Service employees and self-verification: The roles of occupational stigma consciousness and core self-evaluations

Abstract

Despite the growing number and importance of service occupations, we know little about how jobholders’ perceptions of societal stigmas of service jobs influence their identification with and attitudes towards work. The present study presents a framework that accords key roles to research on occupational stigma consciousness and the verification of employees’ self-views (i.e. core self-evaluations) to understand employees’ responses to occupational stigmatization. Survey responses from call center employees revealed a negative relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and occupational identification and work meaningfulness and a positive relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and organizational production deviant behaviors for employees who have a positive self-view. Opposite patterns of results surfaced for employees who have a lower positive self-view.

Keywords

core self-evaluations occupational identification occupational stigma consciousness organizational production deviant behaviors work meaningfulness

One of the most salient workplace trends in the past 50 years has been the rising number of service jobs¹ (Autor and Dorn, 2009; Gonzales et al., 2012; Goos and Manning, 2007). Regardless of the skills deemed necessary to perform well in service jobs (e.g. Hampson and Junor, 2010), they tend to offer limited opportunities for progression, pay relatively little, and involve non-standard contracts and working hours (e.g. Goos and Manning, 2007). Not only are service jobholders forced to contend with poor job conditions, many are also faced with negative societal images of their occupation. For instance, research has revealed societal disdain for restaurant servers (Wildes, 2005), hospitality workers (Lindsay, 2005) and call center agents (Lindsay, 2005; Moss et al., 2008) because such jobs afford low status and poor job conditions (Autor and Dorn, 2009) and because service jobholders often assume a servile relationship with customers or clients (Grandey et al., 2004).

Despite these findings, we know relatively little about how jobholders’ perceptions of societal stigmas of service jobs influence their identification with and attitudes towards work. In this study, we present a framework for understanding a condition under which some service employees identify with and respond favorably to their work, whereas others tend not to identify with and respond negatively towards work. The framework presented accords key roles to research on stigma consciousness (Pinel, 1999) and the verification of employees’ self-views (Swann, 1987). Specifically, we examine the interaction between occupational stigma consciousness, which refers to the extent to which people report attending to their occupational stereotyped status, and employees’ core self-evaluations (CSE), which represents a higher-order, stable dispositional framework that captures a person’s fundamental self-evaluations of their ability and control over life events (Judge et al., 1997). We posit that employees with high levels of CSE respond negatively to perceptions of occupational stigmatization, whereas employees with low levels of CSE respond positively to it. This is because people desire consistency in how they view themselves and how they perceive others view them (Swann, 1987).

We examine three outcome variables, namely occupational identification, work meaningfulness and organizational production deviant behaviors. Occupational identification refers to the extent to which a person defines himself or herself with the occupation and others who also hold the occupation (Mael and Ashforth, 1994; Van Maanen and Barley, 1984). Meaningfulness of work refers to the degree to which an employee finds his or her job meaningful, valuable and worthwhile (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). These are considered important outcomes in relation to occupational stigma consciousness and employees’ self-views because they help to answer questions such as, ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Why am I here?’ (Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009). Organizational production deviance − that is, intentional acts initiated by employees that violate organizational norms regarding the quality and/or quantity of work to be completed (Bennett and Robinson, 1995) − is also a focus because it is a particularly salient problem in service occupations. This is because employees who hold service jobs are often targeted by the public and may cope by withdrawing from their job, reducing their performance, and/or deviating from their service script (e.g. Sliter et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011).

The present study advances three lines of research. First, we contribute to the literature on occupational stigma consciousness. Thus far, research has established that occupational stigma consciousness leads to behavioral outcomes, such as not recommending one’s job to others and exiting the organization (Pinel and Paulin, 2005; Wildes, 2005). In the present study, we examine three unexplored outcomes that have direct relevance to employees who hold service jobs. We also contribute to this body of research by presenting a theoretical model that acknowledges that people hold multiple identities that have the potential to be in conflict. We argue that a more complete understanding of the effect of occupational stigma consciousness may be gleaned by taking into consideration the extent to which there is a (mis)match between employees’ CSE vis-a-vis the identity they believe that society ascribes to them based on their job.

Second, the present study contributes to research on CSE. Although prior research has shown that individuals with high levels of CSE are resilient in the face of challenging circumstances (e.g. Bono and Colbert, 2005), our theoretical model proposes that when faced with a situation that may be less amenable to their control (i.e. altering societal perceptions of their job), employees with high levels of CSE experience decreasing levels of occupational identification and meaningful work perceptions, and increasing production deviant behaviors. Hence, our contribution lies in the identification of a condition under which the benefits of CSE are less evident. We also argue that CSE may produce opposite effects than generally anticipated.

Moreover, our framework represents a departure from research on CSE in that it suggests that employees with lower levels of CSE respond positively to occupational stigma consciousness. This is important because CSE colors peoples’ perceptions and attitudes of the self and the environment; CSE theory posits that negative evaluations of the self should lead to negative work-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Johnson et al., 2008). We add to CSE theory by adopting a self-verification lens to understand a condition under which employees with lower levels of CSE may not necessarily have lower job and work-related attitudes compared with their high-CSE counterparts.

Third, this study contributes to the literature on dirty work. This body of research examines occupations that are considered socially, morally and/or physically tainted (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Ashforth et al., 2007; Kreiner et al., 2006). Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) argued that employees who perform dirty work use cognitive strategies to modify their beliefs about their occupation so that they can maintain a positive sense of self. However, they also stated that most people who hold dirty occupations retain some ambivalence toward their role, and their identification with it fluctuates as the dirtiness of their work becomes more or less salient. We add to this line of theory in suggesting that the effect of perceiving one’s work as dirty varies depending on whether there is a contradiction between employees’ self-view and how they perceive others view their occupation.

Figure 1 illustrates our theoretical model. Before elaborating on the proposed framework and hypotheses, the following section sets the groundwork for the present study by examining how service occupations, and our study population (call center workers) in particular, are stigmatized by society.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

The stigma of service occupations: The case of call center work

Service occupations include, for example, food service workers, security guards, janitors, gardeners, beauticians and call center workers. Although among the lowest paid and least educated types of employment, the share of US labor hours in service occupations grew by 30 percent between 1980 and 2005, after having been steady or declining in the previous three decades (Autor and Dorn, 2009). Despite the fact that these workers carry out essential forms of labor, some research suggests that society frowns on people employed in this type of work (Pinel and Paulin, 2005).

One occupation that exemplifies a stigmatized service job is call center work. Since their inception, call centers have acquired an infamous position. Academics have re-labeled them as ‘electronic sweatshops’ (Fernie and Metcalf, 1998), ‘assembly lines in the head’ (Taylor and Bain, 1999) and ‘McJobs’ (Lindsay, 2005). Research has revealed that the public too holds negative perceptions of call center work (Lindsay, 2005), and even call center managers agree about the prevalence of stigma in the workplace (Moss et al., 2008).

Call center work is cast in a negative light because the work itself is viewed as neither complicated nor demanding, and most interactions are basic, simple and scripted (e.g. Fernie and Metcalf, 1998). Although some research refutes this view (e.g. Hampson and Junor, 2010) or suggests that there is diversity among call centers in the skills demanded by employers (e.g. Taylor et al., 2002), most research has concluded that call center work requires few unique skills (e.g. Lloyd and Payne, 2009).

