Business, Sauder School of
Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources, Division of
DSpace
UBCV
Frické, Pascale Haworth
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Extant research on how employees and audiences understand and evaluate occupations encounters multiple challenges, including a narrow focus on group-level processes within occupational communities that often neglects employees’ daily work experiences and a lack of theoretical and methodological diversity. This dissertation comprises three papers that address these challenges and offer novel insights into how employees assess and find meaning in their occupations, as well as how they are affected by others’ evaluations of their occupations. The first paper employs qualitative methods to examine how occupational ideologies shape employees’ understandings of their work. Management scholars traditionally conceptualize occupational ideologies as a positive resource for work meaningfulness. In contrast, this study reveals that occupational ideologies can be untethered from daily work realities, producing a disconnect that threatens, rather than enhances, employees’ experience of work meaningfulness. It further develops a process model to understand how employees negotiate this disconnect, thereby advancing the literatures on occupational ideologies and meaningful work. The subsequent papers pivot to exploring audience evaluations of occupations and their impact on employees. The literature on social evaluations of occupations concentrates on employees’ reactions to situations when a critical mass of outsiders share a negative or positive view of their occupation, and, in particular, whether employees accept or reject these evaluations. This approach overlooks two crucial details. First, employees’ work experiences are more directly shaped by explicit outsider evaluations than by overarching societal attitudes. Second, the impact of these evaluations extends beyond employees’ mere acceptance or rejection of them and their associated identity work. Consequently, the second paper develops two measurement scales for employees to quantify their exposure to enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE), creating a basis for novel discussions to arise about the effects of these explicit evaluations on employees. The third paper investigates the effects of NOE and POE on employees through a multi-wave field survey with a Canadian police union. By exploring the interplay between social anxiety with outsiders and employees’ acceptance and rejection of occupational evaluations as (in)appropriate, this paper clarifies the processes through which NOE and POE influence important employee behaviors.
THREE PAPERS EXAMINING HOW EMPLOYEES AND AUDIENCES UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE OCCUPATIONS by Pascale Haworth Frické M.S. Utrecht University, 2016 B.S. University of Arizona, 2011 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Business Administration - Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2024 © Pascale Haworth Frické, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Three Papers Examining How Employees and Audiences Understand and Evaluate Occupations submitted by Pascale Haworth Frické in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration - Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources Examining Committee: Danielle van Jaarsveld, Professor, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia Supervisor Sandra Robinson, Professor, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member Lingtao Yu, Assistant Professor, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member Jessica Tracy, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia University Examiner Dale Griffin, Professor, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia University Examiner Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Alicia Grandey, Professor, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Extant research on how employees and audiences understand and evaluate occupations encounters multiple challenges, including a narrow focus on group-level processes within occupational communities that often neglects employees’ daily work experiences and a lack of theoretical and methodological diversity. This dissertation comprises three papers that address these challenges and offer novel insights into how employees assess and find meaning in their occupations, as well as how they are affected by others’ evaluations of their occupations. The first paper employs qualitative methods to examine how occupational ideologies shape employees’ understandings of their work. Management scholars traditionally conceptualize occupational ideologies as a positive resource for work meaningfulness. In contrast, this study reveals that occupational ideologies can be untethered from daily work realities, producing a disconnect that threatens, rather than enhances, employees’ experience of work meaningfulness. It further develops a process model to understand how employees negotiate this disconnect, thereby advancing the literatures on occupational ideologies and meaningful work. The subsequent papers pivot to exploring audience evaluations of occupations and their impact on employees. The literature on social evaluations of occupations concentrates on employees’ reactions to situations when a critical mass of outsiders share a negative or positive view of their occupation, and, in particular, whether employees accept or reject these evaluations. This approach overlooks two crucial details. First, employees’ work experiences are more directly shaped by explicit outsider evaluations than by overarching societal attitudes. Second, the impact of these evaluations extends beyond employees’ mere acceptance or rejection of them and their associated identity work. iv Consequently, the second paper develops two measurement scales for employees to quantify their exposure to enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE), creating a basis for novel discussions to arise about the effects of these explicit evaluations on employees. The third paper investigates the effects of NOE and POE on employees through a multi-wave field survey with a Canadian police union. By exploring the interplay between social anxiety with outsiders and employees’ acceptance and rejection of occupational evaluations as (in)appropriate, this paper clarifies the processes through which NOE and POE influence important employee behaviors. v Lay Summary Occupations can play a crucial role in shaping a person’s identity and experience of work. At the same time, they are subject to evaluations by the wider community, including the general public, clients, and customers. In this three-paper dissertation, I consider various factors that shape employees’ experiences of their occupation, including the collective occupational ideologies occupational communities uphold, and outsiders’ evaluations of employees’ occupations. The first paper is a qualitative study of emergency medical service providers which examines how employees reconcile self-serving occupational ideologies with the realities of their daily work. The second paper develops measures for employees to quantify their experiences with outsiders’ negative and positive occupational evaluations. The third paper, a three-wave field survey of a police union, adopts a social anxiety perspective to examine how employees are affected by their experiences with occupational evaluations. vi Preface My first paper (chapter two) is based on work conducted with Dr. Natalya Alonso and Dr. Pat Reilly. I identified and designed the research program, approved by UBC’s behavioural ethics board under applications H18-02701 and H21-03890. I recruited all participants, collected all data, and analyzed and theorized around the primary data. We contributed equally to higher order coding, theorizing, and the write-up. Dr. Natalya Alonso and Dr. Pat Reilly will support me in submitting a version of this study to a top-tier management outlet. My second paper (chapter three) is a scale development paper, and my third paper (chapter four) is a survey paper. I identified and designed all aspects of the qualitative and quantitative studies these papers involve, approved by UBC’s behavioural ethics board under applications H20-00503 and H21-03883. This included theorizing, model construction, participant recruitment, data collection, and data analysis. I am working with Dr. Danielle van Jaarsveld, Dr. David Walker, and Dr. Lingtao Yu as coauthors to submit a journal article combining elements of these two papers to a top-tier management outlet. vii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................ v Preface ...................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures..........................................................................................................................xii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xiii Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Dissertation overview .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Literature review ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Occupations and employee identity ......................................................................3 1.2.2 The protective role of occupational socialization ..................................................5 1.3 Broad contributions to the literature ............................................................................. 6 Chapter 2: Living the Dream? Negotiating an Occupational Ideology-Reality Disconnect ... 9 2.1 Theoretical foundations ............................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 Meaningful work ................................................................................................ 13 2.1.2 Occupational ideologies ..................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 An occupational ideology–reality disconnect...................................................... 17 2.2 Methods..................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.1 Research context ................................................................................................ 20 2.2.2 Data collection ................................................................................................... 21 viii 2.2.3 Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 23 2.3 Findings..................................................................................................................... 28 2.3.1 The occupational ideology of the EMS ............................................................... 28 2.3.2 The occupational reality of the EMS .................................................................. 35 2.3.3 Experiencing an occupational ideology–reality disconnect ................................. 37 2.3.4 Negotiating an occupational ideology–reality disconnect ................................... 41 2.3.5 Understanding the occupational ideology personalization process ...................... 51 2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 54 2.4.1 Theoretical contributions .................................................................................... 55 2.4.2 Practical implications ......................................................................................... 58 2.4.3 Limitations and future research directions .......................................................... 59 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 62 Chapter 3: Measuring Employee Experiences with Occupational Evaluations ................... 63 3.1 Theoretical foundations ............................................................................................. 64 3.2 Enacted occupational evaluations............................................................................... 67 3.2.1 The evaluation component of enacted occupational evaluations ......................... 67 3.2.2 The behavioral component of enacted occupational evaluations ......................... 68 3.2.3 The valence of enacted occupational evaluations ................................................ 69 3.3 The need for a scale to measure experiences with enacted occupational evaluations ... 69 3.4 Scale development phases and findings...................................................................... 70 3.4.1 Phase I: Two qualitative pilot studies of occupational evaluations ...................... 71 3.4.2 Phase II: Item generation and reduction .............................................................. 82 3.4.3 Phase III: Psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales .......................... 90 ix 3.4.4 Phase IV: Nomological network and convergent and discriminant validity ......... 94 3.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 99 3.5.1 Theoretical and practical contributions ............................................................... 99 3.5.2 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 101 3.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 104 Chapter 4: A Social Anxiety Lens on How Occupational Evaluations Affect Employees .. 105 4.1 Theoretical foundations and hypotheses ................................................................... 111 4.1.1 Occupations and their evaluation ...................................................................... 111 4.1.2 Employee responses to their occupation’s evaluation: A traditional identity perspective ...................................................................................................................... 112 4.1.3 A brief introduction to social anxiety ............................................................... 116 4.1.4 Occupational evaluation experiences and social anxiety with outsiders ............ 117 4.1.5 Social anxiety with outsiders and employee (dis)affiliative behaviors ............... 119 4.2 Methods................................................................................................................... 125 4.3 Field research studies and findings ........................................................................... 128 4.3.1 In-depth exploratory interviews ........................................................................ 130 4.3.2 Multi-wave field survey ................................................................................... 134 4.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 154 4.4.1 Theoretical contributions .................................................................................. 156 4.4.2 Practical implications ....................................................................................... 160 4.4.3 Limitations and future directions ...................................................................... 162 4.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 164 Chapter 5: Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 166 x 5.1 Summary of research ............................................................................................... 166 5.2 Managerial implications........................................................................................... 168 5.3 Final remarks ........................................................................................................... 170 References.............................................................................................................................. 171 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 187 Appendix A EMS interview participant inventory (chapter 2) ............................................. 187 Appendix B EMS interview guide (chapter 2) ..................................................................... 188 Appendix C Policing interview participant inventory (chapter 3 and chapter 4) ................... 189 Appendix D Policing exploratory interview guide (chapter 3 and chapter 4) ........................ 191 Appendix E Summary of the NOE item reduction phases and results (chapter 3) ................. 192 Appendix F Summary of the POE item reduction phases and results (chapter 3) .................. 194 xi List of Tables Table 2.1 The occupational ideology internalization process ..................................................... 32 Table 2.2 Employee experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect ........................ 38 Table 2.3 Negotiating an occupational ideology–reality disconnect ........................................... 42 Table 2.4 Workplace experiences contributing to occupational ideology personalization ........... 52 Table 3.1 Policing sample NOE & POE exemplars ................................................................... 75 Table 3.2 Cross-occupational NOE & POE exemplars............................................................... 79 Table 3.3 NOE and POE orbiting constructs .............................................................................. 85 Table 3.4 NOE and POE definitional correspondence ratings .................................................... 89 Table 3.5 Nomological network correlations ............................................................................. 98 Table 4.1 Full research process and samples used .................................................................... 127 Table 4.2 The NOE and POE scales ........................................................................................ 128 Table 4.3 Representative quotes from exploratory qualitative interviews with police officers .. 132 Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics and correlations ...................................................................... 141 Table 4.5 Primary analysis direct and indirect effects .............................................................. 143 Table 4.6 Supplemental analysis direct effects......................................................................... 150 Table 4.7 Supplemental analysis indirect effects...................................................................... 151 xii List of Figures Figure 2.1 The occupational ideology–reality disconnect process .............................................. 27 Figure 4.1 Theoretical model ................................................................................................... 109 Figure 4.2 Primary analysis direct effects ................................................................................ 142 Figure 4.3 Supplemental analysis direct effects ....................................................................... 149 xiii Acknowledgements First, I am grateful to all the informants and respondents who participated in my research, as well as the ongoing support provided by my industry partner. Second, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor and dissertation chair, Danielle van Jaarsveld, for her unwavering support and invaluable guidance during this journey. Her expertise and insights have been pivotal in shaping this dissertation, and I am incredibly thankful for her mentorship. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my committee members, Dr. Sandra Robinson, Dr. Alicia Grandey, and Dr. Lingtao Yu for their constructive feedback which as greatly enriched this work. Additionally, I appreciate the unwavering support of the entire UBC OBHR faculty in my career development, and I’d like to thank my fellow OBHR PhD students, including Natalya, Barnini, Rui, Brad, Gabrielle, Ryan, Vivian, and Hamid, for their camaraderie and support. Various institutions have also been instrumental in supporting and funding my research endeavors. This research was conducted under the Research Training Award grant from WorkSafeBC, fostering the development of occupational health and safety research expertise in British Columbia. I gratefully acknowledge the support of WorkSafeBC in enabling me to pursue doctoral research training to improve workplace health and safety. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), a Canadian federal research-funding agency that encourages post-secondary research and training in the humanities and social sciences, also provided an Insights Development Grant supporting this research. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the SSHRC in enabling me to further this research. Additionally, I thank the UBC Sauder School of Business and the Faculty of Management at UBC Okanagan for providing financial support for this research, as well as the SHRM Foundation and the HR Division of the Academy of Management for the SHRM Foundation Dissertation Grant recognizing my work. xiv Dedication To my family, thank you for enriching my life in countless way and for “putting academia in my blood”—You are integral to this accomplishment. To my daughter, who is due next month—Let this success be a testament to what you are capable of when you set your mind to it. And to Johannes, it’s always been you. Finally, to incredible Vancouver. I am profoundly grateful for my network and “Van fam” here, and for the unwavering support throughout this journey. I also extend a special appreciation to Vancouver’s remarkable Seawall. Its presence has been a constant companion, accompanying me on countless walks and runs, and nurturing my physical and mental well-being throughout this process. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction “An increased integration of an occupational lens in the domain of organizational psychology and behavior should be viewed by scholars as a ‘must do’ and not simply a ‘nice to do.’” (Dierdorff, 2019, p. 408) Occupations are pivotal to individuals’ work lives, yet the field of Organizational Behavior has “failed to keep pace with the rising salience of occupational and professional (as opposed to organizational) dynamics in work” (Anteby et al., 2016, p. 183; see also Dierdorff, 2019). To help remedy this, I advance three papers that examine (a) how employees and audiences—those who evaluate an occupation and/or consume its services—understand and evaluate occupations, and (b) how these understandings and evaluations have repercussions for employees’ work experiences. These papers broadly enrich the literature on how employees experience and are affected by their occupations, as well as contribute to various other literatures that are reviewed individually in each chapter. 1.1 Dissertation overview In my first paper (chapter two), I focus on how employees understand their own occupations, and how these understandings affect their work experiences. Specifically, adopting qualitative methods, I show that employees’ understandings of their work are shaped by the higher-level occupational ideologies their occupational community supports, that is, the systems of beliefs, shared by occupational members, that define what the occupation does and why it matters. I argue that this situation can be problematic, because occupational ideologies, by their very nature, tend to be self-serving (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Kreiner et al., 2006). As a result, employees often come to see their work “through rose-colored glasses,” only to be confronted with daily work realities that fail to meet their idealized expectations and imperil their experience of work meaningfulness. My findings challenge the predominant view 2 among management scholars (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009) that employees benefit from their occupational community’s shared ideology, and contribute primarily to the management literatures on (a) occupational ideologies, much of which is embedded in the occupational stigma literature, and (b) meaningful work. In my second paper (chapter three) and third paper (chapter four), I focus on how audiences evaluate occupations, and how their outward expressions of these evaluations affect employees’ work experiences. Although it is commonplace for individuals to outwardly express their evaluations of certain occupations, how this behavior influences employees remains poorly understood. Specifically, in my second paper, I develop and validate two measurement scales for employees to report the frequency of their experiences with negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). In addition to examining the psychometric properties of the measures, I place NOE and POE in a nomological network by establishing their relationships with, and differences from, related constructs. Enabling scholars to measure employee experiences with occupational evaluations facilitates future studies into the effects of these evaluations on employees, and consequently, the development of strategies to help employees manage them. In my third paper, I continue the study of occupational evaluations in a multi-wave field survey. In so doing, I draw on the self-presentational theory of social anxiety (Schlenker & Leary, 1982) to explain the process whereby more frequent experiences with NOE heighten employees’ social anxiety with occupational “outsiders” (i.e., non-members), while, conversely, more frequent experiences with POE reduce this anxiety. Through these anxiety effects, I theorize and find that employees’ experiences with NOE and POE have indirect effects on three important (dis)affiliative behaviors. This research presents a novel perspective on the impact of 3 occupational evaluations on employees, while also broadening existing discussions about whether employees generally internalize or reject these evaluations and the consequent effects on their behavior. Further, the findings enrich the nascent management literature on employees’ experiences with social anxiety and yield practical insights that can help managers reduce the harmful consequences of NOE and maximize the positive benefits of POE. 1.2 Literature review In the following section, I briefly review research on occupations and how employees understand and internalize them. I follow this review with a synopsis of the key oversights within this literature that my papers address. Other areas of the management literature that my papers uniquely contribute to are reviewed individually in each chapter, as each chapter is designed to be read as a stand-alone paper with its own introduction, theoretical foundations, methods, and discussion sections. For this reason, there is some overlap in content between the three papers, particularly the second and third papers (Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, respectively). 1.2.1 Occupations and employee identity Occupations are “socially constructed entities that include: (i) a category of work; (ii) the actors understood—either by themselves or others—as members and practitioners of this work; (iii) the actions enacting the role of occupational members; and (iv) the structural and cultural systems upholding the occupation” (Anteby et al., 2016, p. 187). They encompass traditionally recognized professions and other career tracks likewise characterized by specialized knowledge and well-defined standards of behavior (Leavitt et al., 2012). Simply put, occupations refer to the category of work an individual performs (e.g., doctor, lawyer, journalist, restaurant waiter, secretary), which, for some individuals, moves with them between organizations as a part of a career (e.g., Reid & Ramarajan, 2022). 4 Occupations can serve as a highly salient basis for constructing a sense of self (Ashforth et al., 2013; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Conroy et al., 2017; Jiang & Wrzesniewski, 2023). Indeed, social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) explains that individuals’ self-definitions (i.e., their identities) are often associated with their group memberships, including the occupation to which they belong. An individual’s occupational or professional identity encompasses “self-defining beliefs, values, and assumptions about what it means to be a member of an occupational group,” and can significantly guide their actions as an employee (DiBenigno, 2022, p. 866). One of the reasons why some employees may come to strongly define themselves in terms of their occupation is because they experience socialization. During employee socialization, occupational communities (i.e., groups of individuals who share a common occupation) and experienced members of the occupation exert significant normative and coercive influence to assist novice members in developing identities that align with the goals and work requirements of their respective occupation (H. S. Becker et al., 1961; Konner, M., 1988; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). An employee’s development and internalization of their occupational identity predominantly occurs through socialization and their active practice of the work (DiBenigno, 2022), which often involves observing and emulating experienced professionals, particularly during an apprenticeship period (Elliott, 1972; Ibarra, 1999; Pratt et al., 2006). Additionally, employees can experience anticipatory socialization, where they learn about the expectations, norms, values, and culture associated with a particular occupation before actually becoming a part of it (Merton, 1957). 5 1.2.2 The protective role of occupational socialization Much of the management literature highlights how socialization processes protect employees from experiencing problems within their chosen fields of work, such as early violations of their expectations of the work or negative evaluations of their work from audiences. For instance, Pratt, Rockmann, and Kaufmann (2006) delve into the process by which socialization during an apprenticeship period enables new members to revise and adapt their novice identities and anticipatory beliefs in response to early experiences that challenge these initial expectations. Similarly, occupational communities teach employees strategies to maintain a positive sense of self, even when the work is commonly perceived by society as physically, socially, or morally “tainted” (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). A large stream of this research shows how occupational communities socialize employees into occupational ideologies, or shared systems of beliefs, that “reframe, recalibrate, and refocus the meaning of the work” (Kreiner et al., 2006, p. 627). Occupational ideologies that reframe the work imbue it with positive value, or negate its negative value (Dick, 2005; Jensen, 2017; Johnston & Hodge, 2014). Sex workers, for example, may reframe the purpose of their work as providing a therapeutic and/or educational service (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999), while zookeepers situate the purpose of their work within an ideology of wildlife conservation (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Occupational ideologies that recalibrate the work minimize ostensibly large, but undesirable aspects of the work, or emphasize ostensibly small but desirable aspects of the work (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Hamilton et al., 2019; Kreiner et al., 2006). Exterminators, for example, may emphasize the detailed knowledge of entomology required to perform pest control work (Ashforth et al., 2007). Occupational ideologies that refocus the work shift attention toward the 6 nonstigmatized aspects of the work (Grandy & Mavin, 2012; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Garbage collectors, for example, have been found to refocus on their pay and flexible work hours (E. J. Walsh, 1975), while exotic dancers attend to the confidence they acquire through physical fitness and appearance (Grandy, 2008). Aside from ideological techniques, employees also learn “social weighting” strategies to maintain a positive sense of self, for example, to draw social comparisons with groups perceived to be inferior and lend more credence to outsiders who view the occupation favorably (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Dutton et al., 2016; Petriglieri, 2011; Slutskaya et al., 2016; Sykes & Matza, 1957). 