Abstract
Millions of people around the world are engaged in work that is substantially focused on non-human animals, with enormous economic impacts on companies, industries, and even nations. However, little is known about how the presence of animals affects human beings at work and, therefore, we do not know how to modify or extend our theories of management to better understand this understudied domain.
Nonhuman animals . . . are a ubiquitous presence in human life. They feed us, clothe us, substitute for us in medical and psychological experiments, and support us emotionally in sickness and in health. They assist us in countless ways, from guiding the blind to detecting drugs, explosives, or impending seizures, and they are the focus of innumerable recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, birding, ecotourism, racing, riding, fighting, breeding and showing, rodeos, circuses, zoos, aquaria, and so on.
Numerous human occupations are substantially focused on work with non-human animals, and the economic importance of this type of work is massive. To cite just three examples, first, according to the 2015 IBISWorld Industry Report, the Veterinary Services industry in the United States generates US$36 billion of revenue and employs more than 350,000 people (IBISWorld, 2016). Second, a 2010 submission of the Australian Racing Board estimated that the thoroughbred racing industry was worth over $5 billion to the nation’s economy, and employed close to 230,000 Australians (Australian Racing Board, 2010). Third, the Brazilian Poultry Association (Brazilian Poultry Industry, 2016) reports that the industry employs 3.6 million people and accounts for 1.5% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), approximately US$35 billion. The total economic impact of these three forms of activity is approximately US$75 billion, which is greater than the GDP of two thirds of the countries on the planet.
Despite the significance of human-animal work (HAW), it has received almost no attention from scholars in the field of management 1 . If we could provide useful advice to the zookeepers and pet breeders, jockeys and cattle ranchers, dairy farmers and bee keepers, and many, many others who work with animals, we could have an impact on hundreds of millions of people, as well as the organizations, industries, and even nations that rely on these workers. To generate such advice, we must develop a better understanding of this vast and important domain of human work.
What Is HAW?
There are three aspects to our definition of HAW. First, our focus is on human work, which Nelsen and Barley (1997) define as an activity that is “ . . . viewed as neither a form of leisure nor a duty tied to what the culture construes as a non-work role, such as being a member of a family or a community” (p. 619). Second, HAW involves work that is substantially focused on what many scholars are careful to call “non-human animals” rather than work that is simply done in the presence of animals: Bringing a pet to work, for example, would not constitute HAW. Finally, the animals involved must be alive for at least some of their interactions with workers. Live animals (or animals that die as part of the work) are more likely to have an impact on human behavior than dead ones, and pragmatically, if one accepts that HAW includes working with dead animals, it would be challenging to define when a dead animal becomes another item altogether. Thus, we define HAW as human work that is substantially focused on live non-human animals.
How to Approach the Study of HAW
The “Near-Humanness” of Animals
Current management theories are based on contexts where humans work with other humans. However, for many reasons, humans behave differently with animals than they do with other people. Animals occupy a boundary position between human beings and the non-human world of nature (Labatut, Munro, & Desmond, 2016), so they are seen as embodying some characteristics of each (Serpell, 2009). In some ways, humans treat animals like other humans, anthropomorphizing them (Asquith, 2010; Dotson & Hyatt, 2008), considering them to be part of their families (Franklin, 2006; Power, 2008), and even risking their lives to save them (Heath, Kass, Beck, & Glickman, 2001). However, many societies have laws and norms that legitimize, or even require, people to behave differently toward animals than toward humans (Serpell, 1996): For instance, animal testing would largely cease if animals were afforded the same rights as humans. The “near-humanness” of animals is likely to have significant implications for the people who work with them. This variable may in turn be shaped by a number of factors, including contexts like national cultures and occupational codes, the nature of the work being done, and workers’ attitudes toward animals.
Tensions in HAW
Numerous researchers have documented the strong emotional bonds that form between animals and humans (Dotson & Hyatt, 2008; Knight & Herzog, 2009), and similar attachments can exist in work settings. For example, many zookeepers chose their professions because “a love for animals is, and always has been, a part of their basic nature” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009, p. 36). On the contrary, much HAW involves harming animals to extract value from them. These competing dimensions create tension—specifically, cognitive and emotional dissonance—that workers must navigate (Hamilton & McCabe, 2016). Tension is common to many human-animal relationships, as exemplified by the titles of related academic papers: a study of cattle ranching is titled “Negotiating Contradiction” (Ellis, 2007); an examination of social issues surrounding animals has the darkly humorous title “Having our Dogs and Eating Them Too” (Serpell, 2009); and a paper on animal shelter workers is titled “Loving them to Death” (Frommer & Arluke, 1999). Gaining insight into the nature of these tensions, how they affect workers, and how contextual factors make it easier or more difficult for workers to resolve tensions, will be important to the study of HAW. For example, humans in many different cultures use language to reduce the guilt experienced when they kill animals (Serpell, 1996). Stibbe (2001) explored this in the context of agribusiness, where producers use language like “housed” instead of “caged” to nullify the perception of animal suffering. A social constructivist lens may be particularly useful to help us explore these issues.
Characteristics of Animals
There are many characteristics of animals that may shape how humans work with them. One characteristic is their value. Some animals are extraordinarily expensive: For example, the Atlanta Zoo “leases” a pair of giant pandas from the Chinese government for US$2 million per year, and spends 5 times more money to house and feed these pandas than their next most expensive animal, an elephant (Goodman, 2006). In the case of the panda, when an animal costs an organization 30 times more per year than the zookeeper does, one can imagine that there is considerable pressure on the zookeepers to keep the animal in good health. Physical characteristics are also likely to be important. Working with large animals presents a number of challenges, such as the potential to be injured. Consider that horse jockeys face some of the highest risks for workplace injury and death (Hitchens, Hill, & Stover, 2013). Furthermore, animals that are aesthetically appealing, have endearing behavioral traits, or closely resemble humans may engender more attachment among workers.
Although the abovementioned issues are promising areas of study, there are likely many other aspects of HAW that differentiate it from other forms of human work and that merit empirical and theoretical attention. Furthermore, we also believe HAW can provide fertile ground for the study of other aspects of organizational behavior, including emotional and cognitive dissonance as aforementioned, as well as role conflict, social construction, emotional regulation, and meaningful work. With regard to the latter, zookeepers receive very low pay, yet often report high levels of meaningfulness in their work, a fact that may have inspired Bunderson and Thompson’s (2009) study of zookeepers, which generated new theory on occupational callings. Knight and Herzog (2009) invoked the sentiments of anthropologist Claude Levi Strauss when noting, “ . . . ‘Animals are good to think with.’ How we think about and treat animals shed light on general processes that govern human social cognition and behavior” (p. 459).
Conclusion
This inaugural Generative Curiosity piece calls attention to a unique, significant, and fascinating domain of human work: work that is substantially focused on animals. We have defined HAW, explored its scope and importance, and suggested some ways in which it might be studied. Given the enormous scope and impact of this type of work, it is hard to overstate the practical implications of such research. By improving our understanding of HAW, we could literally shape the fate of nations.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.