, R. 2015.

Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When

do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance?

Academy of Management Journal, 58: 279–297.

256 Academy of Management Annals January

Fine, G. A. 1996. Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics

as resources in restaurant kitchens. Administrative

Science Quarterly,41:90–115.

Fleming, P. 2005. “Kindergarten cop”: Paternalism and

resistance in a high-commitment workplace. Journal

of Management Studies,42:1469–1489.

Flynn, M. A., Eggerth, D. E., & Jacobson, C. J., Jr. 2015.

Undocumented status as a social determinant of occu-

pational safety and health: The workers’perspective.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine,58:

1127–1137.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. 1989. Effects of procedural and

distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions.

Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115–130.

Forsyth, D. R. 1980. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39:

175–184.

Francis, H., & Keegan, A. 2006. The changing face of HRM:

In search of balance. Human Resource Management

Journal, 16: 231–249.

Frenkel, S., Li, M., & Restubog, L. 2012. Management,

organizational justice and emotional exhaustion

among Chinese migrant workers: Evidence from two

manufacturing firms. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, 50: 121–147.

Friedman, A., Carmeli, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2018. When does

respectful engagement with one’s supervisor foster

help-seeking behaviors and performance? Journal of

Vocational Behavior,104:184–198.

Fu, S. G., Greco, L. M., Lennard, Z. C., & Dimotakis, N.

2021. Anxiety responses to the unfolding COVID-19

crisis: Patterns of change in the experience of pro-

longed exposure to stressors. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology,106:48–61.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C., Davis, K., & Dickens, M.

2011. Authentic leadership: A review of the litera-

ture and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly,

22: 1120–1145.

Gardner, W. L., Karam, E. P., Alvesson, M., & Einola, K.

2021. Authentic leadership theory: The case for and

against. Leadership Quarterly, 32: 101495.

Genuis, Q. I. 2016. Dignity reevaluated: A theological

examination of human dignity and the role of the

Church in bioethics and end-of-life care. Linacre

Quarterly, 83: 6–14.

Gibbs, J. L., Gibson, C. B., Grushina, Y., & Dunlop, P. 2021.

Understanding orientations to participation: Over-

coming status differences to foster engagement in

global teams. European Journal of Work and Psy-

chology,8:1–9.

Gibson, C. 2020. From “social distancing”to “care in con-

necting”: An emerging organizational research agenda

for turbulent times. Academy of Management Dis-

coveries,6:165–169.

Gibson, C. B. 2022. Investing in communities: Forging new

ground in corporate community co-development

through relational and psychological pathways.

Academy of Management Journal. doi: 10.5465/

amj.2020.1664.

Gibson, C. B., Dunlop, P., & Raghav, S. 2021. Navigating iden-

tities in global work: Antecedents and consequences of

intrapersonal identity conflict. Human Relations,74:

556–586.

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. 2006. Unpacking the concept of

virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, elec-

tronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national

diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 51: 451–495.

Gibson, C. B., Gibson, S. C., & Webster, Q. 2021.Expanding

our strategic resources: Including community in the

resource based view of the firm. Journal of Manage-

ment,47:1878–1898.

Gibson, K. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory.

Journal of Business Ethics, 26: 245–257.

Gist-Mackey, A. N., & Dougherty, D. S. 2021. Sociomaterial

struggle: An ethnographic analysis of power, discourse,

and materiality in a working class unemployment sup-

port organization. Communication Monographs, 88:

306–329.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. 2005. Managing authenticity: The

paradox of great leadership. Harvard Business

Review,83:87–94.

Goleman, D. 1998. What makes a leader? Harvard Busi-

ness Review.

Goodstein, J. D. 2019. Employers and the reintegration of

formerly incarcerated persons. Journal of Manage-

ment Inquiry, 28: 426–430.

Gotsis, G., & Kortezi, Z. 2008. Philosophical foundations of

workplace spirituality: A critical approach. Journal of

Business Ethics, 78: 575–600.

Greenberg, J. 1982. Approaching equity and avoiding ineq-

uity in groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg &

R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social

behavior:389–435. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday,

today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,16:

399–432.

Greenberg, J. 2010. Organizational injustice as an occupa-

tional health risk. Academy of Management Annals,

4: 205–243.

Greenberg, J., & Bies, R. J. 1992. Establishing the role of

empirical studies of organizational justice in philo-

sophical inquiries into business ethics. Journal of

Business Ethics, 11: 433–444.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 257

Greenwood, M. R. 2002. Ethics and HRM: A review and

conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,36:

261–278.

Griesinger, D. W. 1990. The human side of economic

organization. Academy of Management Review,

15: 478–499.

Gross, J. A. 2012. The human rights movement at U.S.

workplaces: Challenges and changes. ILR Review,65:

3–16.

Groves, K. 2019. Confronting an inconvenient truth: Devel-

oping succession management capabilities for the

inevitable loss of executive talent. Organizational

Dynamics,48:1–12.

Guo, C., & Giacobbe-Miller, J. 2015. Meanings and dimen-

sions of organizational justice in China: An inductive

investigation. Management and Organization

Review, 11: 45–68.

Guillory, W. 2000. The living organization: Spirituality

in the workplace. Salt Lake City, UT: Innovation

International, Inc.

G€

unsoy, C. 2020. Rude bosses versus rude subordinates:

How we respond to them depends on our cultural

background. International Journal of Conflict Man-

agement, 31: 175–199.

Habermas, J. 2010. An awareness of what is missing:

Faith and reason in a post-secular age. Cambridge,

U.K.: Polity Press.

Hamilton, P., Redman, T., & McMurray, R. 2019. “Lower

than a snake’sbelly”: Discursive constructions of dig-

nity and heroism in low-status garbage work. Journal

of Business Ethics,156:889–901.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. 2011. Rela-

tionships between authentic leadership, moral cour-

age, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 21: 555–578.

Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta,

F. L. 2009. A framework for examining leadership in

extreme contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 897–919.

Harcourt, M., Hannay, M., & Lam, H. 2013. Distributive

justice, employment-at-will and just-cause dismissal.

Journal of Business Ethics,115:311–325.

Hays, N. S., & Bendersky, C. 2015. Not all inequality is cre-

ated equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies

on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology,108:867–882.

Heffernan, M., & Dundon, T. 2016. Cross-level effects of

high-performance work systems (HPWS) and

employee well-being: The mediating effect of organi-

sational justice. Human Resource Management Jour-

nal, 26: 211–231.

Henry P. J. 2009. Low-status compensation: A theory for

understanding the role of status in cultures of honor.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,97:

451–466.

Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, A. R. 1995. The impact of

victimization on the mental health and suicidality of

lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Developmental Psy-

chology,31:65–74.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. 2010. Towards a multi-foci

approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic

review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Jour-

nal of Organizational Behavior,31:24–44.

Hicks, D. A. 2002. Spiritual and religious diversity in the

workplace: Implications for leadership. Leadership

Quarterly,13:379–396.

Hitlin, S. & Vaisey, S. (Eds.). 2010. Handbook of the soci-

ology of morality. New York, NY: Springer Science &

Business Media.

Ho, C. L., Welbourne, J. L., & Howard, P. J. 2014. Personal-

ity assessment in the workplace: Evidence for the

workplace interpersonal relatedness construct across

cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,45:

1249–1272.

Hodson, R. 1996. Dignity in the workplace under partici-

pative management: Alienation and freedom revis-

ited. American Sociological Review, 61: 719–738.

Hodson,R.2001.Dignity at work. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Hodson, R. 2004. Workplace ethnography (WE) project,

1944–2002. ICPSR03979-v1.AnnArbor,MI:Inter-

university Consortium for Political and Social

Research.

Hodson, R., & Roscigno, V. 2004. Organizational success

and worker dignity: Complementary or contradictory?

American Journal of Sociology, 100: 672–708.