1.3 Broad contributions to the literature This dissertation enriches the literature on how employees experience and are affected by their occupations, in addition to contributing to various other literatures that are reviewed individually in each chapter. In my first qualitative paper, I more closely examine how occupational ideologies—a core theoretical concept invoked by researchers interested in the social evaluation of occupations—affect employees. Much theorizing positions occupational ideologies as a resource enabling employees to maintain positive self-definitions and to see their work as meaningful, even when it is evaluated negatively by audiences. I suggest, however, that there may be unforeseen consequences that stem from occupational communities’ development of strong occupational ideologies that “reframe,” “recalibrate,” and “refocus” the meaning of the work. Specifically, through a grounded theory study of EMS (Emergency Medical Services) providers, I recast occupational ideologies as a double-edged sword. While occupational ideologies may help counter employees’ experience of negative evaluations of their work, they also can distort members’ understandings of their work, in turn threatening employees’ experience of work 7 meaningfulness and altering their workplace behavior. This theorizing also challenges the idea that socialization helps employees to shed their unrealistic expectations of the work (Pratt et al., 2006), suggesting, rather, that socialization can contribute to employees’ unrealistic expectations of their work. In my second and third papers, I more closely examine how occupational evaluations are enacted and the effects of these enactments on employees. A central theme in the literature is that employees are generally resilient to internalizing audiences’ negative occupational evaluations, instead rejecting them as inappropriate judgements of their occupation. Said differently, employees are unlikely to form negative self-views or unfavorable perceptions of their work as a result of these evaluations, because they are socialized into self-serving occupational ideologies and learn defense tactics to buffer these evaluations. However, research on social evaluations of occupations has traditionally concentrated on examining how socially devalued occupational communities handle broad, societal level disapproval of their work. This macro-level emphasis has resulted in less attention given to the impact on employees of members of society actually expressing either disapproval or approval of occupations. Neglecting these micro-level processes hampers our comprehension of how an employee’s occupational membership and the social evaluation of their occupation influence them. Consequently, my second paper develops the tools for employees to report the frequency of their experiences with negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). In generating concise psychometrically sound NOE and POE measures, I offer researchers and practitioners innovative avenues for investigating employees’ experiences with their occupation’s evaluation, paving the way for fresh insights. 8 Building directly on this foundation, my third paper delivers some of these anticipated fresh insights. Specifically, I argue that the influence of occupational evaluations on employees extends beyond whether employees internalize or reject these evaluations as (in)appropriate judgements of their occupation. Employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations, regardless of whether they are internalized, have the potential to shape their expectations of how outsiders will perceive and treat them, either exacerbating or alleviating social anxiety. Exploring this premise, I clarify the pathways from negative and positive occupational evaluations to important employee (dis)affiliative behaviors, examining both the roles of social anxiety with outsiders and employees’ internalization/rejection of occupational evaluations as (in)appropriate judgements of their occupation. In so doing, my paper advances a novel conversation about social anxiety, as well as deepens the ongoing academic discussion regarding whether employees generally internalize or reject NOE and POE and the resulting implications for their behavior. Furthermore, both my second paper and third paper highlight the impact of positive occupational evaluations on employees. To date, the effects of audiences’ favorable perceptions of occupations have garnered comparatively less scholarly attention than the impact of negative views. Having reviewed my broad contributions to the literature, I now proceed to the three papers included in this dissertation (chapters two through four). The chapters share some overlap in content, as I designed each chapter to be read as a stand-alone paper with its own introduction, theoretical foundations, methods, and discussion sections. 9 Chapter 2: Living the Dream? Negotiating an Occupational Ideology-Reality Disconnect “Before I started working, I thought people called 911 for actual emergencies. And people don’t… I didn’t really realize that people call for the most mundane, ignorant shit.” - Michael, primary care paramedic, research informant Many occupational communities are guided by an occupational ideology, a shared system of beliefs specifying “what the occupation does and why it matters” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 42; see also Dierdorff, 2019). These occupational ideologies provide members a basis to explain and justify the importance of their work (Ashforth et al., 2007; Dressel & Petersen, 1982; Kreiner et al., 2006). Individual employees often come to espouse these shared beliefs as their own and apply them to assign meaningfulness to their work (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Perceiving one’s work to be meaningful, that is, worthy or valuable (Lepisto, 2022; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017), has important implications for well-being and identity construction (Cardador & Pratt, 2018; Granger et al., 2022; Jiang, 2021; Jiang & Wrzesniewski, 2023; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989), and can increase job engagement, satisfaction, and performance (Grant, 2008; Kahn, 1990). Thus, the predominant view among management scholars is that employees benefit from their occupational community’s shared ideology, as it provides a common referent from which to develop accounts to endow their work with meaningfulness. We challenge this perspective by proposing that the occupational ideology embraced by a given occupational community can be disconnected from the everyday realities of the work, possibly imperiling employees’ experience of work meaningfulness. Occupational ideologies, by their very nature, tend to be self-serving. That is, they often “reframe,” “recalibrate,” and 10 “refocus” the meaning of the work to enhance its positive value (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). In so doing, they are thought to help employees experience their work as more meaningful than they otherwise would have (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Kreiner et al., 2006). For these same reasons, we argue that shared occupational ideologies can become disconnected from the daily realities of the work. Consequently, employees’ ability to draw on, enact, and affirm their occupational ideology through their daily work may be frustrated, threatening the perceived meaningfulness of their work. In other words, employees may be unable to reconcile the shared occupational ideology guiding their work with what they actually do on a day-to-day basis, thus presenting them with an occupational ideology–reality disconnect to negotiate. There is evidence of such disconnects in a number of occupations. The firefighting community defines its work as finding and rescuing individuals from burning buildings (Tracy & Scott, 2006), extinguishing fires, and responding to emergencies (Desmond, 2007). However, firefighters must grapple with the reality that only a small portion of their calls involve actual fires, while even fewer entail running into a burning building (Pratt et al., 2019; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Lawyers celebrate an occupational ideology centered on being the “gatekeepers of justice… particularly through formal legal procedures such as litigation” (Sandefur, 2015, p. 909), but most civil cases never reach a courtroom and much of lawyers’ time is spent advising clients and doing preparatory paperwork (Vough et al., 2013). Such disconnects invite the following two interrelated research questions: (1) How do employees negotiate a disconnect between the shared occupational ideology guiding their work—that is, the occupational ideology collectively celebrated by their occupational community—and the realities of their daily work?; 11 and (2) What implications, if any, does this occupational ideology–reality disconnect have for employees’ work experiences? Drawing on 35 qualitative interviews with emergency medical service providers (i.e., emergency medical technicians, paramedics), we investigate how employees negotiate a disconnect between the shared occupational ideology and the realities of their daily work. Our data reveal that the shared occupational ideology of the emergency medical services (EMS) emphasizes helping individuals through providing urgent medical treatment to those facing threats to life and limb. Yet, much EMS work encompasses “low-acuity” tasks, tasks that require relatively little or no medical intervention or concern psychological, rather than physical, ailments. Our interviews reveal how EMS providers perceive and negotiate this occupational ideology–reality disconnect, navigating (1) the ideal of saving lives by fielding urgent medical emergencies, and (2) the recurring reality of treating patients with exceedingly minor or non-existent injuries, transporting people to the hospital for routine care, and dealing with chronically malingering clients. To briefly review the findings, our empirical case suggests that an occupational ideology–reality disconnect can result in dissonant task experiences, the perception that one’s work in the moment is misaligned with the nature and necessity of one’s work as a whole. For many employees, dissonant task experiences are destabilizing in and of themselves. Through repetition, however, they can threaten work meaningfulness. Our data indicate that dissonant task experiences and the corresponding threat to work meaningfulness occur because employees have internalized, through socialization (Van Maanen, 1976, 1978), an occupational ideology that ignores or devalues the everyday realities of the role in favor of overly idealized, unrealistic, 12 and/or incomplete depictions of the work and why it matters. This situation invites tension as employees perform their daily work. We identify three overarching approaches employees use to negotiate an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. These approaches entail (1) changing how one thinks about the task, (2) changing, or attempting to change, one’s task environment, or (3) changing how one thinks about the occupation. The organizational implications of these approaches are significant, influencing the work that employees choose to perform and how they perform this work. Specifically, we find that some of these approaches intended to restore employees’ experience of work meaningfulness can involve behaviors that are problematic for employees and their employers (e.g., performing work in ways that violate organizational and occupational standards, physically withdrawing from work, pursuing certain types of work despite negative physical and financial costs). Being sensitized to the role of shared occupational ideologies in explaining these adverse workplace behaviors is the first step toward attenuating these impacts. Through these findings, we develop a process model explaining how occupational ideology–reality disconnects affect and are negotiated by employees, and, in so doing, make three key theoretical contributions. First, we extend contemporary management research that largely conceptualizes occupational ideologies as a positive source of work meaningfulness (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2013, 2014; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). In contrast to this research—often situated in the “dirty work” literature—we clarify how occupational ideologies can also threaten work meaningfulness. This recasts occupational ideologies as a double-edged sword that can shape and constrain employees’ experience of work meaningfulness. Second, our theorizing contributes to the meaningful work literature by offering a novel explanation of why individuals struggle to find meaningfulness in their daily work. Specifically, we reveal that 13 employees can experience a threat to work meaningfulness when they are required to perform tasks that conflict with their socialized beliefs concerning the nature and necessity of their work, imparted by the shared occupational ideology. These findings enrich our understanding of the social and cultural forces shaping how individuals interpret the meaningfulness of their work; a “particularly fruitful avenue” for advancing the study of meaningful work (Rosso et al., 2010, p. 118). Third, our analytical focus on how individuals negotiate an occupational ideology–reality disconnect offers novel insights into how individuals adopt, employ, and sometimes personalize “shared representations” (Lepisto, 2022, p. 1327), or “culturally derived accounts” (Lepisto & Pratt, 2017, p. 107) of work meaningfulness—such as an occupational ideology—as they strive to construct accounts of their work as worthy or valuable. 2.1 Theoretical foundations 2.1.1 Meaningful work Work is a central domain of life and can be an important source of meaningfulness and identity for individuals (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Baum & Stewart, 1990; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Scholars increasingly recognize that many employees perform their work not only for economic or career advancement reasons, but also to inspire a sense of meaningfulness in their lives (Berg et al., 2010; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003), to fulfill core personal values (Judge & Bretz, 1992), and as a vehicle through which to ground and express their sense of self (Bloom et al., 2021; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). Although research interest in the “dark side” of meaningful work is growing (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; de Rond & Lok, 2016; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2012; Schabram & Maitlis, 2017), scholars generally associate the experience of work as “meaningful” with positive employee and organizational outcomes, such as increased employee well-being (Granger et al., 2022), personal 14 engagement at work (Kahn, 1990; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012), job satisfaction (Steger et al., 2012), and motivation and attachment to work (May et al., 2004). Given the associated benefits, a vibrant stream of management research has focused on the question of what makes work meaningful (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Some scholars suggest that work is experienced as meaningful when it fulfils fundamental human needs, such as authenticity, self-efficacy, self-esteem, purpose, and belongingness (see Rosso et al., 2010 for a review of these mechanisms). Both organizations and individual employees can draw on these mechanisms to “enrich” work and enhance its meaningfulness through, for example, job design (e.g., Grant, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) or by shifting the cognitive, relational, and/or task boundaries of the work (e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). A complementary perspective emphasizes that realizing the meaningfulness of one’s work is based on individuals’ construction of accounts that ascribe value to, or justify, the work (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Lepisto, 2022; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010; Schabram & Maitlis, 2017; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). These accounts answer the question, “why is my work worth doing?” (Lepisto & Pratt, 2017). Through this lens, as Lepisto and Pratt (2017, p. 108) observe, “the value or worth of individuals’ work is not predetermined, known, or easily accounted for. Worth is not inherent in the nature of the tasks one performs. Rather, it is ‘up for grabs’ and must be interpreted and constructed.” The cultural contexts in which a person is embedded and the shared systems of beliefs—the ideologies—that these cultures support are sources from which employees can “grab,” and thereafter mold, accounts of the value or worth of their work (R. F. Baumeister, 1991; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). As the nature of work evolves and many individuals 15 become increasingly untethered from single organizations (Anteby et al., 2016; Tolbert, 1991), occupation-based systems of beliefs may become a more influential cultural source of work meaningfulness. By specifying the nature and necessity of the work, occupational ideologies present a ready-made answer to the question, “why is my work worth doing?” 2.1.2 Occupational ideologies The concept of ideology has deep roots in the management literature (Beyer et al., 1988; Rogers & Berg, 1961; Simons & Ingram, 1997; Starbuck, 1982; Weiss & Miller, 1987), inspiring management scholarship on occupational ideology. Employees are often embedded in occupations, many of which have structural and cultural systems that help uphold the occupation and aid occupational insiders and outsiders in understanding the category of the work, the practitioners of this work, and the actions that occupational members enact (Anteby et al., 2016). Occupational ideologies, shared “systems of beliefs that provide a means for interpreting and understanding what the occupation does and why it matters” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 421), are a key component of an occupation’s structural and cultural systems (Ashforth et al., 2007, 2017; Trice & Beyer, 1984). Occupational ideologies emerge from occupational insiders defining, justifying, and often projecting to occupational outsiders what they do and why it matters (Ashforth et al., 2007). As these interpretations are articulated, they not only foster a shared cluster of normatively imbued beliefs among the occupational community and its members but also undergo a process of reification by outsiders, embedding these ideologies within the larger cultural milieu rather than confining them to individual perceptions (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bunderson, 2001; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Starbuck, 1982). Ideologies manifest in “ideological elements”—“beliefs, theories, worldviews, values, goals, visions, expectations, plans, myths, stories, rituals, symbols 16 and terminology” (Starbuck, 1982, p. 11)—for individuals to draw on to construct accounts for the value or worth of their work. Importantly, an ideology and its ideological elements tend to be coherent, meaning that they are logically related and harmonious (Starbuck, 1982). This coherence enables a given occupational ideology to operate both as a shared referent that binds members of a community and a relatively rigid sensemaking device for employees to rationalize and attach meaningfulness to their work (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). However, although ideologies exert a strong downward influence on those acting under them (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Starbuck, 1982; Swidler, 1986), the extent to which an ideology is incorporated into one’s personal belief system likely differs from person to person (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bryan, 1966; Dunbar et al., 1982). Indeed, individuals tend to internalize the shared occupational ideology guiding their work to varying degrees (Bryan, 1966). Much of the current literature on the functioning of occupational ideologies is based on two premises. First, occupational ideologies are grounded in a shared definition of purpose, enabling employees to situate the meaningfulness of their work (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Based on Blau’s (1964) concept of “ideological rewards,” this approach emphasizes that employees’ “psychological contract” with their employing organization often involves the tacit agreement that their work satisfies an espoused cause (Bunderson, 2001; Kim et al., 2018; Rousseau, 1995, 2001). Thus, for many employees, work is not reducible simply to the instrumental qualities of the tasks performed. Rather, it is infused with an understanding of the work’s broader impacts and missions in the service of others. The impression of furthering the achievement of common ideals, even in a small way, can enable individuals to ascertain the meaningfulness of their work (Carton, 2017; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010). 17 Accordingly, occupational ideologies can help justify the work’s meaningfulness, by, for example, articulating how it serves others. Second, another research stream situates occupational ideologies as a resource for employees to reconcile the possibly discreditable aspects of their work. For instance, “dirty work” occupations (i.e., occupations that society tends to view as physically, socially, or morally “tainted”) are often associated with strong occupational ideologies that “reframe,” “recalibrate,” and “refocus” the meaning of the work (Ashforth et al., 2007, 2017; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014; Kreiner et al., 2006). As an example, among male strippers, the case for occupational significance derives from an ideology of providing equal rights, a secure environment, and a sexual outlet for women, while simultaneously offering commercial entertainment (Dressel & Petersen, 1982). Similarly, the occupation of zookeeping supports a shared ideology of wildlife conservation and global biodiversity, in part to counter the taint of cleaning animal enclosures and feeding entrapped animals (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Grazian, 2015). As another example, Bosmans et al. (2016) illustrate how domestic workers foster an occupational ideology that defines their role as “carers” rather than cleaners. These occupational ideologies maintained by employees in a wide variety of “dirty work” occupations are thought to help employees affirm and experience the value or worth of their work, even in the face of actual or potential denigration from occupational outsiders regarding the stigma associated with it. Yet, the idealized nature of occupational ideologies that renders them useful for countering stigma may also lead employees to feel a disconnect when confronting the realities of their daily work. 2.1.3 An occupational ideology–reality disconnect Occupational ideologies, by their very nature, tend to be self-serving, edifying rather than disparaging the occupational group (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). They 18 inherently cast occupations in a favorable light—one that is often not fully grounded in reality (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). For example, while exploring occupational ideology, Dobrowolski (1966, pp. 92–98) recognized that occupational communities tend to glorify their own work and lifestyle, sometimes to such a degree that “a loss of the sense of reality” occurs. Similarly, Dressel and Petersen (1982, p. 401) note that occupational ideologies “may not accurately conform to established fact,” but nevertheless, are often believed by employees. Although occupational ideologies tend to be loosely connected to actual practice, they are often reified through employee socialization processes (e.g., Bunderson, 2001; Dressel & Petersen, 1982), in which an occupational community imparts to its members a “particular set of shared cultural values, norms, and worldviews” (Anteby et al., 2016, pp. 189–190). During this time, neophytes are conditioned to understand and embody what their work entails—including the “task area” that bounds the occupational jurisdiction, the focal audiences that the work is enacted with, and why the work is worthy or valuable (Anteby et al., 2016; Pratt et al., 2019; Reid & Ramarajan, 2022; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Arguably, such a scenario could invite tension when employees are socialized to believe ideas about their occupation that may not fully reflect the realities of their daily work (e.g., Elsbach, 2009; Grant, 2008; Pratt et al., 2006). Seminal work on the concept of ideology—which can inform a more robust understanding of occupational ideologies—supports the premise that employees may experience an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. For example, Swidler (1986, p. 280) recognizes that the concrete situations in which a person is presented with the opportunity to apply or enact a given ideology can expose gaps between the “explicit norms, worldviews, and rules of conduct” that the individual espouses through their endorsement of the ideology and their pervasive, on-the-ground life experiences. Such a perceived disconnect can subvert the “imaginary 19 relationship” that individuals have with their real conditions—an illusion that may constitute the core of the ideology (Althusser, 1971, p. 109). These experiences can call into question the plausibility of the ideology and one’s support of it (Geertz, 1973; Swidler, 1986). Applying this logic to occupations, daily work-related tasks and actions provide employees the opportunity to draw on, enact, and affirm their occupational ideology (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). At the same time, these moments of practice—if they are perceived to be misaligned with what is “right” or “appropriate” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) or how things “should” work (Starbuck, 1982), according to the occupational ideology—can reveal deficiencies in the ideology. Illustrating this point, in a study of firefighters, Tracy and Scott (2006, p. 18) found that “[s]ome firefighters expressed awareness that this glorified ‘worshiped’ image [of the firefighting occupation] was at odds with the actual content of daily tasks.” The notion that employees may experience an occupational ideology–reality disconnect muddies the existing theoretical waters of management research related to occupational ideology. This literature largely holds that occupational ideologies are “widely shared and deeply held” positive belief systems that act as “a collective resource that members draw upon, enact, and affirm through their daily actions to enhance the meaningfulness of their work” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 414). In this view, employees naturally situate or contextualize their daily work-related tasks and actions in light of the shared occupational ideology, thus experiencing their work as more meaningful than they otherwise might have. However, in the previous paragraphs, we have presented an alternative, theoretically viable perspective: employees can experience an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Logically, such a disconnect could influence employees’ work experiences and their ability to situate the meaningfulness of their 20 work. At present, however, it is unclear how employees experience or negotiate such an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Our study aims to remedy this incomplete picture. 2.2 Methods 2.2.1 Research context We performed an inductive, qualitative study of EMS providers in North America. EMS providers respond to calls for medical service and provide care for patients on site and en route to the hospital. They are typically certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or paramedics, with varying levels of licensure (e.g., basic, intermediate, or advanced level care certification) that equip them with additional skills (e.g., intravenous access) and medication administration capabilities. To obtain the basic certification, EMS providers usually require a minimum of six months of training, with each additional stage of licensure requiring further instruction. EMS providers work for private or public EMS organizations or, when cross-trained, for other services (e.g., firefighting, law enforcement). Once on the job, EMS providers generally work in teams of at least two, operating a ground ambulance to respond to a “call log” assigned to them by dispatch. Dispatch uses a protocol to identify the complaint, determine the appropriate response (e.g., if an advanced life support team is needed), and deliver pre-arrival instructions to the caller. Medical dispatching systems are often imprecise (e.g., Bohm & Kurland, 2018), as EMS providers can be sent to respond to calls that, from their perspective, do not require emergency medical attention. Once assigned, EMS providers have little discretion over which calls they attend. As we show in our findings, the EMS community has developed a strong occupational ideology that draws on discourses of self-sacrifice, heroism, and performing an essential service to explain and justify the importance of the “dirty work” that EMS providers perform (e.g., 21 exposure to bodily fluids, contact with sickness and death, caring for patients with mental illness; Nelsen & Barley, 1997; Seim, 2020). This finding aligns with prior research (e.g., Ashforth & Kreiner, 2013). Yet, as we demonstrate, EMS providers often experience a disconnect between this shared system of beliefs and the actual tasks that they regularly perform, providing an ideal setting to examine how employees negotiate an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Consistent with the nature of an inductive, theory-building approach (Grodal et al., 2020; Spradley, 1979), our research questions directly emerged from our data collection and analysis. That is, our focus in this study materialized from a different research question, a common occurrence in inductive research (e.g., Caza, Moss, et al., 2018; Crosina & Pratt, 2019). We initially sought to study how EMS providers are influenced by their exposure to death in the workplace. However, a guiding puzzle emerged from our data, which directed our focus (Grodal et al., 2020). Many of our informants appeared to be highly destabilized by low-acuity calls necessitating little or no medical intervention, in contrast to high-acuity death-related work experiences. Below, we describe how this puzzle emerged from our data, guided our research approach, and provided us with theoretical traction. 2.2.2 Data collection Sample. We conducted 35 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with North American EMS providers from October 2018 to June 20201 using purposive sampling. First, given our 1 Eight interviews occurred between March and June 2020, after the COVID-19 pandemic came into full force in North America. While these eight informants reported increased exposure to death and dying due to COVID-19, their discussions related to low-acuity calls and the EMS occupational ideology contained similar themes to those of informants interviewed before the pandemic. This consistency suggested theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thereby indicating a reduced necessity for further data collection. This limited number of during-pandemic interviews, however, hinders our ability to draw conclusions of how the EMS occupational ideology changed pre- and post- pandemic. 22 initial research question, we solicited EMS providers who had experienced death through their EMS work and who were comfortable sharing detailed accounts of these experiences. We recruited EMS providers from the first author’s social network and dedicated social media (i.e., Reddit, Facebook) EMS forums. To “stretch [the] diversity of [our] data” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 61), we further engaged in snowball sampling via introductions provided by informants. We endeavored to construct a sample that included variation in EMS providers’ tenure, gender, and work experiences. This approach provided a diverse sample of EMS providers, working in different geographical regions for distinct organizations, thereby enabling us to identify commonalties across these divisions and theorize about occupational (vs. organizational) forces influencing employee experiences. Consistent with the overall gender composition of the EMS occupation in the United States (66.3 percent male; Data USA, 2017), the sample was 66 percent male (see Appendix A). Our informants most commonly reported working four consecutive 12-hour shifts, fielding around 8–12 calls per shift, followed by a four-day break. Interviews. The first author interviewed informants in person or virtually over Skype, and digitally recorded and transcribed each interview with the informant’s consent. Interviews ranged in duration from 45 to 180 minutes, resulting in 616 single-spaced pages of data. Interviews were semi-structured, allowing for enough consistency to enable meaningful comparisons across informants, while maintaining flexibility to elaborate on points of interest. To increase informants’ comfort and guide them gently towards the difficult topic of death and dying (e.g., Spradley, 1979), the interviews began with general, open-ended questions about their work, their motivation for pursuing a career in the EMS, and the broad workplace challenges that they face. Finally, they were asked direct questions about experiences with death at work. