University of Louisville University of Louisville

ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository

Faculty Scholarship

7-2015

Workplace dignity: Communicating inherent, earned, and Workplace dignity: Communicating inherent, earned, and

remediated dignity remediated dignity

Kristen Lucas University of Louisville, kristen.lucas@louisville.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Organizational Behavior

and Theory Commons, and the Organizational Communication Commons

Original Publication Information Original Publication Information Lucas, Kristen. "Workplace Dignity: Communicating Inherent, Earned, and Remediated Dignity." 2015. Journal of Management Studies 52(5): 621-646.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact thinkir@louisville.edu.

621

WorkplaceDignity:CommunicatingInherent,Earned,andRemediatedDignity

KristenLucasUniversityofLouisvilleABSTRACTExtantresearchondignityatworkhasrevealedconditionsthatcontributetoindignity,employees’responsestodignitythreats,andwaysinwhichemployees’inherentdignityisundermined.Butwhiledignity–andspecificallyindignity–istheorizedasaphenomenonsubjectivelyexperiencedandjudgedbyindividuals,littleresearchhasprivilegedworkers’ownperspectives.Inthisstudy,workingadultsrevealhowtheypersonallyexperienceandunderstandmeaningsofdignityatwork.Idescribethreecorecomponentsofworkplacedignityandthecommunicativeexchangesthroughwhichdignitydesirescommonlyareaffirmedordenied:inherentdignityasrecognizedbyrespectfulinteraction,earneddignityasrecognizedbymessagesofcompetenceandcontribution,andremediateddignityasrecognizedbysocialinteractionsandorganizationalpracticesthatconcealtheinstrumentalandunequalnatureofwork.Basedontheoreticalinsightsdrawnfromexaminingtherelationshipsbetweenthesecomponents,Iarguethatworkplacedignityisaphenomenontheoreticallydistinctfromhumandignity.Keywords:communication,competence,dignity,inequality,instrumentality,respectINTRODUCTIONDignityisaphenomenonthat,atonce,evokesdeepdesiresanddeepinjuries.Itscomplexityanditssalienceinthehumanexperiencecanbeseeninthemultiplewaysitisdescribed.Insomecases,dignityisapsychologicalorcognitiveoutcomewherebypeopleachievea‘senseof’dignity.Inthisway,dignitymaybeexperienced,felt,perceived,realized,pursued,orevenlostorfound.Inothercases,dignityisaqualityofinteraction.Peoplemayormaynotbetreatedwithdignity,treatotherswithdignity,carrythemselveswithdignity,oractwithdignity.Instillotherinstances,dignityissomethingintrinsictoindividuals;itisavulnerableandvaluedpartoftheirbeing.Dignitymaybeprotected,defended,maintained,safeguarded,ortakenbackbythe

JournalofManagementStudies52:5July2015doi:10.1111/joms.12133

622

self.Itmayberespectedoracknowledged,yetinjured,violated,wounded,ordeniedbyothers.Regardlessofwhetheritisconsideredanoutcome,aqualityofinteraction,ortheessenceofone’shumanity,dignityplaysaroleinhowindividualsexperienceandmakesenseoftheirplaceintheworld.

Onedomainoflifeinwhichdignityplaysaparticularlysalientroleistheworkplace,asitisasitewheredignitycanbebothachievedandputatrisk(Hodson,2001;Sayer,2007,2011).Tothispoint,Bolton(2007)maintainsthatdignityisaproductivewaytounderstandcontemporarywork,explainingthatdignity‘encompassesissuesthathaveexercisedscholarsofworkfordecadesandoffersaholisticlensthroughwhichworkplaceissuesmightbeexamined’(p.7).However,thisholisticlensisfarfromcrystalclear.Despitemanagementscholarslonghavingusedtheworddignitywhenexpressingconcernsaboutwork(Finlayetal.,1954;Garrison,1952),theyrarelyhavemadedignityitselfafocalpointofattentionorhavedefineditprecisely(Bolton,2013;seealsoLee,2008;Sayer,2007).Whiledignitytendstobepresentedasaself‐evidenttermthatneedsnoexplanation,conceptualclarityisessentialforadvancingresearch.Moreover,dignityisnotjustascholarlyterm,butonethatispersonallysignificantforpeopleintheworkforce,asitisimbuedwith‘realworld’meaningsthatreflecthowdignityisexperiencedandunderstood.Assuch,greaterknowledgeofworkers’perspectivescaninfluenceorganizationaleffortstofosterdignity,aswellasprovideabasisforconsideringdignityimplicationsoforganizationalpractices,workplaceencounters,andthelike.Therefore,forpurposesofbothresearchandmanagerialpractice,itisimportanttoseekafullandrobustunderstandingofdignity,particularlyonethatprivilegesworkers’perspectives.

Inthisarticle,Ipresenttheresultsofastudyexaminingthevoices,meanings,andlivedexperiencesofindividualsregardingdignityatwork.Iidentifythreecoredignitydesiresandthecommunicativeexchangesthroughwhichthosedesirescommonlyareaffirmedordenied–eachofwhichIpositionasanessentialcomponentofworkplacedignity.Basedontheoreticalinterrogationofthesecomponentsandthewaystheyintersect,Iarguethatworkplacedignityismorecomplexthansimplylocatingbasichumandignitywithinaworkplacecontext.Instead,workplacedignityisaphenomenontheoreticallydistinctfromhumandignity.Inthenextsection,Isituatethestudybyoutliningtheoreticalfoundationsofworkplacedignityandreviewingcurrentempiricalresearch.WORKPLACEDIGNITY

TheoreticalFoundations

Dignitygenerallyisdefinedapersonalsenseofworth,value,respect,oresteemthatisderivedfromone’shumanityandindividualsocialposition;aswellasbeingtreatedrespectfullybyothers(Hodson,2001;Lee,2008).Therearefourcoretheoreticalfoundationsofworkplacedignitythatareofparticularimportforunderstandingdignityinworkplacecontexts,andwhichcollectivelyundergirdthegrowingbodyofempiricalresearchonworkplacedignity.Thefirstfoundationisthattherearetwodistinctmeaningstodignity:inherentdignityandearneddignity.Inherentdignityisthe

623

beliefinanunconditionalgod‐givendignity,wherebyallpeoplehaveanintrinsicandequalvaluesimplyasaconsequenceofbeinghuman(BrennanandLo,2007;Dierksmeier,2011).Thismeaningissometimesreferredtosimplyas‘humandignity’.Notably,thedepictionofdignitybeinggod‐givenismadeindependentofanyparticularreligioustradition;instead,itreferencesmorebroadlytheconvictionthathumanvalueisabsoluteandaccordedtoallwithoutexception.Infact,BrennanandLo(2007)maintainthatsecularandreligiousconceptionsofhumandignityarehighlycompatibleassecularunderpinningscarryan‘ethicalresidueofthetraditionalreligiousworldview’ofgod‐granteddignity(p.49).Earneddignityisabeliefthatdignityisconditional;duetodifferentialqualities,abilities,andefforts,someindividualswillsecureforthemselvesgreaterdignityandprivilegesthanothers(BrennanandLo,2007).Inthissense,dignityismeritocraticandself‐generated.Particularlyinworkplacecontexts,earneddignityislinkedtovalueandesteemthatcomesfromperformingwork(Castel,1996)andderivingself‐valuefrominstrumentalcontributions(Islam,2012;Sayer,2009).Thesetwomeaningsofferdifferentroutestoachievingdignityatworkor,alternatively,differentroutesbywhichdignitypursuitscanbeblocked.

Thesecondfoundationisthatdignityissubjectivelyexperiencedandjudgedbytheindividual.Lee(2008)explains,‘thestartingpoint[ofdignity]iseitheranindividual’soragroup’sownperceptionasopposedtothatofanoutsider’s’(p.8,emphasisadded).Tosaydignityissubjectivelyexperiencedandjudgedisnottosayitcannotbevicariouslyexperiencedorexternallyjudged.Norisittosaydignityisexperiencedinavacuum.Individualsmayapplycommonly‐heldstandardsofinteractiontomakejudgmentsaboutthedignityofothers,theymayfeelemotionallyarousedorcalledtoactionbywitnessingtheindignitiesofothers,ortheymaycomparethemselvesagainstsocietalstandardsand/orsalientotherstoarriveatasenseofwhatisacceptable(Sayer,2011).Ultimatelythen,whatitmeanstosaythatdignityissubjectiveisthatitisadeeplypersonalexperienceandtheultimatearbiterofdignityaffirmationsanddenialsistheindividualandnot‘objective’outsiders.

Thethirdfoundationisthatdignityisinextricablytiedtonormativeexpectations,asevidencedinitsrootsinChristiantheology(BrennanandLo,2007;Tablan,2015),Kantianphilosophy(Sayer,2007),andbusinessethics(Dierksmeier,2011).Specifically,thereisamoralimperativethatdignitywillbeupheldand,therefore,allviolationsaredeemedtobeproblematic.Thisnormativeperspectivedovetailswiththefourthfoundation,namelythatthenatureoftheemploymentrelationshipisfrequentlyatoddswithachievingdignity.Ontheonehand,employmentisasocialrelationshipthatholdspromiseforcontributingpositivelytoone’sidentity,self‐esteem,andflourishing;ontheother,itisaneconomicexchangerelationshiporganizedbystructuresofpowerandcontrolthatconstrainagency,heightenrisksofexploitation,andpotentiallydehumanizeworkers(BelangerandEdwards,2013;BoltonandLaaser,2013;Sayer,2007;Thompson,2013).Giventhenormativeexpectationsofdignity,theeconomicexchangebasisoftheemploymentrelationshipbecomesacentralfocusofunderstandinghowworkplacesareorganizedand,inturn,howdignityisexperiencedand/orviolatedatwork.

Forinstance,onekeyconcernarisingfromtheeconomicexchangerelationshipisthatworkplacesareinstrumentally‐driven.Theverynatureoftheemployment

624

relationshipisonewherepeoplearehiredasanmeanstoanend,whichrunscountertothebeliefthatpeopleshouldbetreatedasendsuntothemselves(Sayer,2007,2011).Workplaceinstrumentalitiesareevidencedinseveralways:employeesareviewedasnarrowlydelimitedroleoccupants,assumedtohavenootherinterestsorprioritiesthanwork,positionedasreadilyreplaceablebysomeoneorsomethingthatservestheorganizationbetter,andregardedas‘bundlesofhumancapitalratherthanasconscious,freelychoosingagents’(Islam,2012,p.237;Karlsson,2012).Anotherconcernisthatworkplacesarerifewithinequalities–fromunequaldistributionofmaterialrewards,toasymmetricalpowerrelationshipsandrulesofinteraction,tolimitationsonopportunitiestoengageinmeaningfulwork,todisproportionatelyallocatedspace(privacy,safety,andcomfort),andmore(LucasandGist,2015).Theseinequalitiescaninfluencerespectfultreatment,autonomy,andotherkeyindicatorsofdignity(Sayer,2007,2011),aswellaslimitindividuals’agencyindefendingthemselvesinthefaceofdignitythreats(Newman,1999).Itiswithintheseinstrumentalandunequalcontextsthatpeople’sdignityfrequentlyisviolated,asisevidencedbynumerousempiricalstudies.