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. 2006. Chaos and

the abuse of power: Workplace bullying in organiza-

tional and interactional context. Work and Occupa-

tions,33:382–416.

Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. 2008.

How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are

fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based jus-

tice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal,

51: 1099–1116.

Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., & George, G. 2014.

From the editors: Organizations with purpose. Acad-

emy of Management Journal,57:1227–1234.

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. 2013. Effects of leader-

ship consideration and structure on employee

perceptions of justice and counterproductive work

behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,34:

492–519.

Honneth, A. 2012. The I in we: Studies in the theory of

recognition. Cambridge, U.K.:PolityPress.

258 Academy of Management Annals January

Hoover, K., & Pepper, M. 2015. How did they say that?

Ethics statements and normative frameworks at best

companies to work for. Journal of Business Ethics,

131: 605–617.

Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. 2008. Creating flexible

work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology,93:655–664.

Hosmer, L., & Masten, S. 1995. Ethics vs. economics: The

issue of free trade with Mexico. Journal of Business

Ethics, 14: 287–298.

Howard, R. E., & Donnelly, J. 1986. Human dignity, human

rights, and political regimes. American Political Sci-

ence Review,80:801–817.

Humby, T. L. 2016. Redressing mining legacies: The case

of the South African mining industry. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics,135:653–664.

Hunter, J. 1995. Before lifetime employment: Employers

and employees in pre-war Japan. Proceedings of the

Japan Society,126:249–267.

Huo, Y. J. 2003. Procedural justice and social regulation

across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity

undermine relationship-based governance? Personal-

ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 336–348.

Huo, Y. J., & Binning, K. R. 2008. Why the psychological

experience of respect matters in group life: An inte-

grative account. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass,2:1570–1585.

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. 2006. The interactive

effects of personal traits and experienced states on

intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior.

Academy of Management Journal, 49: 561–575.

Ip, P. K. 2009. Is Confucianism good for business ethics in

China? Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 463–476.

Isaac, L., McDonald, S., & Lukasik, G. 2006. Takin’it from

the streets: How the sixties mass movement revital-

ized unionization. American Journal of Sociology,

112: 46–96.

Islam, G. 2012. Recognition, reification, and practices of

forgetting: Ethical implications of human resource

management. Journal of Business Ethics,111:37–48.

Ivanov, S., Kuyumdzhiev, M., & Webster, C. 2020. Auto-

mation fears: Drivers and solutions. Technology in

Society, 63. Published online ahead of print. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101431.

Ivbijaro, G., Brooks, C., Kolkiewicz, L., Sunkel, C., & Long,

A. 2020. Psychological impact and psychosocial con-

sequences of the COVID 19 pandemic: Resilience,

mental well-being, and the coronavirus pandemic.

Indian Journal of Psychiatry,62:S395–S403.

Jackman, M. R. 1994. The velvet glove. Berkeley, CA: Uni-

versity of California Press.

Jaques, T. 2012. Crisis leadership: A view from the execu-

tive suite. Journal of Public Affairs, 12: 366–372.

Jensen, J. M., Opland, R. A., & Ryan, A. M. 2010. Psycho-

logical contracts and counterproductive work behav-

iors: Employee responses to transactional and relational

breach. Journal of Business and Psychology,25:

555–568.

Jermier, J. M., Gaines, J., & McIntosh, N. J. 1989. Reactions

to physically dangerous work: A conceptual and

empirical analysis. Journal of Organizational Behav-

ior, 10: 15–33.

Johnson, P., & Gill, J. 1993. Management control and

organizational behaviour. London, U.K.: Paul Chap-

man Publishers.

Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. 2009. The mediating role of

overall fairness and the moderating role of trust cer-

tainty in justice-criteria relationships: The formation

and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Jour-

nal of Organizational Behavior,30:1025–1051.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal

engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of

Management Journal,33:692–724.

Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady,

L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. 2013. Presumed fair: Ironic

effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology,104:504–519.

Kant, I., & Gregor, M. 1785. Kant: Groundwork of the

metaphysics of morals (Cambridge texts in the

history of philosophy). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press.

Kant, L., Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., & Einarsen, S. 2013.

Beware the angry leader: Trait anger and trait anxiety

as predictors of petty tyranny. Leadership Quarterly,

24: 106–124.

Kanungo, R. 1992. Alienation and empowerment: Some

ethical imperatives in business. Journal of Business

Ethics, 11: 413–422.

Kellogg, K. 2011. Hot lights and cold steel: Cultural and

political toolkits for practice change in surgery. Orga-

nization Science, 22: 482–502.

Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. 2020. Algo-

rithms at work: The new contested terrain of control.

Academy of Management Annals, 14: 366–410.

Kertzner, R. M. 2001. The adult life course and homosex-

ual identity in midlife gay men. Annual Review of

Sex Research,12:75–92.

Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. 2011. Who and what is

fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of

creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior,32:

86–106.

Kickul, J., Gundry, L., & Posig, M. 2005. Does trust matter?

The relationship between equity sensitivity and

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 259

perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business

Ethics, 56: 205–218.

Kirby, D. 1985. Situating the employee rights debate. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics,4:269–276.

Kleynjans, L., & Hudon, M. 2016. A study of codes of

ethics for Mexican microfinance institutions. Journal

of Business Ethics,134:397–412.

Kobrin, S. J. 2009. Private political authority and public

responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational

firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly,

19: 349–374.

Koehn, D., & Leung, A. S. M. 2004. Western and Asian

business ethics. In K. Leung & S. White (Eds.), Hand-

book of Asian management:265–292. New York,

NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Koehn, D., & Leung, A. 2008. Dignity in Western versus

in Chinese cultures: Theoretical overview and practi-

cal illustrations. Business and Society Review,113:

477–504.

K€

ollen, T., Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M. L., & Bendl, R. 2018. An

indisputable “holy trinity”? On the moral value of

equality, diversity, and inclusion. Equality, Diversity

and Inclusion, 37: 438–449.

Kotzmann, J., & Seery, C. 2017. Dignity in international

human rights law: Potential applicability in relation

to international recognition of animal rights. Michi-

gan State International Law Review, 26: 1–42.

Krueger, D. 2008. The ethics of global supply chains in

China: Convergences of east and west. Journal of

Business Ethics,79:113–120.

Lacey, M., & Groves, K. 2022. Approaches to developing

high potential talent: Intended and unintended conse-

quences. In I. Tarique (Ed.), The Routledge compan-

ion to talent management:457–470. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Larsen, G., & Lawson, R. 2013. Consumer rights: An assess-

ment of justice. Journal of Business Ethics,112:

515–528.

Lavelle, J., Folger, R., & Manegold, J. 2016. Delivering bad

news: How procedural unfairness affects messengers’

distancing and refusals. Journal of Business Ethics,

136: 43–55.

Lawrence, P. R., & Pirson, M. 2015. Economistic and

humanistic narratives of leadership in the age of glob-

ality: Toward a renewed Darwinian theory of leader-

ship. Journal of Business Ethics,128:383–394.

Leary, K. 1999. Passing, posing, and “keeping it real.”Con-

stellations,6:85–96.

Leclercq, V., Beaudart, C., Ajamieh, S., Rabenda, V., Tire-

lli, E., & Bruyere, O. 2019. Meta-analyses indexed in

PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting

when they mention PRISMA. Journal of Clinical Epi-

demiology,115:46–54.

Lee, M. Y. K. 2008. Universal human dignity: Some reflec-

tions in the Asian context. Asian Journal of Compar-

ative Law,3:1–33.

Leineweber, C., Peristera, P., Bernhard-Oettel, C., & Eib, C.

2020. Is interpersonal justice related to group and

organizational turnover? Results from a Swedish

panel study. Social Science & Medicine,265:1–10.

Leskinen, E. A., & Cortina, L. M. 2014. Dimensions of dis-

respect: Mapping and measuring gender harassment

in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

38: 107–123.