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix B. 23 As we began collecting data, we were surprised by two themes. First, following Spradley’s (1979) recommendation to focus on an “unfamiliar cultural scene” for theory-building research, we began the project relatively unacquainted with the EMS. In contrast to our own assumptions, we learned that exposure to death and dying is reportedly relatively uncommon for EMS providers, representing only a small fraction of their calls. Second, although informants indicated that these death-related events could be experienced as distressing, many EMS providers emphasized low-acuity tasks as highly destabilizing. These tasks concerned minor, non-urgent conditions (e.g., “sore throat,” “bleeding gums,” “minor sprains”) or tasks such as helping a person use the toilet or put away their groceries. Seizing on this “guiding puzzle,” we iterated between data and theory as we completed the interviews, and our probing efforts paralleled our emerging theorizing (Spradley, 1979). In other words, while the first author initially saw informants discussing low-acuity tasks as “noise” in the data, she quickly attuned herself to informants’ mention of these tasks and asked extensive follow-up questions. 2.2.3 Data analysis Following the core tenets of grounded theory (Eisenhardt et al., 2016; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), we moved back and forth between sampling, data collection, data analysis, and theory. As we progressed, we read through each interview and wrote reflective memos describing emerging insights and key themes to probe in future interviews (Charmaz, 1983, 2006). We continued this iterative process until we achieved theoretical saturation, when data yielded “diminishing returns” and stopped generating new themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The first author began by coding the data in NVivo, reading the transcripts line-by-line, and labeling sections of text with codes that reflected informants’ own language (Charmaz, 2006; Locke, 2001). Based on the initial research question, she paid special attention to evidence of 24 distress. However, in line with the guiding puzzle described above, she noticed that many of informants’ unpleasant emotions were associated with the performance of low-acuity tasks, as opposed to death and dying. These tasks appeared to be destabilizing, as reflected by initial codes (e.g., “shaken by non-serious calls,” “dealing with bullshit,” “expecting more serious situations”) expressing unpleasant emotions, unmet expectations, and uncertainty of action. After all the authors had discussed these first-order codes, each team member re-read the existing transcripts. We chose to re-focus our attention on examining why these low-acuity calls appeared to “shake” (i.e., destabilize) employees and how employees managed this experience. The research team jointly conducted the rest of the data analysis as data collection continued. In the second stage of analysis, we elaborated on this initial analytic category by expanding, separating, combining, and abandoning codes as appropriate (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We combed the data for codes describing low-acuity tasks to understand the destabilizing experience with which they were associated. Through this process, we came to see that these task-level experiences exemplified dissonance—a disconnect between what employees were doing and what they believed they should be doing in their work to accomplish its purpose. A recurrent theme that emerged from our data was that these tasks were not what most EMS providers “set out to do” and left them asking “what’s the emergency?” Returning to the literature, we identified shared perceptions of “what the occupation does” and “why [it] matters” as core components of an occupational ideology (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 421). Thus, we subsumed codes pertaining to the nature and necessity of the work (e.g., “saving lives,” “life and limb situations,” “helping others”) under “EMS occupational ideology.” Following this thread, we searched our data for other ideological elements (e.g., customary language, ritualized behaviors, symbols; Trice & Beyer, 1984) to bolster our 25 understanding of the EMS occupational ideology and how it persists. Sensitized by concepts from existing theory on occupational ideologies and employees’ internalization of occupational ideologies through socialization (Bunderson, 2001; Dressel & Petersen, 1982), we also examined how informants were socialized into the occupational ideology. We recognized that the EMS occupational ideology seemed to ignore or devalue low-acuity tasks, providing a clue as to why these tasks are destabilizing for EMS providers. Evoking the disconnect between the reported frequency of such low-acuity tasks in reality, and their ideological devaluation, we labeled this situation an “occupational ideology–reality disconnect” and sought to further understand how employees experienced and negotiated it. Delving deeper into the employee experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect, we realized that informants’ strong negative emotions suggested something more than the uncertainty and discomfort of dissonance. Our codes pertaining to strong negative emotions associated with low-acuity tasks invoked a sense of frustrated purpose, not just about the specific task but about the work as a whole. Having to perform these tasks repeatedly was described as “frustrating,” “angering,” and “a slap in the face.” Informants felt that these tasks were “not what we’re there for,” suggesting a diminished view of the value or worth of the work. Consolidating and abstracting our codes led us to understand these experiences as a “threat to work meaningfulness.” We explored how employees negotiated these situations, yielding three overarching approaches that employees use in their attempts to restore work meaningfulness. In the last stage of our analysis, we re-analyzed existing categories, integrated the mechanisms and concepts we had identified, and continually tested our emerging theory against our data and vice versa, seeking to develop an abstract, analytically generalizable (Yin, 2003) theoretical lens on reality (Charmaz, 2006). Through this analysis, we identified a sequence of 26 employee experiences that seemed to be causally related: (1) the socialization of individuals into the shared occupational ideology and their subsequent internalization of it; (2) the consequent employee experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect, provoking dissonant task experiences and, with repetition, a threat to work meaningfulness; and (3) employees’ use of different approaches aimed at restoring work meaningfulness, with differing implications for maintaining the shared occupational ideology. Figure 2.1 illustrates these recursive dynamics and guides the presentation of our findings below. 27 Figure 2.1 The occupational ideology–reality disconnect process 28 2.3 Findings 2.3.1 The occupational ideology of the EMS EMS providers situate their work within a shared occupational ideology that emphasizes providing urgent medical care to “help people” and “save lives,” or, at the very least, “to do all the parts that give [the patient] a fighting chance [at life]” (Cameron).2 Julian stated, “We all kind of have the same mentality… We are the people that when the bad stuff is happening, there’s no nobody else after us. That’s it. It’s the hospital… So when they call us, we have to be on our game because we don’t want to let our patients down.” Themes of self-sacrifice, heroism, and essential service regularly manifested in how EMS providers articulated the value or worth of their work, often defined around “saving” others: You know, there is the saying, “We run to what others run away from.” (Blake) We respond to emergencies… Someone gets hurt, sick, accident, um, you know, or passes away. We go… I bring people that could be having the worst day of their life… reassurance, a calming presence... I can solve their problems, save their life, and get them the help they need quickly. I enjoy that. (Charlie) There’s a particularly bad alley down there… So a lot of overdoses, people [we] see the same things over and over again, especially in that area. Like, you can have the same patient twice a day sometimes even. And it just, mentally, it can be exhausting. Dealing with certain, um, like mental disorders sometimes... But it’s like, “No, this person is clearly having an emergency. Like they need us to be here.” (Parker). Indeed, providing emergency medical treatment to persons facing threats to “life and limb” is central to how the EMS community defines its occupation. This understanding of the nature and necessity of the EMS is complemented and reinforced by numerous symbolic ideological elements, including the image of “lights and sirens” frequently evoked by informants. 2 We identify informants using pseudonyms. The participant inventory can be found in Appendix A. 29 Speaking to another important symbol and linking it to heroism, Jamal remarked, “I don’t think I had the hero complex before… [but] I really wanted the shiny badge, which I still carry in my wallet [laughs].” Rowan referenced “the thin white line,” the symbolic emblem of the EMS as the line which keeps society safe, and a commonly evoked mantra in the EMS, “beat the reaper, beat the reaper, beat the reaper.” When asked about this mantra, he explained: It comes from, I guess like EMS has a whole really… it’s kind of like a known thing, like a big known thing… Um, because it’s a race, it’s a race against time, honestly, to get in there and do what you can do to the best of your ability… to stop some irreversible, lifetime effects… on people because of their injuries. (Rowan) The language that EMS providers used to describe the occupation and its practitioners further evidenced a shared occupational ideology centered on heroically saving those in dire medical distress. Luis described his “Billy the Badass” EMS persona. Hunter noted, “My partner, she actually said something about us being ninjas… we show up and nobody realizes what we really do. Like, they’re usually dying, so they don’t really remember your face.” Numerous others depicted EMS work as “heroic,” while Marion called EMS providers “protectors.” Internalization of the shared occupational ideology. Consistent with past research on occupational ideologies (e.g., Bunderson, 2001; Dressel & Petersen, 1982), many EMS providers came to internalize the shared occupational ideology into their own personal belief system, espousing ideologically consistent beliefs about the nature and necessity of their work. For example, Laurel said, “This person better be dead or dying to call us. It’s a little morbid, but, um, you know, that’s what we’re there for.” Accordingly, EMS providers tend to elevate tasks that involve providing emergency medical care as more meaningful than other less urgent tasks. Specifically, EMS providers frequently describe carrying out their most meaningful work when assigned to “high-acuity” tasks. Patient acuity reflects both the perceived urgency—how quickly 30 EMS providers must respond to a call for service—and the gravity of the patient’s condition. These situations enable EMS providers to affirm the value or worth of their work, as defined by the shared occupational ideology, by rescuing patients from medical distress, reinforcing their necessity, earning recognition, and experiencing excitement: Seeing the brain matter was, was really cool for lack of a better word. That was, that was an interesting thing to see… A sense of pride seems like the wrong word, but kind of like I was starting to prove myself in my new role. Um, you know, I’d kind of crossed another threshold. I’d checked another box on the EMS list. You have this bucket list. (Ava) So we get there, we’re the first on scene…. this lady comes out of the house—“Hurry, hurry, I think she’s dead!”—Right? And so, you know me, Ricky Rescue, I grab all the bags and I’m going in there and I’m—you know, I’m trying not to smile, like, I’m excited… I’m trying to, like, be really, like, composed. (Rowan) Yeah, there definitely are calls like that. You get to walk away like you felt you did a really good job or like, you know, an exceptionally good job or that, uh, it was just a cool situation that ended up with a positive outcome… So when you get that opportunity where you get to walk away and go like, “Shit, I made a difference.”… I had a call recently where, um, a guy fell off the third level of a scaffold, so he fell from 24 feet up, landed on his head… So he broke four vertebrae, completely severed his spinal cord, and lost permanently all sense of feeling and motor function below the nipple line…We were able to minimize the cervical spinal damage. So, you know, he’ll be in a wheelchair, um, but he’ll be able to pick up his grandkids and give them a hug… And so, like, getting to do stuff like that, you know, definitely, uh, gives you that, that like spiritual refill. (Peter) Although high-acuity tasks bring increased potential for negative affect and traumatic experiences, EMS providers define them as “legit calls” necessitating their skills and presence. Many informants’ expectations and valuations of themselves and the work seemed to be shaped around the fulfillment of these tasks, which lie at the crux of the shared occupational ideology. Exploring how employees came to foster these beliefs revealed the role of socialization. Socialization driving internalization. Our data suggest that one way this internalization occurred was through an ongoing socialization process that reifies the shared occupational ideology. Table 2.1 provides examples of how employees are socialized into the shared 31 occupational ideology in three stages: (1) anticipatory socialization prior to occupational entry (Merton, 1957), (2) job training, and (3) on-the-job socialization. The anticipatory socialization process commences when outsiders begin to “have their eyes on” the occupation, as they absorb symbols, “war stories,” and media depictions that cast the EMS occupation as heroic work involving urgent medical treatment of the grievously injured. The shared occupational ideology is further reified during job training, where educators and employers use intensive, hands-on simulations and clinical evaluations to cultivate medical proficiencies “for worst-case scenarios” and pass on the occupation’s values to neophytes. Finally, the shared occupational ideology is reinforced as what is “right” though the social rewards that employees receive for performing work that is perceived to align with this system of beliefs guiding their practice. However, as some quotes in Table 2.1 suggest, these socialized meanings stood in stark contrast to EMS providers’ occupational reality. 32 Table 2.1 The occupational ideology internalization process Stages in which Employees Internalize the Occupational Ideology Sources through which the Occupational Ideology is Reified Exemplar Quotes Anticipatory socialization Occupational symbols I knew that I wanted to go into law enforcement or any type of emergency services ever since I was a kid. I always, you know—the flashing lights and the sirens and driving eighty miles per hour through downtown rush hour traffic was something that seemed really interesting and cool to me. (Luis) As an 18-year-old, it was definitely the adrenaline rush. You know, the, it was presented to me as this sort of field where you can do cool stuff with, uh, trauma calls, uh, you know, you get to play with lights and sirens. (Jamal) War stories3 I grew up hearing the war stories about it and, like, my brother is in public safety; he is a police officer as well. I have another brother who is a firefighter, so I was like… I came into it thinking that I was going to save everybody and you know, be a hero and all that. (Blake) I went to graduate high school… Now that I was getting older, my dad was telling me more stories, more of the war stories from when he was a cop. And I kinda liked those. (Sam) Media depictions of occupation Most people, and I was no exception, got my anticipation of what the first day of work would be like from television, where they save a life every time and it’s always dramatic. And, uh, many people, uh, would applaud our superhero efforts. I found that that is not what happens. (Marion) The differences are greater than I expected. You see the popular image of an ambulance on television that’s racing around and you know, people are getting shot left and right. Um, in reality it’s like nothing like that. You know, we do a lot of sort of silly calls with people that are not in mortal danger. Um, but it’s an important part of helping them out. (Devon) 3 War stories are “lurid, frequently embellished accounts of allegedly dangerous and/or heroic exploits, with the teller as protagonist,” that aim “to impress, to entertain and, most important, to elicit nods and grunts of affirmation from the crowd” (M. Rubin, 2009, para. 2). 33 Stages in which Employees Internalize the Occupational Ideology Sources through which the Occupational Ideology is Reified Exemplar Quotes Job training Training focus You run these simulations at the [training] institute. Everyone is, like, on these mats, it’s like, okay, you’ve found your patient… They give you a bit of a backstory… And, like, you prepare obviously for the worst calls, like you’re going to prepare for the diabetic who’s completely under. “You have to try to get an IV in. You have to try to get them sugars. Oh, you can’t get an IV in. So now what are you going to do?” kind of thing, when in reality, we go to these calls, and they’re walking and standing, and it’s like, “Okay?” (Parker) When you first go into it and you’re in school and they’re trying to prepare you for worst-case scenarios, um, you kinda think that every call is going to be, uh, stabbings and gunshots and cardiac arrests and heart attacks and all these kinds of worst-case scenarios. Then you start working and there’s a lot more of almost a social work component to it than you ever expect going in. (Ava) Higher-ups’ conferring of values to neophytes I started on the ambulance when I was 18, you know, and I was working with a best friend of mine… We both started around the same time and we had these adults just throw us a set of keys and give us radios and they were like, “Go save somebody”… I was an 18-year-old kid with an EMT card that still had the ink dripping on it… I’m being tossed the keys to an ambulance that’s worth freaking, you know, $100,000… Have a dude pat you on the back and go, “Go save someone kid.” That—that’s a lot of responsibility. And when I was coming into this, I was a little bit more naive about things. (Luis) One of my instructors for my EMT class is a guy who’s been either an EMT or paramedic, um, working in the field for almost 30 years and he still refers to trauma as sexy. (Peter) 34 Stages in which Employees Internalize the Occupational Ideology Sources through which the Occupational Ideology is Reified Exemplar Quotes On-the-job socialization Social rewards for the performance of ideologically aligned work When you’re in a room full of medics, everybody is—it’s always a pissing match on who’s the baddest in the room… Even the new hires… they act like PTSD is, like, some sort of accolade… that’s what it requires to earn your stripes, so to speak. (Michael) I did develop the kind of reputation of, I had a “black cloud” [a term applied to EMS providers superstitiously believed to “attract” high-acuity calls] following me. [My partner played a] song called “Black Cloud” every time I got in the ambulance because he thought that was hilarious… I didn’t necessarily feel like I was getting made fun of or pushed out. It was more along the lines of they acknowledged the fact that this stuff [high-acuity calls] happened and somehow, I responded appropriately… I had more acceptance. (Morgan) Social penalties for the performance of ideologically misaligned work I’ve been, um, I’ve been what people call a “white cloud” in my career in that I very often get the run of the mill, help at home and they can’t get up calls, as opposed to the big critical calls. (Taylor) Interviewer: How do you know that people call you a white cloud? Um, I’ve had people tell me to get rid of it. (Taylor) Even when I was angry about it [the performance of low-acuity work], I would never treat anybody differently… like my fiancé is an EMT also, and she makes fun of me… She’s like, “You’re so nice to these people. It’s disgusting.” (Michael) 35 2.3.2 The occupational reality of the EMS In practice, many of the tasks that EMS providers are regularly required to perform fall short of the picture painted by the shared occupational ideology. Hunter, for example, expressed, “Most of our calls are... like, normal, healthy adults; we don’t usually have emergencies.” Similarly, Austin explained, “Probably 1 out of every 10 calls or so, there’s probably a true emergency or at least something that maybe someone couldn’t or shouldn’t handle themselves.” Although the EMS are certainly responsible for providing emergency pre-hospital treatment and transport for patients with serious illnesses and injuries—as the shared occupational ideology emphasizes—these types of calls for service reportedly represent a small fraction of the EMS call log. Dana expressed, “For calls where time is of the essence and, you know, time means the difference between life and death [are] maybe five percent of the calls… 80 percent of the calls we receive… are people calling for minor injuries, sprained ankles, things like that.” 4 Indeed, “the majority of the calls that [the EMS] do are low-acuity. And in fact, a lot of them really don’t need an ambulance to get them to the hospital” (Camille). Low-acuity tasks require relatively little or no medical intervention or concern psychological, rather than physical, ailments. While describing the nature of these low-acuity tasks, Sam recalled: I got called last week; there was a medical alarm for a little old lady who… she’s in bed and she has a little walker and a wheelchair for long distances. And she pushed her button and called us because she could not remember… she takes, um, Ambien. She could not remember getting in bed… She didn’t need any medical assistance or anything. She was just nervous because she woke up in bed, and the last thing she remembered was taking her medicine and sitting in front of the TV. And thankfully I’m with a partner now… my previous partner would have complained about that for hours. (Sam) 4 In his ethnographic study of EMTs in the United States, Seim (2020) found that 62 percent of interventions conducted by one EMS organization in 2015 (N=107,208) were low-acuity calls. Consistent with our findings, 15 percent of the interventions in Seim’s (2020) study were coded by the assigned ambulance crew as high-acuity calls. 36 Other examples included patients with “general illness” (Quinn) or who had “been shot by, like, a bb gun” (Luis). Many EMS providers attribute these low-acuity calls to people who are not actually injured. Rather, “they just want a hospital bed and like food for the night, and that’s why they call 911.” (Hunter; also mentioned by four other informants). The figure of speech that EMS providers use to describe these instances is “being called for a stubbed toe” (mentioned by eight informants). Nevertheless, once dispatched, EMS providers are required to attend these calls and “if somebody wants to go [to the hospital]… they get taken to the hospital” (Dakota).5 Despite the substantial volume of low-acuity tasks in EMS providers’ daily work, many did not anticipate the presence or frequency of such tasks upon entering the occupation: I initially thought that people called because “I can’t breathe.” ‘Cause they don’t teach you in school how to handle somebody who needs help to the toilet. Like, that’s not a topic that you cover in class. The topics you cover in class are, you know, chest pains or overdoses or seizures or, you know, the plethora of actual things that we’re actually taught to do for somebody. (Michael) I think myself, like most people, expected it to be a lot more actual emergencies than it really is—more of the bad stuff that you wouldn’t normally want to experience, like death and dying… I think a lot more people expect, including myself, expect just to actually be put in more serious situations. (Alex) I think everybody kind of has that expectation that you’re going to be going in and saving lives and it’s going to be kind of like what everybody sees on TV. Really, it’s not. That’s maybe, like, about 15, 20 percent of the time. Most of the time, it’s going to be—you’re going to do a lift assist, you know, grandma fell on the floor and you’re going to go pick her up and put her back on her wheelchair. Or somebody’s calling for a sore throat, or very minor things that don’t need an ambulance in my opinion. (Laurel) This pattern of shared perceptions among a diverse group of employees (i.e., working in different organizations and geographical locations) suggests that a higher order cultural component—we 5 Very few EMS organizations have written protocols allowing EMS providers to refuse emergency ambulance transport to patients, even those deemed by the provider to have a minor illness or injury after examination (Cavaliere, 2020). This suggests that most EMS providers do not have the authority to deny patients service once they are assigned to a call. 37 argue, an occupational ideology—shaped a common understanding of the nature and necessity of the work; one which was often felt to be disconnected from the occupational reality. 2.3.3 Experiencing an occupational ideology–reality disconnect Experiencing an occupational ideology–reality disconnect manifested in dissonant task experiences and a corresponding threat to work meaningfulness, as we illustrate in Table 2.2. 38 Table 2.2 Employee experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect Employee Experience Exemplar Quotes Dissonant task experiences There are some calls that you, in your head, you do go, “Oh my gosh, you really just called an ambul-”… Like you go, “Oh my—Like, really?” You could have, it could have been, could be somebody like, um, they’ve cut their finger and the bleeding has stopped. Or um, if, you know, they think their shoulder might be out of joint or something. Things that, um, I would personally go, “Do I need an ambulance? No, I will wait… to go to a walk-in clinic,” or whatever. (Jordan) You’re sitting there like, “Oh my God,” you’re reading what’s popping up. And you’re like, “Is this actually what we’re going to or is this someone calling in and they have no idea?”… Also you’re trained to take every single person to the hospital. So it’s like, I think that has been a big learning curve… You get there… You’re like, “Okay, so do you want to go to the hospital?” [laughs] That’s kind of like—[shrugging gesture]. (Parker) I think one of the big things is, I didn’t realize what people are willing to call an ambulance for. I don’t know if that is an educational piece on behalf of our provincial health services, like our authorities and whether or not we’re not conveying that, you know, ambulances should be reserved for actual emergencies. Um, I just, you end up working—going to a lot of calls that you’re just dumbfounded that, uh, an ambulance was called for this. (Denise) Threat to work meaningfulness [The work is] similar in the fact that you do get to every now and then treat very critical patients. But in a way it’s not similar. I thought that, you know, people wouldn’t call 911 for ridiculous things. I’ve gotten called out for someone who had a headache. I’ve gotten called out for someone who wanted to have their bandage on their foot changed. (Tony) Interviewer: How do those lower-acuity calls impact you? They honestly, they make you kind of look back and make you think, do you really want to do this job? (Tony) We’re viewed as a taxi service and I’m fairly certain that you see memes or what have you around... So I think that that’s the biggest thing about this job, because a lot of us do care and a lot of us actually push through to try and help you. Anda lot of, a lot of us, like, a lot of who we are goes into that. And then for people to be like, “Yeah, I pretty much just need a ride to the hospital.” (Raquel) [Low-acuity calls] used to piss me off really bad. They used to, like, really fucking make me mad. Because I feel like they—those people, those types of people don’t call on Christmas. They don’t call on holidays. Because we, we as providers, have this perception that, if they have something better to do, they don’t call an ambulance. Like most people are like, “Oh I’m sorry you have to work on Christmas.” But Christmas is like one of the slowest days that you can work. Because people who call for ignorant stuff, they don’t call on Christmas, because they’re not bored. Like we get calls from people who want medicine refills, but they don’t call on Christmas because their families are there visiting and they would rather visit with their family than take a pointless ride to the emergency room to get their, you know, podiatry medicine filled. When they could easily just call their regular doctor and get it filled. But people are not patients when they have something else to occupy their time… So it used to make me mad because it felt like they were taking away services from people who genuinely may need them. (Michael) 39 Dissonant task experiences. Dissonant task experiences concern the perception that one’s work in the moment is misaligned with the nature and necessity of one’s work as a whole. Consistent with cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), these experiences were destabilizing, provoking a sense of unmet expectations and uncertainty of action. For EMS providers, these moments occurred during low-acuity tasks that could not easily be understood as emergencies: I remember the first few times I interacted with somebody who’s intoxicated with alcohol and going, like, “What am I—this isn’t a medical emergency—they’re just drunk. What do I do?” Nobody had prepared me for how to quote unquote, “treat that patient,” because they don’t require a large amount of medical intervention. But there is a social work component to it and you still have to make sure they’re safe and cared for. (Ava) We ended up actually going lights and sirens to this call. So, a gentleman who had a bleeding, his gums were bleeding, because he just went to the dentist. Alright, so we, we got given a call by dispatch and this, you know, it’s anything bleeding from the face was deemed a dangerous bleed. So we had to go lights and sirens and we get there and he’s like, “Oh, my gums are bleeding.” And we’re like, “Okay, and [laughs, shrugs] what else?” So that was a little bit different than what I was expecting… seeing both less acute calls than initially anticipated and pretty large abuse of the system. (Dana) Threat to work meaningfulness. The accumulation of dissonant task experiences corresponded with an erosion of work meaningfulness for many EMS providers. Indeed, repetition made salient to employees the sharp contrast between their beliefs about the nature and necessity of the work—conferred by the shared occupational ideology—and their occupational reality. As described above, these repeated dissonant task experiences often centered on low-acuity tasks. Zayan described this strain, depicting it as “demoralizing” and “a slap in the face”: When you get into this field, um, lo and behold, people call the ambulances for things like stubbed toes or you know, torn fingernails. Uh, I don’t think you really expect that. Um, it’s obviously more frequent in urban areas, especially, uh, high poverty areas. Um, but the, the kind of stuff that we see is [pause]… 90 percent of what we do is dealing with a lot of very low priority things. Um, I’m, I’m trying not to say bullshit, but that’s really what it is… That’s unfortunately what the 911 system has become. Um, so that’s, that’s shocking when you first start it. Uh, and it’s very demoralizing to people… (Zayan) Interviewer: You said it’s demoralizing for people. Can you go a little bit more into that? 40 Yeah. Well, demoralizing in the sense that it’s not what you expected to do. You know, you expect to get into this and, you know, treat chest pain, treat cardiac arrest, treat serious car accidents… You start the job and, you know, you might work three or four shifts without actually getting a serious call… You might run 50 calls before you actually have a serious call that you are trained to handle. Out of the 49 previous calls were, you know, like I said, uh, “stubbed my toe,” um, “I’m calling you at four o’clock in the morning for my back pain that I’ve had for four weeks,” you know. So it kind of slaps you in the face that this job isn’t what I expected. (Zayan) Consistent with a threat to work meaningfulness, the labels used by many EMS providers to describe low-acuity tasks were evocative of a sense of meaninglessness: “undesirable,” “illegitimate,” “inappropriate,” “ridiculous,” “bullcrap,” and—most commonly—“bullshit.” According to our informants, it is not these tasks alone, but rather, their repetition that “dangerously” jeopardize employees’ outlook on the work: The routine of intoxicated patients, the patients calling for stomach-ache, but then they would confide to you, they’re just calling 911 because they would like to go into the emergency room a little bit faster. So that started dangerously sorta, uh, affecting my view. (Jamal) I have noticed the job has kind of made me a little bit more angry. Just from, like, the whole thing of getting burned out from bullcrap after bullcrap… You start to feel the burnout and being defeated, you lose a little bit of will to keep pushing on. (Luis) Repeatedly performing tasks perceived to be meaningless seemingly threatened employees’ ability to perceive their work, more broadly, as meaningful. Many EMS providers felt relegated to the role of a “taxi driver” (mentioned by five informants). Expressing a similar sense of diminished value or worth, Sam said, “We joke that we’re garbage men.” In sum, the shared occupational ideology promotes an understanding of EMS work as providing urgent medical treatment for persons facing threats to life and limb. However, employees repeatedly encounter tasks that they perceive to be misaligned with this understanding of what the occupation does and why it matters. The occupational ideology–reality disconnect 41 can produce dissonant task experiences and, through repetition, frustrate work meaningfulness. However, employees do not passively accept these costs, but rather, actively negotiate them. 2.3.4 Negotiating an occupational ideology–reality disconnect We identified three overarching approaches that employees use to negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect: (1) changing how one thinks about the task; (2) changing, or attempting to change, one’s task environment; and (3) changing how one thinks about the occupation. These approaches, outlined in Table 2.3, have in common that they attempt to reduce dissonant task experiences and restore employees’ experiences of work meaningfulness. However, these approaches and the specific ways in which employees enact them—described below—have disparate implications for employees and their employers. Importantly, they also differentially reproduce or subvert the shared occupational ideology. 