Moreover, call center workers often assume a servile relationship to customers. This is characteristic of ‘socially tainted’ dirty work (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999). Some customers perceive that it is within their right to speak down to and treat call center workers poorly, and they do not feel obliged to reciprocate politeness (Grandey and Brauburger, 2002). Research shows that call center agents experience an average of 7 to 10 instances of customer aggression per day on the phone (Grandey et al., 2004). These negative customer interactions can reinforce workers’ perceptions of the public’s disdain of their call center job.

Occupational stigma consciousness

Although a wealth of studies have demonstrated the pernicious effects of stigmatization on the targets of stereotypes (e.g. Crocker and Major, 1989), there is also recognition in the literature that the reactions of those who are stigmatized are not uniform. Pinel (1999) defined stigma consciousness as the extent to which people report attending to their stereotyped status. In the present study, we examine occupational stigma consciousness, that is, the extent to which employees are aware of the stigmatized nature of their job and believe that others treat them negatively because of it (Pinel, 1999; Pinel and Paulin, 2005).

Two studies have examined the impact of occupational stigma consciousness at work. Pinel and Paulin (2005) found that female university clerical, financial and administrative assistant workers who reported high levels of occupational stigma consciousness also reported high levels of intent to leave the organization, and those intentions translated into exit behavior. Wildes (2005) found that restaurant workers who reported high levels of occupational stigma consciousness were less likely to recommend their job to others, and they reported higher intentions to quit. Based on these results, one might conclude that occupational stigma consciousness negatively impacts work-related outcomes.

However, this conclusion may be premature. Pinel and Paulin (2005) and Wildes (2005) did not take into consideration that employees hold multiple identities. Social identity theory asserts that a person’s self-view is made up of numerous components including salient group classifications, such as one’s occupation, and personal identities, including psychological traits (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Ashforth et al. (2008) argued that it is important to distinguish among peoples’ different identities because they can at times be in conflict and produce various, often disparate outcomes.

The dirty work literature emphasizes that employees who work in stigmatized work roles do not respond uniformly to their work identity (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Ashforth et al., 2007; Kreiner et al., 2006). For example, some employees who perform dirty work respond positively through the development of occupational ideologies in which they engage in ‘reframing’, ‘recalibrating’ and ‘refocusing’ and/or they employ social weighting techniques, whereby they condemn those who condemn them, support those who support them, and/or engage in social comparisons (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999). What all of these cognitive strategies have in common is that they increase a person’s occupational identification and the perceived meaningfulness of their work, and decrease production deviance behaviors. On the other hand, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) stated, ‘many dirty workers ultimately adopt a somewhat ambivalent stance towards their work’ (p. 426), and employees who perform dirty work ‘may fluctuate between higher and lower identification as social perceptions of dirtiness become more or less salient’ (p. 428). We propose that a condition under which social perceptions of dirtiness becomes more salient is when there is a mismatch between how employees view the self, and how employees perceive that others view their occupation.

Core self-evaluations and self-verification theory

A higher-order conceptualization of the self-view that has gained empirical support is core self-evaluations (CSE) – a dispositional framework that comprises self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability (Judge et al., 1997). Research has demonstrated that individuals who are higher in CSE are more motivated, perform their work more effectively, and are more satisfied with work and life (Bono and Judge, 2003; Judge, 2009).

Alongside its direct effects, CSE has also been examined as a moderator of relationships in the workplace. Evidence suggests that CSE strengthens or intensifies some positive work-related relationships (e.g. Grant and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Rosopa and Schroeder, 2009; Simsek et al., 2010; Tsaousis et al., 2007). For instance, Kacmar et al. (2009) found that CSE strengthened the effect of perceptions of leader effectiveness on performance. Research has also demonstrated that CSE shields against the effects of negative work-place phenomena (e.g. Greenbaum et al., 2012; McNall et al., 2011; Ritz et al., 2012). For instance, Harris et al. (2009) found that CSE buffered the effect of social stressors on job satisfaction and turnover intentions.

Hence, CSE yields benefits to individuals and organizations. However, self-verification theory (Swann, 1987) casts doubt on this conclusion in the case of occupational stigmatization. This theory posits that information and feedback that coincides with one’s personal identity leads to beneficial outcomes, yet information that does not coincide with one’s self-view can lead to negative outcomes (Swann, 1987). This is because people are invested in preserving their firmly held conceptions of themselves. Moreover, people desire predictable and controllable worlds because situations that confirm people’s self-views fortify their feelings of confidence that they know themselves; information that disconfirms a person’s identity engenders confusion (Swann, 2012).

Most investigations of self-verification theory have reported nearly symmetrical preferences of participants with negative and positive self-views; just as people with positive personal views prefer positive evaluations by others, participants with negative personal views prefer negative evaluations (for a review, see Swann, 2012). For example, Wiesenfeld et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment, and a negative relationship between procedural justice and absenteeism for employees with high positive self-views, and opposite relationship patterns for employees with low positive self-views.

Our hypotheses are motivated by self-verification theory and, therefore, focus on the moderating role of the self-view. Self-verification theory and the empirical evidence that supports it (e.g. De La Ronde and Swann, 1998; Swann, 2012; Swann and Pelham, 2002; Wiesenfeld et al., 2007) concentrate on different directional effects for employees with positive versus less positive self-views that are dependent on the information encountered that confirms or disconfirms their self-views; this body of work does not emphasize direct effects. Similarly, we focus on the moderating role of CSE, and expect different directional slopes for high versus low levels of CSE across levels of occupational stigma consciousness. Because the directions of these relationships are opposite in sign, the relationships at high versus low levels of CSE may more or less cancel each other out (Cohen et al., 2003). Hence, following theory and prior empirical work, we do not hypothesize main effect relationships of occupational stigma consciousness and/or CSE with the outcome variables.

High CSE

At low levels of stigma consciousness, employees view their work as being minimally stigmatized by society. Hence, there is minimal conflict between employees’ high positive self-view and the way that they perceive society views them. Therefore, employees with high levels of CSE may report higher levels of identification and meaningfulness and lower levels of production deviance because they do not feel threatened or confused by their situation.

As occupational stigma consciousness increases, however, the contradiction between how high-CSE employees view themselves and how they believe society views them becomes more salient, leading to a decrease in occupational identification and work meaningfulness and an increase in production deviance. Research in support of self-verification theory has demonstrated that when faced with negative feedback that contradicts their positive self-view, individuals tend to become distressed and anxious, and try to escape the situation in order to re-establish a sense of stability and constancy in their self-view (Swann, 2012).

The argument that people with high levels of CSE respond negatively to occupational stigmatization seems to contradict evidence that employees with high levels of CSE redouble their effort in the face of setbacks. For instance, using a sample of MBA students, Bono and Colbert (2005) found that individuals with high levels of CSE who were faced with negative feedback were more motivated to improve because of their beliefs that they are capable of doing so. However, the feedback that was provided to the participants was not only credible (e.g. provided by a ‘significant other’ such as a work colleague), but there was also a reasonable probability that a person could do something with the feedback to improve the situation. In the present context, changing societal perceptions may appear as an insurmountable goal to people, regardless of their level of CSE, and therefore they will not attempt to change it.