Leskinen, E. A., Cortina, L. M., & Kabat, D. B. 2011. Gender

harassment: Broadening our understanding of sex-

based harassment at work. Law and Human Behav-

ior, 35: 25–39.

Li, Y. 2021. The Confucian concept of human dignity and

its implications for bioethics. Developing World Bio-

ethics. Published online ahead of print. https://doi.

org/10.1111/dewb.12312.

Li, F., Yu,K. F., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. Y. 2014. Authen-

tic leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice

in the Chinese context. Management and Organiza-

tion Review,10:249–273.

Liang, L. H., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., Hanig, S., Ferris, D. L.,

& Keeping, L. M. 2018. Righting a wrong: Retaliation

on a voodoo doll symbolizing an abusive supervisor

restores justice. Leadership Quarterly, 29: 443–456.

Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The impact of justice climate

and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-

level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 90: 242–256.

Liden, R. C., Anand, S., & Vidyarthi, P. 2016. Dyadic rela-

tionships. Annual Review of Organizational Psy-

chology and Organizational Behavior,3:139–166.

Lin, L. H., Ho, Y. L., & Lin, W. H. E. 2013. Confucian and

Taoist work values: An exploratory study of the Chi-

nese transformational leadership behavior. Journal of

Business Ethics,113:91–103.

Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D.

2000. The winding road from employee to complain-

ant: Situational and psychological determinants of

wrongful-termination claims. Administrative Science

Quarterly,45:557–590.

Lindsay, C. 2005. “McJobs,”“good jobs”and skills: Job-

seekers’attitudes to low-skilled service work. Human

Resource Management Journal,15:50–65.

Lippel, K. 2012. Preserving workers’dignity in workers’

compensation systems: An international perspec-

tive. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,55:

519–536.

260 Academy of Management Annals January

Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. 2009. Discriminating

between “meaningful work”and the “management of

meaning.”Journal of Business Ethics,88:491–511.

Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A., & Kidder, D. L. 2006. The

good, the bad, and the misguided: How managers

inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy

of Management Perspectives,20:91–103.

Locklear, L. R., Taylor, S. G., & Ambrose, M. L. 2021. How

a gratitude intervention influences workplace mis-

treatment: A multiple mediation model. Journal of

Applied Psychology,106:1314–1331.

Loon, M., & Vitale, A. 2021. A liminal lens on integrating

refugees into the workplace: Conceptualising a theo-

retical model. Human Resource Management Jour-

nal,31:1082–1104.

Lucas, K. 2011. The working class promise: A communica-

tive account of mobility-based ambivalences. Commu-

nication Monographs, 78: 347–369.

Lucas, K. 2015. Workplace dignity: Communicating inher-

ent, earned, and remediated dignity. Journal of Man-

agement Studies, 52: 621–646.

Lucas, K. 2017. Workplace dignity. In C. R. Scott, & L.

Lewis (Eds.), International encyclopedia of organiza-

tional communication,vol.4:2549–2562. Chichester,

U.K.: Wiley Blackwell.

Lucas, K., Manikas, A., Mattingly, E., & Crider, C. 2017.

Engaging and misbehaving: How dignity affects

employee work behaviors. Organization Studies,38:

1505–1527.

Luhman, J. T., & Nazario, A. F. 2015. Alienation, police

stories, and Percival. Journal of Business Ethics, 130:

665–681.

Luo, A. 2014. Human dignity in traditional Chinese Confu-

cianism. In M. D€

uwell, J. Braarvig, R. Brownsword, &

D. Mieth (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of

human dignity: Interdisciplinary perspectives:

177–181. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Malvini Redden, S., & Scarduzio, J. A. 2018. A different

type of dirty work: Hidden taint, intersectionality, and

emotion management in bureaucratic organizations.

Communication Monographs, 85: 224–244.

Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K.,

Willmott, P., & Dewhurst, M. 2017, January 12. Har-

nessing automation for a future that works. McKinsey

Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.

mckinsey.com/featured-insights/digital-disruption/

harnessing-automation-for-a-future-that-works.

Margolis, J. D. 1998. Psychological pragmatism and the

imperative of aims: A new approach for business

ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly,8:409

–430.

Margolis, J. D. 2001. Responsibility in organizational con-

text. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11: 431–454.

Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. 2008. Navigating the bind

of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and

the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior.

Academy of Management Journal, 51: 847–872.

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. 2006. Continuities and exten-

sions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Business Ethics, 69: 175–194.

Martin, A., & Dixon, M. 2010. Changing to win? Threat,

resistance, and the role of unions in strikes, 1984–2002.

American Journal of Sociology, 116: 93–129.

Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. 1998. An alternative

to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor:

Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 43: 429–469.

Mathew,J.,Ogbonna,E.,&Harris,L.C.2012.Culture,

employee work outcomes and performance: An empir-

ical analysis of Indian software firms. Journal of

World Business, 47: 194–203.

May, J. R., & Daly, E. 2020. Dignity rights for a pandemic.

Law, Culture and the Humanities. Published online

ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/174387212094

4515.

May, D., Gilson, R., & Harter, L. 2004. The psychological

conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability

and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Jour-

nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-

ogy, 77: 11–37.

McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. 2016. Human work in the

robotic future: Policy for the age of automation. For-

eign Affairs, 95: 139–150.

McCann, L. 2014. Disconnected amid the networks and

chains: Employee detachment from company and

union after offshoring. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, 52: 237–260.

McWhirter, E. H., & McWha-Hermann, I. 2021. Social jus-

tice and career development: Progress, problems, and

possibilities. Journal of Vocational Behavior,126.

Published online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.jvb.2020.103492.

Mel

e, D. 2012. The firm as a “communityofpersons”:A

pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics,106:89–101.

Mel

e, D. 2014. “Human quality treatment”: Five organiza-

tional levels. Journal of Business Ethics,120:457–471.

Mellahi, K., & Budhwar, P. S. 2010. Introduction: Islam

and human resource management. Personnel Review,

39: 685–691.

Melton, G. B. 1987. The clashing of symbols: Prelude to

child and family policy. American Psychologist,42:

345–354.

Melton, G. B. 2005. Building humane communities

respectful of children: The significance of the

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 261

convention on the rights of the child. American Psy-

chologist, 60: 918–926.

Mendelberg, T., & Karpowitz, C. F. 2016. Women’sauthor-

ity in political decision-making groups. Leadership

Quarterly, 27: 487–503.

Metcalfe, B. D. 2008. Women, management and globaliza-

tion in the Middle East. Journal of Business Ethics,

83: 85–100.

Meyer, I. H. 2003. Prejudice, social stress, and mental

health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Con-

ceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological

Bulletin,129:674–697.

Michaelson, C. 2008. Work and the most terrible life. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 77: 335–345.

Micewski, E. R., & Troy, C. 2007. Business ethics - Deonto-

logically revisited. Journal of Business Ethics,72:

17–25.

Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. 1997. The healing connection:

How women form relationships in therapy and in

life.Boston,MA:BeaconPress.

Moon, C., Weick, M., & Uskul, A. K. 2017. Cultural varia-

tion in individuals’responses to incivility by perpe-

trators of different rank: The mediating role of

descriptive and injunctive norms. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 48: 472–489.

Moore, K., McDonald, P., & Bartlett, J. 2017. The social

legitimacy of disability inclusive human resource

practices: The case of a large retail organisation.

Human Resource Management Journal, 27: 514–529.

Moore, S., & Read, I. 2006. Collective organisation in

small- and medium-sized enterprises –An application

of mobilisation theory. Human Resource Manage-

ment Journal, 16: 357–375.

Morand,D.A.,&Merriman,K.K.2012.“Equality theory”

as a counterbalance to equity theory in human

resource management. Journal of Business Ethics,

111: 133–144.

Morash, M., & Haarr, R. N. 2012. Doing, redoing, and undoing

gender: Variation in gender identities of women working

as police officers. Feminist Criminology,7:3–23.