EmpiricalContributions

Attheoutset,itisimportanttonotethatworkplacedignityisconceptuallyrelatedto,butdistinctfrom,severalotherprominentlinesoforganizationalresearchthatbroadlyaddressissuesofhumanflourishingatwork.Forinstance,withregardtoself‐worth,dignityoverlapswithresearchonmeaningfulworkasasourceofself‐worth(DempseyandSanders,2010),dirtyworkandoccupationalstigmaasdetractors(Ashforthetal.,2007),andorganization‐basedself‐esteemasone’soverallsenseofbeingcapable,significant,andworthyasanorganizationalmember(PierceandGardner,2004).Withregardtobeingtreatedrespectfully,therearestrongconnectionstoresearchondisrespectandcommunicativebehavioursthatmayleadtoinjuriesordenialsofdignity,suchasincivility(PearsonandPorath,2005),workplacebullying(Lutgen‐Sandviketal.,2007),andabusivesupervision(Tepperetal.,2007).Finally,becauseofitsmoralandethicalundercurrents,itisrelatedtoresearchonorganizationaljustice,especiallyinterpersonaljustice(PatientandSkarlicki,2010).Eachoftheseareashasitsownimpressivecorpusofwork.Inthisarticle,however,Iattendonlytostudiesthatexplicitlyaddressdignity.

Empiricalresearchhasmadeimportantcontributionstounderstandingdignity,aswellasproblemsofworkandworkplaces.Theprimarycontributionsofthisresearchcanbeseenintwooverlappingthemes.Thefirstthemeofdignityresearchisthatitcentresonviolationsofdignity–whichistobeexpectedgivenitsnormativetheoreticalfoundation.Tobegin,researchhashighlightedvariousconditionsthatthreatendignity.Forinstance,Hodson(2001)identifiedfourprimaryfactors:overwork,mismanagementandabuse,incursionsonautonomy,andparadoxesofparticipation(seealsoLucasetal.,2013).Otherstudieshaveidentifiedmorespecificcontributorstoindignity:verbalabuseandhumiliation(Khademietal.,2012;Stuesse,2010),stigmaattachedtocertainkindsofwork(Chiappetta‐Swanson,2005)andworkplaces(Otis,2008),beingcompelledtodemonstrateservilitytoothers(Kensbocketal.,2014),implementationof

625

coercivecontrolsthat dehumanize workers and erode pride (Crowley,2012),andcallousnessand a lackofcarewhilecommunicatingabout jobloss(Gunn,2011).

Likewise,research has providedinsights intohow employeesrespondtodignitythreats.One typeofresponseisengaginginidentityworktocreateapositiveanddistinctivesenseofself.This research includesreframingstigmatizeddirtyworkto focusonpositiveattributesofthe job(Chiappetta‐Swanson,2005;Stacey,2005)topositioningoneselfincomparisontoothersinorder tomakeaclaimfordignity(Lucas,2011;Purser,2009).Another responseto dignitythreats isengaging in resistance,suchasabsenteeism, labourorganizing, striking, sabotage, andquitting (Cleaveland, 2005;Hodson, 2001; RoscignoandHodson, 2004; Stuesse,2010).Resistanceto indignityalsohas beenshown tobe: subtle, such as cynicismcommunicatedby employeesrejectingoffensive organizational cultures (Fleming,2005);productive, suchas advocacyandorganizingeffortsbyLGBTQ employeesexperiencingdignitythreatsdue tosexualorientation and/orgender expression(Baker,2014);and creative,suchas themyriadtacticscaptured ina collectionoforganizationalmisbehaviournarratives(e.g.,wearinguglytiestoresistacompanydresscode;Karlsson,2012).

Asecondthemeofempiricalresearchisthatithasfocusedalmostexclusivelyonwaysinherent dignityis threatened in the workplace.In addition to the inherent dignitydenialsdescribedabove, researchhas highlightedspecificproblemsof dehumanizationandreification.Dehumanization occurswhenpeopleare treated assub‐human.Forinstance,aspiring professionalathleteswhonavigatedtheNationalFootballLeague’srecruitingsystemweresubjected toabatteryof invasivemedicalexaminations, communicatedwithand aboutindemeaninganddehumanizingways,and pokedandproddedin a manner that waslikenedto the ‘slave trade’and ‘meatmarket’(Dufurand Feinberg, 2007).Similarly,fashionmodels enduredrejections,brutalandsexualized criticism, andintentionalhumiliationsthatreducedthemto‘paperdolls’(MearsandFinlay,2005).Reificationoccurswhenpeoplearetreated asbundlesofhumanresourcesthatarereplaceable,expendable,anddisposable,insteadofashumanbeingswhohavevaluethattranscendstheworkplace.Forinstance,theDilbertcomicstripisawidelypopularrepresentationofcubiclelife,inwhicharecurringthemeismanagementtreatingemployeeslike‘exploitablecommodities’(Doherty,2011).Inameatpackingplant,immigrantworkersweremadetofeelworthlesswhenasupervisorhadtoldthemtotheirfacesthatthey‘aren’tworthmorethanabunchofdisposablecupsordisposableplatesthatyouuseandtossinthegarbage’(Apostolidis,2005,p.650).SummaryandResearchQuestionsInsummary,empiricalresearchhasprovidedimportant insights intoarangeofconditionsthat contribute to indignity,examinedhowemployeesrespondtodignitythreats,anddescribedhowemployees’ inherent dignityisundermined bydehumanization andreification.However,criticalgapsremain. Namely,whilethere hasbeenmuchgainedintermsof understanding indignityat work,there isverylittleunderstanding of dignityasa positiveexperience.Moreover, empirical research has tended to neglect itstheoreticalfoundationofdignitybeingsubjectivelyunderstood.Whileresearcherstendto takethepositionofand be sympathetictoworkers,rarelyhaveresearchersdirectly

626

andexplicitlyasked individualsabouttheir experiencesor judgments of dignity. Infact,Bolton (2010)says,‘to datethere are only limited available insightsinto whatdignityatworkmight meanto workersandmanagers in their day‐to‐dayworkinglives[and] howthisimpactsupon their experiencesofwork’ (p.161).Instead, dignityresearch tends todrawupon researchers’a priori assumptions,retrospectiveinterpretations, and/oroutsider judgmentsofdignity(forexceptions,seeBaker,2014;Khademi et al., 2012;Lucas,2011).Whileresearcher‐centred interpretationsmay indeedreflect judgmentsconsistentwithworkers’livedexperience,much more needs to bedone toprivilegesubjectivemeaningsto gaina fullsenseofthemeaningsand experiencesofboth indignityand dignityinworkers’ livesastheynavigatethe instrumentaland unequalworldofwork.Therefore, Iposethe following researchquestions:

ResearchQuestion1:Howdoemployeesunderstandandexperienceaffirmationsanddenialsofworkplacedignity?ResearchQuestion2:Howdotheselayunderstandingsinformourtheoreticalunderstandingofworkplacedignity?

METHOD

The purpose ofthisstudywasto gain theoretical insightintoworkplacedignity,particularlyasit issubjectively experienced.Therefore, Iwasguidedbyan interpretivistresearch approach.Thegoal of interpretivist research is toseek understandingofhumanaction,motives,feelings,experiences,and sensemaking fromtheperspectiveoforganizationalmembers(GioiaandPitre,1990;Lindlofand Taylor,2011).Moreover,dueto problems that arise from indignity,suchasmeaninglessness, illegitimacy,andqualityofwork‐life,interpretivistapproaches wereparticularly appropriate(AlvessonandDeetz,2000).

I recruited participants by placingclassifiedads in the Help Wantedsectionof alocalnewspaper and postingflyerson communitybulletinboards throughout a midsizedmidwesternUS city.Participants included62adultswhoworkedin serviceindustries(40per cent;foodservice,customerservice,hospitality), blue‐collaroccupations (22percent;assemblywork, construction, painting);professions(22percent;education, socialwork,engineering,accounting and finance);and sales(16per cent;telephone sales,direct sales,retail).They wereevenlydividedby sex(31women, 31men),withan average age of42.Theracial breakdownof the group waswhite(82per cent),AfricanAmerican (8percent),Native American (5per cent),andmulti‐racial (5 percent), which was slightlymorediverse thanthecity populationas awhole.The14 focusgroups ranged in sizefrom 3 to 8, with a median sizeof5. Iofferedparticipants a small cashpayment tocompensate for their time.Additionally,I held focusgroupsat variousdaysand times(includinglatemornings,evenings,andweekends) toenablepeopleworkingdifferentshiftstoparticipate.

Interpretivistresearch favoursdata collectiontacticswhichallowparticipantmeanings to guide research (Creswell,2007).While thereareseveralspecifictechniques

627

thatmeet this objective(e.g., interviews,ethnography), I chose focusgroups as themethod ofdata collectionfor severalreasons(Kamberelisand Dimitriadis,2005;Morgan,1997).First, focusgroups are an efficientway to gather information on aspecifictopic(ascompared,for example, to participant‐observation). Second, focusgroupsprovideavaluablesourceofinsights intocomplexbehavioursandmotivations,asparticipantsengagein synergistic processesofsharingand comparing astheyconversewithoneanother. Third, focusgroupsare particularlywell‐suitedto topicsthattypicallymay notbe considered in much detail. Whileworkplacedignitycan be acomplexandemotionally‐ladenphenomenon, it alsoislikelythat it isnot somethingpeople regularlydiscuss– at leastat an abstract level.Fourth, focusgroupsdecentretherole of theresearcher, which allowsfor participants to take greaterownershipovertheflow ofcontentandconstructionof collectiveandmultivocal meanings.Therefore, focusgroupswerean idealwayto learnabout diverseparticipants’experiencesofdignity.

I designedthe focusgroup protocol to delveinto concreteexperiencesrather thanmore abstract understandings.Assuch,I askedparticipants three main questions:(1)What isthe firstthing you thinkofwhenyouhear the term ‘workplacedignity’?(2)Describea time at workwhenyou feltyouexperienceddignity;and (3) Describeanexperience at workwhen you felt you did not have dignity. This simplifiedline ofquestioningwasdesignedto discerna layunderstanding that isinformedbylivedexperiences.Furthermore,I encouraged participants to engage in conversationwithoneanother, rather than to respond toquestionsinround‐robin fashion.I intervenedonlytoredirectconversationwhenitgotofftopicor toaskoccasionalfollow‐upquestions (e.g.,‘What doyou meanby that?’ ‘Can you give anexample?’).Ididnotprompt participantstogiveresponsesofanyparticular type.Mostfollow‐upquestionswereposedbyparticipants astheyengaged inconversationwithothers in the group.Toconclude eachsession,participants collaborated with one anotherto produce alistof‘rules’organizationscouldfollow toprovidemoredignityforemployees.