This line of theorizing is supported by research that has demonstrated that, when under threat, individuals with a positive self-view engage in ‘secondary control behaviors;’ that is, they become passive and withdraw from their environment (Baumeister and Tice, 1985; Rothbaum et al., 1982). This is because a threatening situation, such as working in a stigmatized job, overrides a high-CSE employee’s natural inclination to use ‘primary control behaviors’, that is, active, instrumental attempts to rectify the situation. Under normal conditions, for instance, a high-CSE employee will exert high levels of work effort in an attempt to demonstrate competence (primary control behavior). However, when threatened by the stigmatized nature of their job, a high-CSE employee may withdraw from the environment (secondary control behavior) because they feel that they cannot change societal views. Although individuals with a positive self-view believe that they have numerous talents and abilities that can be translated into career success, it is neither prudent nor resourceful for them to immerse themselves in jobs that society deems as stigmatized because they do not want to be associated with the tainted job. Therefore, when they believe that their job is stigmatized by society, they feel compelled to distance themselves from the occupation and job in order to maintain their positive self-view, thereby turning to secondary control in order to avoid disappointment.

Low CSE

Self-verification theory states that people who possess negative self-views prefer environments in which they feel rejected because such worlds have become familiar and predictable to them. They are receptive to negative feedback because it engenders a feeling of existential control and security (Swann et al., 1992a). Swann et al. (1992b) provided direct evidence to support this claim. They found that married individuals with negative self-views were more committed to their spouses to the extent that their spouses assessed them negatively. Research in a work domain similarly found that employees with low positive self-views were more likely to leave a job when given a pay raise compared with employees with higher positive self-views (Schroeder et al., 2004).

Following the tenets of self-verification theory, low-CSE employees’ low occupational stigma consciousness perceptions do not provide them with information to reinforce their low self-views, and, thus, this minimal feedback limits their sense of stability and security. Because low-CSE employees desire the public to view them as they view themselves, they respond negatively and are in a worse off position in comparison to employees with high levels of CSE, when stigma consciousness is low.

As occupational stigma consciousness increases, we expect a corresponding increase in occupational identification and work meaningfulness and a decrease in production deviant behaviors for low-CSE employees; the increasing awareness of the stigmatized nature of their job provides feedback that reinforces their low self-views and confirms that the public perceives them as they see themselves. These relationships occur because employees’ self-views encourage them to respond to contexts in a way that reinforces their self-views, even if these conceptions are negative (Swann, 2012). Given our propositions, we hypothesize the following:

H1a: There is a negative relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and occupational identification for employees with high levels of CSE.

H1b: There is a negative relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and work meaningfulness for employees with high levels of CSE.

H1c: There is a positive relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and organizational production deviance for employees with high levels of CSE.

H2a: There is a positive relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and occupational identification for employees with low levels of CSE.

H2b: There is a positive relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and work meaningfulness for employees with low levels of CSE.

H2c: There is a negative relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and organizational production deviance for employees with low levels of CSE.

Methods

Sample and procedure

The participants were call center employees working for a call center in the United Kingdom. This employer’s key business is fulfilling customer service calls for external firms that outsource this function to the employer. Specifically, employees were required to divide their time between conducting inbound and outbound call tasks for firms that produce electronic, financial, information technology, household and healthcare products. A total of 230 employees in 22 unique call center workgroups (the average workgroup size was 10.5 employees with SD = 5.3 and median = 10) received a paper-and-pencil survey from their respective workgroup supervisor, and surveys were collected confidentially by a representative from the call center employer’s human resources department. As a result of this effort, 143 employees responded, constituting a response rate of a little over 62 percent. From those who responded, 52 percent are female, and 69 percent are non-minority with an average age of 28.31 years. They have worked as call center employees on average for 6.12 years and for their current employer for 1.09 years. Owing to incomplete responses and missing data, responses from only 132 participants were used for our occupational identification analyses, 131 participants for our work meaningfulness analyses, and 128 participants for our production deviance analyses.

Measures

All items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 =Strongly disagree to 5 =Strongly agree), unless otherwise noted.

Occupational identification

Given their appropriateness to our sample, four items from Mael and Ashforth’s (1994) scale were adapted to capture one’s identification with his/her call center job. Items are as follows: (a) ‘When someone criticizes call center workers, it feels like a personal insult’; (b) ‘When I talk about call center workers, I usually say “we” rather than “I”’; (c) ‘When someone praises call centre workers, it feels like a personal compliment’; and (d) ‘If a story in the newspaper or on television criticized call centre workers, I would feel embarrassed’ (α = .71).

Work meaningfulness

May et al.’s (2004) three-item scale was used. An example item is ‘My job activities are significant to me’ (α = .84).

Organizational production deviance

We selected four items from Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) organizational production deviance based on their high factor loadings. These items are as follows: (a) ‘Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working’; (b) ‘Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace’; (c) ‘Come in late to work without permission’; and (d) ‘Put little effort into work’. Participants were asked how often in the past six months they engaged in the above behavior on a seven-point scale (1 =Never to 7 =Daily) (α = .72).

Core self-evaluations

One’s self-view was operationalized using Judge et al.’s (2003) 12-item higher-order dispositional framework scale of core self-evaluations (i.e. CSE). Research has established that this measure is reliable and valid (e.g. Judge et al., 1998b, 2000, 2003). An example item is ‘I am confident I get the success I deserve in life’ (α = .82).

Occupational stigma consciousness

Pinel’s (1999) stigma consciousness scale was adapted to capture workers’ perceptions of the public’s stigmatization of their job and the work that they do on the job. Consistent with Pinel and Paulin (2005), the instructions and items had participants reflect on how people who do not work as call center workers think about and interact with call center workers. The six items utilized are as follows: (a) ‘Most people who are not call center workers have a lot more negative thoughts about call center workers than they actually express’; (b) ‘Most people who are not call center workers judge call center workers on the basis of their job and the work that they do on the job’; (c) ‘Most people who are not call center workers have a problem viewing call center workers as equals’; (d) ‘My being a call center worker influences how people who are not call center workers act with me’; (e) ‘When interacting with people who are not call center workers, I feel like they interpret all my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am a call center worker’; and (f) ‘Stereotypes about call center workers have affected me personally’ (α = .77).

Controls

An individual’s gender, race (1 = Caucasian; 0 = Minority), and age are attributes that may be stigmatized by the public or in the workplace (Berdahl and Moore, 2006; Posthuma and Campion, 2009) and could contribute to participants’ perceptions that their jobs are stigmatized.

Educational background (1 = No qualification to 5 = Degree or higher) may influence one’s awareness of and sensitivity to occupational stigma. Further, one’s occupational tenure and one’s employer tenure may be critical because they could influence one’s realization and understanding that occupational stigmas exist and to what extent stigmas exist. Life experience (i.e. age and education) and on-the-job experience (i.e. job and employer tenure) can also influence work-related outcomes.