Morgan, W. B., & King, E. B. 2012. Mothers’psychological

contracts: Does supervisor breach explain intention to

leave the organization? Human Resource Manage-

ment, 51: 629–649.

Morrill, C., Zald, M. N., & Rao, H. 2003. Covert political

conflict in organizations: Challenges from below.

Annual Review of Sociology, 29: 391–415.

Mozaffari, M. H. 2014. The concept of human dignity in

the Islamic thought. Hekmat,4:11–28.

Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. J. 2021. Humans and

technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organiza-

tions. Academy of Management Review, 46: 552–571.

Nair, N., & Vohra, N. 2010. An exploration of factors pre-

dicting work alienation of knowledge workers. Man-

agement Decision, 48: 600–615.

Nair, N., & Vohra, N. 2012. The concept of alienation:

Towards conceptual clarity. International Journal of

Organizational Analysis,20:25–50.

Nam, S. J., & Kim, S. Y. 2019. Decent work in South Korea:

Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 115. Published online ahead

of print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.006.

Naughton, M. 1995. Participation in the organization: An

ethical analysis from the papal social tradition. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 14: 923–935.

Naus, F., Van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. 2007. Organizational

cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and

neglect model of employees’responses to adverse con-

ditions in the workplace. Human Relations,60:

683–718.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a media-

tor of the relationship between methods of monitoring

and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of

Management Journal,3:527–556.

Nkomo, S. M. 2021. Reflections on the continuing denial

of the centrality of “race”in management and organi-

zation studies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion,40:

212–224.

Noronha, E., Chakraborty, S., & D’Cruz,P.2020.“Doing dig-

nity work”: Indian security guards’interface with pre-

cariousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 162: 553–575.

Obara, L. J., & Peattie, K. 2018. Bridging the great divide?

Making sense of the human rights-CSR relationship in

UK multinational companies. Journal of World Busi-

ness, 53: 781–793.

O’Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. Stretchwork: Man-

aging the career progression paradox in external

labor markets. Academy of Management Journal,

49: 918–941.

O’Rourke, A., Teicher, J., & Pyman, A. 2011. Internet and

email monitoring in the workplace: Time for an alter-

nate approach. Journal of Industrial Relations,53:

522–533.

Park, C. L., Finkelstein-Fox, L., Russell, B. S., Fendrich,

M., Hutchinson, M., & Becker, J. 2021. Psychological

resilience early in the Covid-19 pandemic: Stressors,

resources, and coping strategies in a national sample

of Americans. American Psychologist, 76: 715–728.

Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. 2020, December 9.

How coronavirus has changed the way Americans

work. Social & demographic trends project. Pew

Research Center.

Pate, J., Morgan-Thomas, A., & Beaumont, P. 2012. Trust

restoration: An examination of senior managers’

262 Academy of Management Annals January

attempt to rebuild employee trust. Human Resource

Management Journal, 22: 148–164.

Pawar, B. S. 2009. Some of the recent organizational

behavior concepts as precursors to workplace spiritu-

ality. Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 245–261.

Perryer, C., & Scott-Ladd, B. 2014. Deceit, misuse and

favours: Understanding and measuring attitudes to

ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,121:123–134.

Peterson, C., & Park, N. 2006. Character strengths in organi-

zations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,27:

1149–1154.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. 2004. Character

strengths and virtues: A handbook and classifica-

tion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2019.

Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating

holding environments for precarious and personal-

ized work identities. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 64: 124–170.

Pirson, M. 2017. Humanistic management: Protecting

dignity and promoting well-being. Cambridge, U.K.:

Cambridge University Press.

Pirson, M., Goodpaster, M., & Dierksmeier, C. 2016. Guest

editors’introduction: Human dignity and business.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 26: 465–478.

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Harris, H. 2017. Art, ethics and

the promotion of human dignity. Journal of Business

Ethics,144:223–232.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in orga-

nizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal

of Management, 12: 531–544.

Possumah,B.T.,Ismail,A.G.,&Shahimi,S.2013.Bring-

ing work back in Islamic ethics. Journal of Business

Ethics,112:257–270.

Powell, B., & Zwolinski, M. 2012. The ethical and eco-

nomic case against sweatshop labor: A critical assess-

ment. Journal of Business Ethics,107:449–472.

Prilleltensky, I. 2012. Wellness as fairness. American Jour-

nal of Community Psychology,49:1–21.

Rabelo, V. C., & Mahalingam, R. 2019. “They really don’t

want to see us”: How cleaners experience invisible

“dirty”work. Journal of Vocational Behavior,113:

103–114.

Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. 2021. Artificial intelligence

and management: The automation-augmentation para-

dox. Academy of Management Review, 46: 192–210.

Rajesh,M.2015,August14.Inside Japan’sfirstrobot-

staffed hotel. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.

com/travel/2015/aug/14/japan-henn-na-hotel-staffed-

by-robots.

Randel, A., Galvin, B., Gibson, C. B., & Batts, S. 2021.

Increasing career advancement opportunities through

sponsorship: An identity-based model with illustra-

tive application to cross-race mentorship of African-

Americans. Group & Organization Management,46:

105–142.

Reid, E. 2015. Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal

worker image: How people navigate expected and

experienced professional identities. Organization Sci-

ence, 26: 997–1017.

Renger, D., Renger, S., Mich

e, M., & Simon, B. 2017. A

social recognition approach to autonomy: The role of

equality-based respect. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin,43:479–492.

Resick,C.J.,Martin,G.S.,Keating,M.A.,Dickson,M.W.,

Kwan, H. K., & Peng, C. 2011. What ethical leadership

means to me: Asian, American, and European per-

spectives. Journal of Business Ethics,101:435–457.

Richardson, C., Sinha, L., & Yaapar, M. S. 2014. Work

ethics from the Islamic and Hindu traditions: In quest

of common ground. Journal of Management, Spiritu-

ality & Religion,11:65–90.

Ridgeway, C. L. 2011. Framed by gender: How gender

inequality persists in the modern world.NewYork,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. 1997. Building a business case

for diversity. Academy of Management Perspec-

tives,11:21–31.

Rogers, K. M., Corley, K. G., & Ashforth, B. E. 2017. Seeing

more than orange: Organizational respect and positive

identity transformation in a prison context. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 62: 219–269.

Roitenberg, N. 2020. Ethno-national boundaries in the con-

struction of “dirty-work”occupational identity: The

case of nursing care workers in diversified workpla-

ces. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

76: 1–12.

Rousseau,D.1995.Psychological contracts in organiza-

tions: Understanding written and unwritten agree-

ments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D. M. 2005. I-deals, idiosyncratic deals employ-

ees bargain for themselves.Armonk,NY:M.E.

Sharpe.

Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. 2006. I-deals:

Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships.

Academy of Management Review, 31: 977–994.

Rowan, J. R. 2000. The moral foundation of employee

rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 24: 355–361.

Rupp,D.E.,Shapiro,D.L.,Folger,R.,Skarlicki,D.P.,&Shao,

R. 2017. A critical analysis of the conceptualization and

measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for

reassessment? Academy of Management Annals,11:

919–959.

Saeed, M., Ahmed, Z. U., & Mukhtar, S. M. 2001. Interna-

tional marketing ethics from an Islamic perspective: A

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 263

value-maximization approach. Journal of Business

Ethics, 32: 127–142.

Sasson-Levy, O. 2013. Ethnic generations: Evolving ethnic

perceptions among dominant groups. Sociological

Quarterly, 54: 399–423.

Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C., & Ladge, J. 2017. Invisi-

ble families, invisible conflicts: Examining the

added layer of work-family conflict for employees

with LGB families. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

103: 23–39.

Sayer, A. 2007. Dignity at work: Broadening the agenda.

Organization, 14: 565–581.

Schmidt, J. A., Pohler, D., & Willness, C. R. 2018. Strategic

HR system differentiation between jobs: The effects on

firm performance and employee outcomes. Human

Resource Management,57:65–81.