Focusgroupswereaudio‐recorded and a research assistanttooknotes throughout.Therecordedportions of thesessionstotalled 15 hours of talk, for anaverage ofapproximately one houreach. Recordings were transcribed by aprofessionaltranscription service.Research assistantsverifiedthe transcripts against the originalrecordings.They alsoconcealednames and other personallyidentifyinginformationofeachparticipant. In total, therewere271pagesofsingle‐spaced transcripts.

Data analysisoccurred inductively.I began withprimary‐cyclecoding, in whichIanalysed datato identifyemergent patternsandmeaningful categorizations (Tracy,2013).This processstarted with line‐by‐linecoding (Lindlofand Taylor, 2011).Thegoalwastoprivilegewordsandmeaningsforwardedbyparticipants.For instance,initial codingincluded ‘lookeddown upon’, ‘chewedout’, and ‘invisible’. Additionally,byusingqualitativedata analysissoftware,Iwasable tomarkpassageswithmultiplecodes.Therefore, Isimultaneously coded forkeyaspectsofexperiences,suchasindicatingwhowasinvolvedinan interaction (e.g.,‘customer’,‘boss’, ‘coworker’), identifyingresponses(e.g.,‘quitting’,‘standingup for self’),signallingemotional reactions(‘sad’, ‘frustrated’,‘proud’),andreflectingtheoretical conceptsthat were invokedbutnotexplicitly statedbyparticipants(e.g.,‘dirtywork’totagastorytoldaboutworking

628

ina sewer,or ‘power’to indicateabusesand imbalancesofpower).I codedapproximately500 utterances (e.g.,quotations, narratives, short dialogues)with more than200unique codes.Asa next step, I hierarchically‐clusteredcodes to identifymajorcategoriesoffactorsleadingtodignityand indignity(Miles etal.,2014;Tracy, 2013).Inthis process,Istreamlined first‐order codes (e.g., ‘thank you’ and‘appreciation’werecollapsedintoasinglecode)and then grouped codesinto largerconceptualcategories,or ‘code‐families’,thatwere the basisof the primary themes. For instance,‘workingbeneathskilllevel’,‘training’, ‘highlightingmistakes’,andsimilar conceptsweregrouped asa code‐familyof‘competence’.

From there, Irevisitedthe transcriptsforsecondary‐cycle codingto facilitatedeeperinterpretation. In thisstage,the purpose of codingwasto explain, theorize, andsynthesize emergent categoriesatamoreabstract level(Tracy, 2013). For example, Icodedwhethereachincidenthadapositiveornegativeeffectondignity(e.g.,astoryaboutexpertisebeingrecognizedwascodedas‘affirmation’;oneaboutexpertisebeingdisregardedwascodedas‘denial’).Withthisadditionalcodinginplace,Iwasabletogenerateseveral‘super‐codes’toidentifypassagescodedwithbothacode‐familycodeandeither‘affirmation’or‘denial’(e.g.,‘respectfulinteraction+affirmation’or‘respectfulinteraction+denial’).Ithenbuiltdatamatricesthatdisplayedexemplarsofthesuper‐codes.Thesematricespresenteddataina more accessibleand aggregatedmanner, whichenabledmetosummarizethemes,recognizepatterns inthedata,examineunderlyingrelationships,anddraw inferences.For instance,‘respectful interaction’almost alwayswasexperiencedasadenialofdignity;‘competence’wasexperiencedequallyasadenialand an affirmation.Throughout theprocessofiterativeimmersiontotestrelationshipsbetweendata andtheory(Tracy,2013),I returned several timesto processes ofsecondary‐cycle codingandbuildingdata matricesasawayto examine andrefine my findings. Insome cases, Ilinked initiallyseparatecodes(e.g.,combining ‘competence’and‘contribution’ into a singlecode‐family),whileatothertimes I split initiallyintegratedcodes into theoreticallyuniqueconcepts (e.g.,separatingremediated‐instrumentalityfromremediated‐inequality).Asisgenerallythecasewith inductiveanalysis,the processwasmore messyandcircuitousthanlinear(seeTracy, 2012).The resultingthemesarepresentedbelow.EARNED,INHERENT,ANDREMEDIATEDDIGNITYParticipants’explanationsandstoriesofdignitycoalescedaroundthreecentralthemes, allof which were groundedin concrete experiences andinteractions withothers.Thethemesrepresentspecificdignitydesiresandthecommunicativeexchangesthat commonlyaffirmand deny thosedesires.Additionally,they illustratethreedistinct componentsofdignity. By components,Irefertopartsthatworktogether to achievean overalleffect.These components include:(1) inherent dignityas recognizedby respectfulinteraction;(2)earneddignityas recognizedmessagesofcompetenceand contribution; and (3)remediated dignityasrecognizedbysocialinteractionsandorganizationalpractices thatconceal workplace injuries. Below, Idescribeeachcomponent, explainingitsdefiningcharacteristicsand illustratingitwithparticipants’ perspectivesandexperiences.SeeTableI for asummary. Ultimately,

629

Table I.Summaryofworkplacedignitycomponents Remediateddignity Inherentdignity Earneddignity Instrumentality InequalityBasisofvalue Intrinsicvalueas

ahumanbeing;unconditional

Instrumentalvaluebasedoncontributiontoorganization;conditional

Underminedvalueduetoinstrumentalnatureofworkrelationship

Underminedvalueduetoinequalitiesembeddedintheworkplace

Valence Positive Positive Negative NegativePosition Entitled;

automatic,maximumvalue

Expected;variedvaluebasedonability,effort,etc.

Injured;intermittentsaliencebasedonpresence/visibilityofinjuriesduetoinstrumental‐onlyvaluation

Injured;varieddepthofinjurybasedonrelativepositionalitytoreferentothers

Affirmations Respectfulinteraction,politeness,civility

Acknowledgementofcompetenceandcontribution,praise,compliments

Treatmentasauniqueindividual,expressinginterestbeyondimmediateworkrole,initiatinginteractionorofferingcarewithexpectationofinstrumentalexchange

Parityinformsofnamingortreatment,inclusion,referencesto‘team’membership

Denials Disrespectfulinteraction,rudeness,abuse

Insults,publicreprimands,denialsofcontribution

Treatmentasanobject,callousnessorinsensitivityinseveringemploymentrelationship,exploitingexpendabilityasameansofcontrol

Callingattentiontostatusdifferences,differentialtreatmentbasedonstatus,exclusionortreatmentasinvisible

thesecomponentsand the relationshipsbetween them suggestthat workplacedignityisaphenomenon theoreticallydistinctfromhumandignity.InherentDignityasRecognizedbyRespectfulInteractionThe firsttheme that surfacedin participants’storieswasa desireforrespectfulinteraction,whichwasclosely linkedto inherent dignity.In responsetotheopeningquery,‘whatisthe firstthing you thinkofwhenyouhear the term workplacedignity?’ themajorityofparticipantssimplysaid‘respect’ and thenelaboratedontheirunderstandingofdignityas ‘abasiclevelofrespectbased on beinga human being’and, moresuccinctly,‘being treatedlikeahumanbeing’. For participants, being treatedas a

630

humanbeing encompasseda senseof general respect dictated by socialconventionsofcivility:politeness,properforms ofaddress, greetings, andso forth. Participantswantedtheir interactionswithbosses, peers,customers,and other job‐salientotherstoreflectthesamequalityofrespectthatwouldbeaffordedtoothersasamatter ofcommon courtesy.But when it came to concrete experiences, fewrecalled specificincidents when theyfelt dignified by ‘basic respect’. Even when pressed for moredetail, answerswerevague. A securityguardsaid he hadseveral jobs ‘where theytreatedme real well,withdignityandrespect’.But when askedwhat his bossandcoworkers specificallydidinthose circumstances thatmadehimfeel dignified, heexplained, ‘theyjusttreated youwithrespectand made youfeellikeyouwerea personand notamachine’.

Unsurprisingly,there weremanymore denialsthan affirmationsofpeople’sdesirefor respectfulinteraction. In contrast to affirmations, denialswere recalled in greatnumber, in great detail, and with great intensity.Experiencesofdisrespectincludedbutwere not limited to being ignored, interrupted,cussedat, yelledat, ostracized,callednames,bullied, andphysicallystruck. As suggestedbythecontrastofferedabove (feelinglikea person insteadofa machine),participants describedwithstrongemotion –ranging from sadnessto frustration to outrightanger – theindignityofbeing treated inwayslessthan human, whether itwaslikeinanimate objects(‘number’, ‘robot’),animals(‘monkey’, ‘littlepuppy’),or simplyinvisible (‘anobody’).Evenrelativelyinnocuousdisrespectwasconsideredto be a denial ofone’shumanity andinherentdignity. Forexample, a blue‐collar labourerexplained his frustration withbeingignoredashereceivedhisordersforeachday:

I’mstanding, I’mlike,we’reall in the same room. But the wholetime [the boss]juststarted talkingto the other guy. It wasjust likenot even acknowledgingme,youknow?‘And letyourguyknowthis,and letyourguyknowthat’.AndI’mlike,‘hisguyisstandingrighthere’.Ijustfeltlikethatwasjustdegrading,onapersonallevel,professionallevel,justeverylevel,justallthewayaround.Whendisrespectwas perceived tohave ahostile intent,denials of dignitywereeven

more intenselyexperienced.In oneofthemore egregiousexamples–but not acompletelyisolatedoccurrence with regardto its intensity– a restaurantsupervisorsufferedverbalabuseand name callingat thehandsofhisgeneralmanager:

He started likeusingracial terms towardsme, crackingchubby jokes.And it kindoftrickleddownto allthe other employees.Andso I got lessrespectfromthe restofmyemployees.When Iwasmanaging, itgottoapoint towheresometimestheydidn’twant to listentome becauseofwhat theyhad seenfromhimdoing tome.He wouldalwaystry to belittleme, it seemedlike.Allthe other people,wheneverthere wasahuge crowdof employeesor meetingsor something,he wouldalwaysliketrytodosomethingtomakemefeelbad.In thiscase,the supervisornot onlywassubjectedto disrespectfulinteraction from

hismanager, but hisinherentdignitywasfurtherundermined whentheabusecreated

631

adominoeffect oflack ofrespectfromthecrewwhoreportedtohim.Ashedescribedwithraw emotion the cumulativeeffectofthe disrespecton hisconfidenceand self‐worth,anotherparticipant empathized with him saying,‘Idon’t knowwhypeopleare that way,that theybreakyoudown,down,down,makeyousick’.