42 Table 2.3 Negotiating an occupational ideology–reality disconnect Overarching Approach6 Specific Means of Enactment Definition Exemplar Quotes Change how one thinks about the task Ideologically compatible task reframing Cognitively reframing one’s tasks to fit the nature and necessity of the work, as specified by the shared occupational ideology I don’t really make a big deal about it [low-acuity calls]. But, um, you know, everybody, you know, they’re, they’re calling us for a reason… this is the worst day that they’re experiencing. (Laurel) When they call 911, this is the worst day of their life. (Charlie) (Attempt to) change one’s task environment Role boundary reinforcement Reasserting, either directly or indirectly, one’s role boundaries according to the nature and necessity of the work, as specified by the shared occupational ideology So they call for relatively minor things… I guess, I don’t know if I’m explaining this correctly, but they’ll call for minor things like having general weakness or a cough for two weeks or, you know, I have this rash that’s been growing here underneath my breast for the past seven months and I need to go to the ER right now. Um, that’s pretty common and that is an education moment, and we try to do that as best as we can. (Dakota) You have so many people telling you, like, “They don’t deserve it [to go to the hospital]”… It feels like, and pardon my French, they [some EMS providers] just don’t give a shit… like “I’m not going to treat you as I would other people”… This whole gung-ho attitude or no bullshit kind of attitude they have for the patients. (Hunter) Physical withdrawal Physically removing oneself from the work (e.g., turnover, absenteeism) I think most people that go into such professions are kinda shocked to find how much the emergency services fill the void—cracks in the other parts of the social services. So we do a lot of social work… It wouldn’t be described as what you would describe an emergency... It can often be challenging because that’s not often what people set out to do. And it gets referred to as a revolving door [of turnover]… We can’t keep people. (Hayden) I know a lot of EMS riders. When they first get into this field, it’s that kind of abuse of the system that leads to burnout at a very fast rate. And a lot of people turn tail and run away from the profession because of that kind of thing. (Zayan) 6 Our findings indicate that these approaches are not mutually exclusive. That is, some employees reported using several of these approaches, which presumably work together to help them negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect. 43 Overarching Approach6 Specific Means of Enactment Definition Exemplar Quotes Elective specialization Attempting to concentrate one’s work or expertise solely on tasks that align with the nature and necessity of the work, as specified by the shared occupational ideology So I did my primary care paramedic and my advanced care paramedic… I enjoy, I think the biggest thing I enjoy right now is— that I do really enjoy the acuity of the patients that I see. I no longer see those, you know, people who—I won’t get into this—who may or may not need an ambulance. You know, I don’t necessarily end up with a lot of those patients anymore. (Denise) I think the role I’m in now is more what I expected it to be back when I first started. So I’ve been doing this for, uh, this is 10 years now since I took my primary care paramedic training… So you see lots of people, uh, who are dealing with more social issues, um, or long-term health problems, not necessarily an acute emergency, the way a heart attack would be… [Now] in my role as an ACP, uh, it’s called a targeted response. So I respond to calls that have been determined to possibly require my level of intervention and, um, knowledge. And with that comes a lot more of the really sick patients that you kind of anticipated seeing. So, um, traumas, stabbings, gunshot wounds, car accidents, that’ll get an ACP response. Heart attack is a huge one; we go to anything that sounds cardiac. So it’s funny because now, later on in my career, I’m seeing what I kind of expected to see at the start. But also, having now made that switch, there’s times when I miss the calls that were just sitting with a little old lady who’s lonely and chatting with her for a few minutes and the more social work side of things. ‘Cause I don’t see those patients anymore. (Ava) Change how one thinks about the occupation Occupational ideology personalization Over time, cognitively shifting one’s personal beliefs about the occupation away from ideals grounded in the shared occupational ideology to a more nuanced, personalized understanding of the work I kind of set into my mindset that I have now of, “We’re just trying to make people comfortable, make their days a little better.” We’re not really saving lives, um, every day. And that’s not really the goal of what we’re trying to do all the time. (Taylor) Very seldomly do we actually save a life… It took a while before the delusions kicked in... I learned to adapt. I had some amazing coworkers who were really good at helping me see what was going on and I made a conscious choice. Um, and it is a choice—to be positive about things, to realize I couldn’t fix everything and to, um, realize that it’s just kind of what the job is. (Marion) 44 Change how one thinks about the task. The first overarching approach that employees implemented to negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect entailed changing how one thinks about the task. Employees specifically altered how they think about tasks through ideologically compatible task reframing, that is, cognitively reframing tasks to fit the shared occupational ideology. Just as occupational communities apply occupational ideologies to “reframe” their occupation as a whole (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999), employees attempt to restore work meaningfulness by reframing specific tasks to align with these higher-level ideologies. In the context of the EMS, this approach meant viewing any and every patient care task, regardless of its acuity, as an emergency demanding urgent care. Blake explained, “We try to factor in, when somebody is going through something, it’s always an emergency to them… say you go to leave wherever you’re at right now and you can’t find your keys; that’s an emergency for you because you have to leave.” Several others echoed: When I became a paramedic from an EMT, I decided, like, I guess I subconsciously, I decided to treat every patient as if it’s the most serious thing, because that’s what they call for. Even though they know, and I know, that it’s not the most serious thing in the world. (Michael) I know a lot of people [who] would say, you know, “Oh, I don’t like frequent flyers, you know, who, who abuse the system”… people who call for what we view as trivial little things… I always try and temper people when they say that. Because someone calls because that’s their emergency. (Sam) Sometimes there are calls where it’s like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe you’re… taking up our time for something really minor.” But then in my head, I go, what I said before—to them, that is an emergency to them… So then I changed my, my attitude in a way. I don’t show the attitude on the [outside], but that sort of does change me… It might not seem like an emergency, but to that person, that is their emergency. I might not remember that call in two years, but they are going to remember when I walked through that door… Like, even if it is a stubbed toe. (Jordan) Ideologically compatible task reframing does not change the actual work being performed. However, by taking cognitive steps, employees can fit their required tasks into their 45 ideologically imbued understanding of the nature and necessity of the work, thus altering their subjective assessment of performing these tasks. Interestingly, this approach upholds the shared occupational ideology centered on responding to emergencies, saving the day, and performing memorable, heroic work (e.g., “they are going to remember when I walked through that door”). Thus, the utilization of this approach unwittingly reproduces the very structural conditions responsible for the experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. (Attempt to) change one’s task environment. The second overarching approach that employees used to negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect entailed changing, or attempting to change, one’s task environment. Employees specifically did so through role boundary reinforcement, physical withdrawal, or elective specialization. Some employees reported role boundary reinforcement by reasserting, either directly or indirectly, their role boundaries according to the nature and necessity of the work, as defined by the shared occupational ideology. For example, as a direct means of role boundary reinforcement, some endeavored to educate the public about the “real” purpose of the EMS: My wife jokes that I’m Don Quixote. I’m on a mission to civilize. I try to explain to people, even if they’re just riders, even if they’re just family or friends riding up front, and I’m driving… if it looks like they’re open to a conversation about what we do and how the system works. (Sam) Sometimes I try to make it kind of a teaching moment for our patient… “Hey, next time this would be something that’s more appropriate to follow up with your primary care physician.” But at the end of the day, and also on the legal side, we can’t, you know, refuse to take anybody… Making the public more aware of what we do is also important… “You shouldn’t be calling me at 2:00 AM because you think you have the flu… We’re the emergency medical services. We’re not, ‘Let’s take you to the ER so you can get a flu swab’”… That’s a waste of time. (Laurel) Consistent with past research on employees who feel misunderstood by clients (Vough et al., 2013), employees utilizing this approach attempt to teach others about the nature and scope of 46 the work, presumably with the goal of reducing individuals’ likelihood of using the EMS for anything less than a high-acuity medical crisis. Other employees reportedly reassert role boundaries in a less direct manner, that is, by simply not performing the work or performing it in a sub-par manner. For example, while Dakota said that she does the “right” thing and brings every patient to the hospital who wants to go, “other people, they try to leave [people “misusing” the system] behind and try to insist that they don’t actually need EMS.” Similarly, Austin noted that his peers provide a lower standard of care for persons seen to be utilizing the EMS for non-emergencies: It shows up as bedside manner, like, being very brusque or abrupt with people… What I’ve seen a lot is people sort of withholding, say, pain medication is a common one, because they think the person is faking or they’re not injured enough type of thing… Where if it was their mother or father or sister, they wouldn’t hesitate to give them the medicine to make them comfortable. (Austin) Such problematic responses correspond with Seim’s (2020) observations of a common impulse among EMS responders to “be a dick” when fielding low-acuity calls. Notably, these punitive forms of role boundary reinforcement violate the US Code of Ethics for EMS providers, which instructs providers to “do no harm,” to “provide services based on human need, with compassion and respect for human dignity… [and] to not judge the merits of the patient’s request for service” (National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, 2021). A second way of behaviorally changing the task environment was through physical withdrawal, that is, removing oneself from the work by engaging in absenteeism or voluntary turnover. For example, Julian recounted a scenario in which he took himself out of service following a mass shooting—a high-acuity event that strongly connects to the EMS occupational ideology (“that one call that we all train for”)—as he feared he would mistreat patients “abus[ing] the system”: 47 I wasn’t that affected by [the mass shooting call], but I knew that working in the area that I work in, with the kind of patients that—that I was going to have kind of a hard time after doing, you know, that job, that one call that we all train for, to then go back and have some guy that’s going to abuse the system and call ‘cause he’s bored. He wants to go to the hospital. And I said, “I’m probably gonna not be as nice to him as I should be. And I don’t want anything bad to happen. I don’t want to get in trouble. And so I’d rather not continue my shift.” (Julian) EMS providers also reported more permanent forms of physical withdrawal. Although we did not interview EMS providers who had left the occupation, those still employed attributed others’ turnover to the occupational ideology–reality disconnect and its associated costs. Luis remarked that “It burns you out when you get into an industry thinking that you’re going to go and save a life every day, but 90 percent of your calls you’re running are very routine calls… That’s why a lot of people don’t last very long… Our turnover rate is so stupid high.” Similarly, Marion stated, “We find in our service, most people, by around five years [of tenure], either learn some way to adapt [to the low-acuity tasks] or they basically quit.” The third way in which employees behaviorally changed their task environment was through elective specialization. Through elective specialization, employees attempt to concentrate their work or expertise solely on tasks that are strongly connected to the shared occupational ideology. In the EMS context, this translated into structuring one’s job to primarily respond to high-acuity tasks. Most prominent among the EMS providers we interviewed was elective specialization via career progression.7 This entailed advancing one’s career into more niche areas of the occupation involving reduced exposure to tasks perceived to be misaligned with the nature and necessity of 7 Importantly, although the occupational ideology–reality disconnect appears to motivate elective specialization, it is not the only reason why someone might engage in elective specialization. A multitude of other factors (e.g., higher pay, job security, continued education) may also motivate this choice. 48 the work. Julian, for example, pursued flight paramedicine, where he typically sees “the same six types of patients… some general trauma… chest pain, heart attacks, strokes, GI bleeds. That’s… the bread and butter.” In a similar vein, Shannon pursued advanced care paramedicine, an EMS role that involves caring for only those in need of advanced life support (“We only respond with lights and sirens on my car”). When asked what motivated her career choice, she replied, “To get away from the bullshit… it’s definitely, it’s been a lot more rewarding.” Similarly, when Camille was asked how she manages low-acuity tasks, she said: I mean, right now I’m currently in school because I’m doing my advanced care paramedicine. Um, and that will, once I get through it, put me in a position where I am no longer a primary care paramedic. And therefore, as an advanced care paramedic, you respond to the more higher-acuity calls only. Um, so there’s less of the BS calls, really. (Camille) Elective specialization also occurred through opting to perform one’s work in certain locations or at certain times to increase one’s exposure to tasks that better align with the nature and necessity of the work as per the shared occupational ideology. Sam described rejecting a job offer from a higher-paying EMS company located closer to his home, in favor of staying with his current employer that operates in an area which offers more high-acuity tasks: I love the entropy of EMS… and [my location] is that on steroids… We see things in [my location] that people in the outlying areas… they see maybe once a career, or once every few years, and I might see it once every few weeks… And if I’m going to be in this job 100 percent and I’m here for the craziness and the action, well then I might as well be in the city where you get the craziest stuff. (Sam) Likewise, Hayden primarily schedules himself on night shifts due to the increased likelihood of responding to high-acuity calls. “There’s a fair bit of evidence that night shifts take time off your life. But the most interesting things happen in the middle of the night,” he remarked. Notably, both Sam and Hayden indicated that substantial personal sacrifices (e.g., less money, increased commute time, reduced lifespan) accompany these choices. 49 To summarize, role boundary reinforcement, physical withdrawal, and elective specialization are three behavioral approaches employees use with the intension of changing the tasks they perform. They help employees negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect by physically changing, or attempting to change, their occupational reality. However, this shift does little to alter the shared EMS occupational ideology, thus passively perpetuating the very structural conditions responsible for the experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Additionally, although we categorize role boundary reinforcement, physical withdrawal, and elective specialization under the overarching approach of changing (or attempting to change) one’s task environment, there are important differences in these enactments. For example, while elective specialization involves employees approaching their work and careers in a constructive manner—behaviorally customizing or “crafting” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) their role to better fit their understanding of the nature and necessity of their work—physical withdrawal signifies quite the opposite in that employees quit or simply do not perform the work. Change how one thinks about the occupation. The third overarching approach that employees used to negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect entailed changing how one thinks about the occupation. Employees specifically altered how they think about the occupation through occupational ideology personalization, a cognitive process in which employees, over time, shift their personal beliefs about the occupation (i.e., “what the EMS is”) away from ideals grounded in the shared occupational ideology to a more nuanced, personalized understanding of their work (i.e., “what the EMS is to me”). This shift enables them to personally define the nature and necessity (and hence, meaningfulness) of the work. 50 Blake’s personal understanding of the nature and necessity of the work shifted from “saving lives” and “being a hero” to “making a difference in the community”: I came into it thinking that I was going to save everybody and you know, be a hero and all that. I quickly learned that the reality isn’t always that you save people and you’re not always a hero. But, I mean, I do make a difference in my community… We go out there every night trying to do what we can for people. So that’s what counts. (Blake) Additionally, Jamal came to see his role “as a liaison for the health systems” rather than being focused on “adrenaline” and acting as a lifesaver or hero: It’s an old sort of thing we had when I first started with, uh, you know, 80 to 90 percent of your calls are going to be quote unquote “bullshit” and 20 to 10 percent of your calls are going to be “Oh shit!” So when we talk legitimate calls, these are calls that we interpret as a person would need the services of an EMT or a paramedic that we can actually make a direct impact right there in the field as opposed to, uh, using the quote unquote phrase, “be a taxi service.” These type of calls, which, you know, address the sort of adrenaline side of things, is what sort of attracted me when I first started. So, when I first started, that to me was a legitimate call, something where whatever I did would actually make an impact right then and there. (Jamal) Interviewer: Has that changed for you over time? It definitely has… As I kept working, I started looking, viewing my role as more of a liaison for the health systems I work for. Uh, these were people that I could speak to, talk to, comfort in times of need, even the quote unquote “non-legitimate calls.” (Jamal) In changing how he thinks about the occupation, Jamal reports finding meaningfulness in tasks he once perceived to be misaligned with the nature and necessity of the work. In contrast, when his occupational beliefs were more strongly linked to the shared occupational ideology, Jamal experienced only a small subset of his tasks as “legitimate” and meaningful. Occupational ideology personalization thus helps employees negotiate an occupational ideology–reality disconnect by changing the degree to which employees personally endorse the shared occupational ideology as what is “right.” In creating a more grounded, personal understanding of the work, employees’ experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect fades. At the same time, this process seemingly subverts employees’ support for the 51 shared occupational ideology, thus helping to dismantle the structural conditions responsible for the experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Unlike the other approaches, occupational ideology personalization undermines the recursive dynamics supporting the shared occupational ideology. As this is perhaps the most sustainable means for negotiating the occupational ideology–reality disconnect, in the following section we explore the mechanisms that appear to facilitate the occupational ideology personalization process. 2.3.5 Understanding the occupational ideology personalization process Based on our data, we theorize that two types of workplace experiences reveal inadequacies in the occupational ideology, fueling the occupational ideology personalization process. Specifically, experiencing (1) tasks perceived to align with the nature of the work according to the occupational ideology, but that failed to instill a sense of meaningfulness (i.e., were felt not to matter); and (2) tasks perceived to be misaligned with the nature of the work according to the occupational ideology, but that instilled a sense of meaningfulness (i.e., were felt to matter). Table 2.4 outlines these two types of experiences, which, in the EMS context, often involved high-acuity tasks felt not to help patients, or low-acuity tasks felt to help patients. 52 Table 2.4 Workplace experiences contributing to occupational ideology personalization Type of Workplace Experience Exemplar Quotes Ideologically aligned tasks experienced as meaningless Having that patient population that is unable to sustain themselves and, uh, mentally not there anymore. And here we are breaking their ribs, trying to resuscitate them. Uh, I think us as a group, all the providers as a group, we, in our hearts, we’re like, we want this person to move on. We’ll do our job, but we’re not really rooting for them to be resuscitated, in that case. (Jamal) [The patient] had a terminal illness so she had a DNR, or a do not resuscitate order. But she didn’t have [the DNR] with her. So, uh, we still ran the call—You finish the call and you’re like, I can’t work anymore. (Parker) You get into it [the EMS] with this idea that anyone can be saved and then you learn that that is not the case… So it used to be—and I think medicine is like this as a whole—it used to be saving people for the sake of saving people, and we’ve made a lot of great brain-dead people doing that. (Sam) Ideologically misaligned tasks experienced as meaningful So I, you know, poured some cleaner in there and cleaned her toilet bowl and whatever. Doing all those little things [doing her laundry, feeding her cats, cleaning her toilet]… Her neuroses were satisfied or whatever the issue is. I don’t exactly know. Um, but it was just, it was rewarding in a weird way and it’s not like she made a huge scene about it. She didn’t cry, hold my hand, and say, “Oh my God, you’re such a hero, blah, blah, blah.” And I’ve had people do that. Um, she was just like, “Okay, thank you.” I don’t know why that was such a positive experience for me, but even just, like, looking back on that memory, it just, it makes me smile. (Adrian) [Describing calming a man with anxiety] I was doing breathing techniques with him… I walked her [the patient’s mother] into the room and, like, “Your mom’s here,” and whatnot. “Alright, I’m going to leave now,” I said, you know, “I hope everything’s good.” And he was like, “Can I give you a hug?” And I’m like, “Yeah, of course.” And he’s like, “I understand with everything going on [referencing COVID-19]”, he’s like, “But I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me.” And so that’s a moment… and I don’t know a lot of coworkers who would do that [entertain the call], but I, like, I strive for that moment. (Layne) For the most part, the people who need the most day-to-day care and their families tend to be the ones who are most appreciative of what we do and our services. (Morgan) 53 We speculate that, over time, these experiences broke apart the underlying sense of meaningful(less)ness associated with particular tasks, decoupling the two components of the shared occupational ideology, that is, (1) “what the occupation does” and (2) “why it matters” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 421). This separation, we propose, enabled employees to cognitively reconfigure these ideological components and develop more personalized, grounded beliefs about the work. In the EMS context, these often took the form of generalized beliefs about why the work matters, absent of specifics about what the occupation does. Ava’s account below exemplifies our theorizing, illustrating the role of these types of experiences in driving occupational ideology personalization. She describes attending to a low-acuity call that, although a potential trigger for task dissonance, engendered a patient’s gratitude and a personal sense of “reward.” Such moments shifted her understanding of the work from “I’m here to help people with a medical problem” to the more general “I’m here to help people”: At first I found [low-acuity tasks] really challenging ‘cause I had no idea what to do, because I was there going, like, “Well, what’s the emergency?”… [Now], I’m sort of getting out of the mindset of everything being a huge emergency. I actually really came to love those [low-acuity] calls because, uh, you really make a difference in someone’s day. I remember one time going for a call for an old guy who just needed his blinds, his curtains rehung… He phoned 911 and said he had chest pain or something like that. So, it was completely different from what we expected when we walked in. But it turned out, he just really was lonely and needed some help with a minor thing. While doing that too often is frustrating—because you go, you know, we are in emergency services, we’re here to, to reach a certain type of call, like when people really do have a medical emergency—oftentimes, you know, that guy or the little lady who’s fallen and can’t get back up, they’re so grateful and—to us, we go, like, “Oh, we hardly did anything for you.” It felt like nothing compared to what we could do for someone who’s in cardiac arrest or they’re choking or things like that. But at the same time, there’s a lot of reward from helping people in small ways as well… Rather than the mindset of, “I’m here to help people with a medical problem,” it [my mindset] changed to, “I’m here to help people.” And sometimes that’s not related to a medical thing at all. (Ava) As employees like Ava moved toward a more personal and nuanced understanding of the work, and away from the relatively rigid shared occupational ideology, they came to accept and 54 sometimes even derive meaningfulness from the tasks that once generated dissonant task experiences and threatened work meaningfulness. Occupational ideology personalization thus reduced the occupational ideology–reality disconnect and its associated costs. 2.4 Discussion Understanding employees’ experience of work meaningfulness is “one of the most important questions for organizational scholarship” (Podolny et al., 2005, p. 1; see also Lepisto & Pratt, 2017). Our findings shed light on an underexplored driver of, and barrier to, the employee experience of work meaningfulness. Specifically, the process model we develop illuminates the role of occupational ideology as a social and cultural force shaping and threatening how individuals interpret the meaningfulness of their work. Our study presents evidence of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect that can lead to dissonant task experiences and threaten work meaningfulness. We identify three overarching approaches that employees use to address an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. While serving a similar purpose of attempting to restore work meaningfulness, these approaches have differing implications for individuals and organizations. They also differ with regard to how they reproduce or subvert the shared occupational ideology. Explaining these recursive dynamics is important because our findings suggest that some occupational ideologies exist and are sustained by employees in ways that are arguably counterproductive to both themselves and their employers. Many employees provide active or tacit support for the very social and cultural force—occupational ideology—that at times threatens their experience of work meaningfulness. Our findings suggest that occupational ideologies can be viewed as a double-edged sword. Their idealized nature can help individuals counter occupational stigma and maintain a positive sense of self (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bunderson & Thompson, 55 2009; Kreiner et al., 2006). At the same time, they can encourage employees to have unrealistic understandings and expectations about their work. Connecting to research on role-based image discrepancies (Vough et al., 2013), ungrounded occupational ideologies may even influence outsiders’ perceptions of the work, leading to unreasonable expectations of employees and productivity and emotional costs. In this regard, an occupational community’s development of an idealized occupational ideology can create costs for employees and employers. 