Schneider, P., & Sting, F. J. 2020. Employees’perspectives

on digitalization-induced change: Exploring frames of

Industry 4.0. Academy of Management Discoveries,

6: 406–435.

Schumann, K., & Walton, G. M. 2022. Rehumanizing the

self after victimization: The roles of forgiveness versus

revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy,122:469–492.

Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and struc-

ture of values: Theoretical advances and empirical

tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology,25:1–65.

Scott, K. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Schippers, M., Purvis, R. L., &

Cruz, K. S. 2014. Co-worker exclusion and employee

outcomes: An investigation of the moderating roles of

perceived organizational and social support. Journal

of Management Studies,51:1235–1256.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C.

2005. Positive psychology progress: Empirical valida-

tion of interventions. American Psychologist,60:

410–421.

Severance, L., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Gelfand, M. J., Lyons,

S., Nowak, A., Borkowski, W., Soomro, N., Soomro,

N., Rafaeli, A., Treister, D. E., Lin, C., & Yamaguchi, S.

2013. The psychological structure of aggression across

cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior,34:

835–865.

Sguera, F., Bagozzi, R. P., Huy, Q. N., Boss, R. W., & Boss,

D. S. 2016. Curtailing the harmful effects of work-

place incivility: The role of structural demands and

organization-provided resources. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 95-96: 115–127.

Shao, Y., Fang, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C., & Wang, L. 2021.

Making daily decisions to work from home or to work

in the office: The impacts of daily work- and COVID-

related stressors on next-day work location. Journal

of Applied Psychology,106:825–838.

Shapiro, B. 2016. Using traditional narratives and other

narrative devices to enact humanizing business practi-

ces. Journal of Business Ethics,139:1–19.

Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2011. Inductive top-

down theorizing: A source of new theories of organiza-

tion. Academy of Management Review, 36: 361–380.

Shin, H., Picken, J., & Dess, G. 2017. Revisiting the learn-

ing organization: How to create it. Organizational

Dynamics,46:46–56.

Siddaway, A., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. 2019. How

to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for

conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-

analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of

Psychology, 70: 747–770.

Sikali, K. 2020. The dangers of social distancing: How

COVID-19 can reshape our social experience. Journal

of Community Psychology,48:2435–2438.

Simpson, A. V., Pina e Cunha, M., & Rego, A. 2015. Com-

passion in the context of capitalistic organizations:

Evidence from the 2011 Brisbane floods. Journal of

Business Ethics,130:683–703.

Singh, B., Shaffer, M. A., & Selvarajan, T. T. 2018. Antece-

dents of organizational and community embedded-

ness: The roles of support, psychological safety, and

need to belong. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

39: 339–354.

Singh, B., Shaffer, M., & Selvarajan, T. T. R. 2021. Out-

comes of organizational and community embedded-

ness: A conservation of resources perspectives. Group

& Organization Management, 46: 857–892.

Singh, M., & Lakhani, N. 2020, June 7. George Floyd killing:

Peaceful protests sweep America as calls for racial jus-

tice reach new heights. Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/

protests-george-floyd-blacklives-matter-saturday.

Skubik, D., & Sterling, B. 2009. What’s in a credo? A cri-

tique of the Academy of Management’scodeofethical

conduct and code of ethics. Journal of Business

Ethics, 85: 515–525.

Smit, B. W., & Montag-Smit, T. 2018. The role of pay

secrecy policies and employee secrecy preferences in

shaping job attitudes. Human Resource Management

Journal, 28: 304–324.

Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodol-

ogy: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business

Research, 104: 333–339.

Spreitzer, G., & Mishra, A. 2002. To stay or to go: Volun-

tary survivor turnover following an organizational

downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

23: 707–729.

St˚ahl, C., MacEachen, E., & Lippel, K. 2014. Ethical per-

spectives in work disability prevention and return to

264 Academy of Management Annals January

work: Toward a common vocabulary for analyzing

stakeholders’actions and interactions. Journal of

Business Ethics,120:237–250.

Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. 2006. An empirical

investigation of the relationships among a consumer’s

personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs.

Journal of Business Ethics, 64: 137–155.

Stephens, J. P., & Kanov, J. 2017. Stories as artworks: Giv-

ing form to felt dignity in connections at work. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 144: 235–249.

Stone, D., & Colella, A. 1996. A model of factors affecting

the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 21: 352–401.

Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., & Miner,

K. N. 2014. Misery loves company: Team dissonance

and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal

justice climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of

Applied Psychology,99:1059–1073.

Su, C., & Littlefield, J. E. 2001. Entering guanxi: A business

ethical dilemma in mainland China? Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 33: 199–210.

Sue, D. W. 2004. Whiteness and ethnocentric monocultur-

alism: Making the “invisible”visible. American Psy-

chologist, 59: 761–769.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M.,

Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. 2007.

Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for

clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62: 271–286.

Szetela, A. 2020. Black Lives Matter at five: Limits and pos-

sibilities. Ethnic and Racial Studies,43:1358–1383.

Talaulicar, T. 2009. Barriers against globalizing corporate

ethics: An analysis of legal disputes on implementing

U.S. codes of ethics in Germany. Journal of Business

Ethics, 84: 349–360.

Tang, T. L. P. 2016. Theory of monetary intelligence:

Money attitudes –Religious values, making money,

making ethical decisions, and making the grade. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 133: 583–603.

Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision.

Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.

Tepper,B.J.,Simon,J.,&Park,H.M.2017.Abusivesuper-

vision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychol-

ogy and Organizational Behavior,4:123–152.

Tharenou, P. 2010 . Women’s self-initiated expatriation as

a career option and its ethical issues. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics,95: 73–88.

Thomas, B., & Lucas, K. 2019. Development and validation

of the workplace dignity scale. Group & Organization

Management,44:72–111.

Thomas, M., & Rowland, C. 2014. Leadership, pragmatism

and grace: A review. Journal of Business Ethics,123:

99–111.

Thomason, B. 2021. Ideal or idiosyncratic? How women

manage work-family role conflict with focal and

peripheral role senders. Organization Science. Pub-

lished online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1287/

orsc.2021.1472.

Thomason, B., & Macias-Alonso, I. 2020. COVID-19 and

raising the value of care. Gender, Work and Organi-

zation, 27: 705–708.

Thompson, M. N., & Dahling, J. J. 2019. Employment and

poverty: Why work matters in understanding poverty.

American Psychologist, 74: 673–684.

Tillery, A. B. 2019. What kind of movement is Black Lives

Matter? The view from Twitter. Journal of Race, Eth-

nicity, and Politics,4:297–323.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. 1998. Facework compe-

tence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-

negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercul-

tural Relations, 22: 187–225.

€

Unal,A.,Chen,C.,&Xin,K.2017.Justiceclimatesand

management team effectiveness: The central role of

group harmony. Management and Organization

Review, 13: 821–849.

€

Unal, A. F., Warren, D. E., & Chen, C. C. 2012. The norma-

tive foundations of unethical supervision in organiza-

tions. Journal of Business Ethics,107:5–19.

Valcour, M. 2014, April 28. The power of dignity in the

workplace. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved

from https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-power-of-dignity-

in-the-workplace.

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. 2002. Ethics codes and pro-

fessionals’tolerance of societal diversity. Journal of

Business Ethics, 40: 301–312.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. 2015. Compassionate

love as a cornerstone of servant leadership: An inte-

gration of previous theorizing and research. Journal

of Business Ethics,128:119–131.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. 1998. Helping and voice

extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and pre-

dictive validity. Academy of Management Jour-

nal,41:108–119.

Van Eijk, G. 2013. Hostile to hierarchy? Individuality,

equality and moral boundaries in Dutch class talk.

Sociology,47:526–541.

Verhezen, P. 2010. Giving voice in a culture of silence.

From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity.

Journal of Business Ethics, 96: 187–206.

Vogt, C. 2005. Maximizing human potential: Capabilities

theory and the professional work environment. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 58: 111–123.