In summary, the desire for respectfulinteraction isinextricablytied to inherentdignity. Aspreviouslyexplained, inherentdignity isbased on a beliefall individualsareentitled to dignityfor the sake of beinghuman. This component wasclearly,explicitly,andrepeatedlyarticulatedbyparticipants.The prominenceofdenialsand thenear‐absenceofaffirmationsof respectfulinteraction furtherattest to the beliefthat peopleare entitled toinherent dignity.Thatis,itwasfullyexpectedthat organizationalothers(supervisors,coworkers,customers,etc.)wouldrecognizethe inherentworthof individualsasequaltoallothersand acknowledge itthrough respectfulinteraction.Whenpeopleweretreatedrespectfully, no dignityreactionsweretriggeredbecausetheir expectationsweremet; thatiswhy therewere so fewclear memories of timeswhen people weretreated withdignity.Butwhen theywere treated disrespectfully, there were immediatejudgments–evenforinnocuousevents–that theirdignityhadbeenviolated.EarnedDignityasRecognizedbyMessagesofCompetenceandContribution

The secondtheme that surfacedinparticipants’storieswasa desireto be recognizedfor instrumental contributionsto the organization. This desirewasassociatedwithearneddignity.Atabasiclevel,allparticipantsexpressedthe sentimentthat everyjob–no matterwhere it islocated in an organizational hierarchy – providesinstrumentalvalue.Furthermore, aspeopleworkedharder in their respectiverolesand/ormet orexceededqualitystandards,theyhad anexpectationofgreater instrumentalvalue.Affirmationsofearned dignitycentred on messagesrelating to competenceand contribution, includingmessagesthatacknowledgeskill,ability,specialaccomplishment,and/or effort andexpertise requiredto perform ajob. Specificexamples includedpraise,compliments,appreciation forworkwelldone, trust inone’sabilitiesand judgment,appreciation forcontributiontotheworkgroupororganization,explicitacknowledgementofthe jobrole’simportance to the organization, and affirmationofthe position’svalue to societyat large.Denials included messagesthatdisregard orcallinto questionability,effort,andexpertise.Examplesincluded insultsabout one’sjobrole,highlightingmistakes,and issuingpublicreprimands.

A keywaythat the centralityof competence to workplacedignitywasarticulatedwasthroughthe excitement conveyedwhen people talked aboutdoing an excellentjob,accomplishingsomethingotherscouldnot, or takingonadditionalresponsibilitiesthatwentaboveand beyond routine duties.These storiesran the gamut froma janitorwhomopped floors,toan opticianwhocarefullyand correctlyfilledprescriptions,to a nursinghome cookwhowasresponsiblefor preparingmeals for 100 residentswitha varietyofdietary restrictions,to an aide whoresearched and wrote Congressionalspeeches.Therange ofoccupationsinwhichpeople talkedabout competenceandcontributiondemonstratedthatearneddignity is notreserved only forhigh‐skilledemployees,but isimportant toeveryone.

632

Evenmoredignifyingthandoingajobwellwastodoitwellandberecognizedbyothersforthequalityofthatcontribution.Evenwhenrecognitionwasatokengesture,theaffirmingeffectoftenwasstrong.Aretailcashierwhohadthetaskofaskingcustomersiftheywantedtomakeadonationtoacharitywasgivena‘littlerose’byhermanager,whichmadeher‘feellikeIwasworthsomething’.Afastfoodworkerwhowasscheduledtobeoneofthreecooksonanespeciallybusydayendedupworkingalonewhen‘twoofthembailedout’.Hebeamedwithprideashedescribedwhatensued:

Iranthekitchenfrom2:30intheafternoonuntilprobablyabout9:30atnightbymyself.Ithinktheysaidthatnightgrossedprobablylikeabout$10,500whereIcookedbymyself.YouknowwhatI’msaying?Therewasn’tnobackup.Nobodyhadtowaitfornothing.Everybodygotwhattheywantedwhentheywantedit.Hisaccomplishment,whichdemonstratedhiscompetenceinperformingwellunder

pressureandhiscontributiontotheorganization,wasfurtherbolsteredwhenhiseffortswerepraisedbyhismanager:

Laterthatnightwhenweshutdown,everybodyshutdowntheplace,ourmanagerwentout,gotpizza,pop,everything,goteverything.AndhejustprettymuchtoldmeIdidagoodjob,keepingupwithdoingeverything.Andwehadlikealittlepartyattheendofthenight.Sothatkindofpickedmeup.Iwasreadytothrowinthetowelthereforawhile,butIfoughtthroughit,gotitdone,andattheendofthenightitwasalmostlikedidn’tevennotice.Ididn’tmindcomingtoworkafterthat,youknow.Ofcourse,theconverseistrueofindignity.Whenpeople’sinstrumentalvaluewas

challengedthroughverbalthreatsoftheircompetence,indignityensued.Makingevaluativecommentsaboutpeople’sabilitytoperformthejobwasstronglytiedtoearneddignity.Inthesituationbelow,asecretarydescribedhowhermanagerrepeatedlymentionedaone‐timemistake(perhapsthinkingitsimplywasajoke),butoverlookedgivingpraiseforallthetimesherjobwasperformedcompetently:

Wemakeballotsforvoting.AndonetimeIforgottochangethedateontheballot.AndI’ddoneitlike50timesfine.OnetimeIforgottochangethedate.Sonow,everytimewedothat,mybossgoes,‘Don’tforgettochangethedate’.Thatmakesmefeellike,‘howabouttheother50timesIdiditright?’AndthentheonetimethatIgoofeditup,hekeepsbringingthatup.‘Didyouchangethedate?’Itmakesyoufeellikehethinksyou’reanidiot,youknow.Inadditiontohighlightingmistakes,therewereotherwaysinstrumentalvaluewas

violated.Onecommonwaywaswhenworkers’contributionswentunacknowledged.Forinstance,anight‐shiftemployeewhowasresponsibleforstockingalargediscountstorecomplainedaboutthelackofrecognitionsheexperiencedincomparisontoday‐shiftworkers:

633

Theblamealwaysfallsonus[theovernightcrew],becausewe’retheonesthatreceiveallthegoodsin.Iftheydon’tgetouttothefloor,thenwe’retheonesthatalwaysgetstuckwiththeblame.Thedayshiftgetsalotof,‘weappreciateyourhelpdoingthisandthisandthat’,andyouhardlyeverhearthenightshiftgetting,‘weappreciateyouworkingyourbuttsofftogetthisputout’....It’sreallyatoughjob.Idon’tthinkpeoplerealizealltheworkthatgoesintoit.Thestockerpossessedastrongsenseofthecontributionshemakestoherorganization.

Whilesherecognizedherowncompetenceandcontribution,theviolationofherdignityoccurredwhenhermanagerdidnotacknowledgethoseefforts.Shecontinued:

It’sjustlike,okay,doyoureallyrealize,Imean,thewholespectrumofwhatIreallydoforyouguys?Iprobablydo16hoursworthofworkin8hours.Where’smy‘thankyou’?Where’smy‘youdidsuchagoodjob’?CanIjustbreakmyownarmandpatmyselfontheback?Auniquequalityoftheearneddignitycomponentisthatworkershaveanexpectationof

howmuchinstrumentalvaluetheyprovidetotheirrespectiveorganizations.Atthislevel,itisnotabouteveryonebeingentitledtothesameamountofdignity–butinsteadthatgreatercontributionsgenerategreaterdignity.Whilesomeinstrumentalworthisaccumulatedthroughinternalsatisfaction(e.g.,employeesknowingtheyhaveperformedajobwell),itisessentialthattheirinstrumentalvalueisacknowledgedbysalientorganizationalothers.

Insummary,theneedforrecognitionofcompetenceandcontributionisanessentialpartoftheearneddignitycomponent.Unlikeinherentdignity,inwhichindividualsfeelentitledtoanunconditionalvaluationoftheirworth,earneddignityisconditionalandvaried.Ontheonehand,participantsindicatedtheypossessaclearsenseoftheircompetenceandcontribution.Butontheotherhand,simplybeingcompetent(e.g.,demonstratingjob‐specificknowledge,executingajobwell)wasnotenough.Dignitywasdependent,inpart,uponsymbolicactsofothersrecognizingtheircompetenceandcontributioninordertobuildormaintainasenseofself‐worthandself‐esteemasrelatedtotheirparticularjobrole.Assuch,theyexpectedthattheircontributionswouldbeacknowledgedbyorganizationalothersatanappropriateleveltotheirowncontribution–whetherthatwasthroughpraise,appreciation,orevenfreedomfrommicromanagement.Whenmessagesofcompetenceandcontributionexceededtheirperceivedinstrumentalcontributiontotheorganization,positivedignityreactionsweretriggered;whenthosemessagesfellshort(orworseyet,underminedtheircompetenceandcontribution),indignityreactionsweretriggered.RemediatedDignityasRecognizedbyMessagesthatConcealWorkplaceInjuries

The third themethat surfacedinparticipants’storieswasadesireforand dependenceuponotherstoremedy(or atleast notfurtherexacerbate) workplace injuries of

634

instrumentalityand inequality.Thisdignitydesireisthe coreofa third component ofdignity,whichI term ‘remediateddignity’.Unlikethe previoustwocomponents thatshareapositiveexpectation for dignity, remediateddignity starts fromanegativeposition.People (especially thosewhowork in lowerhierarchical positionsor whoseemploymentsituations aremoreprecarious) tendtobeacutely awareof,if notresignedto, theinstrumentalityand inequalityoftheir workplaces.Eventhough theymay acceptconditionsof instrumentality andinequality as a realityofworkinglife,their resignationdoesnot mitigate dignityinjuries.Assuch, remediated dignitycallsforrepair andrestorationofan injured value.In thisregard, individualsare dependentupon otherstolimitinjuriesand protect theirsenseofdignity.Affirmationsofdignitycame inthe formofsocialinteractionsand organizationalpractices(i.e.,ordinaryworkplaceactivitiesandwaysofdoing things, suchas policies,behaviours, rules, orcustoms) thatconcealtheinstrumentaland unequal nature ofwork.In contrast,denialsof dignitycame in theform of social interactions andorganizational practices thatreveal the instrumental andunequal nature ofwork.These latter exchangeswereparticularlydevastatingastheywereperceivedasadding insultto injury.Becauseofnuances between injuries caused byinstrumentality andthose caused by inequality,remediated dignityiscomposedoftwosubtypes.