Analyses

The call center workers in our sample are nested in 22 unique workgroups. We initially tested if occupational stigma consciousness was a group-level phenomenon in our data. The within-group agreement analysis suggested strong agreement, average r_wg(j) = .80 (LeBreton and Senter, 2008). However, the one-way ANOVA F-statistic was insignificant, and the variance explained by group membership (ICC[1]) and group mean reliability (ICC[2]) did not meet standard thresholds – all indicating that occupational stigma consciousness was not a group-level phenomenon in our data (LeBreton and Senter, 2008) and should be captured at the individual level.

Because individuals are nested in workgroups, their responses are likely correlated. If observations are not independent, residuals are likely not independent. Thus, nesting has the potential to violate the OLS assumption that error terms are independent. In the presence of potential clustered error, the OLS estimates are unbiased but their standard errors could be incorrect, which could lead to incorrect significance inference. The cluster function in STATA adjusts standard errors for within-group correlation that provides more robust and conservative inference of estimate significance in the hierarchical moderated OLS regression analyses (Froot, 1989; Rogers, 1993; Williams, 2000). In order to detect incremental variance for each step, the Stata/SE 12.1 hierarchical moderated regressions were run in three steps: (i) controls, (ii) main effects and (iii) interactions. Further, to test the robustness of our findings, we additionally ran a fixed effects model that also took into account the nesting of our data using hierarchical linear modeling (i.e. mixed modeling; xtmixed function) in Stata/SE 12.1. Results from this effort replicated our previous findings – indicating the general robustness of our data’s results.

Eyeing the zero-order correlations (see Table 1), age and minority status are the only controls that appear to have a major influence on our dependent variables. Following Becker’s (2005) recommendations, we ran the regression analyses with all of the potential control variables, and again while controlling for age and minority status only. The significance and magnitude of the results were similar across analyses. In the interest of parsimony, the results of the regression analyses are presented while controlling for age and minority status only (Becker, 2005).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of study variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Female	0.52	0.49
2. Age	28.31	7.98	−0.22
3. Non-minority	0.69	0.45	0.09	0.08
4. Education	3.93	1.12	−0.02	−0.04	−0.22
5. Tenure – call center job	6.12	3.56	0.01	0.18	−0.16	−0.07
6. Tenure – employer	1.09	1.68	−0.07	0.45	−0.01	−0.17	0.37
7. Occupational stigma consciousness	2.74	0.68	−0.04	0.07	−0.15	0.09	0.00	−0.02
8. Core self-evaluations	3.56	0.61	−0.04	−0.04	−0.15	−0.01	−0.08	−0.08	−0.26
9. Occupational identification	2.86	0.79	0.03	0.01	−0.24	0.06	0.14	0.06	0.09	−0.07
10. Work meaningfulness	3.07	1.03	−0.06	0.18	−0.14	−0.06	0.09	0.00	−0.02	0.22	0.31
11. Production deviance	2.12	1.21	0.03	−0.15	0.18	−0.12	−0.01	0.04	−0.04	−0.14	−0.26	−0.37

N = 131–143; two-tailed tests; non-minority coded as follows: 1 = Caucasian; 0 = minority.

p < .01; |r| ≥ .22.

p < .05; |r| ≥ .17.

p < .10; |r| ≥ .15.

Common method variance

We used procedural and statistical approaches to evaluate and reduce the extent of common method variance in the data (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). For procedural remedies, surveys were anonymous and confidential, the measures were not asked in the sequence similar to the conceptual model, and we ensured that the scales chosen to represent the core constructs were of high quality (see Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Statistically, we ran Harman’s single-factor test using indicators from the key constructs of interest. The unrotated principal component analysis revealed that the indicators did not load on one factor, and the first factor did not account for the majority of the variance (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with the key constructs and controlled for the effects of a common method factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We compared the five-factor model to a model that included the five factors and the method factor and determined that the addition of the method factor slightly improved the fit, Δχ²(39) = 167.3, p < .001. However, 18 percent of the model’s total variance extracted could be attributed to the common method factor. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) for the items loading on the common method factor was .10, well below the AVE cut-off point of .50 (Hair et al., 1998). In total, these tests suggest that common method variance is not problematic in the data.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the variables under study.

Hierarchical moderated regression results

After standardizing occupational stigma consciousness and CSE and constructing the moderator term, hypotheses were tested by regressing the three outcome variables on the explanatory variables in three block steps to discern the incremental variance explained. The Wald test was utilized to detect the significance of the incremental variance contribution of each step. Significant interactions were plotted at 1 standard deviation (SD) above and below the mean of occupational stigma consciousness and CSE (Aiken and West, 1991).

Table 2 provides the results from the moderated regressions. In the occupational identification analysis, step 3’s interaction term supports the hypothesis that there is a moderating relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and CSE. The incremental variance explained by the interaction is 8 percent. Figure 2 shows that as occupational stigma consciousness increases, the relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and occupational identification is exacerbated for those high on CSE (simple slope b = −.26, p < .05); and the relationship is enhanced for those low on CSE (simple slope b = .28, p < .01). Hypotheses 1a and 2a were supported.

Table 2.

Hierarchical multiple regression tests of moderation for occupational identification, work meaningfulness and production deviance.

Variables	Occupational identification			Work meaningfulness			Organizational production deviance
Variables	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
Age	0.04	0.03	0.04	0.18^*	0.19^*	0.20^*	−0.16^†	−0.16^†	−0.17^*
Non-minority^a	−0.23^*	−0.24^*	−0.21^*	−0.13^†	−0.10	−0.08	0.20^*	0.17^†	0.16
OSC^b		0.03	0.01		0.00	−0.01		−0.03	−0.02
CSE^c		−0.10	−0.11		0.21^*	0.21^*		−0.12	−0.13
OSC × CSE			−0.27^**			−0.16^*			0.15^*
R ²	0.06^†	0.07	0.15^**	0.05^*	0.09^*	0.12^**	0.06^*	0.07^*	0.10^**
R² change		0.01	0.08^**		0.04^†	0.03^*		0.01	0.03^*
	F(2,21) = 3.24	F(4,21) = 2.11	F(5,21) = 9.78	F(2,21) = 4.71	F(4,21) = 3.71	F(5,21) = 4.28	F(2,21) = 5.49	F(4,21) = 4.31	F(5,21) = 14.06
		N = 132			N = 131			N = 128

Two-tailed test, **p < .01, *p < .05, ^†p < .10.

Non-minority coded (1 = Caucasian; 0 = Minority); ^bOSC = Occupational Stigma Consciousness; ^cCSE = Core Self-Evaluations.

Figure 2.

Interaction of CSE and occupational stigma consciousness on occupational identification.

In the work meaningfulness regression, the interaction between occupational stigma consciousness and CSE is significant. The incremental variance explained by the interaction term is 3 percent. Though graphically it appears from Figure 3 that occupational stigma consciousness and meaningfulness are negatively related for high-CSE employees, the slope is not significant at +1 SD. However, at +2 SD, the high CSE simple slope became significantly negative between occupational stigma consciousness and meaningfulness (simple slope b = −.34, p < .05). Hence, Hypothesis 1b was supported after taking into account very high levels of CSE (+2 SD). For those low in CSE (−1 SD), there is a significant and positive relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and work meaningfulness (simple slope b = .16, p < .05). Hypothesis 2b was fully supported.