Vredenburgh, D., & Brender, Y. 1998. The hierarchical

abuse of power in work organizations. Journal of

Business Ethics, 17: 1337–1347.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 265

Walker,H.J.,Helmuth,C.A.,Feild,H.S.,&Bauer,T.N.

2014. Watch what you say: Job applicants’justice per-

ceptions from initial organizational correspondence.

Human Resource Management, 54: 999–1011.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing,

T. S., & Peterson, S. J. 2008. Authentic leadership:

Development and validation of a theory-based mea-

sure. Journal of Management,34:89–126.

Wang, H., Gibson, C. B., & Zander, U. 2020. Is research on

corporate social responsibility under-theorized? Acad-

emy of Management Review,45:1–6.

Wang, Y.-R., Ford, M. T., Wang, Y., & Jin, J. 2019. Shifts

and variability in daily interpersonal justice are asso-

ciated with psychological detachment and affect at

home. Journal of Vocational Behavior,115.Pub-

lished online ahead of print. 103307.

Warhurst, C. 1998. Recognizing the possible: The organiza-

tion and control of a socialist labor process. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 43: 470–497.

Wasti, S. A., & Erdas, K. D. 2019. The construal of workplace

incivility in honor cultures: Evidence from Turkey.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50: 130–148.

Weerasinghe, T. D., Thisera, T. J. R., & Kumara, R. H. G.

W. P. 2014. Buddhism and organizational manage-

ment: A review. Kelaniya Journal of Management,

3: 93–112.

Wehrle,K.,Klehe,U.C.,Kira,M.,&Zikic,J.2018.CanI

come as I am? Refugees’vocational identity threats,

coping, and growth. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

105: 83–101.

Werner, A., & Lim, M. 2016. The ethics of the living wage:

A review and research agenda. Journal of Business

Ethics,137:433–447.

Wharton, A. S. 2009. The sociology of emotional labor.

Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 147–165.

Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. 2016. The face of fairness:

Self-awareness as a means to promote fairness among

managers with low empathy. Journal of Business

Ethics,137:721–730.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Brockner, J., & Martin, C. 1999. A self-

affirmation analysis of survivors’reactions to unfair

organizational downsizings. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 35: 441–460.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann, W. B., Jr., Brockner, J., & Bartel,

C. A. 2007. Is more fairness always preferred? Self-

esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice.

Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1235–1253.

Wilkinson, K., Tomlinson, J., & Gardiner, J. 2018. The per-

ceived fairness of work-life balance policies: A UK

case study of solo-living managers and professionals

without children. Human Resource Management

Journal, 28: 325–339.

Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. 2010. Islam and CSR: A study of

the compatibility between the tenets of Islam and the

UN Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics,91:

519–533.

Wong,P.T.P.&Fry,P.S.(Eds.).1998.The human

quest for meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-

baum Associates.

Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, C. S. 2006. Perceived

organizational justice, trust, and OCB: A study of Chi-

nese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enter-

prises. Journal of World Business, 41: 344–355.

Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. 2013. Discrimination

and well-being in organizations: Testing the differen-

tial power and organizational justice theories of work-

place aggression. Journal of Business Ethics,115:

617–634.

Wood, M., & Karau, S. 2009. Preserving employee dignity

during the termination interview: An empirical exam-

ination. Journal of Business Ethics, 86: 519–534.

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. 2003. Inter-

personal sensemaking and the meaning of work.

Research in Organizational Behavior,25:93–135.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B.

1997. Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to

their work. Journal of Research in Personality,31:

21–33.

Wu,L.Z.,Birtch,T.A.,Chiang,F.F.T.,&Zhang,H.2018.

Perceptions of negative workplace gossip: A self-

consistency theory framework. Journal of Manage-

ment,44:1873–1898.

Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H. K., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. 2011.

Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingrati-

ation and political skill in employee psychological dis-

tress. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 178–199.

Yam, K. C., Bigman, Y. E., Tang, P. M., Ilies, R., De Cremer,

D., Soh, H., & Gray, K. 2021. Robots at work: People

prefer - and forgive - service robots with perceived

feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology,106:

1557–1572.

Yang, X., Ho, E. Y. H., & Chang, A. 2013. Integrating the

resource-based view and transaction cost economics

in immigrant business performance. Asia Pacific

Journal of Management, 29: 753–772.

Yap, A. J., Madan, N., & Puranam, P. 2022. Formal hierarchy

as a source of upward status disagreement? A theoreti-

cal perspective. Organization Science, 33: 464–482.

Yeoman, R. 2014. Conceptualising meaningful work as a

fundamental human need. Journal of Business Ethics,

125: 235–251.

Zawadzki, M. 2018. Dignity in the workplace. The per-

spective of humanistic management. Central Euro-

pean Management Journal, 26: 171–188.

266 Academy of Management Annals January

Zeno, B. 2017. Dignity and humiliation: Identity formation

among Syrian refugees. Middle East Law and Gover-

nance,9:282–297.

Zetlin, D., & Whitehouse, G. 2003. Gendering industrial

citizenship. British Journal of Industrial Relations,

41: 773–788.

Zhang, J. 2015. From market despotism to managerial

hegemony: The rise of indigenous Chinese manage-

ment. Management and Organization Review,11:

205–210.

Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. 2016. Antecedents of abusive

supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics,139:455–471.

Zhang, C., Yu, M. C., & Marin, S. 2021. Exploring public

sentiment on enforced remote work during COVID-19.

Journal of Applied Psychology,106:797–810.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., & Su

arez-Acosta, M. A.

2014. Employees’reactions to peers’unfair treatment

by supervisors: The role of ethical leadership. Journal

of Business Ethics,122:537–549.

Cristina B. Gibson (cristina.gibson@pepperdine.edu) is

a university professor at Pepperdine University and

a Dean’s distinguished professor of management at

Pepperdine Graziadio Business School. She received her

PhD in organizational behavior from the University of

California, Irvine. Cristina’s research focuses on inclusion,

technology-enabledcollaboration,innovation, andcorporate–

community partnerships.

Bobbi Thomason (bobbi.thomason@pepperdine.edu) is

an assistant professor of applied behavioral science at

Graziadio Business School, Pepperdine University. She

earned her PhD in management science and engineering

from Stanford University. Her research focuses on micro-

mechanisms of overcoming inequality at work and how

individuals can shape their work and family structures

through their work and careers.

Jaclyn Margolis (jaclyn.margolis@pepperdine.edu) is an

associate professor of applied behavioral science at

Graziadio Business School, Pepperdine University. She

received her PhD in organizational behavior from Drexel

University. Her research focuses on teamwork, leadership,

and employee well-being.

Kevin Groves (kevin.groves@pepperdine.edu) is a professor

of management at the Graziadio Business School,

Pepperdine University. He earned his PhD in organizational

behavior from Claremont Graduate University. His research

focuses on executive succession, leadership assessment and

development, and talent management practices.

Stephen C. Gibson (stephen.c.gibson@pepperdine.edu)

received his doctorate in urban planning from UCLA’s

Luskin School of Public Affairs. His research focuses on

social and environmental justice, communityengagement,

and the relationship between the built environment and

various underserved social groups in creating dignity. He

is currently an adjunct professor with the University of

California, Irvine.

Jennifer Franczak (jennifer.franzcak@pepperdine.edu)

is an assistant professor of organization theory and

management at the Graziadio School of Business,

Pepperdine University. She received her doctorate in

organizational studies from Southern Illinois University.

Her research focuses on organizational culture, theory,

and structure.