Remediationofinstrumental‐onlyvaluation.Thefirstworkplaceinjury thatrequires

remediation iswhenpeopleare valuedonly fortheir instrumentalworth.Whileparticipantsfully recognizedthat theywereemployedforthepurposeofcompletinganinstrumental task–and, byand large,accepted that reality– theydidnotwillingly acceptthattheirentirevalueisreducibletotheirinstrumentalcontributions.Instead,theyexpresseda strongdesiretobevaluedasawholepersonwhois intrinsicallydeservingofrespect,whoalsoholdsan instrumental role. Put into practice, peoplewanted toberecognized as auniqueindividual who isneitherreadily interchangeablewithanothernortreatedas a cog in a machine. For instance, a grocery store employeetalkedanimatedlyabout the satisfactionhe receivedfrombeing introduced asa specialmember oftheorganization:

When Ifirststartedworking,wehad 50peopleat thisconferenceand [the generalmanager]gets upandintroduces me, andsaid ‘I’mso glad to have this personon’…It wasamazing. I mean, you’rewillingto workfor someonelikethat whoreallyappreciateswhatyoudo.He knewhowto treat employeestomakethemdogoodandwanttoworkforhim.It’sbig,becauseyouwanttobeappreciated.In contrast, employeeswerefrustrated and felttheir inherent valuewasdenied by

exchangesthat highlightedtheirexpendability.Ablue‐collarlabourer whoworkedfor11yearsat a small companywasterminated withlittlenoticeorexplanation:

I guesstheydecided theyneeded to downsizeor whatever, and theygaveme likeabout10 minutes notice and juston a Friday they said, ‘Well,you’re laid off’.Itriedto askquestions.Well, for how long and stufflikethat, and it was,‘Idon’tknow.Idon’tknow.I don’tknow’.But I knewthat itwasn’treallya layoff.They

635

wasjustactuallyterminatingme. They justwastellingme that I waslaidoffandthen a fewdayslater,whenIwasat home, I gota letter inthemailthat saidyourtemporary layoffispermanentnow. I knewthat when theywassayingthat I wasjust laid off. I just wanted to get them to admit it, andthey wouldn’t admit it.And, youknow,that wasn’ttreating mewithverymuch dignitythere. Iwastherelike11yearsand youwouldthinkbeinga loyalemployeefor11yearstheywouldgiveyoua littlemore than 10minutestotellyouyou’regone.In thisexample,theemployeebelievedhewasdeservingofmore respectfulinteraction

because of his years of service,butinstead wastreatedsimplyas someone (orperhapssomething)disposablewhenhe no longerwasneeded.Whilehemayhaveacceptedhewasnot valuedbeyondhisinstrumental rolewiththe company,theimpersonalwayinwhichhewasterminated added insultto the injuryofbeingexpendable.

In a dramatic case,anotherperson got chokedup as he describedhisemployer’sdisregardforhisand hiscoworkers’ inherentworth. In addition tohisprimary roleinamanufacturingplant,healso served as thecompany’ssafetywarden.Whenanemergencyarose and he attempted to helpworkersseeksafeshelter,he wasgivenadifferentinstructionbymanagement:

One daythe tornado sirensgooff.I said,‘Well,everyoneknowswheretogo’.AndIgetthisphone call.‘Nah, it’llbeallright. Justkeepgoing’.‘Whatare youtalkingabout?Keep it going?There’s a tornado right acrossthe highwaydown a block’.They said,‘Ah,justkeep it –Well,justgoout there and keepyour eyeon it’….I’veseena lotofdangerous things,but that wassuchlackofrespectforhuman lifethat[trails off].Itwas just awful.I’m stillthinkingaboutit, getting tornup justthinkingabout it.Althoughthe incident occurred yearsearlier, the emotion that quicklybubbled to

the surfacewhenretellingthe storyisindicativeofboth the depth and persistenceofdignity injuries. By issuingadirective thatknowinglyplaced employees inharm’sway,managementsignalledthatemployeeswere valued only for their instrumentalcontributions andnotfor theirinherentworthorhumanitythatextendedbeyondtheir jobroles.Asa whole,messagesthat revealed the instrumental‐onlyorientationoftheemploymentrelationshipwereundignifyingbecausetheyhighlightedthe hurtfultruththat workersare hired asameansunto an end and thereforecanbe treatedassubstitutableand expendable.

In summary, socialinteractions and organizational practices that concealworkers’instrumentalityare an important facetofremediated dignity.Whileparticipantsexpresseda desire for their instrumental value to be recognizedandthey implicitlyunderstoodthat workplacerelationshipsare fundamentallyinstrumental, theydid notwant to bereduced to onlytheir instrumental value.This contradictory viewofinstrumentality gaverise to the intermittentsalienceof remediated dignity.Thatis,when employees’instrumentalvalue was high andwhen theirsecurity needs weremet, instrumentalrelationshipswerelargelybackgrounded and injuriessubsided.But

636

when their instrumental worth wasquestioned or when their work relationship wasprecarious, injuriesofinstrumentalitysurfaced,callingfor remediation. Therefore,concealinginstrumentalityremediatedworkplaceinjuriesandwasperceivedasaffirming.In contrast, revealinginstrumentality–whether ithad the effectofcreatingnewinjuriesorexacerbatingexistingones–washighlyundignifying.

Remediationofinequality.Thesecondworkplaceinjury that callsfor remediation is

inequality.Asdescribedabove, equality isan important dignityneed – yet one thatsystematically canbedeniedbyorganizationalstructures.Employeesexpressedappreciation for affirminginteractions that drew attention away from inequalities.Dignityaffirmationsincludedmessagesthat concealedthe unequal natureofwork,includingany kindofmessagethat communicated equality.For instance,a blue‐collarworkerreflectedpositivelyonan experiencehehad at apreviousjob:

I’dsaywhenI got treated withdignityitwouldprobably be likefrommyhigher‐up,likewhenIwaswelding,and itmademefeellikemoreofan equalthan asubordinate.Mademe feelbetter about myjob,youknow,morale‐wise.Itmakesyoufeelliketheyactuallynoticeyou.You’rejustnot a number in the workforce,youknow.Theycalledme bymyfirstname, justintroduced me to someof the otherofficepeople,tookme out for lunch, youknow.But,yeah, it feltgood, youknow.It’ssomethingthat’slikean experiencemoneycan’tbuy.Similarly,a clerkat a financialorganization addressed the dignityaffirmingeffectof

havinghigh‐rankingofficials treat himand hiscoworkersasequals:Oncea year we have a company meeting andthe CEOcomes andtalksto usalongwith alotof theother,you know, higheruppeople.Andeven thoughthey’reultra‐rich and reallysmart, the waythat they talk to us isjust,youknow,treat us likeequals and justexplain thingssoeverybodycan understandand giveusachancetoanswerquestions,toaskquestions.In contrast, drawing attentionto someone’ssubordinatedpositionwasviewedas

extremelyharmful to dignity.Denialsincluded socialinteractions and organizationalpractices thatrevealed inequality, such as being talked to as a second‐classcitizen,gratuitoushighlightingofstatusdifferences,and treatment ofpeopleinlowerpositionswithlowerlevels ofrespect.Asecretaryfelther companyhad a cultureof‘giving lip‐service’to equality, saying, ‘theymake a lot of noise aboutsayingthatwe’reall ateamandwe’reallequallyimportant,butthentheiractionsbeliethat’.Shedescribed:

Being treatedwith dignitycomesdown a lot to me with just being treatedwithcommon courtesyand, youknow,sayingplease,and thank you, and excuseme ifyou’reinterrupting someonewhenthey’reworking. ... [Someof themanagers] feelthat your time isnot as valuable as theirs. You knowwhat I mean? You can beinterruptedalwaysand abruptly and without any, you know,even the semblance

637

of‘excuseme’.For themostpart the onesthat weremiddlemanagement or abovewouldbeextremelyconsiderateofeachother, but Iwastobedumped on.Whilesheaddresseda lackofgeneralmanners inher story(whichcouldbeviewedas

a formofdisrespectfulinteraction),itwasthe distribution ofcivility inher officethatmarkedher timeand spaceaslessvaluablethan others.Sheparticularlyresentedthelack ofcourtesy because she believed it communicated anassessmentof herlesservalue.

A commonway people’s value was dismissedwas whenstatus differenceswerehighlightedin waysthat made them feelundervalued and unappreciated.Awomanwhoworkedas a long‐term temporary employeeat a professionalofficewasdeeplyhurt bystatusdifferences:

Idon’tknowifanyoneelseinhere haseverbeena temp,but asa temp, youcanfeelverylowamountsofdignitysometimes. ItmakesmethinkofThe Office[televisionshow], Ryan the temp. Andhe alwayswastreated liketotal crap becausehe’sthetemp. And that’shappenedto me before. I remember thisone specifictime theywerehaving likea funday and allgetting likefreewater bottles.Andsomeonewaslike,‘Don’tgivethemtothetemps’.Andtheywalkedpastmydesk.In summary, socialinteractions and organizational practices that conceal

inequalitiesare theother essentialcomponent ofremediated dignity.Participantsexpressedastrongdesireto be treated asequal to salientothers –whether bosses,peers,or customers. But when employeeswere on the lesservalued sideof an unequalrelationship,the remediated inequalitycomponent becamesalient.Furthermore, themoreasymmetricalinequalitieswere,thedeepertheinjuriesthatwereexperienced.Althoughconcealingeffortstypically did little,ifanything,to changethe fundamentalconditions ofinequality (whetheraffectingpay, power, or status),they were experienced as affirming.Conversely,highlightinginequalitieswasperceived as gratuitousand highlyundignifying.

Atfirstglance,affirmationsofremediated instrumentalityand remediated inequalitylookmuch likerespectfulinteraction. But movingbeyond the surface level(andparticularly when taking denials into consideration),remediateddignity operates inwaysthat clearlydistinguishit from inherent dignity.Asa whole,remediated dignityreflectsa dependence upon others tomitigate injuriesofinstrumentalityand inequality.Participantswerewellaware that withinthe employmentcontext, theywerevaluedprimarily for their instrumental contributions and,for lower ranked andlowerstatusemployees,thattheir relativeworth was lessthanothers in the organization.Whenothers drew attentionto those conditions, it exacerbatedtheirinjuries. Themoremarginalized individualswere in terms ofinequality andinstrumentality, themoreprominently remediateddignityplayed into their workplaceexperience. Conversely,when people were moreadvantagedwithin anorganization–whether bypower, status,jobsecurity, andso forth–injuries todignity were muchsmaller,therebylessening, ifnoteliminating,theirneed forremediated dignity.