Figure 3.

Interaction of CSE and occupational stigma consciousness on work meaningfulness.

In the production deviance analysis, the incremental variance of the significant interaction is 3 percent. Although graphically it seems from Figure 4 that the relationship is enhanced for employees with high CSE, the simple slope for high CSE at +1 SD is not significant. However, the slope for high CSE at +2 SD is significant and positive (simple slope b = .27, p < .05). Hence, Hypothesis 1c was supported when taking into account very high levels of CSE (+2 SD). Figure 4 also shows that the relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and production deviance is significantly negative for those low in CSE (−1 SD; simple slope b = −.17, p < .05); hypothesis 2c was supported.²

Figure 4.

Interaction of CSE and occupational stigma consciousness on production deviance.

Discussion

The results of the present study revealed that the manner in which an employee responds to occupational stigma consciousness is dependent on the employee’s self-view. Specifically, employees with high levels of CSE experienced decreased occupational identification as societal stigmatization of their jobs became more salient to them. Similarly, work meaningfulness decreased, and organizational production deviance increased, but it only seems to matter for those employees at very high levels of CSE. We found the opposite pattern of results for employees with low levels of CSE. Employees with low levels of CSE experienced increased levels of occupational identification and work meaningfulness and reported decreased levels of production deviant behaviors as consciousness of occupational stigma increased.

The current study contributes to the occupational stigma consciousness literature by presenting and testing a framework that explains why some employees respond favorably to occupational stigmatization and others do not. Specifically, we introduced a moderator of the relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and work-related outcomes in order to advance theory in this domain. Rather than examining solely how individuals respond to the identity that they believe society ascribes to them as a consequence of their work (e.g. occupational stigma consciousness), we showed that it is important to consider multiple identities that people hold when examining how employees of stigmatized jobs respond to such stigmatization. This is because identities can be in conflict with one another, and produce divergent outcomes (e.g. Ashforth et al., 2008).

We also contribute to theory and research on CSE. The present study revealed a condition under which the advantages that are normally associated with high levels of CSE are less clear. We theorized that employees with high levels of CSE respond with decreasing levels of occupational identification and work meaningfulness and increasing levels of production deviant behaviors when they believe that society stigmatizes their job. We suggested that this is because changing societal stereotypes about the job would appear to most as an insurmountable goal. Indeed, individuals who attempt to overhaul the social order are not the norm. Zinn (1968: 16) stated, ‘Society’s tendency is to maintain what has been. Rebellion is only an occasional reaction to suffering in human history; we have infinitely more instances of forbearance to exploitation, and submission to authority, than we have examples of revolt.’ Our conceptual model contributes to CSE theory by suggesting that when employees with high levels of CSE feel powerless to control or to improve the situation, and/or if they believe that trying to do so would be a waste of their time and resources, they are likely to engage in secondary control behaviors, thereby reporting outcomes that may harm the organization.

A second contribution to the CSE literature is the identification of a condition under which employees with lower levels of CSE report increasing levels of desirable outcomes. CSE theory posits that negative evaluations of the self should lead to negative work-related attitudes and behaviors. This is because CSE is an evaluative trait, and it influences peoples’ perceptions and attitudes of themselves and their environment (e.g. Johnson et al., 2008). Through the adoption of a self-verification lens, the present study contributes to CSE theory by identifying a situational factor (occupational stigma consciousness) that causes increases in desirable outcomes for those with lower levels of CSE. Although prior research has established some boundary conditions of CSE, our study is different from others in that low CSE had a more positive effect when stigma consciousness is high. Taking into consideration self-verification processes alongside CSE theory is important from a theoretical standpoint, so as to better understand how employees with lower levels of CSE respond to (non)self-verifying information that is considered difficult to change.

Given self-verification theory and previous empirical evidence of different directionally sloped moderated relationships, we did not propose that occupational stigma consciousness and/or CSE would have main effect relationships with the outcome variables under study. However, in the work meaningfulness analysis, we detected a noteworthy finding – a significant main effect relationship of CSE. This finding is important because it provides additional context to Judge et al.’s (1997) theory of CSE, which states that CSE is positively related to the perception that a job is complex, challenging and meaningful. The significant CSE main effect shaped the pattern of the moderating results such that there was a significant positive relationship between CSE and meaningfulness at low levels of occupational stigma consciousness, but no systematic relationship between CSE and meaningfulness at high levels of occupational stigma consciousness. This explains why high-CSE employees are better off compared with low-CSE employees at low levels of occupational stigma consciousness. However, employees experienced the same level of work meaningfulness at high levels of occupational stigma consciousness – regardless of whether employees had higher or lower levels of CSE.

The present study also contributes to the dirty work literature. This body of research has revealed that occupational stigmas result in a diverse set of psychological predicaments to which employees may respond with a range of coping strategies (Kreiner et al., 2006). Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) proposed that one of the factors that may influence the response of employees to holding a dirty job is the salience of the stigma. Specifically, they stated,

. . . given the importance of social validation to a positive sense of self, it seems likely that the salience or conspicuousness of social perceptions of dirtiness would undermine individuals’ attempts to identify with their work role – that is, to willingly define themselves at least partly on the basis of occupational identity. (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999: 418)

In the present study, we examined the salience of the stigma from the perspective of employees via the measure of occupational stigma consciousness, and found that stigma salience, on its own, does not impact the extent to which employees identify with their work. Instead, we extend theory in this domain by showing that it is also an employee’s self-view that determines how employees respond to holding a stigmatized job.

The present study also contributes to the work identity literature. Much of this work has assumed that people satisfy their need for self-knowledge and self-continuity by searching for congruence in how they view themselves at work (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). Although some research suggests that people try to reconstruct their past, present and anticipated future to find coherence, post-modernist theorists argue that identities are often disparate and fundamentally unstable. Research conducted by Clarke et al. (2009: 326) found that managers drew from ‘three sets of mutually antagonistic discursive resources’ to construct their work identity. They concluded, ‘identities may be stable without being coherent, and consist of core statements but not be unified’ (Clarke et al., 2009: 341). Slay and Smith (2011) examined what it means to be an African American (stigmatized identity) reporter (professional identity). They too found that there are often contradictions in relation to professional versus personal identity. The current findings complement this post-modernist inspired research in that some call center agents in our study held conflicting views of the self in relation to work − that is, they felt positively about the self, but negatively towards the job or vice versa. Our study extended this line of research by showing that consistency, or a lack thereof between one’s self-view and one’s perception of how society views one’s job, leads to outcomes (occupational identification, work meaningfulness, production deviance) that are deemed important to both individuals and organizations.

