Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of management Review, 24(3), 413-434.
Summary
Work can become “dirty” through either physical, social, or moral taint. Physical taint includes jobs that deal with physical dirtiness (e.g., a janitor or chimney sweep), and jobs that are performed in dirty or dangerous conditions (e.g., a miner or soldier). Social taint refers to jobs that bring a worker in contact with a stigmatized group (e.g., a prison guard or an AIDS worker) or where the worker fills a servile position (e.g., a shoe shiner or a maid). Finally, moral taint includes jobs that are generally regarded as sinful (e.g., an exotic dancer or a psychic) or where workers routinely defy social norms (e.g., a bill collector is confrontational, a private investigator is intrusive). Finally, dirty work can either be low-prestige (most “dirty” occupations are low-prestige) or high-prestige (e.g., a dentist or a funeral director).
Dirty work is conceptualized as a group-level threat that causes strong cultures to form in reaction. Intergroup differentiation is emphasized. Occupational ideologies frequently develop (and with them, presumably, a certain predilection towards group unity). Physical isolation (e.g., a night watchman), high turnover, and competition can undercut the formation of strong culture.
“Groups often can sustain beliefs that individuals cannot.”
Dirty workers “recast” their work in three ways: reframing, recalibrating, and refocusing. Reframing, the strongest of the techniques, is accomplished through infusing, “where the stigma is imbued with positive value”, and neutralizing, “where the negative value of the stigma is negated.” Infusing happens when workers focus not on the “dirty particulars”, but on the “abstract and uplifting values associated with the larger purpose” (e.g., a public defender who “protect[s] the constitutional rights of all citizens”). Another infusing technique is “couch[ing] the occupational task in edifying ways” (e.g., a carpenter who sees themself as a craftsman), thereby enhancing their feelings of competency. Neutralizing techniques include “denial of responsibility,” “denial of injury,” and “denial of victim.” Recalibrating, the second strongest technique, involves minimizing negative job aspects and magnifying positive job aspects (e.g., dog catchers viewed calls regarding rabies as more important than calls regarding strays). Finally, refocusing involves shifting focus from stigmatized job attributes to non-stigmatized job attributes (e.g., a stripper who is “just doing it to pay for college”).
The authors focus on dirty work as a group issue. Future research could benefit from the study of dirty work as an individual issue. Such a framing would allow for the existence and influence of self-stigma (e.g., a stripper who feels shame and is not able to successfully or completely “recast” their job - see Thompson and Harred 1992). The cognitive dissonance associated with the occupation would most likely be high and a source of stress, which has other negative effects, especially upon mental health.
Application
Allowing stigma regarding dirty work to flourish can hurt the self-image and performance of dirty workers. Organizations that depend on “dirty work” can utilize this research to foster a strong culture amongst dirty workers, thereby combating the deleterious effects of stigma.
Comments powered by Disqus.