638

DISCUSSIONByprivilegingthe perspectivesofworkingadults, this studybegins to fillimportant

empiricalgapsinthe literature and offerstheoreticalinsightsinto the phenomenon ofworkplacedignity.Specifically, I identifieda range ofexperiencesand desiresreflectingbothdignityandindignity atwork. Participants’ storiesrevealed threeprimarycomponentsbywhichdignityisaffirmedand denied. Framed inpositiveterms, theseincludeinherent dignityasrecognizedbyrespectfulinteraction,earned dignityasrecognizedbymessagesofcompetenceand contribution, and remediated dignityasrecognized by socialinteractions andorganizational practices thatconceal theinstrumental andunequal natureof the workplace.Thetheoretical contributions ofthisresearcharedescribedbelow.

TheoreticalContributions

The primarycontribution ofthisresearchisthat itpointstotheexistenceofthree

primary componentsofdignity,eachwitha unique locusofhuman value.Two of thesecomponents alignwith previouslytheorized meaningsofdignity:inherent dignityasgod‐given andearneddignity asself‐generated (Brennan andLo,2007;Hodson,2001).Thethird component, whichI term remediated dignity,isan other‐dependentdignity. Toexplain, remediateddignity is anegatively‐valencedcomponentthatistightlycoupledwiththe instrumental and unequal workplacecontext.Asindividuals’senseofself‐worthandself‐value isunderminedby instrumental‐onlyvaluationsandinequalitiesembedded in theemploymentrelationship,theybecomedependent uponothers to remedy thoseworkplacedignityinjuriesbyconcealinghurtful truths ofworkinglife.Likewise, theyarevulnerabletootherswho(intentionallyorunintentionally)may inflictgreater injury byrevealing their instrumentality andinequality.Together,these threedignitycomponentsprovide a more complete account of theexperience of workplacedignity thanwaspreviouslyoffered by empirical research.Additionally,deeper interrogation of thecomponents revealsseveralinsightsthatextendworkplacedignitytheory.

Thefirst theoretical insight isthataffirmations anddenials of dignity typicallyareexperiencedthrough communicativeinteractions.Regardlessof the sourceof dignity–god‐granted, self‐generated,or other‐dependent– what ultimatelyaffirmsor deniesthosedignitiesisinteraction with others. Previoustheorizing had acknowledgedthatcommunicationplayedanimportantroleininherentdignity andthedesireforrespectfulrelations.For instance,Sayer (2007)asserted that one’sexperienceofdignity reliesupon‘wordsanddeeds’,as respectfulcommunication recognizesanotherpersonas‘someonewhoismore thanwhattheydo fora living,whodemandsrespectsimplyasa person’(p.572; seealsoBolton,2007;Hodson, 2001).Additionally,numerousempiricalstudiesnotedviolationsofhuman dignitythat arosefromrude ordisrespectfulinteraction (e.g.,Apostolidis, 2005;Baker,2014;Cleaveland,2005).Thecurrentstudy extends this originalthinkingby revealing thatcommunication isnotlimited to meeting desiresfor respectfulinteraction associatedwith inherent dignity,butinstead playsan equally prominentrolein the earnedandremediatedcomponents. Toexplain, earneddignity is grounded,inlarge part,in individuals’efforts

639

and abilities.However,simplybeingcompetent ormakinga contribution isnot sufficienttoexperience adignity affirmation. Instead,individualsalsomust have theirinstrumentalcontributionsrecognizedthrough affirmingcommunication.Alternatively,whenindividualsengageincommunicativeinteractionsthatdismissordemeantheircompetence and contributions, they experiencedignityviolations.Therefore,communication isfundamentaltotheexperienceofearned dignity.

Similarly,whileremediateddignityisgroundedinworkplaceinjuriesstemmingfromthematerialandstructuralconditionsoftheemploymentrelationship,theimmediateexperienceofdignityiscommunicativelybound.Forinstance,conditionssuchaspowerimbalances(Fleming,2005),jobinsecurities(Stuesse,2010),controlsystems(Crowley,2012),labourmarkets(DufurandFeinberg,2007),organizationalstructures(Lucasetal.,2013),andsoforthhavebeenshowntobethebasisofinequalitiesandinstrumentalitiesthatleadtodignityinjuries.Yet,thesedeepstructuralconditionsoftenremaininvisibletoemployees.Incontrast,theresultantcommunication–whetheritisabusivesupervision,demeaninginteractions,exploitativeencounters,orsymbolicexpressionsofinequality–isimmediatelyrecognizable.Putanotherway,communicationcanbeviewedasthetangibleexpressionofproblematicworkplacestructures.Fortunately,affirmingcommunicationthatcompensatesforand/orconcealsproblematicinequalitiesandinstrumentalitiescanoffsetthoseinjuries.Assuch,dignityinjuriesareexacerbatedorremediatedthroughcommunicationwithothers.

A secondtheoretical insightisthat that there are importantinternal tensionsthatfurthercomplicate theachievement of dignity. Stohl andCheney(2001)describedhoworganizational tensions– which they broadly define as a clashof ideas,principles, oractions –canimpedeefforts towards moreemployee‐centred organizing.Whileorganizational tensions, including paradoxes andcontradictions, may notbeimmediatelyvisible(if visibleat all)in livedexperience, theycan be foregrounded bytheoreticalinterrogation. Oneimportant tensionofworkplacedignityisa contradictionembedded inexpectationsofearned and inherentdignity.Specifically, theearneddignitycomponentappears to be aggravatedwithinlivedexperiencebyequalityexpectationscarriedforward from the inherent dignitycomponent. Inherentdignitystartsfromapositionthat everyoneisentitledtoa full,equal,and unconditionalvaluation; incontrast,earneddignityhasa conditionalqualityinthat dignityisgainedbyindividualactionsand merits(Brennanand Lo,2007;Hodson, 2001).Yet,whileparticipants acknowledgedtheirinstrumental value is indeed conditional in affirmativesituations(i.e.,peoplecan bedeservingofahighervaluationdue to their instrumentalcontributions),implicitin theiraccountswasa resistanceto the corollaryrelationshipthatnecessarilyexistsin negativesituations (i.e.,people also can be deservingof alower valuationdue to smalleror non‐existentinstrumental contributions).In casesofthelatter,when individualsfoundthemselvesin thenegative situation of realizingtheir conditionaland variablevaluewaslessthan others,a dignitythreat wasexperienced(seealsoKhademi etal.,2012;Lucas,2011).Individualsdrawingupon expectationsofinherent dignityto evaluate theirexperiencesofearned dignitypointsto animportantpractical problem – namely,whilemeaningsofdifferentdignitiesmay betheoreticallydistinct,theyremain tangledinlivedexperience.

640

Another important tensionof workplacedignityis a paradox exposedbycomparingearned and remediated dignitycomponents.On the onehand, messages acknowledgingcompetenceand contribution are highlydignifying.Praise for a jobwelldone, compliments,andsincereappreciationforthequalityofworkperformedaffirmtheinstrumentalvalueofindividualsand, inturn, raisetheirearned dignity.On theotherhand,messagesthatrevealrather than concealtheinstrumentalworkplacerelationshiparehighlyundignifyingandexacerbatedignityinjuries.Together, theseexpectationspresenta paradox asworkers’instrumental valuemust be acknowledgedin order to achieveearned dignity,butsimultaneouslymustbeconcealedtoprotecttheirremediateddignity injuries.Because ofthisparadox, itbecomesevenmoredifficultforpeopletofeelfullydignifiedatworkandfororganizationstobolsteremployees’dignity,associalinteractionsandorganizationalpracticescannotsimultaneouslyconcealandrevealinstrumentalvaluations.

Athird theoreticalinsightisthat thisresearchdemonstratesthe centralityofinstrumentalvaluations inexperiencing workplace dignity. Across theoreticaltraditions,inherentdignity has been positioned as theultimate value (e.g.,Dierksmeier, 2011;Islam,2012).Moreover, empiricalresearchhas focusedon violationsofinherent dignity throughdehumanizationandreification (e.g.,Doherty, 2011; Dufur andFeinberg,2007).Evenparticipants initiallydefineddignityas‘beingtreated likea human’and spokeat lengthabout respectfulinteraction. Yet, in their storiesofdignityaffirmations, they frequentlydescribedevents linkedto evaluationsof their instrumentalworth. It wasmessagesthatacknowledgedtheir instrumental contributions, and nottheir inherent worth asahuman, that were the basisofmany affirmations.Assuch,earneddignityappears to playa more central role in workplacedignitythan previouslytheorized.Whether thisvaluationisdue toa desireto differentiateoneselffromothers, or to privilegethe worthassociatedwitha more contextually‐salient‘worker’role, thisinsightchallengesconventionalthinkingbysuggestingthe possibility that incertaincontextshuman dignitymaybesubordinated toother dignitycomponents.

Overall, the expressedneed forremediation ofworkplaceinjuries,the centralityofcommunication in theexperience of dignity, thetensionsembeddedwithin variousdignity components, andtheimportanceof instrumental valuationsin experiencingaffirmations of dignity suggest thatworkplace dignity is theoretically distinct fromhumandignity. Thatis, dignity atwork is notsolelyabouthaving one’s inherentworthrecognized in a particular context – or even thatworkplacesare contexts inwhichdignityisharderto achieve.Instead, the verynature of the employment relationshipfundamentally changespeople’sorientation towardswhat it means to havedignity atwork. Specifically,experiencing workplace dignity requires employees tonegotiatecompeting viewsof dignity:entitlement, in which they protect the dignitythat isinherent totheirhumanity;self‐sufficiency,bywhichtheypromote theirdignityand valuethrough their actions;and dependence, bywhichthey (struggleto)acceptthattheirdignity is vulnerable to others. Employeesalsomust negotiate competingviewsof theemploymentrelationship,wherebytheysometimesresistitsunequal andinstrumentalnatureandatothertimes find ways touse thatrelationship totheiradvantage. Moreover,becauseemployeescan experiencedignitydespiteproblematicconditionsof theemployment relationship, core assumptionsabout dignityare challenged.Inparticular,whileequalityand non‐instrumentalvaluations arepositionedas

641

the veryessenceofhuman dignity,theyapparently are not absoluterequirements forachievingworkplacedignity. Inotherwords, employeesandemployershave foundwaysto affirm individuals’dignityat work evenwhen, theoretically,humandignityshouldnotbe possiblein theworkplacecontext.For thesereasons,workplacedignityisacomplexphenomenon that istheoreticallydistinctfrombasichuman dignity.CriticalQuestionsofPracticality

Basedon the findings,it istempting to offerpractical suggestions for improvingdignity in the workplace.However, it is unlikelythattruly novel suggestionscould bemade. In fact,Bolton(2013)says,‘Veryrecent prescriptionsfrom high‐profilemanagement gurusmirror earlyhuman relationswritingsand callformanagementpractice to create the conditionsfor dignityat work’(p.163).Even absent novelsuggestions, the factthat indignityremainsa significantconcern inmodern organizationsindicates thatconventionalmanagementprescriptions areeither ineffectiveordifficulttoimplement and/or sustain.Speaking to this concern, Karlsson (2012)explainsthatknowingwhat constitutesdignityat work isnot sufficientfor creatingdignifiedworkplaces.He says,‘Ifthe demands ofdignifiedworkwere entirelycompatible withemployerinterests,suchknowledgeand policiesofdignitywouldnot benecessary’(p.6).Therefore, I take a differenttack.Specifically, I identifythree clusters of conventionalsuggestionstiedtoeachcomponentof workplace dignity andthen raise critical concernsabout their feasibilityor potential effectiveness. This critique isnot to dissuadeorganizations frommaking stridesin improvingdignity,butinsteadtodrawattention towhyachievingworkplacedignityisanythingbut easy.