Directions for future research

Our conceptual model may instigate new research on factors that moderate the relationship between occupational stigma consciousness and work-related outcomes. Along with examining other identities that people hold as moderators (e.g. team identity, family-role identity), future research should investigate the moderating effect of situational factors. For instance, Wang et al. (2012) found that females higher in stigma consciousness were more likely to attribute interview failure to prejudice, especially when the situation was ambiguous. Future research should continue this line of research by examining the moderating effect of organizational pride or perceived importance of the organization’s mission. A call center worker who is employed by a prestigious organization, such as Labatt Brewing Company or Harley Davidson, for instance, may identify more strongly with the organization’s major purpose, relative to their actual work, thereby mitigating the negative consequences of occupational stigmatization. Task complexity may also serve as a moderator. Call center workers with high levels of CSE who respond to customer calls regarding complicated computer problems may find it easier to reconcile their situation psychologically, compared with those who respond to calls about less complex problems, such as whether products were delivered to the correct address. Another moderator may involve the extent to which employees interact face-to-face with clients. For example, an in-store customer complaints clerk may experience more extreme outcomes as a result of a (mis)match between self and societal views, compared with a customer complaints clerk who takes complaints over the telephone or via email.

A finding in the current study that may also spur future research is that only employees with very high levels of CSE (2 standard deviations above the mean) reported worse perceptions of meaningfulness and higher levels of production deviant behavior at high levels of occupational stigma consciousness. It is possible that very high scores may tap into less desirable traits, such as narcissism or hubris. Research showing that narcissistic individuals withdraw from or lash out against information that threatens their self-view (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998) is congruent with our findings. So too is Hiller and Hambrick’s (2005) warning that a very high level of CSE may be detrimental to decision-making because it causes one to ignore negative information, take unwarranted risks and overestimate one’s abilities. The present findings beg for future research on the reactions of those with extreme versus high levels of CSE when confronted with information that conflicts with the self-view that is either personally controllable or not.

Our findings, especially in relation to those with lower levels of CSE, may also inspire future research to consider a potential ‘dark side’ to occupational identification. For instance, it may be that extreme levels of occupational identification lead employees to isolate themselves from other occupational groups or function less well in multi-disciplinary teams, or it might facilitate workaholism. Coupling these potential concerns with occupational stigma consciousness could exacerbate distal consequences.

Our findings may also lead future research to question the role of social comparisons in how employees react to occupational stigma. Self-categorization theory may be useful at this juncture, as it emphasizes the role of a comparison other in reaction to a person’s situation (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Employees who are situated in a workgroup whereby all workgroup members agree that the job is stigmatized may form a strong culture, leading the group to engage in social creativity strategies (e.g. re-framing, re-focusing, re-calibrating) to ameliorate the negative outcomes of occupational stigma consciousness (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999). An employee who believes that the job is stigmatized, but who works among others who disagree that the job is stigmatized, may feel like an outsider, thus possibly making the reconciliation between how employees view the self and the job more difficult. Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) suggested that when employees who perform dirty work are unable to create and/or belong to a strong occupational culture, they are less likely to identify with the occupation.

Similarly, it might also matter how outsiders, such as non-coworker friends and family, view the work. Ashforth and Kreiner (1999: 425) argued that employees who perform dirty work look to their family and friends for support because they promise social validation. However, they also emphasized, ‘In the absence of supportive outsiders, dirty workers are likely to psychologically and socially withdraw to the safer confines of their occupational cohort and to look more exclusively to it for affirmation.’ Research should explore this line of research to understand how social comparisons and social support of employees who perform dirty work influence their ability to cope with occupational stigma. In doing so, future research should also consider how social comparisons differ between those with high versus low levels of CSE. Individuals with higher levels of CSE may benefit more from a stronger workgroup or support from outsiders, relative to those with lower levels of CSE.

An additional noteworthy finding in the present study that may spur future research is the marginally significant (p < .10) correlation between minority status and CSE, such that non-minority employees reported lower levels of CSE compared with their minority counterparts. The few studies that have reported correlations between minority status and CSE have produced mixed results. Research has shown that Whites have higher (e.g. Judge and Hurst, 2007), lower (Srivastava et al., 2010) and the same levels of CSE (Judge et al., 2009) as their non-White counterparts. Although Judge et al. (1998a) stated that using measures of positive self-concept for selection purposes would have no adverse impact on minorities, future research should explore conditions under which minority status moderates the relationship between CSE and/or stigma consciousness and outcomes relevant to individuals and organizations. Future research might draw from theory on ‘double jeopardy’ (Berdahl and Moore, 2006) to inform new developments in understanding the treatment employees can encounter by being both (i) a minority and (ii) working in a stigmatized job, and perhaps how CSE may mitigate or exacerbate these relationship.

Practical implications

Managers of those in stigmatized occupations may have a particularly important role to play in normalizing the taint associated with call center work. For instance, managers can encourage ‘social buffering’ among employees by providing back offices or lunchrooms where employees can talk to one another and relax. Training programs can be offered on how to deal with antagonistic members of the public and when it is appropriate to confront clients who make derogatory statements toward them (Ashforth et al., 2007). Further, managers can orchestrate community outreach or volunteer opportunities so that employees can find another outlet to find meaning in what they do (Grant, 2012). Employees with high levels of CSE may find these opportunities particularly beneficial, given that they might resonate with their preferred sense of self more strongly than their actual work tasks. Moreover, it may be beneficial to heed the advice of Budhwar et al. (2009) to stress the positive attributes of call center work, such as flexible work hours and training opportunities. Internal marketing campaigns that are specifically directed towards increasing occupational identification, meaningfulness of work and decreasing withdrawal behaviors via normalizing the taint associated with stigmatized jobs may be beneficial, especially for organizations that wish to select and retain individuals with a high, positive self-view.

The results of the present study do not suggest that managers should seek out employees with lower levels of CSE for service occupations, for two reasons. First, employees with high levels of CSE tend to have lower levels of stigma consciousness (as illustrated by the current study’s correlation table). This is important for managers to know because, despite their negative reactions to occupational stigma consciousness as shown in the current study, employees with high CSE have been found to engage in less deviance (Bowling et al., 2010) and appraise their work more positively (Judge et al., 2000). Although our results show that employees with high levels of CSE who also perceive high societal stigmatization of their jobs identify less with their occupation, our results also show that high stigma-conscious employees engage in approximately the same amount of deviance, and find their work meaningful, regardless of their level of CSE. Hence, it appears that, at least for meaningfulness and deviance, employees with high levels of CSE are not substantially different from those with lower levels of CSE at high levels of occupational stigma consciousness. However, employees with high levels of CSE found their work more meaningful and reported engaging in fewer acts of production deviance when they had relatively low levels of occupational stigma consciousness.

Second, self-verification theory states that although people with a low positive self-view seek out negative feedback because it fortifies their sense of self, such feedback does not make them feel better, but instead it leads to the perpetuation of depression and painful personal and work relationships (Swann, 2012). Organizations then face a predicament: employees with a low positive self-view experience negative outcomes but, at the same time, interventions designed to increase positive work-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g. positive feedback, internal marketing campaigns) may not lead to their intended consequences, and may actually backfire. Hence, it is worthwhile to consider how to raise employees’ self-view.

In order to strengthen a person’s self-view, North and Swann (2009) argued that it is necessary to understand self-verification theory and, in particular, that individuals with a negative self-view seek out negative feedback to secure a sense of personal constancy. Rather than merely telling an employee with a low self-view that he/she is wrong about him/herself, it is imperative for managers to ensure that the person with a low positive self-view feels accepted and understood, albeit without stating that one shares this view. Once a person feels understood, then he or she should be provided with increasing levels of positive feedback and the negative views can be challenged (North and Swann, 2009). In the workplace, there are at least two avenues where such an intervention can occur, namely, during coaching/mentoring sessions, and leadership development courses. Organizations may wish to provide training programs that teach trainers/managers self-verification theory so that they can meet the needs of their employees, particularly those with lower positive self-views. However, this may be difficult to carry out if managers have a large span of control, or if turnover rates are relatively high. In such cases, the human resources department should ensure that a high quality employee assistance program is made available to all employees.