2.4.1 Theoretical contributions Occupational ideologies. Occupational ideologies are important to a great variety of occupations. Indeed, “every occupational community develops… and articulates an ideology,” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009, p. 39) and “all occupations are amenable to being ideologically recast in edifying ways” (Ashforth et al., 2017; see also Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). The central finding that emerged from our data was that the occupational ideology guiding a given occupational community, when disconnected from the everyday realities of the work, can threaten employees’ experience of work meaningfulness. This finding both complements and challenges current conceptualizations of occupational ideology. On the one hand, our findings strengthen the notion that occupational ideologies are a collective resource that employees can draw on to understand and construct accounts that ascribe value to, or justify, their work (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bunderson, 2001; Dressel & Petersen, 1982). On the other hand, we find that occupational ideologies can constrain employees’ experiences of work meaningfulness. This insight challenges scholars’ traditional view of occupational ideologies as a positive resource enabling employees to endow their work with meaningfulness. Inspired by seminal literature on ideologies (e.g., Althusser, 1971; Geertz, 1973; Swidler, 1986), we contend that occupational ideologies can become disconnected from occupational 56 realities, introducing the concept of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. The notion of such a disconnect dovetails with existing management theory, which specifies that occupational communities often generate ideologies that “reframe,” “recalibrate,” and “refocus” the meaning of the work to enhance its positive value (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). This tendency for occupational communities to cast occupations in a favorable light supports the idea that occupational ideologies may become untethered from certain work realities, suggesting that occupational ideology–reality disconnects may be a frequent employee experience. However, in contrast to existing theory assuming that employees naturally situate or contextualize their daily work-related tasks and actions in light of the shared occupational ideology—thus experiencing their work to be more meaningful than they otherwise might have—we document the harmful consequences of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. We find that such a disconnect can generate dissonant task experiences and threaten work meaningfulness, leading employees to negotiate these costs using three overarching approaches. We see a potential relationship between the three overarching approaches that we identify and the ideological tactics that occupational communities use (“reframing,” “recalibrating,” and “refocusing”). Theoretically, we expect that the more an occupational community develops occupational ideologies that reframe, recalibrate, and refocus the meaning of the work, the more employees will need to use the three approaches we identify to keep pace. For example, occupational communities’ use of “reframing”—developing an occupational ideology that positively transforms the meaning attached to the work as a whole—may necessitate employees’ use of “ideologically compatible task reframing”—cognitively transforming the meaning attached to individual tasks to better fit them to the idealized occupational ideology. 57 Meaningful work. Our focus on occupational ideology and meaningful work deepens our understanding of the social and cultural forces influencing how individuals interpret the meaningfulness of their work. Management scholars have long been interested in identifying what enables employees to experience their work as meaningful, and what constrains them from doing so. This interest partly derives from the beneficial work-related and general well-being outcomes often associated with the experience of work as meaningful. Much research on meaningful work focuses on meaningfulness in terms of the work-related fulfillment of fundamental human needs (Rosso et al., 2010). From this perspective, challenges to meaningful work can be thought of as hinderances that impede employees’ satisfaction of these needs. Notably, constraining work conditions, such as workload surge or low pay (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Jiang, 2021), and limiting individual conditions, such as severe injury (Maitlis, 2009, 2012), hinder employees’ ability to perform the work that they perceive to be worthy or valuable, in the way that they desire. Yet, by treating the perception that one’s work is valuable or worthy as implied, this literature presents an opportunity to further examine the forces that shape individuals’ interpretations of their work as worthy or valuable in the first place, and how employees maintain these perceptions while carrying out their work. We reveal how employees adopt, employ, and sometimes personalize the occupational ideology celebrated by their occupational community as they attempt to account for their work as valuable or worthy. Occupational ideologies exist in the larger cultural milieu and provide individuals with culturally derived accounts of the value or worth of their work. We specify that they are transmitted to individuals through anticipatory socialization, job training, and on-the-job socialization. However, we find that employees can face a disconnect—manifesting in dissonant task experiences and a corresponding threat to work meaningfulness—as they perform their daily 58 work and face tasks that they perceive to be misaligned with the nature and necessity of the work, as specified by the shared occupational ideology. We identify three overarching approaches that employees use to negotiate this disconnect, which differentially reproduce or subvert the “account-granting institution” of occupational ideology (Lepisto & Pratt, 2017, p. 112). These findings answer ongoing calls (de Rond & Lok, 2016; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Rosso et al., 2010) to further explore how the experience of work meaningfulness may be structured “from the outside in,” thereby enriching our understanding of work meaningfulness beyond the psychological mechanisms that have been the predominant focus of management research. Our emphasis on occupational ideology as a source from which individuals develop accounts for the worth or value of their work also complements recent research on how individuals’ personal accounts of self and purpose evolve and influence the ways in which they interpret challenges within work they deem to be meaningful (Schabram & Maitlis, 2017). 2.4.2 Practical implications We provide an important caveat to scholars and practitioners advocating for managers to promote occupational ideologies that reframe, recalibrate, and refocus the meaning of work to “confer a more positive image on the work” (Harvard Business Review, 2007, para. 2). We demonstrate the limitations of this approach. Namely, we reveal that the more an occupational ideology becomes untethered from the tasks that employees are required to perform as part of their work, the greater the likelihood that employees will have dissonant task experiences and encounter a threat to work meaningfulness in their everyday work practice. Managers who understand both the positive and negative implications of occupational ideologies for employees and organizations can re-structure how employees are socialized to 59 help them better understand the nature and necessity of their work. Importantly, we show that the socialization of employees into a shared occupational ideology that overlooks the everyday realities of the role is critical to employees experiencing an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Some of the approaches that employees use to negotiate such a disconnect likely run counter to their own or their employer’s interests. For example, some of our informants noted personal costs due to their use of elective specialization, while the approaches of physical withdrawal and role boundary reinforcement are likely detrimental to their organizations. A promising solution to this dilemma is to make dedicated efforts to socialize employees into a more grounded occupational ideology. We find that employees internalize the shared occupational ideology through anticipatory socialization, job training, and on-the-job socialization. Of these processes, job training and on-the-job socialization are readily amenable to managerial influence. Managers should ground the meaningfulness of the work in the actual occupational tasks that employees are expected to perform, rather than highlighting a subset of ostensibly worthy or valuable, yet perhaps infrequent, occupational tasks. Realistic job previews (e.g., Phillips, 1998; Premack & Wanous, 1985; Wanous, 1973) may also provide a valuable means of acquainting recruits with the true-to-life aspects of the work which may have been lost during anticipatory socialization. Importantly, managers must still help employees maintain a positive identity (Ashforth et al., 2007) and favorable beliefs about the nature and necessity of their actual work practice. 2.4.3 Limitations and future research directions Our findings offer compelling opportunities for future research, some of which stem from our study’s limitations. First, we used retrospective interviews to theorize about a process. Although our data are suitable for process model theorizing (Van de Ven, 2007), we recognize 60 we used informants’ data to both highlight the occupational ideology–reality disconnect and theorize employee responses to this disconnect. Theoretically, if the strategies utilized by informants were completely successful in negotiating the disconnect, our observations of employees’ experiences of a disconnect might not exist. However, we do not assert that the strategies identified fully reinstated employees’ sense of work meaningfulness nor eliminated the discomfort associated with dissonant task experiences. Instead, we proposed that most strategies, with the exception of occupational ideology personalization, played a role in perpetuating the shared occupational ideology, thereby preserving the ideology-reality disconnect along with its resultant dissonance and discomfort. We believe this dynamic enabled us to observe both the disconnect and employees’ varied strategies for dealing with it at the same time in our data. Nevertheless, longitudinal or multi-time point research could strengthen the proposed processes outlined in our theoretical model and answer additional questions. For example, what factors may predispose the use of the three overarching approaches we identify? How successful are the various approaches in mitigating dissonant task experiences and the corresponding threat to work meaningfulness? Given that our data indicate that the three approaches are not mutually exclusive, what are the potential synergies and boundary conditions of the various approaches? Additionally, extant research on ideologies suggests that individuals are likely to differ in the extent to which they internalize any given ideology (e.g., Bryan, 1966). Thus, future research might examine variations in occupational ideology internalization, that is, why some individuals internalize the shared occupational ideology more than others, and how gradations of internalization influence employees’ experience of an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Although our data were limited in their ability to depict these dynamics, theoretically, we expect (1) that the extent of an employees’ socialization into the occupational ideology influences their 61 internalization of it; and (2) that the level of internalization of the shared occupational ideology influences how much they are harmed by, and must consequently negotiate, an occupational ideology–reality disconnect. Second, while our inductive approach affords realism by providing rich insights into the experiences of the EMS providers we studied, it does so at the expense of statistical generalizability. Thus, although an occupational ideology–reality disconnect is likely a relatively common employee experience, we cannot assert that all employees experience and negotiate this disconnect in a manner identical to our findings. The EMS has a robust and clearly defined occupational ideology, raising the question of whether dissonant task experiences and the corresponding threat to work meaningfulness would be as salient for employees working under a less specified occupational ideology. Hence, borrowing from the organizational culture literature, the notion of occupational ideology “strength” (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996) might be a fruitful boundary condition to explore. The EMS is also a service context where the work tends to be relational, which may have influenced our findings. For example, we found that EMS providers reinforced role boundaries directly with patients, whereas in other contexts, employees may do so with supervisors. Despite these limitations to statistical generalizability, we offer analytic generalizability (Yin, 2003), a theory that can be applied in different occupational contexts. Future research could examine other occupations to ascertain our model’s generalizability. Third, while it may appear that our paper merely recounts individuals’ accounts of unmet expectations, the shared expectations among a diverse group of informants suggest they emanate from a higher-level cultural component—we argue, an occupational ideology that frames these expectations. Nevertheless, our understanding of the EMS occupational ideology was primarily informed by examining common themes among EMS providers’ individually held beliefs, 62 values, and attitudes, as well as in their accounts of the EMS occupation and its ideological elements. Examining such markers of an ideology is key to understanding the ideology, given that ideologies are not directly observable except through such manifestations (Trice & Beyer, 1984). Our approach builds on how other management scholars have studied occupational ideology (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007), although future research may opt to use longitudinal methods, historical analysis, or ethnographic approaches to conceptualize or understand a given occupational ideology (Beyer et al., 1988; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). 2.5 Conclusion This study provides novel insights into how occupational ideologies shape and constrain employees’ experiences of work meaningfulness. We find that work meaningfulness is enmeshed in personal belief systems that have been shaped by shared occupational ideologies. This is a problematic situation when these ideologies are untethered from frequent occupational realities. We reveal that occupational communities socialize employees into overly idealistic occupational ideologies, fostering misleading perceptions of the work. Consequently, as employees engage in their daily work, dissonant task experiences and a corresponding threat to work meaningfulness can occur. Employees utilize myriad creative approaches to negotiate the occupational ideology–reality disconnect, some of which bolster the shared occupational ideology, thus perpetuating the structural conditions of their very predicament. These findings lay the foundation for a new approach to studying occupational ideologies and how shared representations or culturally derived accounts of work meaningfulness—such as an occupational ideology—inform individuals’ experiences of their work as worthy or valuable. 63 Chapter 3: Measuring Employee Experiences with Occupational Evaluations Scholars have long been interested in how employees are affected by negative social evaluations of their occupations—societal views that their occupation is “tainted” or otherwise lacking in value (Ashforth et al., 2007; Bosmans et al., 2016; Hamilton et al., 2019; Kreiner et al., 2006; Rapp et al., 2023; Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020; Tracy & Scott, 2006). This perspective underscores that shared sentiments towards specific occupations can emerge (M. S. Wang et al., 2021), and that employees may need to navigate their involvement in occupations that face widespread, societal-level disapproval. Given that many employees identify closely with their occupations (Ashforth et al., 2013), such disapproval could potentially harm their self-worth. Yet, intriguingly, studies tend to show that employees in devalued occupations often maintain strong occupational esteem (Brown, 2015; Kreiner et al., 2022; Mikolon et al., 2021; Tracy & Scott, 2006). They do so through utilizing defense tactics such as imbuing the work with positive value (Ashforth et al., 2007; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Johnston & Hodge, 2014) and questioning the credibility of those who undermine their occupation (Bosmans et al., 2016; Cahill, 1999; Sykes & Matza, 1957). These defense tactics have been found to enable employees across various devalued occupations to sustain positive self-views despite others’ negative views of their work. Yet, in focusing on how employees handle the perception that society broadly disapproves of their occupation, the direct feedback employees receive from individuals about their occupation has been given insufficient attention. Overlooking these direct interactions is concerning, as they appear to deeply influence employees. For instance, Kahn (2019, p. 1480) 64 recounted the “traumatizing” experience of a child welfare agent who was publicly shamed for their work: “A woman overheard me talking to a friend. She comes over and interrupts, asks me if I work for [child welfare agency]. I tell her yes. She proceeds to rip on me, calling me a baby snatcher. It was so upsetting I couldn’t even speak … I was shaking I was so angry. It was traumatizing, really, and I was really hurt. I found myself hating all these stupid people who have no actual idea what we do.” Often, it is these explicit encounters, rather than the more abstract societal views, that shape an individual’s lived experience of their occupation. Therefore, to grasp the full effects of occupational evaluations on employees, it is pivotal to broaden our scope beyond societal-level perceptions and direct our attention to the instances where these evaluations come to life. The goal of this paper is to spur future research on enacted occupational evaluations and their implications for employees. I define enacted occupational evaluations as outward expressions of evaluations of an occupation. First, I position enacted occupational evaluations within the existing literature. Second, I detail what enacted occupational evaluations consist of. Third, in a series of measurement development studies, I systematically develop and validate general-purpose measures for employees to self-report the frequency of their experiences with enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). In so doing, I provide evidence that NOE and POE are distinct from several related constructs, and position these enacted occupational evaluations within a broader nomological network. 3.1 Theoretical foundations Occupations encompass traditionally recognized professions and other career tracks likewise characterized by specialized knowledge and well-defined standards of behavior (Leavitt et al., 2012). Occupations can exert meaningful influences on audiences (e.g., clients, customers, the general public) by, for example, employees performing their work in particular ways. Hence, 65 social evaluations (i.e., “socially constructed, collective perceptions,” Pollock et al., 2019, p. 444) of them often emerge. For example, in a study of the medical profession in China, Wang, Raynard, and Greenwood (2021) showed how doctors’ engagement in unethical work practices contributed to widespread social disapproval. By contrast, the efforts of healthcare workers during COVID-19 led the public to see them as “heroes” (Hennekam et al., 2020). Further contributing to an occupation’s social evaluation is the nature of the work employees perform. Employees may be responsible for tasks commonly perceived by society as physically, socially, or morally “tainted” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014; Hughes, 1958), such as performing abortions (O’Donnell et al., 2011), engaging in sex work (Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020), or collecting garbage (Shepherd et al., 2022). Alternatively, they may engage in work generally viewed as benevolent or honorable (Hughes, 1984), such as teaching (Santoro, 2011), caring for the ill (Liaschenko & Peter, 2004), or performing social work (Banks, 2020). Such work and the public narratives surrounding it (Cameron et al., 2022; Rapp et al., 2023) can contribute to negative or positive social evaluations. While several distinctive social evaluations exist (e.g., status, prestige, legitimacy; Fine, 1996; Ganzeboom et al., 1992; Sherman, 2010), many scholars interested in the social evaluation of occupations have focused on stigma, thereby developing the “dirty work literature.” Stigma describes a visible discrediting attribute that hinders full social acceptance in many social contexts (Crocker et al., 1998; Goffman, 1963; Vergne, 2012). Occupational stigma attaches to employees who work in stigmatized occupations (Zhang et al., 2021), ostensibly threatening their identities. A primary objective of dirty work research has therefore been to examine how employees “cope with the taint” (Kreiner et al., 2006, p. 620) and construct a positive sense of self regardless of the taint. Common defense tactics include imbuing the work with positive 66 value by reframing, recalibrating, and refocusing its meaning (Ashforth et al., 2007; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Johnston & Hodge, 2014; Tracy & Scott, 2006) and deploying social weighting strategies such as diminishing the credibility of those who undermine the occupation (Bosmans et al., 2016; Cahill, 1999; Sykes & Matza, 1957). A key finding emerging from the dirty work literature is that such defense tactics largely create a buffer for employees, enabling them to sustain positive self-views despite occupational stigma (Brown, 2015; Mikolon et al., 2021; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Scholars of occupational stigma—as well as scholars more generally—have not prioritized documenting or examining audiences’ actual enactments of occupational evaluations, including their mistreatment of individuals based on their occupational membership (cf. Mikolon et al., 2021; Rapp et al., 2023). This is because occupational stigma scholars have correctly treated stigma as a multidimensional concept wherein “labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination occur together in a power situation” (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 377). This approach recognizes that a “stigma complex”—consisting of “interrelated, heterogeneous system structures, from the individual to the society, and processes, from the molecular to the geographic and historical” (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015, p. 101)—transforms differences between social groups into the so-called “marks” of stigma. Accordingly, stigmatized employees are not necessarily treated as such by all audiences all the time. Rather, they possess an enduring mark or characteristic that communicates a socially recognized difference. Consequently, scholars of occupational stigma have focused on researching how employees manage these discrediting marks (vs. the interpersonal treatment they receive as a result of the marks). Yet, as Vergne (2012, p. 1030) noted, “stigmatization shows its most consequential effects when it translates into public attacks on particular individuals in the stigmatized group.” 67 3.2 Enacted occupational evaluations I define enacted occupational evaluations as outward expressions of evaluations of an occupation. They occur when one or more individuals outwardly express (i.e., through physiological responses, words, or actions) their (un)favorable assessment of an occupation. This definition implies that enacted occupational evaluations involve two dimensions: an evaluation of an occupation and the outward expression of this evaluation. As such, enacted occupational evaluations can be subjectively negative or positive. 3.2.1 The evaluation component of enacted occupational evaluations Evaluations are “assessments of the desirability or undesirability of objects” (Ferguson & Bargh, 2004, p. 557). Humans are naturally prone to make evaluations about objects and events in their environment (Ledgerwood et al., 2018). These evaluations can develop through thoughtful, deliberate cognitive processing—where an individual integrates various attributes of a stimulus into a coherent evaluative judgment—or instantaneously, absent of any conscious intention to evaluate the stimulus (Duckworth et al., 2002; Fazio, 2007). Within the field of social psychology, the distinction between deliberate and spontaneous evaluations is encapsulated in the terms “explicit” and “implicit” evaluations. Explicit evaluations are generally linked with self-reported evaluative judgments, while implicit evaluations are determined by how an individual performs on indirect assessments, such as implicit association tests or sequential priming tasks (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2011). In many cases, individuals’ explicit evaluations are consistent with their implicit evaluations, such as when they have drawn on their affective “gut reaction” to an object as a foundation for their endorsed evaluative judgment of that object. Alternatively, cognitive processes can be employed to challenge and override such initial responses, particularly when additional information is available and considered to be 68 relevant for the respective judgment (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). Even so, merely rejecting an affective response may not sever the underlying mental associations that brought it about, leading to possible discrepancies between explicit and implicit evaluations. It is beyond the scope of this paper to review the internal mental processes that inform explicit and implicit evaluations, particularly because the focus of this paper is in outward (i.e., behavioral) expressions of evaluations. Notably, scholars have found that both explicit and implicit evaluations systematically relate to behavior. In general, explicit evaluations are associated with more deliberative behaviors (e.g., verbal assessments of the focal object), whereas implicit evaluations relate to more subtle behaviors (e.g., nonverbal reactions upon exposure to the focal object). 3.2.2 The behavioral component of enacted occupational evaluations The definition of enacted occupational evaluations—outward expressions of evaluations toward an occupation—implies that enacted occupational evaluations are behavioral. Enacted occupational evaluations can encompass a wide variety of behaviors, in part because, similar to evaluations of other objects, evaluations of occupations can be explicit or implicit. In other words, enacted occupational evaluations can be deliberative or subtle, and can encompass verbal or nonverbal behaviors. The common thread tying distinctive enacted occupational evaluations together is that they derive, either wholly or partially, from a person’s assessment of the desirability or undesirability of an occupation. Notably, employees are more likely to perceive overt (vs. discreet) enactments of occupational evaluations. While people can enact the evaluations of occupations in limitless ways, Krumboltz (1992) provided some examples; for instance, being more or less helpful toward clients who work within certain occupations or providing “professional courtesies” (i.e., free or reduced 69 prices) for members of certain occupations. Other interpersonal examples could include swiping on dating apps (McAlone, 2018), giving gifts (Hennekam et al., 2020), (not) doing business with (Mikolon et al., 2021), and approaching or avoiding (Ashforth et al., 2007; Kahn, 2019) members of specific occupations. Importantly, such behaviors must stem either wholly or partially from the evaluator’s assessment of the target’s occupation, rather than their assessment of the target’s unique merits, capacities, or circumstances. Enacted occupational evaluations could also target an occupation in general (vs. individuals employed in that occupation). A person could express their evaluation of an occupation by posting on social media about the occupation or creating/spreading graffiti or images featuring the occupation (Ritzen, 2020). 3.2.3 The valence of enacted occupational evaluations Because evaluations represent assessments of the (un)desirability of objects, behavioral expressions of these evaluations are similarly likely to communicate disfavor or favor, and to be subjectively construed either negatively or positively. I classify outward expressions of a negative evaluation toward an occupation as enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE), and outward expressions of a positive evaluation toward an occupation as enacted positive occupational evaluations (POE). 3.3 The need for a scale to measure experiences with enacted occupational evaluations People frequently enact occupational evaluations. For instance, the question “What do you do?” is a deeply rooted social convention used to engage with new acquaintances (Ajay et al., 2023; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Grant et al., 2014), and answers can elicit responses of (dis)approval. A construct-valid measure therefore provides an initial avenue for scholars to examine the impact of such evaluations on employees, augmenting current research focusing on how employees are influenced by broader society-level views of their work. Building knowledge 70 in this domain can also equip organizations with insights to better prepare their employees to navigate the diverse reactions their chosen occupation might elicit. Further, existing measurement scales in management science that evaluate the negative and positive treatments employees receive fall short in effectively capturing the essence of enacted occupational evaluations. Specifically, while some forms of enacted occupational evaluations might relate to the negative or positive treatment of employees, such treatment stems from an underlying evaluation of the target’s occupation—a crucial facet of their identity (Ashforth et al., 2013; Conroy et al., 2017). As such, the effects of enacted occupational evaluations are likely to differ than more generalized forms of negative and positive treatment. Second, merely expressing one’s evaluation of an occupation does not necessarily translate into the negative or positive treatment of employees. Take, for example, a social media post in which someone shares their evaluation of a particular occupation. Many would not directly associate this with the (un)favorable treatment of those employed within the occupation. Nevertheless, because occupation represents an important anchor for identity, an employee’s exposure to such a post could provoke important consequences. Introducing a scale for employees to quantify their experiences with enacted NOE and POE can help identify the unique effects of these behaviors on employees. 