Afirstsetofsuggestions centreson better acknowledgingemployees’inherent dignitythrough respectfulinteraction in the workplace.This includesa range ofoptionsfrominvestingin company‐widesensitivity training, to institutinga range ofbullyingandharassmentpolicies,tomaking civilityand‘niceness’partof theperformancereviewprocessto ensure thatdignifyinginteractions are rewarded andundignifyinginteractionsare disciplined.Whiletheremaybesomebenefitto improvingan organization’s cultureofdignity, itcanineffect bereplacing oneset of problems withanother.Primarily,therearequestionsandconcernsraisedregardingwhetherrespectfulinteractionsare motivatedbygenuine concern forothers. Iforganizationalmembers arecompelled to ‘manufacture’respectful interactions, individualsonthereceivingendof those interactions likelywillnotbeaffirmed in theirdignity, butinstead willrecognize theobligatory natureof suchpleasantries andviewthemaspatronizingordisingenuous, furtherexacerbating dignityinjuries. Correspondingly,‘beingnice’imposessignificantemotion labour burdens onpeople,especially inhigh‐stresscontexts.Finally,toomuch focuson individualdignitymayheightenemployeesensitivity todignitythreats,resultinginevenminor slightsbeingviewednegatively.

A secondsetof suggestions dealswithenhancing the earned dignityofemployeesbyboosting their competence andcontributionandboostingrecognitionoftheir performance.Suggestionsin this vein include investingin specializedtraining courses,tuitionreimbursement foradvanced education, more robust on‐the‐job training, andinternalmentorshipprogrammes.Italso includesofferingmorespecial recognition

642

programmes to reward employeesfor their contributions– from formal rewardprogrammes to peer recognition systems.And it involvespayingmore carefulattentiontohowdisciplineand correctivefeedbackaredelivered.Again,there are criticalquestionsraised by these efforts.Allofthese concerns areembeddedin larger tensionsbetweenbalancing the need to accomplishworkgoals(withoutdowngrading qualitystandards orperformance expectations)versuscaringforindividualswhoperform thework.One issueconcernsthe extent to whichit isthe responsibilityoforganizationstotrainemployeesbeyondtheirimmediatejobroles ortogroomindividuals forpromotion.Providingtoomuchtraining–especially whenbetterjobsarenotavailablewithinan internal labourmarket –may be a poor investmentofresourcesand may lead to a more dissatisfiedand undignifiedworkforceifthey perceivetheymustwork ‘below theirlevel’.Thereareadditionalconcerns aboutdemotivatingstrong performers and diminishingthe value ofrecognition if recognition isgrantedtomany insteadofearned bya few.Finally,despiteeffortsto buildcompetence,it isa fact oforganizational lifethat not all employeesarecompetent in their particularroles.Peopleare placed inpositionsbeyond their skill level,makemistakes,withholdtheirbest efforts,orotherwise fail to make positivecontributions to organizationalgoals.In terms of dealingwith gentle corrections,havinga dignity‐centredfocusondeliveringfeedbackmay counteract the perceivedseriousnessofcorrections,resultinginneither remedyingpoorperformancenor curtailingproblematicbehaviours.

A third set of suggestionscentres on offeringremediated dignitybymakingconcerted effortsto conceal injuriesof instrumentality and inequality.Practicalapplicationsforthisapproach involvepayingcloserattention to unintendedconsequencesofcertain interactionsand organizational practiceswithregard to effectstheymayhaveon exacerbating dignity injuries. Specifically,these include limitingcertainpracticesthat highlightinequality(e.g.,practicesofaddressingsupervisorswithhonorifictitlesandsubordinates by first name,excluding lower‐ranking employeesfrom companyevents) and instrumentality(e.g.,callingpeoplebyemployeenumber insteadofname,usingfear tacticsofexpendabilityasamotivator forperformance),and mayevengoasfarastoexpressequality(e.g.,explicitlyand regularlytellingemployeesthat ‘everyone isanequally importantpartof the team’)and non‐instrumental valuation (e.g.,celebratingindividualsandtheir non‐work related lifeevents).While these kindsofconcealingpractices can remediate dignityinjuries, they alternativelycan be viewedasa formofsystematically distortedcommunication.That is,ifmanagement becomessosuccessful atconcealinginstrumentality and inequalitythat workersno longer seeproblematicstructuresand power relations, itmay causemore long‐termharm thangood. Researchhas shownwhen dignityisviolated,individualscan engage in practicesofresistancetoreclaimnot onlya senseofworth but the material resourcestoaffirmtheirworth(Hodson,2001;Karlsson,2012;Roscignoand Hodson, 2004).Perhaps it isbestthat notallinequalityand instrumentalityisconcealedsothere willbemotivationforworkerstoengageinproductiveactsofresistance.LimitationsandFutureDirections

Aswithallresearch,thisstudyhaslimitations.Whilethe purposeofthisstudywastogain theoretical insight andnottomake empirical generalizations, it still is worth

643

notingthat therewassomebiasinthe sampleofparticipants.The primary sourceforrecruitmentwas newspaper classifiedadvertisements.Therefore,participants tendedtobe concentratedin lower‐leveloccupationsand/or were currentjob seekers.Onthe onehand, thissamplecouldbeviewedasa strengthbecauseitbrought ina largepoolofserviceworkers whopreviouslyhavebeenunderstudiedinorganizationalresearch.Additionally, theirloweroccupationalstatuses potentiallyraiseduniqueissuesofworkplacedignity relatedto social stigma andclass‐baseddifferencesthatotherwisemighthavebeenmissed.On the other hand, itcouldbeviewedasaweakness in thattherewere noexecutivesorupper‐level managersin thesample. Forexample, the strongdesire for equality as a signalof dignitycould alternativelybeviewedbythosehigher inan organizational hierarchy asdisregardforauthority. Forbetter orworse,the themesofworkplacedignitywereinfluencedbythe typesofworkersrepresented in the sample.Future research could tap into understandingsofdignityfromupper‐levelmanagementorhigh‐statusprofessionstandpoints(e.g.,medicaldoctors,attorneys).

Second, gender differenceswere largelysilencedin the focusgroups. Allbut twofocusgroups were either all‐male ormixed‐sexgroups. Inthese situations,womenvoiced fewconcerns aboutsexualharassment and/or discrimination.In contrast, inthetwoall‐femalegroups,genderwasdiscussedwithmuchpassionand emotion.Thewomentalkedcandidlyabout themultiplewayssexand gender impactedtheir abilitytoachievedignity atwork. Hadtherebeenmoresame‐sex groups,itmayhaveallowedformoredetailedanalysisofgenderdifferences. Exploringgendered differences in workplacedignity(aswellas class,race, sexuality,andother formsof difference)isan importantavenueforfutureresearch.

Third,this study didnotaccountforparticipants’ roleincreatingindignity atwork.Dignityand indignitycanbeginanywhereinan organization,meaningemployeesare notsimplypassive recipientsbut alsoagentswhocanbuildordestroydignity.In fact,employeeswhosepathwaysto dignityare blockedat workmay in turn (perhapsnotevenintentionally)be the verypeoplewhoare destroyingthe experienceofdignityforcoworkers,superiors,and subordinates during their shiftsand/or causingincursionsonthe dignityofother organizations’employeesoutsideofwork(e.g.,restaurantservers,cashiers).Moreover, itwasassumedthat allworkerswerecompetentanddeservingofhigh instrumental valuations. Yet, it is possiblethatsome participantsmaynot beputting forthanygood faitheffortsto performwellin their respective job roles.Butbecause these focusgroupsweredesignedto privilegetheperspectivesand experiencesofparticipants, itcouldnotbedetermined ifparticipantsthemselvesalsowereperpetratorsofverbal abuse and disrespectfulinteractions or iftheywereincompetent intheirrespectivejobroles.Therefore, amoreholisticlookatvarious workplacesandorganizational members’ behaviours would be necessarytoaccountmore fully forindividuals’ rolesinand responsibilities forconstructing(in)dignitiesonthe job.

Finally,my role as a researcher introducedsome bias. Assomeone interested inandsympatheticto issues ofdignityat work,I encouraged individualsto speakfreelyaboutindignitiesthey have experienced. Moreover, as a researcher whoseobjectivewastoprivilegeworkers’ stories(versus amanager whosepurposewouldbe toresolve

644

work issues),I resistedmy occasionalscepticismanddid notchallengeparticipantswhopresented storiesthat, under differentconditions,Imighthaveviewedasunreasonablecomplaining.Additionally,my positionalityas a researcher who has studiedsocialclassissuesfurther influenceddatacollectionand interpretation.While it wasnotmy intentiontoforegroundsocial class,my implicit orientationtoclass‐basedissuesmayhaveimpactedtheextenttowhich Iwas abletorecognize concernsregarding inequalityand then askfollow‐upprobestoelicitfurtherdetail.