Limitations

This study should be evaluated in light of several limitations. First, the data were cross-sectional and single source, raising common-method bias concerns. Although common-method variance can explain a direct relationship, it does not explain significant interaction findings (Evans, 1985; McClelland and Judd, 1993). Further, given the complicated nature of identifying moderating relationships in field studies, even 1 percent of incremental variance explained by an interaction is a rather significant finding (Evans, 1985; McClelland and Judd, 1993). In our study, the interaction term explained from 3 percent to 8 percent of incremental variance, demonstrating the strength of the self-view’s (i.e. CSE) effect. Additionally, the consistent pattern of results that we found among our three dependent variables strengthens our resolve that the manner in which an employee deals with his or her perceived occupational stigmatized identity is influenced by the difference between occupational stigma consciousness and the strength of the individual’s positive self-view. Moreover, procedural and statistical remedies as prescribed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) were carried out to ensure that common method variance was not problematic. Nonetheless, future research should employ experimental and/or longitudinal designs to control for extraneous factors and demonstrate causality with more certainty.

Although our findings resonate with self-verification theory, a second limitation to the present study is that we did not measure a mediator of the moderated relationships in order to conduct an empirical test of the theoretical explanation for our hypotheses. Most studies that test and extend self-verification theory do not directly measure self-verification processes, but instead infer their existence from behavioral reactions or choices. According to self-verification theory, the mediator is the extent to which an individual feels that information or feedback provided to them confirms their sense of self. Future research should measure this mediating process, as other explanations of the present study may be viable. For instance, in the present study, it is possible that employees with low levels of CSE lack confidence in their job search and/or job interviewing abilities, and hence are less likely to engage in deviant behavior so as not to jeopardize their current position.

Third, generalizability may be a concern. Our study was conducted in a single call center, and call centers are just one area of service in a booming service industry that is relatively low-status. Major and O’Brien (2005: 395) suggested that ‘members of high-status and low-status groups are likely to respond in dramatically different ways to being the target of negative stereotypes and/or discrimination.’ Education and job complexity contribute to job status. Those in high status occupations often undergo socialization and/or belong to professional associations (e.g. Van Maanen and Barley, 1984). Hence, stigmatized yet high status workers may be somewhat shielded from societal perceptions. Consequently, our model may unfold in a more muted manner if our sample included service workers with relatively high levels of prestige. Alternatively, employees with high levels of CSE of stigmatized yet prestigious occupations may not have lower levels of occupational identification or meaningfulness or engage in higher levels of deviance because the impressiveness of their occupation may offset its stigmatized quality. They may also be better positioned to engage in cognitive strategies as outlined by Ashforth and Kreiner (1999), given their tendency to have more established occupational cultures, ideologies and shared social weighting practices.

The present study was conducted in the United Kingdom. It is likely that the present results generalize to other western countries such as the United States, given that there are negative perceptions of call center workers in many western countries (e.g. Grandey et al., 2004; Moss et al., 2008). However, the results may not generalize to other countries, such as India, where cultural identity may prove to be a more important determinant of employees’ attitudes towards work relative to the occupation (Cohen and El-Sawad, 2007). Call center agents located in India wrestle with a different facet of stigmatization as they are encouraged to adopt Anglicized pseudonyms, to conceal their Indian locations, and emulate their customer’s dialects (Taylor and Bain, 2005).

Conclusion

The findings of the present study revealed that the consistency in the way employees view themselves vis-a-vis their perceptions of societal views of their occupation impacts important work-related outcomes. As stigma consciousness perceptions become greater, employees with high levels of CSE experienced decreased levels of occupational identification and meaningfulness of work and increased levels of organizational production deviant behavior because of the lack of consistency between their self-view and how they believe society views their work. Conversely, employees with low levels of CSE showed the opposite pattern of results. Hence, examinations of how employees respond to their stigmatized jobs necessitate inquiry into employees’ respective self-view.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Amanda Shantz is an Assistant Professor in the School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada. Dr Shantz’s research interests include work engagement, perceptions of human resource management practices and the self-concept. Her research has been published in a number of scholarly journals, including Human Resource Management, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. [Email: shantza@yorku.ca]

Jonathan E Booth is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. Dr Booth’s research interests include appraisal and coping responses to workplace victimization, employee volunteering and prosocial behaviors, and (in)consistent self- and environment-related information. His published works can be found in outlets such as Industrial and Labor Relations Review, British Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management. Dr Booth received his PhD in human resources and industrial relations at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, USA, specializing in organizational behavior and collective bargaining. Prior to pursuing his PhD, he was a consultant in information technology, change management and training development for firms such as Intel, Marriott International and Wells Fargo. [Email: j.booth@lse.ac.uk]

References

Aiken

West

(1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: SAGE.

Alvesson

Willmott

(2002) Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies 39(5): 619–644.

Ashforth

Kreiner

(1999) How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review 24(3): 413–434.

Ashforth

Kreiner

Clark

Fugate

(2007) Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 149–174.

Ashforth

Harrison

Corley

(2008) Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management 34(3): 325–374.

Autor

Dorn

(2009) The Growth of Low Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market. The National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 15150.

Baumeister

Tice

(1985) Self-esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality 53(3): 450–467.

Becker

(2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods 8(3): 274–289.

Bennett

Robinson

(1995) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal 38(2): 555–572.

10.

Bennett

Robinson

(2000) Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(3): 349–360.

11.

Berdahl

Moore

(2006) Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(2): 426–436.

12.

Bono

Colbert

(2005) Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology 58(1): 171–203.

13.

Bono

Judge

(2003) CSEs: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality 17(1): 5–18.

14.

Bowling

Wang

Tang

Kennedy

(2010) A comparison of general and work-specific measures of core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior 76(3): 559–566.

15.

Budhwar

Varma

Malhotra

Mukherjee

(2009) Insights into the Indian call centre industry: Can internal marketing help tackle high employee turnover? Journal of Services Marketing 23(5): 351–362.

16.

Bushman

Baumeister

(1998) Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(1): 219–229.

17.

Clarke

Brown

Hope-Hailey

(2009) Working identities? Antagonistic discursive resources and managerial identity. Human Relations 62(3): 323–352.

18.

Cohen

West

Aiken

(2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd edn). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Cohen

El-Sawad

(2007) Lived experiences of offshoring: An examination of UK and Indian financial service employees’ accounts of themselves and one another. Human Relations 60(8): 1235–1262.

20.

Crocker

Major

(1989) Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review 96(4): 608–630.

21.

Ronde

Swann

Jr (1998) Partner verification: Restoring shattered images of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(2): 374–382.

22.

Evans

(1985) A Monte-Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36(3): 305–323.

23.

Fernie

Metcalf

(1998) (Not) hanging on the Telephone: Payment Systems in the New Sweatshops. London, UK: Center for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

24.