3.4 Scale development phases and findings In Spring 2022, using a linear phase-based approach based on established scale development guidelines (Colquitt et al., 2019; Hinkin, 1995, 1998), I developed and validated measures for both enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). Construct validation encompasses a rigorous multistep process to ensure that measures are both reliable and representative. It confirms that the items reflect the intended 71 content domain (e.g., content validation), and that the scales exhibit reliable and expected psychometric qualities (e.g., internal and temporal consistency, predicted dimensionality) as well as demonstrate relationships with theoretically connected constructs and do not demonstrate relationships with theoretically disconnected constructs (i.e., convergent and discriminant validity). Phase 1 included two qualitative pilot studies on occupational evaluations, laying the foundation for inductive item development. In Phase 2, I established the content validity of the NOE and POE measures. Phase 3 examined the psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales, and Phase 4 situated NOE and POE within an initial nomological network. I describe each of these phases in detail in the following sections. 3.4.1 Phase I: Two qualitative pilot studies of occupational evaluations The first phase consisted of two qualitative pilot studies to collect examples of employee experiences with NOE and POE within and across occupations to guide item development. Sample 1 participants and procedure. My focus on enacted occupational evaluations emerged inductively. I formed an industry partnership with a large Canadian police union in January 2020 and began a collaborative, multi-stage research project broadly focused on officers’ mental health and well-being. In July 2020, I commenced qualitative data collection. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I had to modify my initial plan of conducting in-person focus groups, instead opting for one-on-one interviews. Coincidentally, I began the interviewing process in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, as occupationally-relevant “mega-events” (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013) were unfolding. During this period, global Black Lives Matter protests and a Defund the Police movement in North America dominated the social discourse. 72 The union (N ≈1,450) represents a large Canadian police department serving one large city and surrounding area. The union’s bargaining unit includes police officers8 (N ≈ 1,350) ranging in rank from constable to staff sergeant, who work in one of three divisions in the police department: operations, investigation, or support services, depending on their specialty (e.g., general patrol, organized crime, personnel services). Operations officers primarily work in a uniformed capacity, patrolling and actively enforcing criminal and traffic laws within the community on a “four on, four off” schedule (four ~11-hour shifts, followed by four rest days). Investigation officers spend most of their work time at desks investigating serious crimes (e.g., sexual assault) to gather further evidence for criminal charges. They work at one of the two headquarters or in the community as needed, following a “four-10 schedule” (four 10-hour days with three days off each week). Support services officers primarily work at desks on tasks such as planning, personnel services (e.g., human resources, training), research and development, or accounting at one of the two headquarters, following a four-10 schedule. Seniority and performance enables officers to gain experience in different divisions and rise in rank. Between July 2020 and May 2021, I partnered with the police union to recruit 62 police officers (55% male; see Appendix C) to participate in exploratory in-depth, semi-structured, one-on-one interviews. I conducted these interviews in person or over Zoom, depending on the respondent’s preference and the COVID-19 directives followed at the time by my university and the police department. Interviews, which lasted 90 minutes on average, were broad and designed to examine how police officers’ working conditions relate to their well-being. The interview 8 While most union members worked as police officers, some members were employed as jail guards (N ≈ 60) or special municipal constables (N ≈ 40). I only draw on police officer data due to low participation among these other groups. 73 protocol can be found in Appendix D. I utilized snowball and purposive sampling approaches, aiming for variation in department, gender, and tenure. After completing 13 interviews, based on the highly salient theme of the public’s (mis)treatment of their occupation, I began collecting data about critical incidents (Flanagan, 1954) when officers recalled others expressing evaluations of their occupation. To do so, I described how some experiences help individuals “take the temperature” of how others feel about their occupation. I then provided an example, explaining how much graffiti in the city at the time of data collection conveyed a derogatory message about the police; passersby presumably “consume” these occupationally relevant messages and may or may not be affected by them. I then asked the police officers to detail the various ways that they have “consumed” others’ attitudes9 toward their occupation. In the vast majority of interviews (59/62), I pursued this line of inquiry after the respondent had already raised the theme of others’ (mis)treatment of their occupation. I probed for examples of both negative and positive evaluations of the occupation. Sample 1 findings. This procedure generated hundreds of examples of NOE and POE. Perhaps unsurprisingly, due to the polarizing nature of the occupation and because “bad is stronger than good” (R. Baumeister et al., 2001), most police officers in my sample described experiencing NOE more frequently than POE and more readily recalled NOE (vs. POE) examples. However, their answers provide initial evidence that members of single occupation can experience both NOE and POE. Said differently, the diverse audiences police officers come 9 Attitudes are “summary evaluations that elicit consistently favorable or unfavorable reactions toward an object or domain” (Kuwabara et al., 2018, p. 52). Throughout the scale development tasks/phases, I used the term “attitude” with respondents, as it tends to be more easily understood by the general public compared to the term “evaluation.” 74 into contact with have differing views of the police, and, accordingly, express differential evaluations of the police. This finding speaks to a limitation of much research on the social evaluation of occupations, which tends to paint audiences as uniformly in favor of or against particular occupations. Additionally, the findings highlighted two key features of enacted occupational evaluations. First, they can come from diverse sources (e.g., members of the public, family, friends, organizations, social media). Second, they can be directed toward individual members of the occupation or the occupation as a whole. Table 3.1 exemplifies these features. Officers described individuals and companies (e.g., a hot dog restaurant; a wedding company) expressing NOE and POE, as well as social media-based evaluations. Further, they described occupational evaluations directed at them (e.g., “fuck you”) and the occupation as a whole (e.g., “we won’t serve cops”). 75 Table 3.1 Policing sample NOE & POE exemplars Dimension Policing exemplars Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) Respondent #48, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “I remember one specifically. This will like probably never leave my mind. I was like on the back of the car, I was taking a statement from someone who just got randomly assaulted on the street, like helping them, legitimately helping them and they were cooperative. And this guy, I was by myself. And this guy like bikes super close to me, and just like, ‘Fuck you, fuck the police,’ and then like, just kind of like, just leaves, right? … I didn’t lose sleep, but I definitely thought about it. And it rattled me, just because he like, he was so aggressively riding on his bike and then like came really close to me like from behind. And so that just like startled me too cuz I’m like, oh my God - like am I going to get like randomly assaulted on the street?” Respondent #52, Operations Division Police Officer, Male: “There’s the hot dog restaurant … that said, ‘We won’t serve cops.’ Then, I’ll go into [this burrito shop] and as soon as you go in there it just goes silent and everyone just stares at you while you’re standing there. Whereas before you’d just go in there, grab your burrito and leave. And now it’s just like especially in those types of areas … right now like you’re just not welcome.” Respondent #46, Operations Division Police Officer, Male: “She posted like ACAFB which ACAB means All Cops Are Bastards, ACAFB means All Cops Are Fucking Bastards and that like it stings cuz like I’ve had interactions with this person. … All of our interactions have been positive social interactions, I like to think that she respected me and I respected her, but then when I see that kind of stuff online it like, it cuts a little deep because I’m putting as much effort in as I can to be good and to be shining like beacon of like empathy and reasonableness and like safety and when you’re putting a lot of effort into being that and then you’re still kind of lumped in as the enemy and as an obvious antagonist for me that’s just difficult.” 76 Dimension Policing exemplars Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) Respondent #20, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “An indigenous man approached me in a Starbucks and he handed me a card, and it was a $25 gift card. … I thought that was the kindest gesture, and I didn’t do anything for him specifically, he just approached me while I was writing a report. And then individuals, I’ve had by times someone comes up and say, ‘Hey, I know there’s a lot of negativity. I just want to say we really appreciate having you here,’ kind of thing, so that’s huge.” Respondent #55, Operations Division Police Officer, Male: “[Our wedding company] said, ‘Hey we’re going to, if it’s cool with you, we’re going to pay for everything you wanted, because you guys are first responders,’ right? … A lot of time, people come up to my patrol car you know, to the window and say, ‘Hey, I just wanna thank you for your service.’ That happens from time to time, I wouldn’t say frequently, but it’s a common occurrence. You know, people sometimes will grab their kids to our patrol car and I’ll get out and I’ll put the kid in the car and the lights on and stuff like that. And that actually, with mental health, that’s something that just has a lot to do like when other people bring their kids up and I put them in the car it’s just great. So and it makes me feel better too, I feel like my shift is like awesome. This is what I wanna be doing. So that’s pretty cool and then you now, sometimes we’ll get like free stuff we’ll get like free coffee at Tim Horton’s.” Respondent #29, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “We also get some people yelling at you like positively, ‘We love you guys.” 77 Sample 2 participants and procedure. For my second sample, I recruited workers employed in diverse occupations and living in diverse countries from Prolific.co (an online data collection subject pool) to participate in a study “about how others feel about their occupation” (N = 100; 53% male; 76% employed full-time; mean age = 28.99 [SD 7.95]; mean tenure = 4.07 [SD 4.93]). The aim of this approach was to confirm that employees from a range of occupations and cultural backgrounds encounter enacted occupational evaluations, and to investigate the nature of these evaluations, especially in comparison to those directed at the policing occupation during a time of social unrest. To participate, I required respondents to be employed (full-time or part-time), over the age of 19, fluent in English (to understand and respond to the survey questions), and consider themselves to have an occupation. Using an open-ended question format, I asked respondents to recall and describe two experiences; a time when they experienced others (e.g., family, friends, people on the internet) expressing a negative attitude toward their occupation and a time when they experienced others expressing a positive attitude toward their occupation. I specified that these experiences could occur directly (e.g., in person) or indirectly (e.g., through social media). I also instructed respondents that, if nothing came to mind, they could explain why they believe others do not often express these attitudes toward their occupation. I also asked respondents how often they experience negative and positive attitudinal expressions toward their occupation per month (1 = never, 2 = once a month, 3 = 2–3 times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = 2–3 times a week, 6 = once a day, 7 = more than once a day) and per year (1 = never, 2 = once a year, 3 = twice a year, 4 = several times a year, 5 = monthly, 6 = weekly, 7 = daily). My intention in asking these questions was to assess whether experiencing NOE and POE is a low base-rate occurrence—and thus, would be better assessed over longer 78 time periods (e.g., one year)—or, in some contexts, a relatively frequent occurrence, allowing researchers to study experiences with NOE and POE over shorter timeframes. On the one hand, shorter timeframes are advantageous for assessing episodic (vs. semantic) memories (Robinson & Clore, 2002), possibly enhancing the accuracy of respondents’ recall of their experiences with NOE and POE. On the other hand, for low base-rate phenomena, shortened timeframes can result in excess zeros (i.e., no reported behavior), negatively affecting measurement scales’ variance. Sample 2 findings. This procedure generated 200 qualitative responses. With respect to NOE, 76 respondents described experiences with NOE while 24 respondents detailed their beliefs about why they have not experienced NOE while working in their respective occupation. With respect to POE, 91 respondents described experiences with POE while 9 respondents detailed why they believe they have not experienced POE while working in their respective occupation. These responses (see Table 3.2) provided evidence that the occurrence and potent effects of NOE and POE are not limited to “extreme” contexts—that is, occupations facing acute levels of public attention or scrutiny (i.e., police). The findings also provide initial evidence that experiences with NOE and POE can be studied over shorter or longer timeframes; NOE at one month: M = 2.03 (SD 1.20); NOE at one year: M = 2.89 (SD 1.58); POE at one month: M = 3.21 (SD 1.26); POE at one year: M = 4.31 (SD 1.24). 79 Table 3.2 Cross-occupational NOE & POE exemplars Dimension Cross-occupational exemplars Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) Violinmaker’s Assistant, Female, 28 years old, South Africa: “This came from one of my family members, my uncle. Firstly, I do not think it was ill will intent; just maybe he thought he would give me some life advice. He came straight to me and asked, Why do I do it? Am I passionate? But most importantly, am I making enough to be able to live a comfortable life? He basically came to me and said maybe I should look into other professions. Surely, I am intelligent and can find something else much more rewarding than being an assistant to a luthier. He would send me ads about other jobs/opportunities. Some of my close friends and partner have also expressed some concerns about my dire financial situation and suggested I look for something else. It has definitely had me thinking, do I look for plan Bs just in case? And as much as I do enjoy some aspects to it, there is always that question at the back of my mind, ‘Is this truly what I want?’ It is hard when people close to you do not fully support your decisions, it makes for a lot of self doubt and disappointment.” Care Assistant, Male, 36 years old, United Kingdom: “The thing that sticks out as being the most negative is usually being asked why I’m choosing to do that or why I would choose to do that with my life. Like it’s beneath me and that I could do something better. Or jumping to what they would consider the worst aspects of the job. I usually just explain how I got into care through caring for my Grandmother first, and then that seems to help people understand why because it’s more personal. But it’s not something people understand probably because of my gender. And I’ve always been encouraged to pursue nursing or something they would consider better. It doesn’t make me feel great. Like I shouldn’t be doing what I’m doing and by doing what I’m doing I’m seen or viewed as some kind of failure because I have no ambition.” Cashier, Female, 22 years old, Portugal: “[A person] told me I was dumb enough to be working as a cashier in a supermarket and that I would have no future. All that was said while that person did not know ANYTHING about my life. When this happened, this year, I was just starting my Master’s degree. It made me feel bad, people forget sometimes that not everyone has parents or family that can afford to pay for higher education for their children. It also made me cry later that day because there is a lot of people, with potential and studies and higher education, that cannot get better occupations and will also experience these same negative attitudes coming from other people, sometimes their own family and friends.” Computer Scientist, Female, 23 years old, Hungary “People online (on social medias) consider us programmers nerds, or they think we can’t be talked to. The jokes about this profession always revolves around us being overweight, pimpley guys with glasses, or us being single because of our lack of social skills. And I have not even talked about how people always laugh when I say I work in the IT field as a woman. This always enrages me, and I hope in a few years women get to be proud of themself 80 Dimension Cross-occupational exemplars working in this field. (I might even say that these “jokes” are the reason I unfollowed all these ‘meme pages’ on social media).” Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) Teaching Assistant, Female, 27 years old, United Kingdom: “One of my friends had learned at the first time that I started to work as a TA at a special educational needs school. She showed a very positive attitude toward my job by saying such a righteous job it was. Because of her religion, she approached to my job in the base of her beliefs. According to her, children with disabilities are only gifts coming from Allah, and they are literally an angel. They do not have any sin, being unable to judge something right or wrong.” Parliamentarian Assistant, Male, 30 years old, Italy: “Generally people I don’t know or I barely know tell me that my work is amazing. It happens when we talk about our works and on what we do.” Designer/ Scenographer for Music Festivals, Female, 20 years old, Mexico: “I receive these positive comments from my family and friends, and even some acquaintances that I’ve seen like one or two times in my life. I actually like the attention that I receive, and particularly receiving these comments from my family and friends congratulating me or saying that I have a nice job, makes it even better. Sometimes I do change my behavior after receiving these comments, having effect at the attitude that I have specifically towards my job and the general perception that I have of my life. Research Engineer, Female, 26 years old, Slovenia: “Usually when I tell people what my occupation means, they are impressed. They normally don’t know what that means so I explain to them that I have a master’s degree in chemistry and what that means for my work. They usually say I must be smart since I studied chemistry (because it’s hard). This positive attitude mostly comes from people I just met or acquaintances. It makes me feel very good and usually boost my ego a bit, and reminds me that I am actually smart and shouldn’t feel the imposter syndrome so often. So it helps my confidence and the way I do my job for a little bit.” 81 Dimension Cross-occupational exemplars Both NOE and POE Social Care Support Worker, Female, 33 years old, United Kingdom: NOE: “When people have heard that I work in children’s social services and they or their family has had a negative experience with the fostering and adoption service or interacted with care homes, then they often do not see it as a good job to participate in. There is often misinformation, such as my co-workers doing direct work being called ‘baby snatchers’ and being abused verbally and also sometimes members of the public try to find and add them on social media. My behaviour has become changed over the course of my career to be more vague when describing my role. “I work for local government” and not disclosing any personal information and hiding my work lanyard etc.” POE: “People express that it must be very rewarding to be directly with young people and improving their lives. They see social media posts asking for support with families and they also give generously to the donations for Christmas presents.” Writer/ Producer, Male, 37 years old, Mexico: NOE: “[Some people are] dismissive because they think that what I do is not very important or that I’m a failure because they haven’t seen what I do. They’re condescending and offer unsolicited advice.” POE: “Usually people are nice when they know that I work in film/TV. They say things like: ‘That’s so cool! You have to be very smart! I heard it’s so difficult to work in film! Please use me as a background actor!’” 82 3.4.2 Phase II: Item generation and reduction In the second phase, I used inductive and deductive approaches to develop scale items (Hinkin, 1998). Inductively, I drew on the experiences with NOE and POE described by respondents in my exploratory field research with police (sample 1) and cross-occupational qualitative survey (sample 2), or identifiable within the existing literature. Examples from the existing literature came largely from qualitative research pertaining to the social evaluation of occupations—either directly (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020; Shepherd et al., 2022; Vough et al., 2013) or indirectly (e.g., Kahn, 2019; Spataro & Cohen, 2020). Deductively, I reviewed the literature for related constructs, with a specific focus on existing constructs and scales that contain behavioral items tapping into the notion of a person’s exposure to differential treatment (e.g., victimization; Aquino et al., 1999), particularly based on social group membership (e.g., discrimination; Williams et al., 1997). I developed 48 potential items (27 NOE items, 21 POE items) with the theoretical rationale of occupational evaluations having at least two valence-based dimensions (negative and positive) that should not be combined algebraically. Said differently, following other scholars who have developed negative and positive behavioral scales (e.g., workplace gossip; Brady et al., 2017), my intent was to develop two scales that were reasonably independent of one another, but that assess the full spectrum of employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations. As I crafted items, I paid particular attention to two key features of occupational evaluations: (a) they can come from diverse sources (e.g., members of the public, family, friends, organizations, social media) and (b) they can be directed toward individual members of an occupation or the occupation as a whole (e.g., “you are a bad/good person for being a member of your occupation” vs. “all members of your occupation are bad/good people”). Consequently, I wrote the stems and 83 items to facilitate flexible interpretation and usage, enabling future scholars to examine these nuances. I then used two item-sort task approaches to assess the substantive validity of each potential item—the extent to which the item reflects the construct of interest (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991)—and refine the NOE and POE scales. Sample 3 participants and procedure. For my third sample, I recruited business school graduate students or recent graduates (N = 11, 55% female, mean age = 29.19 years, SD = 3.96) to participate in a digital Q-sort task (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). I provided respondents with the following conceptual definitions of NOE and POE: • Negative occupational evaluations: Outward expressions of a negative attitude toward an occupation, which can be verbal (directly through words) or non-verbal (e.g., facial expressions, body language, gestures) in nature. • Positive occupational evaluations: Outward expressions of a positive attitude toward an occupation, which can be verbal (directly through words) or non-verbal (e.g., facial expressions, body language, gestures) in nature. Next, I asked respondents to review each of the 48 items and select whether the item best represented (a) NOE, (b) POE, or (c) did not clearly reflect either NOE or POE (marked as “indeterminate”). Sample 3 findings. Following Colquitt et al. (2019), I assessed substantive validity using the proportion of substantive agreement (psa) and the substantive-validity coefficient (csv). The psa can range from 0 to 1 and reflects the proportion of evaluators who correctly allocated an item to its intended dimension (1 representing 100% accuracy). The csv can range from -1 to 1 and reveals the extent to which evaluators correctly assigned an item to its intended dimension versus other dimensions. I retained only the items with strong or very strong levels of substantive 84 validity (psa values ≥ .82, csv values ≥ .6110; 2019). Based on these criteria, I eliminated 5 NOE and 7 POE items, leaving 22 NOE and 14 POE items to include in the next scale validation stage, which involved a more complex item sort task. Samples 4 and 5 participants and procedure. Next, I recruited respondents from Prolific.co to participate in a digital item sort task, following methods recommended by Hinkin and Tracey (1999) and Schriesheim et al. (1993). The approach I used provided a group of relatively naïve evaluators with a set of construct definitions, including the focal constructs and several “orbiting constructs” (i.e., similar, but different constructs), and the scale items corresponding with each of these constructs. Next, respondents rated the extent to which each item reflected each definition. To participate, I required respondents to be over the age of 19, fluent in English, and have a master’s or doctorate degree in any field of study. I administered this item sort task separately for NOE (sample 4) and POE (sample 5), such that NOE and POE were each compared to their own sets of three orbiting constructs (Table 3.3). I selected orbiting constructs close to NOE and POE that would likely be “at issue in debates about construct proliferation” (Colquitt et al., 2019, p. 1251). For example, several of the orbiting constructs utilize the same or a similar referent as NOE and POE—that is, they assess employees’ perceptions of how service beneficiaries (e.g., customers) or the public treat or feel about them. To reduce respondent fatigue, I selected 5 representative items from orbiting construct scales containing more than 5 items, rather than using the full item set. 10 For the initial Q-sort task, I utilized Colquitt et al.’s (2019) criteria for scales not normed to a specific correlation between the focal scale and orbiting scales. 85 Table 3.3 NOE and POE orbiting constructs Sample Construct Source Conversational definition used for task Items used Sample 4: NOE item sort task Negative occupational evaluations (NOE) — A person’s experience of discrete interactions in which others communicated a negative attitude toward their occupation, either verbally (directly through words) or non-verbally (e.g., facial expressions, body language, gestures) Sample item: I experienced others… labeling members of my occupation as bad. See Appendix E for full item set. Occupational stigma consciousness (Shantz & Booth, 2014) A person’s general belief that their occupation is negatively stereotyped and/or low status 1. Most people who are not members of my occupation have a lot more negative thoughts about members of my occupation than they actually express. 2. Most people who are not members of my occupation judge members of my occupation on the basis of their job and the work that they do on the job. 3. Most people who are not members of my occupation have a problem viewing members of my occupation as equals. 4. My being a member of my occupation influences how people who are not members of my occupation act with me. 5. When interacting with people who are not members of my occupation, I feel like they interpret all my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am a member of my occupation. Items originally used with “call center worker(s).”11 Customer mistreatment (M. Wang et al., 2011) An employee’s experience of low-quality interpersonal treatment from their customers 1. Customers vented their bad mood out on me. 2. Customers yelled at me. 3. Customers spoke aggressively to me. 4. Customers doubted my ability. 5. Customers used condescending language to me. 11 I adapted items that were originally used with a specific occupation (call center workers, police) to apply to occupations more generally. The adapted areas are underlined. 86 Sample Construct Source Conversational definition used for task Items used Perceptions of the public’s antipathy toward one’s occupation (Marier & Moule, 2019) A person’s general belief that the public dislikes or despises their occupation 1. Most people respect my occupation. (r) 2. The relationship between my occupation and the people of this city is very good. (r) Items originally used with “police officers.” Sample 5: POE item sort task Positive occupational evaluations (POE) — A person’s experience of discrete interactions in which others have communicated a positive attitude toward their occupation, either verbally (directly through words) or non-verbally (e.g., facial expressions, body language, gestures) Sample item: I experienced others… labeling members of my occupation as good. See Appendix F for full item set. Positive customer treatment (Zhan et al., 2016) An employee’s experience of grateful and respectful treatment from their customers 1. Customers expressed understanding of the difficulty in my job. 2. Customers complimented my service. 3. Customers had a pleasant conversation with me. 4. Customers treated me politely. 5. Customers appreciated my service. Perceptions of the public’s understanding of one’s occupation (Patil, 2019) A person’s belief that the public understands the difficulties and complexities of their job 1. In this country, the general public is knowledgeable about what it takes to be a member of my occupation. 2. In this country, the general public is aware of the difficulties and challenges of our jobs. 3. In this country, the general public can picture the dilemmas I confront on a day-to-day basis. Item originally used with “law enforcement officer.” Perceived social worth (Grant, 2008; Grant & Gino, 2010) An employee’s general belief that their work contributions are valued by those they serve; the feeling that one’s actions matter in other people’s lives 1. I feel that others appreciate my work. 2. I feel that other people value my contributions at work. 3. In general, I feel that I’ve made a positive difference for those I serve (e.g., the public, clients). 4. I feel that those I serve (e.g., the public, clients) appreciate my work. 5. I feel that those I serve (e.g., the public, clients) value my contributions at work. 87 My fourth sample (N = 249; 64% female; 66% employed full-time; mean age = 39.11 [SD 12.31]) assessed NOE. The orbiting constructs I used for NOE were: (a) occupational stigma consciousness, (b) customer mistreatment, and (c) perceptions of the public’s antipathy toward one’s occupation. My survey involved assessing the degree to which each of the 22 NOE items, as well each of the other 12 orbiting construct items shown in Table 3.3 accurately reflected each of the four work concepts, using a 5-point scale12 from (1) “not at all consistent” to (5) “completely consistent.” To limit respondent fatigue due to the total number of evaluations required (144), I presented items in a matrix format across 7 matrices, of which each respondent was randomly exposed to only 3.13 Each matrix contained 5 to 6 items and included some NOE items and some orbiting construct items. Additionally, I used two methods designed to check for to check for “insufficient effort” responding (DeSimone, 2015). I embedded two attention checks (e.g., “Mark everything with ‘Not at all consistent.’”), and, prior to data analysis, discarded the data from the respondents who failed them (N = 4). I also discarded respondents’ data if they took the survey exceedingly quickly, using a cut-off of under 5 minutes (N = 16). My fifth sample (N = 182; 55% female; 70% employed full-time; mean age = 39.48 [SD 12.21]) assessed POE. The orbiting constructs I used for POE were: (a) positive customer treatment, (b) perceptions of the public’s understanding of one’s occupation, and (c) perceived social worth. My survey involved assessing the degree to which each of the 14 POE items—as well each of the other 13 orbiting construct items shown in Table 3.3—accurately reflected each 12 Scale anchors were (1) “not at all consistent,” (2) “slightly consistent,” (3) “moderately consistent,” (4) “mostly consistent,” and (5) “completely consistent.” 