Apartfromresearchthataddresses limitations, furtherresearchis necessary todeepen our collectiveunderstandingofdignityatwork.Future studiescouldanswerarange of importantquestions:Whatis the relationship between dignityandrelatedphenomena (e.g.,bullying,stigma,organizational injustice)?What organizational (e.g.,counterproductiveworkbehaviours,productivity,engagement)and individual(e.g.,employeehealth, emotionalwellbeing) outcomesare linkedto dignity?Areorganizationsthatmakedignityan explicitpart oftheirmission,vision,and valuesmore likelytobeperceivedbyemployeesasadignifiedplacetowork?Doorganizationswithculturesofdignityperformbetter than theircompetitors?CONCLUSIONWorkplacedignityisimportant toworkers,astheypossess a strongdesireto deriveasenseofself‐worth fromtheirworkand tobe treated respectfully.But,workplacesarefullof challengesfor experiencingdignity.Onthe one hand, work isa placewherepeoplecan build a senseof dignityby making importantcontributions, developingtheirpersonalcompetence,and beingrecognizedasavaluablepart ofa largerwhole.On theother hand, it isa placewheredignitycan be destroyedbydisrespect,dehumanization,or disposability.Moreover, their dignity– whether inherent, earned, orremediated – istypicallyaffirmedor threatenedby communicativeinteractionswithsalientorganizationalothers. Therefore,researchersand managers alikeshould continueto make concertedefforts to learnmoreaboutwhatconstitutes (un)dignifiedworkexperiencesand how tocommunicate in waysthat can facilitatemore dignityforworkers.REFERENCES Alvesson,M.andDeetz,S.(2000).DoingCriticalManagementResearch.London:Sage.Apostolidis,P.(2005).‘Hegemonyandhamburger:migrationnarrativesanddemocraticunionismamong

MexicanmeatpackersintheU.S.west’.PoliticalResearchQuarterly,58,647–58.Ashforth,B.E.,Kreiner,G.E.,Clark,M.A.andFugate,M.(2007).‘Normalizingdirtywork:managerialtactics

forcounteringoccupationaltaint’.AcademyofManagementJournal,50,149–74.Baker,S.J.(2014).YouBringYourselftoWork:AnExplorationLGB/TQExperiencesof(In)DignityandIdentity.

UnpublishedPhDDissertation,UniversityofNebraska‐Lincoln.Belanger,J.andEdwards,P.(2013).‘Thenatureoffront‐lineservicework:distinctivefeaturesandcontinuity

intheemploymentrelationship’.Work,Employment&Society,27,433–50.Bolton,S.C.(2007).‘Dignityinandatwork:whyitmatters’.InBolton,S.C.(Ed.),DimensionsofDignityat

Work.Oxford:Butterworth‐Heinemann,3–16.Bolton,S.C.(2010).‘Beinghuman:dignityoflaborasthefoundationforthespirit‐workconnection’.Journal

ofManagement,Spirituality,andReligion,7,157–72.

645

Bolton,S.C.(2013).‘Dignity’.InSmith,V.(Ed.),SociologyofWork:AnEncyclopedia(Vol.1).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,163–66.

Bolton,S.C.andLaaser,K.(2013).‘Work,employmentandsocietythroughthelensofmoraleconomy’.Work,Employment&Society,27,508–25.

Brennan,A.andLo,Y.S.(2007).‘Twoconceptionsofdignity:honourandself‐determination’.InMalapss,J.andLickiss,N.(Eds),PerspectivesonHumanDignity:AConversation.Dordrecht:Springer,43–58.

Castel,R.(1996).‘Workandusefulnesstotheworld’.InternationalLabourReview,135,615–22.Chiappetta‐Swanson,C.(2005).‘Dignityanddirtywork:nurses’experiencesinmanaginggenetictermination

forfetalanomaly’.QualitativeSociology,28,93–116.Cleaveland,C.(2005).‘Adesperatemeanstodignity:workrefusalamongstPhiladelphiawelfarerecipients’.

Ethnography,6,35–60.Creswell,J.W.(2007).QualitativeInquiryandResearchDesign:ChoosingAmongFiveApproaches.Thousand

Oaks,CA:Sage.Crowley,M.(2012).‘Controlanddignityinprofessional,manualandservice‐sectoremployment’.

OrganizationStudies,33,1383–406.Dempsey,S.E.andSanders,M.L.(2010).‘Meaningfulwork?Nonprofitmarketizationandwork/life

imbalanceinpopularautobiographiesofsocialentrepreneurship’.Organization,17,437–59.Dierksmeier,C.(2011).‘Reorientingmanagementeducation:fromhomooeconomicustohumandignity’.In

Amann,W.,Pirson,M.,Dierkmeier,C.,vonKimakowitz,E.andSpitzeck,H.(Eds),BusinessSchoolsUnderFire:HumanisticManagementEducationastheWayForward.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,19–40.

Doherty,E.M.(2011).‘Jokingaside,insightstoemployeedignityin‘Dilbert’cartoons:thevalueofcomicartinunderstandingtheemployer–employeerelationship’.JournalofManagementInquiry,20,286–301.

Dufur,M.J.andFeinberg,S.L.(2007).‘Artificiallyrestrictedlabormarketsandworkerdignityinprofessionalfootball’.JournalofContemporaryEthnography,36,505–36.

Finlay,W.W.,Sartain,A.Q.andTate,W.M.(1954).HumanBehaviorinIndustry.NewYork:McGraw‐Hill.Fleming,P.(2005).‘“Kindergartencop”:paternalismandresistanceinahigh‐commitmentworkplace’.

JournalofManagementStudies,42,1469–89.Garrison,K.(1952).‘Theworker’smorale’.InGray,J.S.(Ed.),PsychologyinIndustry.NewYork:McGraw‐Hill,

315–47.Gioia,D.A.andPitre,E.(1990).‘Multiparadigmperspectivesontheorybuilding’.AcademyofManagement

Review,15,584–602.Gunn,A.M.(2011).‘Thediscursiveconstructionofcarewhenthereisnocaretobefound:organizationallife

(re)framedbythoseonthesocio‐economicmarginsfacingjobloss’.Culture&Organization,17,65–85.Hodson,R.(2001).DignityatWork.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Islam,G.(2012).‘Recognition,reification,andpracticesofforgetting:ethicalimplicationsofhumanresource

management’.JournalofBusinessEthics,111,37–48.Kamberelis,G.andDimitriadis,G.(2005).‘Focusgroups:strategicarticulationsofpedagogy,politics,and

inquiry’.InDenzin,N.K.andLincoln,Y.S.(Eds),SageHandbookofQualitativeResearch,3rdedition.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,887–907.

Karlsson,J.C.(2012).OrganizationalMisbehaviour:NarrativesofDignityandResistance.London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Kensbock,S.,Jennings,G.,Bailey,J.andPatiar,A.(2014).‘DistinctionworkanditsconsequencesforwomenworkingasroomattendantswithinfivestarhotelsontheGoldCoast,Australia’.Hospitality&Society,4,55–73.

Khademi,M.,Mohammadi,E.andVanaki,Z.(2012).‘Nurses’experiencesofviolationoftheirdignity’.NursingEthics,19,328–40.

Lee,M.Y.K.(2008).‘Universalhumandignity:somereflectionsintheAsiancontext’.AsianJournalofComparativeLaw,3,283–313.

Lindlof,T.R.andTaylor,B.C.(2011).QualitativeCommunicationResearchMethods,3rdedition.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Lucas,K.(2011).‘Blue‐collardiscoursesofworkplacedignity:usingoutgroupcomparisonstoconstructpositiveidentities’.ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,25,353–74.

646

Lucas,K.andGist,A.N.(2015).‘Organizingsocialclass:implicationsforworking‐classdignity’.PaperpresentedattheAcademyofManagementannualmeeting,Vancouver,BC,10August2015.

Lucas,K.,Kang,D.andLi,Z.(2013).‘Workplacedignityinatotalinstitution:examiningtheexperiencesofFoxconn’smigrantworkforce’.JournalofBusinessEthics,114,91–106.

Lutgen‐Sandvik,P.,Tracy,S.J.andAlberts,J.K.(2007).‘BurnedbybullyingintheAmericanworkplace:prevalence,perception,degreeandimpact’.JournalofManagementStudies,44,837–62.

Mears,A.andFinlay,W.(2005).‘Notjustapaperdoll:howmodelsmanagebodilycapitalandwhytheyperformemotionallabor’.JournalofContemporaryEthnography,34,317–43.

Miles,M.B.,Huberman,A.M.andSaldana,J.(2014).QualitativeDataAnalysis:AMethodsSourcebook,3rdedition.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Morgan,D.L.(1997).FocusGroupsasQualitativeResearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Newman,K.S.(1999).NoShameinmyGame:TheWorkingPoorintheInnerCity.NewYork:RussellSage

Foundation.Otis,E.M.(2008).‘Thedignityofworkingwomen:service,sex,andthelaborpoliticsoflocalizationinChina’s

CityofEternalSpring’.AmericanBehavioralScientist,52,356–76.Patient,D.L.andSkarlicki,D.P.(2010).‘Increasinginterpersonalandinformationaljusticewhen

communicatingnegativenews:theroleofthemanager’sempathicconcernandmoraldevelopment’.JournalofManagement,36,555–78.

Pearson,C.M.andPorath,C.L.(2005).‘Onthenature,consequencesandremediesofworkplaceincivility:notimefor“nice”?Thinkagain’.AcademyofManagementExecutive,19,7–18.

Pierce,J.L.andGardner,D.G.(2004).‘Self‐esteemwithintheworkandorganizationalcontext:areviewoftheorganization‐basedself‐esteemliterature’.JournalofManagement,30,591–622.

Purser,G.(2009).‘Thedignityofjob‐seekingmen:boundaryworkamongimmigrantdaylaborers’.JournalofContemporaryEthnography,38,117–39.

Roscigno,V.J.andHodson,R.(2004).‘Theorganizationalandsocialfoundationsofworkerresistance’.AmericanSociologicalReview,69,14–39.

Sayer,A.(2007).‘Dignityatwork:broadeningtheagenda’.Organization,14,565–81.Sayer,A.(2009).‘Contributivejusticeandmeaningfulwork’.ResPublica,15,1–16.Sayer,A.(2011).WhyThingsMattertoPeople:SocialScience,ValuesandEthicalLife.Cambridge,UK:

CambridgeUniversityPress.Stacey,C.L.(2005).‘Findingdignityindirtywork:theconstraintsandrewardsoflow‐wagehomecare

labour’.SociologyofHealth&Illness,27,831–54.Stohl,C.andCheney,G.(2001).‘Participatoryprocess/paradoxicalpractices:communicationandthe

dilemmasoforganizationaldemocracy’.ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,14,349–407.Stuesse,A.C.(2010).‘What’s“justiceanddignity”gottodowithit?Migrantvulnerability,corporate

complicity,andthestate’.HumanOrganization,69,19–30.Tablan,F.(2015).‘Catholicsocialteachings:towardameaningfulwork’.JournalofBusinessEthics,128,291–

303.Tepper,B.J.,Moss,S.E.,Lockhart,D.E.andCarr,J.C.(2007).‘Abusivesupervision,upwardmaintenance

communication,andsubordinates’psychologicaldistress’.AcademyofManagementJournal,50,1169–80.

Thompson,P.(2013).‘Financializationandtheworkplace:extendingandapplyingthedisconnectedcapitalismthesis’.Work,Employment&Society,27,472–88.

Tracy,S.J.(2012).‘Thetoxicandmythicalcombinationofadeductivewritinglogicforinductivequalitativeresearch’.QualitativeCommunicationResearch,1,109–42.

Tracy,S.J.(2013).QualitativeResearchMethods:CollectingEvidence,CraftingAnalysis,CommunicatingImpact.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley‐Blackwell.