2023 Gibson, Thomason, Margolis, Groves, Gibson, and Franczak 267

Enduring, Strategizing, and Rising Above: Workplace Dignity Threats and Responses Across Job Levels

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024
J BUS ETHICS

Despite a growing body of literature focused on understanding experiences of workplace dignity, attention has centered almost exclusively on employees with lower-level jobs. As a result, little is known about how workplace dignity and indignity are experienced by employees with middle- and upper-level jobs and how their experiences differ from those with lower-level jobs. We address these absences by interviewing employees from a diversity of lower-, middle-, and upper-level jobs about their experiences of indignity at work. We outline common dignity threats, along with typical emotional responses and recourses employees use at each level. We find lower-level employees experience chronic dignity threats from being disrespected, devalued, demeaned, and dehumanized, to which their most typical response is endurance. Middle-level employees experience periodic dignity threats due to undermining of their work, confidence, and reputation. For them, the typical response is strategizing. Finally, on the rare occasions upper-level employees experience dignity threats, it usually is due to a disregard of their special expertise or denial of special rights, to which they respond by rising above.

A Psychology of Sustainable Career Development: Hypernormalized Ideology or Inherently Sustainable?

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Sustainable career development is a great priority for organizations, governments and individuals alike. Facing the grand challenges of our global world, careers and their development have to be re-designed to incorporate more sustainable ways of living and working. However, most work around sustainable careers is centered around neoliberal modes of organizing, amplifying individual responsibility of individuals for their careers, while treating careers merely as an instrumental ‘tool’ towards organizational performance and viability. Hence, sustainable careers are a hypernormalized ideology. In the current paper, a psychology of sustainable career development is introduced that deviates from earlier, more conservative models, of career development towards a more radical interpretation and recognition of truly sustainable ways of organizing and developing careers. Anchored in an interpretation of sustainable careers as promoting dignity and capabilities of people, this conceptual paper formulates a new psychology of the sustainable career, towards integration rather than individualization.

An Integrative Review of Management Research on Caste: Broadening our Horizons

Article

Apr 2024

Even though management research on caste is growing, it is not yet on a clear trajectory to realize its vast potential due to varying terminology and framing of caste, the limited incorporation of directly relevant work from proximate disciplines, and the narrow and selective usage of the attributes of caste. To remove these obstacles, we review 259 scholarly works on caste (216 articles and 43 books and research reports) and develop an integrative framework to (a) clarify the contemporary manifestations of caste as being a graded hierarchy, an inherited membership, and a set of socially enforced practices; and (b) summarize the outcomes of caste at individual, occupational, organizational, and societal levels, while also consolidating the mechanisms through which caste influences these outcomes. Additionally, to position management scholarship on this topic for greater impact, we develop a research agenda that reflects contemporary interests in management research and the world at large about inclusion in organizations and societies. The caste system has practical significance for a large portion of the global population.

A dignity-vulnerability approach framework to maximize well-being outcomes by transformative service initiatives (TSIs)

Article

Sep 2023
J Serv Market

Purpose This paper aims to explore how service organizations can improve the effectiveness of well-being creation efforts given the pressing societal issues and global crises. In this paper, the authors examine two essential dimensions (dignity and vulnerability approach) to develop a theoretical framework. This framework can be used to increase the effectiveness of well-being outcomes created by transformative service initiatives (TSIs) and minimize their negative unintentional consequences. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on social marketing and humanistic management literature, this paper develops a framework for TSIs based on whether human dignity is recognized or ignored and whether a deficit-based or strength-based approach to vulnerability is used. This framework explains different types of TSIs and provides real-life examples. Findings The framework developed in this paper discusses four different types of TSIs: (1) exclusionary, a deficit-based approach where dignity is ignored; (2) opportunistic, a strength-based approach where dignity is ignored; (3) paternalistic, a deficit-based approach where dignity is recognized; and (4) humanistic, a strength-based approach where dignity is recognized. The paper also identifies five pathways that service organizations could use to implement these approaches, including two traps (utility and charity) and three opportunities (resourcing, humanizing and full awakening) embedded within these pathways. Practical implications This paper provides examples of service industries and specific companies to exemplify the framework developed. Also, it discusses the well-being implications and potential well-being outcomes associated with each type of TSI. Social implications This paper offers a novel framework based on two dimensions that are relatively new to the service literature, i.e. dignity and vulnerability approach. This paper also highlights the importance of including these two dimensions in future service research. Originality/value This paper offers a novel framework based on two relatively new dimensions to the service literature: dignity and strengths-based approach. This paper also highlights the importance of including these two dimensions in future service research.

Reprint of: To thrive or not to thrive: Pathways for sustaining thriving at work

Article

Mar 2023
RES ORGAN BEHAV

To thrive or not to thrive: Pathways for sustaining thriving at work

Article

Dec 2022
RES ORGAN BEHAV

Thriving, the psychological experience of both vitality (or energy) and learning, is often elusive. Rather than growing, developing, and feeling energized, workers report stagnation and depletion. While much of the research on thriving at work has focused on what managers can do to promote thriving amongst workers, we highlight the means by which people are empowered to take control of their well-being. Workers can sustain their own thriving through three pathways: (1) by engaging in self-care, (2) creating and maintaining high quality relationships, and (3) building community within and outside the organization. We show that these three pathways are particularly important given the changing nature of more temporary and flexible work arrangements, increases in remote work, and the larger need for community embeddedness to address the many grand societal challenges that confront us.

The Moderating Effect of Self-Esteem in Reaction to Voice: Converging Evidence From Five Studies

Article

Full-text available

Aug 1998

It has been posited that high self-esteem persons (high SEs) are more confident than low self-esteem persons (low SEs) of their capability to provide meaningful input in a decision process. If this is so, then high SEs should be more influenced by their perceived level of voice, relative to low SEs. Survey data from 4 field studies showed that voice was more positively related to various dependent variables among high SEs than low SEs. In Study 5, the authors experimentally manipulated voice as well as participants’ beliefs about their capability to provide meaningful input. As expected, voice had a greater impact on the reactions of participants who were led to believe that they were more capable of providing meaningful input. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Risky Business: Gig Workers and the Navigation of Ideal Worker Expectations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2021

Managers and customers often expect individuals to be “ideal workers” devoted entirely to work, and this devotion is typically displayed through being available to work at any time, on any day (Reid, 2015). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals in lower-paid, customer-facing jobs were expected to not only be available but also to take on physical risk. However, the ideal worker literature has paid relatively little attention to how risk relates to ideal worker expectations, reflecting in part the extant literature’s focus on professionals who face relatively little physical and financial uncertainty. In this article, we draw upon the experiences of nonprofessional “gig” workers (TaskRabbit workers) to examine how they manage customers’ ideal worker expectations—including risk—using data from interviews (n = 49), postings from online worker forums social media, and offical company communications. We show how these workers engage in different tactics to manage risk in response to customers’ expectations, including two tactics—covering and withdrawing—that have not been discussed in prior ideal worker literature. In doing so, we expand scholarly understanding by showing how concerns about risk shape workers’ responses to ideal worker expectations, particularly in customer-facing service work outside of traditional organizations.