13 I first exposed a smaller sub-sample of respondents (N = 20) to the full survey (7 matrices) to determine how long the survey would take. This helped us to assess the risk of respondent fatigue and determine compensation rates. The median time for the full “long” survey was 18.31 minutes, causing me to adjust my approach to that described (i.e., exposure to 3 of the 7 matrices). 88 of the four work concepts, using a 5-point scale from (1) “not at all consistent” to (5) “completely consistent.” To limit respondent fatigue due to the total number of evaluations required (108), I presented items in a matrix format across 6 matrices, of which I randomly exposed each respondent to only 3.14 Each matrix contained 4 to 5 items and included some POE items and some orbiting construct items. I embedded two attention checks (e.g., “Select ‘Completely consistent’ for everything.”), and, prior to data analysis, discarded the data from the respondents who failed them (N = 9) or took the survey exceedingly quickly (i.e., in under 5 minutes, N = 7). Samples 4 and 5 findings. For each item, I performed a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by planned contrasts and Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test (Hinkin & Tracey, 1999). I used these approaches to assess whether an item’s mean rating on the focal construct (NOE or POE) was significantly higher than its mean ratings on each of the three respective orbiting constructs. Mean ratings on the focal construct were significantly higher than mean ratings on the three respective orbiting constructs (see Appendix E and Appendix F) for 8 NOE items and 6 POE items. These items were considered for the next scale validation stage. Next, following Colquitt et al (2019), I examined definitional correspondence, reflecting the extent to which the items align with the focal construct’s definition, and definitional distinctiveness, reflecting the degree to which the items correspond more to the definition of the focal construct than to the definitions of the other orbiting constructs (Colquitt et al., 2019). To 14 I first exposed a smaller sub-sample of respondents (N = 60) to the full survey (6 matrices) to determine how long the survey would take. This helped to assess the risk of respondent fatigue and determine compensation rates. The median time for the full survey was 15.18 minutes, causing me to adjust my approach to that described (i.e., exposure to 3 of the 6 matrices). 89 examine definitional correspondence, I calculated the Hinkin Tracey correspondence (htc) index. I computed the htc by dividing the average rating of item consistency with the intended construct (NOE or POE) across all items, by the number of anchors (i.e., 5). To examine definitional distinctiveness, I calculated the Hinkin Tracey distinctiveness (htd) index. I computed the htd by dividing the average of all differences between rated consistency with the intended construct (NOE or POE) and rated consistency with the three respective orbiting constructs, by the number of anchors minus one (i.e., 4). In Table 3.4, I present the item-level and average htc and htd of my final NOE and POE scales, using the respondent ratings obtained from samples 4 and 5. These average htc and htd values (NOE: htc =.81, htd = .23; POE: htc = .80; htd = .26) are within the expected range, as compared to new scales recently published in top management journals15 (Colquitt et al., 2019). Table 3.4 NOE and POE definitional correspondence ratings Dimension/item htca htdb Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) .81 .23 Saying mean or nasty things relating to my occupation .85 .30 Taunting members of my occupation or ridiculing our work .81 .20 Shaming members of my occupation for our work .81 .20 Belittling my occupation .80 .22 Labeling members of my occupation as bad .80 .21 Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) .80 .26 Rooting for my occupation .81 .28 Displaying signs, posters, or other visuals supporting my occupation .80 .24 Labeling members of my occupation as good .80 .24 Expressing positive stereotypes about my occupation. .79 .29 Admiring members of my occupation .78 .24 a Hinkin Tracey correspondence rating b Hinkin Tracey distinctiveness rating 15 Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90 3.4.3 Phase III: Psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales In the third phase, I examined the psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales by testing their factor structure, internal reliability, and temporal consistency. I also used my initial sample in this stage (sample 6) to finalize my selection of a set of 5 NOE and 5 POE items, noting that constructs can be measured effectively with 4 to 6 thoughtfully selected items (Hinkin, 1995, 1998). Sample 6 participants and procedure. Using Prolific.co, I recruited an independent sample of full-time or part-time employees from the US or UK who considered themselves to have an occupation (N = 150; 61% female; 67% employed full-time; mean age = 33.81 years [SD 11.10]). To participate, respondents had to be over the age of 19 and fluent in English. Respondent education levels varied (secondary education/high school: 28%; technical college: 9%; undergraduate degree: 44%; graduate or doctoral degree: 19%). Using the 8 NOE items and 6 POE items, I asked respondents about their experiences with NOE and POE in the preceding month. Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (always). No respondents failed the two attention checks (e.g., “Mark ‘Very often’ here.”) I embedded in the survey. Sample 6 results. I performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA; maximum likelihood with promax rotation) on the combined set of NOE and POE items and identified two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (minimum eigenvalue = 3.65; total variance explained = 68%). I verified this two-factor structure through a scree test. All NOE items (α = .94) clearly loaded onto a first factor, while all POE items (α = .89) clearly loaded onto a second factor (promax rotation factor correlation = -0.14). Factor loadings ranged from .63 to .89, exceeding the recommended cut-off of .40 (Hinkin, 1998). Therefore, rather than eliminating items by factor structure to meet Hinkin’s (1995, 1998) item number guidelines, I screened items for conceptual 91 precision, redundancy, and wordiness. Consequently, I eliminated three NOE items and one POE item.16 In total, I retained 5 NOE items (α = .91) and 5 POE items (α = .86). Among these items, the mean NOE score was 2.31 (SD 1.28) and the mean POE score was 3.47 (SD 1.27). I then performed a CFA on the remaining items (χ2 [34, N = 150] = 42.83; p = .14; CFI = .99; SRMR = .04). All items loaded onto their proposed factors at p < .001, with factor loadings ranging from .63 to .87, and a negative, non-significant correlation of -.23 between the two dimensions. Sample 7 participants and procedure. I then performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a new independent sample of full-time or part-time employees from the US or UK who considered themselves to have an occupation (N = 201; 72% female; 66% employed full-time; mean age = 36.19 years [SD 11.75]). I recruited respondents from Prolific.co using screening criteria (over 19 years of age, fluent in English, did not participate in the EFA study). Respondent education levels varied (no formal qualifications; 0.5%; secondary education/high school: 25%; technical college: 11%; undergraduate degree: 40%; graduate or doctoral degree: 23%). Using the 5 NOE items and 5 POE items, I asked respondents to indicate their experiences with NOE and POE in the preceding month using the same response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). I embedded two attention checks (e.g., “Select ‘Almost never’ here.”), which all respondents passed. Sample 7 results. A two-factor CFA model with 5 NOE items (α = .89) and 5 POE items (α = .90) fit the data (χ2 [34, N = 201] = 46.46; p = .08; CFI = .99; SRMR = .04). All items 16 I eliminated one NOE item for being conceptually imprecise: The item “Criticizing my occupation”, as it was ambiguous whether it referred to an evaluation of the overall occupation or might be mistaken for criticism of specific aspects of the job. I also eliminated two NOE items and one POE item for being redundant and/or verbose: “Reacting negatively toward my occupation.” (redundant), “Making rude or obscene gestures or comments relating to my occupation” (redundant and verbose), “Expressing approval of my occupation.” (redundant). 92 loaded onto their proposed factors (p < .001), with factor loadings ranging from .67 to .88, and a negative, non-significant factor correlation of -.12 between the two dimensions. The mean NOE score was 2.25 (SD 1.23). The mean POE score was 3.41 (SD 1.46). Sample 8 participants and procedure. Next, to gauge the scales’ temporal consistency, I examined the extent to which employees’ retained their responses across two test administrations separated by a one-week time period. I selected a one-week interval because the NOE and POE scales enable employees to report their exposure to specific occurrences that can vary over time. Put another way, employees may encounter NOE or POE frequently one day, but seldom the next. Therefore, the NOE and POE scales are unlikely to be highly stable over extended time periods, a feature predominantly valued in scales intended to measure stable characteristics (DeSimone, 2015; Hinkin, 1995). Nevertheless, because the scales ask respondents to indicate their experiences of NOE and POE in the preceding month, employees’ responses should be relatively stable across two test administrations separated by a short time period. I recruited a new independent sample of 203 full-time or part-time employees from the US or UK who considered themselves to have an occupation from Prolific.co, employing screening criteria (over 19 years of age, fluent in English, did not participate in the previous EFA or CFA study). One week later, I contacted these same respondents to participate in a second survey. In both surveys, using the 5 NOE items and 5 POE items, I asked respondents to indicate their experiences with NOE and POE in the preceding month using a response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). I embedded two attention checks in the first survey (e.g., “Select ‘Almost never’ here.”) and three in the second survey, and, prior to data analysis, discarded the data from the respondents who failed them (Survey 1: N = 3, Survey 2: N = 1). Additionally, in the first survey, I asked respondents to state their occupation and, in the second survey, to either 93 restate their occupation or report a new one if it had changed. No respondents indicated a change in their occupation. However, upon manually examining the consistency of respondents’ answers across the first and second surveys, I discarded the data of those showing notable inconsistencies in their reported occupation titles (e.g., “nutritionist” in the first survey versus “store colleague” in the second) prior to data analysis (N = 7). After accounting for removals and respondent attrition, I successfully matched 158 respondents between the first and second surveys, resulting in a 79% response rate (N = 158; 50% male; 76% employed full-time; mean age = 38.31 years [SD 12.37]). Respondent education levels varied (secondary education/high school: 22%; technical college: 15%; undergraduate degree: 42%; graduate or doctoral degree: 21%). Sample 8 results. Using the matched data (N = 158), I assessed temporal consistency by examining the correlations between mean NOE and POE scores across test administrations. For NOE, the test–retest correlation (rtr) was .84 (p < .001). For POE, the test–retest correlation (rtr) was .83 (p < .001). These values indicate high test-retest reliability of the scales over a one-week time period, suggesting that employee perceptions of NOE and POE are stable over relatively short durations of time. Additionally, to once again verify internal consistency and factor structure, I separately analyzed the data from the first survey (N = 200) and the second survey (N = 158). I ran two two-factor CFA models; the first using the first survey’s 5 NOE items (α = .93) and 5 POE items (α = .89), and the second using the second survey’s 5 NOE items (α = .95) and 5 POE items (α = .91). Both models fit the data (Survey 1 CFA: χ2 [34, N = 200] = 141.03, p < .001, CFI = .93; SRMR = .06; Survey 2 CFA: χ2 [34, N = 158] = 90.70; p < .001; CFI = .96; SRMR = .05). On both CFA models, all items loaded onto their proposed factors (p < .001), with factor loadings ranging from .65 to .93, and non-significant factor correlations between the two dimensions. The mean NOE score was 2.04 (SD 1.17) on Survey 1 and 1.87 (SD 1.10) on Survey 94 2, while the mean POE score was 3.05 (SD 1.27) on Survey 1 and 2.90 (SD 1.34) on Survey 2. These tests provided further psychometric support for the NOE and POE scales. 3.4.4 Phase IV: Nomological network and convergent and discriminant validity Finally, to ensure that my scales functioned effectively, I determined how NOE and POE should relate to existing concepts in the broader literature and tested this nomological network. Specifically, I assessed whether employees’ experiences with NOE and POE were associated with (i.e., convergent validity) but also distinct from (i.e., discriminant validity) related and unrelated concepts. I examined NOE’s and POE’s relationships with the orbiting constructs discussed above (see Table 3.3) and new constructs described below. Antecedent. Occupational prestige—“the general level of social standing enjoyed by the incumbents of an occupation” (Hauser & Warren, 1997, p. 188)—is one likely antecedent of employees’ experienced with NOE and POE. Social standing is generally tied to social admiration (e.g., POE) versus condemnation (e.g., NOE). Additionally, even when those with high social standing are not liked or admired, social standing can serve as a buffer from mistreatment. Indeed, Hochschild (1983) coined the term “status shield” to describe how social standing shapes the treatment individuals receive from others; In face-to-face interactions, people are more likely to express negative evaluations to individuals in lower (as opposed to higher) status categories. Thus, I expected occupational prestige to be negatively related to NOE and positively related to POE. Outcomes. In terms of consequences, it is theoretically plausible that employees’ experiences with NOE and POE would affect their public collective self-esteem. Public collective self-esteem describes an individual’s overall judgment of how others evaluate a given social group to which they belong, such as occupation (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Elevated public 95 collective self-esteem is characterized by the belief that one’s social group is viewed favorably by outsiders, seen as more competent than other groups, and garners respect and recognition. Experiences with NOE may undermine public collective self-esteem by implying that those outside one’s occupation perceive it in a less favorable light. Conversely, experiences with POE may bolster this self-esteem by reinforcing the idea that outsiders indeed view one’s occupation positively. Thus, I expected a negative relationship between NOE and public collective self-esteem, and a positive relationship between POE and public collective self-esteem. Additionally, by attaching negative and positive value to a given occupation, NOE and POE are theoretically likely to influence an employee’s sense of identity threat. Identity threat describes an individual’s appraisal that the value, meanings, or enactment of one or more of their identities—such as their occupational identity—may be harmed (George et al., 2023; Petriglieri, 2011). Petriglieri (2011) explained that individuals often appraise experiences that devalue an identity—such as NOE which denigrate an occupation or its attributes—as threatening identity. The identity threat appraisals associated with identity devaluation likely occur subconsciously (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), but conscious experiences such as feeling insignificant, disrespected, or demeaned can theoretically reflect the result of the appraisals (e.g., Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). By contrast, individuals are likely to appraise experiences in which others preserve or enhance the value of an identity—such as POE which venerate an occupation or its attributes—as affirming identity. Affirmation from others, particularly of a valued identity, often is reflected in an individual feeling valued, validated, credible, legitimate, or proud (Dahm et al., 2019; Lee Cunningham et al., 2021). Thus, I expected a positive relationship between NOE and identity threat, and a negative relationship between POE and identity threat. 96 Unrelated construct. Finally, it is important to ensure that NOE and POE do not relate to constructs that they should not theoretically relate to. Thus, I examined the relationships between NOE and POE and employee green behaviors, “individual activity that minimizes harm to or benefits the natural environment.” (Norton et al., 2017, p. 998). There is no theoretical connection between NOE and POE and employee green behaviors, and, thus, I expected no relationship between the constructs. Sample 9 participants and procedure. I administered a cross-sectional survey with a new independent sample of full-time or part-time employees from the US or UK who considered themselves to have an occupation (N = 149; 61% female; 74% employed full-time; mean age = 37.02 years [SD 11.17]). I recruited respondents from Prolific.co using screening criteria (over 19 years of age, fluent in English, had not participated in the previous EFA or CFA study). Respondent education levels varied (secondary education/high school: 32%; technical college: 11%; undergraduate degree: 42%; graduate or doctoral degree: 15%). Using the 5 NOE items and 5 POE items, I asked respondents to indicate their experiences of NOE and POE in the preceding month using the same response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The survey also measured NOE and POE’s orbiting constructs (Table 3.3) and the constructs within their larger nomological network. I embedded two attention checks (e.g., “Mark ‘A few times’ here.”) and, prior to data analysis, discarded the data from the respondents who failed them (N = 3). Sample 9 results. First, I performed a CFA on just the NOE and POE items and again found a two-factor CFA model with the 5 NOE items (α = .90) and the 5 POE items (α = .87) to fit the data (χ2 [34, N = 149] = 43.93; p = .12; CFI = .99; SRMR = .04). All items loaded onto their proposed factors (p < .001), with factor loadings ranging from .61 to .86, and a negative, 97 non-significant factor correlation of -.08 between the two dimensions. The mean NOE score was 2.34 (SD 1.17) and the mean POE score was 3.08 (SD 1.25). Second, I assessed convergent validity by examining the scale score correlations between NOE and POE and their orbiting and nomological network constructs. I present the correlations in Table 3.5, which also contains information on the scales I used and their internal consistency. NOE and POE both significantly related to all of their orbiting and nomological network constructs in the expected directions and were not related to the theoretically unrelated construct of employee green behaviors. All scale score correlations fell within the expected range17 (Colquitt et al., 2019); the NOE-orbiting construct correlations ranged from .39 to .56 and the POE-orbiting construct correlations ranged from .31 to .46. 17 In a study of 112 new scales introduced to four top management journals, Colquitt et al. (2019) found the average correlation between focal scales and their two orbiting scales to range from .02 to .84 (mean = .43, median = .41, STD = .19). Colquitt et al. (2019) created tertiles of those 112 correlation values: 0 to 32nd percentile (r = .02 to .34; “weaker average correlation”), 33rd to 66th percentile (r = .35 to .50; “more moderate average correlation”), and 67th to 99th percentile (r = .51 to .84; “stronger average correlation”). 98 Table 3.5 Nomological network correlations Construct type Construct Source No. of scale items Cronbach’s alpha (scale) (α) NOE scale score correlation (r) POE scale score correlation (r) NOE orbiting Occupational stigma consciousness (Shantz & Booth, 2014) 5 .81 .56*** [.58, .80] .07 NS [-.13, .24] Customer mistreatment (M. Wang et al., 2011) 5 .90 .39*** [.30, .59] -.04 NS [-.22, .14] Perceptions of the public’s antipathy toward one’s occupation (Marier & Moule, 2019) 2 .81 .47*** [.41, .67] -.30*** [-.48, -.17] POE orbiting Positive customer treatment (Zhan et al., 2016) 5 .87 -0.14* [-.31, .04] .41*** [.30, .59] Perceptions of the public’s understanding of one’s occupation (Patil, 2019) 3 .91 -.13 NS [-.31, .04] .31*** [.18, .50] Perceived social worth (Grant, 2008; Grant & Gino, 2010) 5 .89 -.37*** [-.58, -.29] .46*** [.34,.62] Larger nomological network Occupational prestige (Lai et al., 2013) 5 .93 -.22** [-.42, -.09] .18* [.03, .37] Public collective self esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) 4 .84 -.47*** [-58-.33] .38*** [.23;.51] Identity threat (Henderson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2012) 7 .92 .50*** [.37, .61] -.45** [-.57, -.31] Unrelated Employee green behaviors (Norton et al., 2017) 5 0.88 -.12 NS [-.33,.02] -.01 NS [-.19, .17] Note: 95% confidence intervals shown in brackets. The relationships between NOE and POE’s orbiting constructs, and POE and NOE’s orbiting constructs are shown in grey, because these nomological network relations were not hypothesized. Third, in light of these significant correlation coefficients, I conducted three discriminant validity tests to ensure that NOE and POE were distinguishable from their orbiting and nomological network constructs. First, I performed several CFAs where I determined NOE and POE to be distinct from their orbiting and nomological network constructs when the χ2 for a single-factor model was significantly worse than for a two-factor model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In all cases, a two-factor model provided a significantly better fit than a one-factor model (smallest Δχ2 (1) = 64.99; all p < .001). Second, I examined the factor correlation estimates from 99 the CFAs and determined that no factor correlation confidence interval included .8518 (see Table 3.5), again supporting discriminant validity (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022; Schmitt & Stults, 1986). Third, following Rönkkö and Cho (2022), I performed several more CFAs where I compared the model fit indices between two baseline models and models where I fixed each possible NOE/POE-latent variable pair correlation to .85. My first baseline CFA model contained NOE and all the orbiting and nomological network constructs, and my second model contained POE and all the orbiting and nomological network constructs. Each comparison model included the same constructs, but fixed one NOE/POE-latent variable pairing correlation to .85. In all cases, I found the original models to fit significantly better than the models containing the fixed .85 correlations (smallest Δχ2 (1) = 9.89; all p < .001). 3.5 Discussion 3.5.1 Theoretical and practical contributions To address prior limitations and advance a more comprehensive understanding of how employees are affected by evaluations of their occupation, I detailed the concept of enacted occupational evaluations, defining enacted occupational evaluations as outward expressions of evaluations of an occupation. I then conducted nine empirical studies to examine the validity of two parsimonious survey instruments that effectively measure an employee’s experiences with enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). Across these studies, results support the measures’ content validity, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity with nomological network constructs. Taken together, my 18 I selected a cut-off of .85 because it is more conservative that the commonly used cut-off of 1.0 (i.e., perfect correlation) and it follows Rönkkö and Cho’s (2022, p. 34) recommendation of a threshold “between .8 and .9” for the CICFA(cut) and χ2(cut) discriminant validity techniques. 100 conceptualization of enacted occupational evaluations, paired with my NOE and POE instruments, offer a robust foundation for future research into how employees are influenced by audiences’ tangible evaluations of their occupation. From a theoretical standpoint, I add conceptual clarity to our understanding of how social evaluations of occupations manifest “on the ground.” Existing literature on the social evaluations of occupations has predominantly emphasized how employees in devalued professions cope with society’s broad disapproval of their work. However, this disapproval is not just a passive sentiment existing “in the air”; it can be actively expressed. While an employee might effectively cope with the general perception that their job is deemed “dirty” or negatively judged by society (Brown, 2015; Kreiner et al., 2022; Mikolon et al., 2021; Tracy & Scott, 2006), the direct instances where others verbalize or otherwise enact their disapproval may have a distinct and perhaps more profound impact. I present initial evidence of the effects of enacted NOE through qualitative exploratory research with employees across a broad range of occupations. The NOE measurement scale paves the way for future empirical investigations. Additionally, my conceptualization of enacted POE has the potential to open new conversations in the management literature. Previous research has largely focused on society’s negative evaluations of occupations, often overlooking the impact of positive evaluations on employees. Further, the current literature has predominantly operated on the assumption of audience homogeneity, suggesting a singular societal viewpoint on specific occupations. However, even employees in occupations that are traditionally stigmatized encounter positive occupational evaluations (Augustine & Piazza, 2022; Dutton et al., 2016; Rapp et al., 2023; Solomon & Martin, 2019; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Considering the diverse nature of audiences, my NOE and POE instruments offer researchers the tools to adopt a more nuanced perspective on 101 the actual sentiments employees encounter about their occupations and the impact of these evaluations on them. Understanding the effects of POE on their own, and examining the potential interplay between employees’ experiences of NOE and POE, offer two avenues to building a more complete picture of how employees are influenced by their occupation’s social evaluation. The introduction of enacted NOE and POE also enables scholars to recognize within-occupation variation in employees’ experiences with their occupation’s evaluation. To date, in part due to the qualitative nature of much research on employee’s experiences working within socially devalued occupations, researchers have tended to imply a uniform experience across all employees in a given occupation. However, employees encounter varying degrees of NOE and POE. Indeed, employees have distinct social circles and may be more or less exposed to evaluators of their occupation, both within and outside of work. Said differently, some employees might be more insulated from occupational evaluations due to the nature of their roles or personal choices, while others might be more exposed, frequently interacting with people who have strong views about their occupation. This variance in interaction frequency and depth means that employees within the same occupation can have very different experiences relating to their occupation’s social evaluation, encountering NOE and POE more or less frequently. It is pivotal for researchers to consider this spectrum of experiences rather than homogenizing them, as it offers a richer and more accurate depiction of the challenges and opportunities employees face regarding outsiders’ views of their work. 3.5.2 Limitations First and foremost, my focus on employees’ perceptions of occupational evaluations represents a boundary condition of this research. Consistent with much research focusing on employees’ social interaction experiences (e.g., abusive supervision, workplace bullying, 102 customer mistreatment), perceived occupational evaluations may be conceptually distinct from objective occupational evaluations. For example, individuals cannot perceive occupational evaluations (even if they objectively have occurred) if they are completely unaware of their existence, as would be the case if an employee’s housing or job application was rejected or accepted on the basis of their occupation alone. Alternatively, individuals may perceive objectively benign actions (e.g., an untimely frown or smile directed toward them while in uniform) as occupational evaluations. If an employee perceives an action as an occupational evaluation, even if the action does not truly reflect the instigator’s underlying judgement of the employee’s occupation, the action may nevertheless affect the employee. Indeed, this very interpretation is central to the potency of occupational evaluations—Ultimately, the crux lies in individuals interpreting others’ behaviors as evaluations of their occupation, or them on the basis of their occupational affiliation. Recognizing the pivotal role of perception in occupational evaluations paves the way for intriguing future research opportunities. Researchers could delve into the origins of these perceptions, acknowledging that they might stem from an individual’s exposure to external stimuli as well as factors that influence an individual’s noticing, interpreting, and remembering of stimuli. For instance, an individuals’ occupational identification (Ashforth et al., 2013) might act as a perceptual filter, coloring their interpretation of external information through the lens of their occupational identity. Additionally, attentional biases can steer individuals to disproportionately focus on specific types of information (e.g., threatening stimuli), which can impact all cognitive processing stages, from initial attention and stimulus encoding to memory retrieval and interpretation (Bar-Haim et al., 2007). Ultimately, a multitude of factors can influence an individual’s perception of occupational evaluations, marking this as a fertile ground 103 for future research inquiries. Moving forward, a prospective study might also investigate the extent to which there is (dis)agreement in perceptions of occupational evaluations among employees in the same occupation, or even work partners exposed to the same external stimuli. A second related limitation of this study, and indeed intrinsic to any research relying on retrospective scales, pertains to the inherent fallibility of human memory. Individuals’ recollections are often imprecise; they can be influenced by myriad factors, including emotions, subsequent experiences, or discussions with others. Moreover, some employees might possess an acute recall of particularly poignant or “strong experiences,” while struggling to accurately gauge the frequency or regularity of such events over an extended period. Indeed, memories linked to emotionally charged events often overshadow the more mundane or frequent occurrences. Future research may employ daily dairy methodologies to help mitigate the potential pitfalls associated with relying on employees’ retrospective accounts. A third noteworthy limitation is that, given that employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations were central to the development of the NOE and POE scales, the resulting scales do not include all possible types of evaluative behaviors enacted toward occupations. On the one hand, a strength of the approach used is that the scales are grounded in real experiences, drawing on employees’ perceptions of NOE and POE during societal shifts (as seen in Sample 1) and in more routine interactions (Sample 2). However, this also raises the question of what additional manifestations might have emerged had a different set of employees been interviewed or surveyed. Moreover, adhering to traditional scale development practices necessitated item elimination to strengthen reliability, possibly restricting the scope of evaluative behaviors included. Nevertheless, I was mindful to incorporate items that were broad enough that extreme or rare evaluative behaviors would nevertheless be captured in employees’ responses to 104 these other items. Had I included particularly rare behaviors, the scales’ reliability—and, consequently, their practical utility for other researchers— might have suffered. Thus, despite the allure of more inclusive scales, the scales’ practical utility in field research would have likely been more limited. A final limitation pertains to the cross-sectional nature of the data, precluding the examination of causal relationships. Future research may employ experimental, longitudinal, or time-lagged methodologies to solidify and extend NOE and POE’s nomological networks. For instance, it would be valuable to confirm that occupational prestige increases POE and reduces NOE, as well as explore additional antecedents. Additionally, verifying that experiences with NOE and POE shape an employee’s public collective self-esteem and sense of identity threat would be sensible. 