Froot

(1989) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with cross-sectional dependence and heteroskedasticity in financial data. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 24(3): 333–355.

25.

Gonzales

Jensen

Kim

Kyvik-Nordas

(2012) Globalization of Services and Jobs. OECD: Policy Priorities for International Trade and Jobs.

26.

Goos

Manning

(2007) Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising polarization of work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics 89(1): 118–133.

27.

Grandey

Brauburger

(2002) The emotion regulation behind the customer service smile. In Lord

Klimoski

Kanfer

(eds) Emotions in the Workplace. San Francisco: John Wiley, 260–294.

28.

Grandey

Dickter

Sin

(2004) The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(3): 397–418.

29.

Grant

(2012) Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review 37: 589–615.

30.

Grant

Wrzesniewski

(2010) I won’t let you down … or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(1): 108–121.

31.

Greenbaum

Mawritz

Eissa

(2012) Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(2): 343–359.

32.

Hackman

Oldham

(1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2): 159–170.

33.

Hair

Jr Anderson

Tatham

Black

(1998) Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edn). New York: Macmillan.

34.

Hampson

Junor

(2010) Putting the process back in: Rethinking service sector skill. Work, Employment & Society 24(3): 526–545.

35.

Harris

Harvey

Kacmar

(2009) Do social stressors impact everyone equally? An examination of the moderating impact of core self-evaluations. Journal of Business Psychology 24: 153–164.

36.

Hiller

Hambrick

(2005) Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper) core self evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal 26(4): 297–319.

37.

Johnson

Rosen

Levy

(2008) Getting to the core of core self-evaluation: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29: 391–413.

38.

Judge

(2009) Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(1): 58–62.

39.

Judge

Hurst

(2007) Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1212–1227.

40.

Judge

Locke

Durham

(1997) The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior 19: 151–188.

41.

Judge

Erez

Bono

(1998a) The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance 11(2/3): 167–187.

42.

Judge

Locke

Durham

Kluger

(1998b) Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(1): 17–34.

43.

Judge

Bono

Locke

(2000) Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2): 237–249.

44.

Judge

Erez

Bono

Thoresen

(2003) The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology 56(2): 303–331.

45.

Judge

Hurst

Simon

(2009) Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(3): 742–755.

46.

Kacmar

Collins

Harris

Judge

(2009) Core self evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1572–1580.

47.

Kreiner

Ashforth

Sluss

(2006) Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work: Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organizational Science 17(5): 619–636.

48.

LeBreton

Senter

(2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods 11(4): 815–852.

49.

Lindsay

(2005) ‘McJobs’, ‘good jobs’ and skills: Job-seekers’ attitudes to low-skilled service work. Human Resource Management Journal 15(2): 50–65.

50.

Lips-Wiersma

Morris

(2009) Discriminating between ‘Meaningful work’ and the ‘Management of meaning’. Journal of Business Ethics 88(3): 491–511.

51.

Lloyd

Payne

(2009) Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Work, Employment & Society 23(4): 617–634.

52.

McClelland

Judd

(1993) Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin 114(2): 376–390.

53.

McNall

Masuda

Rhoades Shanock

Nicklin

(2011) Interaction of core self-evaluations and perceived organizational support on work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology 145(2): 133–149.

54.

Mael

Ashforth

(1994) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(2): 103–123.

55.

Major

O’Brien

(2005) The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology 56(1): 393–421.

56.

May

Gilson

Harter

(2004) The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77(1): 11–37.

57.

Moss

Salzman

Tilly

(2008) Under construction: The continuing evolution of job structures in call centers. Industrial Relations 47(2): 173–208.

58.

North

Swann

Jr (2009) Self-verification 360: Illuminating the light and dark sides. Self and Identity 8: 131–146.

59.

Pinel

(1999) Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(1): 114–128.

60.

Pinel

Paulin

(2005) Stigma consciousness at work. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27(4): 345–352.

61.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

Jeong-Yeon

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

62.

Posthuma

Campion

(2009) Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management 35(1): 158–188.

63.

Ritz

Shantz

Alfes

Arshoff

(2012) Who needs leaders the most? The interactive effect of leadership and core self-evaluations on commitment to change in the public sector. International Public Management Journal 15(2): 160–185.

64.

Rogers

(1993) Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin 13: 19–23 [Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints 3: 88–94].

65.

Rosopa

Schroeder

(2009) Core self-evaluations interact with cognitive ability to predict academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences 47: 1003–1006.

66.

Rothbaum

Weisz

Snyder

(1982) A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(1): 5–37.

67.

Schroeder

Josephs

Swann

Jr (2004) Foregoing lucrative employment to preserve low self-esteem. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas.

68.

Simsek

Heavey

Veiga

(2010) The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal 31(1): 110–119.

69.

Slay

Smith

(2011) Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human Relations 64(1): 85–107.

70.

Sliter

Jex

(2012) The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 121–139.

71.

Srivastava

Locke

Judge

Adams

(2010) Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior 77(2): 255–265.

72.

Swann

Jr (1987) Identity negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(6): 1038.

73.

Swann

Jr (2012) Self-verification theory. In: VanLang

Kruglanski

Higgins

(eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: SAGE, 23–42.

74.

Swann

Jr Pelham

(2002) Who wants out when the going gets good? Psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Journal of Self and Identity 1: 219–233.

75.

Swann

Jr Wenzlaff

Krull

Pelham

(1992a) The allure of negative feedback: Self-verification strivings among depressed persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 101(2): 293–306.

76.

Swann

Jr Hixon

Ronde

(1992b) Embracing the bitter “truth”: Negative self-concepts and marital commitment. Psychological Science 3(2): 118–121.

77.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Worchel

Austin

(eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole, 33–47.

78.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In: Worchel

Austin

(eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

79.

Taylor

Bain

(1999) An assembly line in the head: Work and employee relations in the call centre. Industrial Relations Journal 30(2): 101.

80.

Taylor

Bain

(2005) ‘India calling to the far away towns’: The call centre labour process and globalization. Work, Employment & Society 19(2): 261–282.

81.

Taylor

Mulvey

Hyman

Bain

(2002) Work organization, control and the experience of work in call centres. Work, Employment & Society 16(1): 133–150.

82.

Tsaousis

Nikolaou

Serdaris

Judge

(2007) Do the core self-evaluations moderate the relationship between subjective well-being and physical and psychological health? Personality and Individual Differences 42: 1441–1452.

83.

Van Maanen

Barley

(1984) Culture and control in organizations. In: Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press, 287–365.

84.

Wang

Liao

Zhan

Shi

(2011) Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 54(2): 312–334.

85.

Wang

Stroebe

Dovidio

(2012) Stigma consciousness and prejudice ambiguity: Can it be adaptive to perceive the world as biased? Personality and Individual Differences 53(3): 241–245.

86.

Wiesenfeld

Swann

Jr Brockner

Bartel

(2007) Is more fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal 50(5): 1235–1253.

87.

Wildes

(2005) Stigma in food service work: How it affects restaurant servers’ intention to stay or recommend a job to another. Tourism and Hospitality Research 5(3): 213–233.

88.

Williams

(2000) A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 56(2): 645–646.

89.

Zinn

(1968) Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.