Rehumanizing the Self After Victimization: The Roles of Forgiveness Versus Revenge

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Everyday maltreatments can threaten people's basic sense of being human. Can victims restore their sense of humanness after it has been damaged by an offense and, if so, how? Four studies compared forgiving and taking revenge as responses to victimization. In Study 1, participants recalled a time they either forgave or took revenge against someone who had hurt them. In Studies 2 and 3, they imagined being victimized by a coworker and then either forgiving or taking revenge against him. In Study 4, they wrote either a forgiving or a vengeful letter to a transgressor who had committed an offense against them. Each methodology revealed that, compared with revenge, forgiveness was more effective at rehumanizing the self; indeed, forgiveness produced feelings of humanness that nearly exceeded levels experienced by nonvictimized participants (Study 3). Studies 3 and 4 also provided evidence that perceiving 1's forgiveness as moral contributes to a restored sense of humanness. Study 4 further revealed important downstream predictive consequences of a restored sense of self-humanity following forgiveness-less self-harm, a greater sense of belonging to the human community, and greater importance of one's moral identity. Extending past research on the benefits of forgiveness, this work highlights the agency that victims have to repair their humanness in the wake of a dehumanizing offense. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Making Daily Decisions to Work from Home or to Work in the Office: The Impacts of Daily Work- and COVID-Related Stressors on Next-Day Work Location

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

To protect workers’ safety while gradually resuming on-site operations amid the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations are offering employees the flexibility to decide their work location on a daily basis (i.e., whether to work from home or to work in the office on a particular day). However, little is known about what factors drive employees’ daily decisions to work from home versus office during the pandemic. Taking a social ecological perspective, we conceptualize employees’ daily choice of work location (home vs. office) as a way to cope with stressors they have encountered on the previous day, and conducted a daily diary study to examine how five categories of work-related and COVID-related stressors during the pandemic (identified through a pilot interview study) may jointly predict employees’ next-day work location. We collected data over five workdays from 127 participants working in a Chinese IT company which allowed employees to choose their work location on a daily basis amid the pandemic. We found that experiencing more work–family boundary stressors and work coordination stressors on a certain day were associated with a greater likelihood of working in the office (vs. at home) on the next day, while experiencing more workload stressors prompted employees to work at home (vs. in the office) on the next day. Furthermore, we found that COVID-19 infection-related stressors moderated the effects of technology stressors and workload stressors on next-day work location. Our research findings offer implications for understanding the driving factors of daily work location choices during and beyond the pandemic.

Exploring Public Sentiment on Enforced Remote Work During COVID-19

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many employees have been strongly encouraged or mandated to work from home. The present study sought to understand the attitudes and experiences of the general public toward remote work by analyzing Twitter data from March 30 to July 5 of 2020. We web scraped over 1 million tweets using keywords such as “telework,” “work from home,” “remote work,” and so forth, and analyzed the content using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Sentiment analysis results show generally positive attitudes expressed by remote work-related tweets, with minor dips during the weekend. Topic modeling results uncovered themes among tweets including home office, cybersecurity, mental health, work–life balance, teamwork, and leadership, with minor changes in topics revealed over the 14-week period. Findings point to topics of particular concern regarding working from home and can help guide hypothesis generation for future research.

Psychological Resilience Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stressors, Resources, and Coping Strategies in a National Sample of Americans

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Spreading rapidly across the United States beginning in the spring of 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic radically disrupted Americans’ lives. Previous studies of community-wide disasters suggested people are fairly resilient and identified resources and strategies that promote that resilience. Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic is in some ways unique, with high levels of uncertainty, evolving implications and restrictions, and varied and uneven impacts. How resilient were Americans as the pandemic progressed? What psychosocial resources and coping strategies facilitated adjustment as the country moved into a summer of uneven reopenings and reclosures? Data from a national sample of 674 Americans were gathered at the height of early lockdowns and peaking infections in mid-April, 2020, and again, 5 and 10 weeks later. The study aimed to determine levels and sources of distress and to identify the resources and coping efforts that promoted or impeded resilience. Early levels of distress diminished to some extent over subsequent months while levels of wellbeing were comparable with usual norms, suggesting a largely resilient response. COVID-19-related stress exposure also decreased gradually over time. Older age, higher levels of mindfulness and social support, and meaning focused coping predicted better adjustment, reflecting resilience, while avoidance coping was particularly unhelpful. In models predicting change over time, approach-oriented coping (i.e., active coping, meaning-focused coping, and seeking social support) was minimally predictive of subsequent adjustment. Given the unique and ongoing circumstances presented by COVID-19, specific interventions targeting psychosocial resources and coping identified here may help to promote resilience as the pandemic continues to unfold.

One size does NOT fit all: Understanding differences in perceived organizational support during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Article

Mar 2022

The COVID‐19 crisis forced organizations to radically rethink how to lead their workforce. Facing an unprecedented drop in consumer demand, business leaders struggled to balance staying financially solvent with the responsibility of supporting their employees during the crisis. Early surveys found many employees did not perceive their organizations communicated a clear plan of action; others questioned whether their employers cared about workers' health and safety. While researchers have examined perceived organizational support, studies are only now starting to examine workers' perceived support during a pandemic. The study used a mixed method design to collect quantitative and qualitative data from 949 workers during the COVID‐19 crisis. Results revealed employees working outside the home and furloughed workers perceived lower quality support than employees working remotely. While some employees recommended changes to create a safer work environment, others suggested more frequent communication and/or reassurance about job security/pay. The findings suggest leaders should recognize the nature of support workers need varies. Leaders should customize support to meet the needs of specific groups, especially essential employees working outside the home and furloughed workers. Beyond the pandemic, the results suggest organizational leaders should reexamine their approach to employee support to better prepare for future crises.

Formal Hierarchy As a Source of Upward Status Disagreement? A Theoretical Perspective

Article

Nov 2021

Formal hierarchies may be presumed to reduce uncertainty about the status ordering of employees as they imply a consistent global ranking. However, formal hierarchies in organizations are not merely linear, but are characterized by branching and nesting (i.e., they comprise subunits within the organization and subunits within other subunits), which creates a local ranking of individuals within each subunit. This can create tension between global and local formal ranks as status cues. Moreover, individuals may also draw on informal status cues that are inconsistent with formal ranks. Consequently, organizational members may experience upward status disagreement (USD), whereby each assumes they have higher status than the other. We offer a theoretical model that identifies important conditions under which cues arising from the structure of the formal hierarchy—either on their own or in conjunction with informal status cues—can be a source of USD. We also explore when USD can result in status conflict and identify moderators of this relationship. Our research has implications for how the frequency of USD can be mitigated as organizational structures become more complex and the workforce becomes increasingly diverse.

Social justice and career development: Progress, problems, and possibilities

Article

Apr 2021
J VOCAT BEHAV

Drawing on scholarship in the fields of vocational and industrial/organizational (VIO) psychology, we propose a definition of social justice and assess progress and problems in achieving it. Using a critical psychology lens, we find that the historical focus on higher-income settings and workers with relatively privileged status reflects the neoliberal underpinning implicit in most of VIO psychology. We identify five marginalizing conditions that act at macro levels to perpetuate the status quo and restrict progress toward social justice: group bias, forced movement of people, poverty, unemployment, and lack of decent work. Our review of these conditions accentuates the necessity of social justice praxis at multiple ecological levels to effect significant progress. We propose a set of recommendations for the future that highlight the importance of articulating and deconstructing context, power, and perception implicit in extant VIO endeavors. Our recommendations challenge the field to: (1) extend the scope of the locations and range of ecological levels at which VIO research and practice are carried out, (2) highlight who is and is not served and benefitted by VIO research and practice, and (3) question the underlying values and ideological assumptions of existing VIO research and practice. We call for greater critical consciousness among VIO psychologists in order to ensure the relevance and benefit of our research and practice for all workers around the globe.

Is there potential in assessing for high-potential? Evaluating the relationships between performance ratings, leadership assessment data, designated high-potential status and promotion outcomes in a global organization

Article

Apr 2021
LEADERSHIP QUART

While leadership is a critical component of organizational success, organizations need to be more effective at classifying talent based on future potential vs current performance. This need raises the question as to whether the assessment of leadership potential is truly adding value or enhancing the talent review and classification process. Data from 9,784 participants in PepsiCo’s Leadership Assessment and Development (LeAD) program—a multi-trait, multi-method (MTMM) assessment and development process—are used to examine relationships between individual performance, assessed potential, organizationally designated potential, and promotion rates post assessment. Results from the analyses indicate that assessed potential provides unique variance above performance alone in determining process outcomes (i.e., designated potential and promotions), and therefore can be useful for making more informed talent management decisions. The applications of these measures within the current organization as well as limitations of the study and areas for future research are discussed.

Dignity Inherent and Earned: The Experience of Dignity at Work

Recommended publications

Designing for Dignity: Reimagining Prison Reform

A Meta-Theory of Global Work Encounters

Reprint of: To thrive or not to thrive: Pathways for sustaining thriving at work

To thrive or not to thrive: Pathways for sustaining thriving at work