3.6 Conclusion Scholars have long explored how employees are affected by social evaluations of their occupations. However, prior research has often centered on broad societal perceptions, overlooking the real-life instances where employees face these evaluations in action. To overcome this problem, I developed the tools for scholars to measure employees’ experiences with enacted negative and positive occupational evaluations. Specifically, across nine empirical studies, I produced two concise and versatile NOE and POE measures that demonstrate strong reliability and validity. I have high hopes that future scholars will utilize these tools, as well as my conceptualization of enacted occupational evaluations. This will undoubtedly add depth to the existing literature on the social evaluation of occupations by introducing variance theorizing that acknowledges employees’ real-world experiences with their occupation’s evaluation and the impact of these experiences on outcomes. 105 Chapter 4: A Social Anxiety Lens on How Occupational Evaluations Affect Employees “There are thousands of decent people who work in banks who are embarrassed when the taxi driver asks them, ‘Where do you work?’ They’re afraid – they don’t want to say.” – Fergus Murphy, former executive, Allied Irish Bank Group (I. J. Walsh et al., 2023, p. 747) For many employees, encountering evaluations of their occupations—that is, judgements about the worth, merit, or value (Scriven, 1991) of their occupations—from occupational non-members (henceforth “outsiders”) is a frequent occurrence (Ashforth et al., 2007; Tracy & Scott, 2006). These occupational evaluations can be expressed through words and behaviors and can be positive or negative in valence (Rapp et al., 2023). Indeed, the question, “What do you do?” is regularly used in conversation to engage with new acquaintances (Ajay et al., 2023; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Grant et al., 2014), and answers to this question can elicit responses of disapproval or approval. A consistent observation in the management literature is that employees are acutely aware of how outsiders view their occupations (Hennekam et al., 2020; Kreiner et al., 2022; Vough et al., 2013). Research on social evaluations of occupations typically draws on qualitative or conceptual approaches to shed light on the nuanced identity processes employees leverage in response to broad societal-level (dis)approval of their work; for example, the public’s stigmatization (Kreiner et al., 2006) or glorification (Hennekam et al., 2020) of their occupation. Through embracing this traditional identity-based approach, scholars have generated important insights into the broad range of activities employees use to repair, maintain, strengthen, or revise their self-meanings in response to outsiders’ views of their occupations (Cameron et al., 2022; Caza, Vough, et al., 2018; Shepherd et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). 106 However, those who adopt a traditional identity-based perspective often assume, either implicitly or explicitly, that employees’ responses to outsiders’ evaluations of their occupations—such as (not) promoting their occupation to outsiders or maintaining other physical or psychological boundaries—derive from their acceptance or rejection of these evaluations (e.g., Cameron et al., 2022; Hennekam et al., 2020; Kreiner et al., 2006; Rapp et al., 2023; Soni‐Sinha & Yates, 2013; I. J. Walsh et al., 2023). From this perspective, regarding occupational evaluations as either appropriate or inappropriate judgments of one’s occupation—and thus, oneself as an occupational member—influences employees’ emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. Yet, employees do not have to accept or reject outsiders’ evaluations of their occupations for these assessments to alter their views about how they will be perceived and treated by others. To this end, we argue that scholars to date may have underestimated the potential explanatory power of social anxiety in understanding employees’ responses to occupational evaluations. Social anxiety is “anxiety resulting from the prospect or presence of personal evaluation in real or imagined social situations” (Schlenker & Leary, 1982, p. 642). Unlike the inward-facing processes of acceptance and rejection, where employees either internalize or do not internalize outsiders’ judgements of their occupation, social anxiety is outward-facing in that it originates from the impressions individuals expect to make on others and the associated interpersonal treatment they anticipate receiving (Brooks et al., 2015) . Considering scholars’ and practitioners’ strong interest in understanding how employees are influenced by outsiders’ views and beliefs of their work (e.g., Harvard Business Review, 2007; Patil, 2019; Patil & Lebel, 2019; Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020; I. J. Walsh et al., 2023), overlooking the role of social anxiety in employees’ responses to occupational evaluations is unfortunate, as it not only poses 107 an obstacle to theoretical advancement in the field, but limits the support that managers and organizations can provide to their employees who face these evaluations. To address this oversight, we draw the self-presentational theory of social anxiety (Schlenker & Leary, 1982) to suggest that employees’ prior experiences with occupational evaluations enacted by outsiders influence their social anxiety with occupational outsiders, the social anxiety employees feel around interacting with occupational non-members. Social anxiety arises when individuals are driven to create a favorable impression on others—for example, on outsiders—but have low outcome expectancies (i.e., beliefs of the likelihood of obtaining the reaction they desire from others). Because social anxiety is a function of impression motivation and perceived probability of self-presentational success (Catalino et al., 2012), every individual, in any industry, at any given time, lies somewhere on the social anxiety continuum, dictating their level of comfort or apprehension around interacting with various people or groups. In our study, frequent experiences with negative occupational evaluations from outsiders are likely to diminish employees’ outcome expectancies with outsiders, their beliefs of the likelihood of obtaining desired reactions from outsiders in the future. Meanwhile, frequent experiences with positive occupational evaluations from outsiders are likely to enhance these outcome expectancies. Therefore, we theorize that such frequent encounters are associated with varying levels of social anxiety with outsiders. We further hypothesize that this social anxiety is associated with three specific employee (dis)affiliative behaviors (Schlenker & Leary, 1982): (a) an employee’s external promotion of their occupation; (b) their social engagement with friends and family; and (c) their psychological engagement with the various external recipients of their work and services (e.g., patients, customers, clients, the general public), henceforth “service recipients.” 108 Across several studies, utilizing qualitative, scale development, and field survey designs, we examined the how negative and positive occupational evaluations are related to employees’ (dis)affiliative behaviors through social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Specifically, we began by conducting in-depth exploratory interviews with a sample of 62 police officers to enrich our theorizing. Drawing on these interviews and eight additional independent samples, we then developed and validated two scales to quantify employees’ experiences with negative and positive occupational evaluations. Next, we conducted a three-wave field survey with a large Canadian police union to test our theoretical model and hypotheses (Figure 4.1). In so doing, we contribute to the literatures on social evaluations of occupations and social anxiety. 109 Figure 4.1 Theoretical model Occupational Evaluations Possible Mechanisms Employee (Dis)affiliative Behaviors Alternative Mechanism 1: Accept Outsiders’ Evaluations i.e., Experience (Less) Positive Feelings about the Work Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) + Hypothesized Mechanism: 1. External Promotion of the Occupation 2. Social Engagement with Friends and Family 3. Psychological Engagement with Service Recipients Social Anxiety with Occupational Outsiders - Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) - Alternative Mechanism 2: Reject Outsiders’ Evaluations i.e., Experience Negative Feelings about Outsiders’ Treatment of the Occupation 110 Our paper endeavours to make three contributions. First, we examine social anxiety with occupational outsiders as a novel mechanism through which employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations relate to three specific (dis)affiliative behaviors, namely, employees’ external promotion of their occupation, social engagement with friends and family, and psychological engagement with service recipients. In doing so, we expand beyond the traditional identity processes relating to acceptance and rejection that scholars generally associate with employees’ engagement in these and similar interpersonal behaviors in response to outsiders’ views of their occupation. Second, we demonstrate the value of theoretically and empirically considering parallel mechanisms to explain employee behavior in the face of negative and positive occupational evaluations. Researchers to date have underscored the significance of acceptance and rejection in shaping the impact of occupational evaluations on employees, but have lacked precision in identifying whether employees predominantly accept or reject negative and positive evaluations, and in understanding how these reactions may coexist with other factors to systematically affect employee behavior. By exploring the interplay between social anxiety with outsiders, employees’ acceptance of occupational evaluations as appropriate, and their rejection of such evaluations as inappropriate, we clarify the processes through which negative and positive evaluations relate to important employee behaviors. Third, our social anxiety lens extends the nascent management literature on employees’ experiences with social anxiety, setting the groundwork for future scholars in the field to more fully participate in a broader academic and societal conversation that has to date been largely overlooked in management research. Further, our paper offers practical insights for managers in a world where social connectivity and polarization are on the rise, leading employees to increasingly face outsiders’ 111 evaluations of their occupations in both work and personal contexts. Recognizing how and why these evaluations influence employees is critical. Drawing on our findings, we propose strategies for organizations to better support their employees in navigating these evaluations. 4.1 Theoretical foundations and hypotheses 4.1.1 Occupations and their evaluation Occupations encompass traditionally recognized professions, such as highly credentialed lawyers and physicians (Anteby et al., 2016), and other career tracks likewise characterized by specialized knowledge and well-defined standards of behavior (Leavitt et al., 2012), such as car salespeople, chefs, or journalists. In many occupations, employees’ work activities affect “outsiders” like clients, patients, and the general public. As a result, outsiders can form negative or positive evaluations of these occupations (I. J. Walsh et al., 2023), and accordingly express these evaluations in a variety of ways. How employees perform their job duties, such as consistently behaving in an (un)ethical manner, can influence outsiders’ occupational evaluations (e.g., I. J. Walsh et al., 2023; M. S. Wang et al., 2021). Additionally, the inherent characteristics of the work that employees undertake in their respective occupations can influence outsiders’ occupational evaluations. Tasks such as performing abortions (O’Donnell et al., 2011), engaging in sex work (Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020; Toubiana & Ruebottom, 2022), and collecting garbage (Shepherd et al., 2022) are commonly perceived as “tainted” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014; Hughes, 1958; Kreiner et al., 2006). Alternatively, a benevolent, worthy, or honorable component exists in some forms of work (Hughes, 1984), such as teaching (Santoro, 2011), social work (Banks, 2020), and caring for the ill (Liaschenko & Peter, 2004). Further shaping how outsiders evaluate occupations are public narratives that position particular occupations in (un)favorable ways 112 (Yuan et al., 2021). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, media outlets, organizations, and customers portrayed a range of occupations as “heroic” (Cameron et al., 2022; Hennekam et al., 2020; Rapp et al., 2023). 4.1.2 Employee responses to their occupation’s evaluation: A traditional identity perspective Scholars interested in how employees respond to their occupation’s social evaluation have primarily adopted identity-based perspectives (e.g., social identity theory; system justification theory), often employing qualitative and conceptual methodologies that provide rich insights into employees’ nuanced identity processes (Caza, Vough, et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). Viewed through an identity-based lens, for individuals to function effectively, they require a stable understanding of self-definition—of who they are—within any given scenario (Ashforth, 2001; Erez & Earley, 1993). An individual’s overall identity includes both personal characteristics and social identities derived from the social categories to which they belong (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Occupations serve as a prominent social identity anchor, making them a significant part of how many people define themselves (Ashforth et al., 2013; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Consequently, individuals generally desire to perceive their occupations favorably, and, relatedly, are attuned to outsiders’ negative and positive evaluations of their occupations, displaying a range of reactions that are influenced by their acceptance or rejection of these external judgments (Kreiner et al., 2006). Negative occupational evaluations. Negative occupational evaluations, relative to positive occupational evaluations, have received the balance of research attention, with this focus being especially prevalent in the occupational stigma, or “dirty work” literature (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Dick, 2005; Hughes, 1951, 1958; Rapp et al., 2023; Shepherd et al., 2022). 113 Explaining this scholarly interest, negative occupational evaluations can create a discrepancy between how employees see themselves as occupational members (generally, in positive terms) and how others see them, thereby presenting a possible threat to self-concept. On the one hand, in response to negative occupational evaluations, employees may accept and internalize their perceived inferior position relative to others in society, fostering negative sentiments toward the work and disidentification with the occupation (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Elsbach, 2001; Kreiner et al., 2006; Meisenbach, 2010). On the other hand, employees often reject their occupational stigma as inappropriate or unjustified, harboring animosity towards their evaluators and deploying strategies to counter the evaluations and reaffirm their positive self-views (Kreiner et al., 2006; Rapp et al., 2023). Indeed, across diverse occupational contexts, employees have been found to use esteem-enhancing strategies, such as drawing social comparisons with groups perceived to be inferior, lending more credence to outsiders who view the occupation favorably, and perpetuating counternormative ideologies that imbue the work with positive value (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bosmans et al., 2016; Hamilton et al., 2019; Mahalingam & Selvaraj, 2022; Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020; I. J. Walsh et al., 2023). Employees’ use of these tactics can have significant repercussions, contributing to occupational insularity (Kreiner et al., 2006) or dissension (Toubiana & Ruebottom, 2022), and reinforcing outsiders’ negative views (Mikolon et al., 2021). Nevertheless, scholars largely agree that these strategies fulfill their intended purpose, protecting employees from internalizing a negative view of themselves and their work (Mikolon et al., 2021). Positive occupational evaluations. Although positive occupational evaluations have received less research attention, employees, including those in dirty work occupations, frequently encounter both negative and positive occupational evaluations (Augustine & Piazza, 2022; 114 Dutton et al., 2016; Rapp et al., 2023; Solomon & Martin, 2019; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Research suggests that when employees accept and internalize outsiders’ positive evaluations of their occupation, they can feel like “rockstars” (Tracy & Scott, 2006, p. 22) and “heroes” (Cameron et al., 2022, p. 7), reinforcing their occupational identity and the positive value of their work (Dutton et al., 2016; Gill, 2015; Hennekam et al., 2020; Rapp et al., 2023). Interestingly, such acceptance may also have drawbacks. Employees may find themselves striving to reinforce positive occupational evaluations (Spataro & Cohen, 2020), or worried about losing their “elite identity” status (Gill, 2015). Illustratively, Tracy and Scott (2006) revealed how firefighters take actions to highlight and promote their masculinity and sexuality to outsiders, attempting to reify outsiders’ favorable views of them. Perhaps more problematically, Cameron et al. (2022) found that grocery delivery workers who internalized the hero label during the COVID-19 pandemic felt “morally credentialled,” thereby displaying minimal extra-role helping behaviors toward customers and little commitment to their organization. Conversely, those skeptical of the hero label took positive steps to validate their moral reputation. Cameron et al.’s (2022) study and other recent research illustrates that, despite their ostensible benefits for identity, employees may reject instead of accept/internalize positive occupational evaluations, with such rejection contributing adverse reactions such as frustration and anger towards those who express these evaluations. Multiple factors seemingly shape employees’ acceptance or rejection of positive occupational evaluations. For instance, Rapp et al. (2023) reported that, similar to negative evaluations, the extent to which employees accept or reject positive occupational evaluations depends on their judgments of the evaluator’s credibility. Offering additional perspectives, Hennekam et al. (2020) highlighted employees’ perceptions of whether outsiders’ positive evaluations are opportunistic in nature, while Cameron et al. (2022) 115 noted the influence of employees’ economic (in)dependence and career trajectories. Much like employees’ rejection of negative occupational evaluations, when employees reject rather than accept positive occupational evaluations, they may experience negative sentiments toward their evaluators (Cameron et al., 2022; Hennekam et al., 2020; Rapp et al., 2023). Taken together, a notable achievement of the literature emerging from the traditional identity-based perspective is the deep understanding scholars have generated about employees’ identity processes in response to situations when a critical mass of outsiders share a negative or positive view of their occupation. From this perspective, how employees regard occupational evaluations—accepting or rejecting them as appropriate or inappropriate judgments of their occupation, and thus as proper or improper reflections of themselves as occupational members—is critical in shaping their responses. However, whether employees internalize or dismiss outsiders’ negative or positive evaluations of their occupation, their experiences with these evaluations are nevertheless positioned to shape their expectations of how outsiders are likely to perceive and treat them in the future, and, consequently, their behavior. With this in mind, we depart from the traditional identity-based approach, renowned for its effectiveness in revealing the nuances of employees’ idiosyncratic identity processes, typically by way of inductive methods (Caza, Vough, et al., 2018). In contrast, we draw on the self-presentational theory of social anxiety (Schlenker & Leary, 1982)—a theoretical lens that elucidates how heightened exposure to negative and positive evaluations can influence an individual’s expectations of future interpersonal interactions and consequent behavior. To this end, we operate under the assumption that each employee faces negative or positive evaluative feedback about their occupation from outsiders with varying frequency, contributing to variations in their behavioral responses. 116 4.1.3 A brief introduction to social anxiety Social anxiety is “anxiety resulting from the prospect or presence of personal evaluation in real or imagined social situations.” (Schlenker & Leary, 1982, p. 642). The experience of social anxiety can range from a passing event-related reaction to a steady predisposition (Leary, 1983a). The self-presentational theory of social anxiety suggests that social anxiety emerges when individuals endeavour to make a particular impression during social interactions, but lack confidence in their ability to do so (Leary & Atherton, 1986). According to Schlenker and Leary (1982), the intensity of an individual’s social anxiety is directly influenced by their outcome expectancies, that is, their beliefs of the likelihood of obtaining the reaction they desire from others. Individuals are more likely to experience social anxiety when they anticipate challenges, versus ease, in making desired impressions in social interactions. There is a clear consensus in the clinical psychology literature that social anxiety carries substantial repercussions for those affected by it (Dryman et al., 2016; Morrison & Heimberg, 2013). Illustratively, the consequences associated with clinical presentations such as social anxiety disorder (SAD) and social phobia include impaired daily functioning, lower educational attainment, holding jobs below one’s qualification level, increased absenteeism, smaller social networks and less social support, perceptions of a lower quality of life, and increased risks of suicidality and the psychiatric comorbidities (Asher et al., 2017; Kashdan, 2007). Indeed, “social anxiety has been associated with lower quality of life in nearly every domain, including social, professional, and personal” (Fernandes et al., 2021, p. 59). This foundation points to how social anxiety could impact employes and organizations, yet, curiously, investigations of social anxiety in the fields of business and management remain limited and are mostly confined to studies of consumer behavior (e.g., Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 117 2002; Desmichel & Rucker, 2023; Wan & Wyer, 2015; Y. Wang et al., 2019; Wooten & Reed, 2000). Yet, nascent research suggests a shifting focus towards how social anxiety impacts employees. Verbeke and Bagozzi (2000, 2003) and Belschak et al. (2006), for instance, studied Sales Call Anxiety (SCA), the social anxiety employees experience in relation to sales interactions with potential customers. Their findings indicate that SCA arises from negative affectivity and situational cues (e.g., encountering new or high-status customers), and may impair sales performance and lead to dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., avoiding asking customers questions). Nifadkar and Bauer (2016) found that social anxiety can also be experienced with co-workers; specifically, social anxiety with co-workers mediates the path between employee/co-worker relational conflict and reduced information-seeking behaviors, ultimately hindering employees’ resource access and performance. Moreover, social anxiety appears to play a role in employees’ job and career outcomes. Indeed, Feeney, McCarthy, and Goffin (2015) found that social anxiety negatively predicted interview performance for males, but not for females (see also McCarthy & Goffin, 2004), while Budnick et al. (2019) found that positive feedback during interviews did not benefit socially anxious interviewees to the extent that it did for those low in social anxiety. Additionally, Buser and Yuan (2023) recently found that business students with a fear of public speaking—a specific form of social anxiety—are less inclined toward management consulting careers, preferring data analysis or back-office roles. 4.1.4 Occupational evaluation experiences and social anxiety with outsiders Drawing on the self-presentational theory of social anxiety (Schlenker & Leary, 1982), we theorize that employees’ experiences with negative and positive occupational evaluations from occupational outsiders are likely to relate to their social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Individuals often define themselves through their occupation, harboring a strong desire 118 to both perceive their occupation positively and to receive others’ affirmation (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Vough et al., 2013). This desire for external validation offers a potentially fertile ground for social anxiety to flourish (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Yet, merely the desire for external validation is insufficient in provoking social anxiety; it becomes salient only when paired with unfavorable (vs. favorable) outcome expectancies (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). We suggest that experiences in which one’s occupation is subject to evaluation—whether direct (e.g., through interpersonal interactions) or indirect (e.g., via social media)—are poised to mold an individual’s outcome expectancies. Direct experiences and observations shape individuals’ subjectively held beliefs that specific stimuli produce specific outcomes (Bandura, 1971). Therefore, it is possible that as individuals experience occupational evaluations from outsiders, they will develop associations about how other outsiders are likely to respond to their occupation, or them on the basis of their occupation, thereby shaping their outcome expectancies. Specifically, negative occupational evaluation experiences are likely to diminish these expectancies by eroding an individual’s confidence that their occupation will contribute to a positive response from other outsiders in the future. Conversely, positive occupational evaluation experiences could enhance these expectancies by bolstering an individual’s confidence that their occupation will contribute to a favorable response from other outsiders in the future. This is especially true when employees frequently encounter either negative or positive occupational evaluations. While they might perceive a singular incident as an isolated event (Burke, 1991; Petriglieri, 2011), experiencing similar evaluations frequently is likely to reinforce the understanding that many outsiders hold unfavorable or favorable views of their occupation. Building on Schlenker and Leary (1982, p. 642), we therefore propose that frequent experiences of negative or positive occupational evaluations enacted by outsiders are likely to be 119 associated with employees’ social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Like other variations of social anxiety (e.g., dating anxiety, social anxiety with co-workers), social anxiety with occupational outsiders shares similar manifestations with general social anxiety, with the distinction primarily lying in the source of the anxiety and the specific situations that trigger it (Leary, 1983a). Experiencing occupational evaluations from outsiders—often via social interactions with outsiders—clearly signifies the origin and context of the social anxiety in our study. We theorize that occupational evaluation experiences shape the degree to which an individual expects their occupation to contribute to an (un)favorable impression on other outsiders in the future, thereby influencing the extent of their anxiety around interacting with outsiders. Specifically: Hypothesis 1a. Negative occupational evaluation experiences (holding positive occupational evaluation experiences constant) are positively associated with an employee’s social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Hypothesis 1b. Positive occupational evaluation experiences (holding negative occupational evaluation experiences constant) are negatively associated with an employee’s social anxiety with occupational outsiders). 4.1.5 Social anxiety with outsiders and employee (dis)affiliative behaviors We further theorize that employees are likely to engage in specific disaffiliative behaviors—“inhibited and avoidant behaviors that serve to reduce the amount of social contact an individual has with others” (Leary, 1983b, p. 306)—in response to their social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Disaffiliative behaviors are a common consequence of social anxiety (Belschak et al., 2006; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Recognizing that variation exists in both the quantity and quality of an individual’s “social-communicative behaviors” (Leary, 1983b: 305), disaffiliative behaviors can encompass a broad range of actions, such as participating less fully in conversations, initiating social interaction less frequently, and reducing social contact altogether 120 (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Thus, we view (dis)affiliative behaviors as broadly existing on a continuum; individuals’ social-communicative behaviors can range from absent or inhibited (that is, disaffiliative) to present and uninhibited (that is, affiliative). The specific (dis)affiliative behaviors that we expect to vary in response to an employee’s experience of social anxiety with occupational outsiders are: (a) the employee’s external promotion of their occupation, (b) the extent of their social engagement with friends and family; and (c) the depth of their psychological engagement with the various external recipients of their work and services (i.e., “service recipients” including patients, customers, clients, the general public). External promotion of the occupation. An employee’s external promotion of their occupation to outsiders, similar to their external promotion of their organization (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Griffin et al., 2007; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; N. P. Podsakoff et al., 2014; P. M. Podsakoff et al., 2000)19, represents a positive work role behavior that contributes to an occupation’s effectiveness. Indeed, word of mouth is a powerful form of marketing (Van Hoye & Lievens, 2009). Promoting a favorable image of the occupation to outsiders or defending it against criticisms can bolster the occupation’s image and reputation (Graham, 1991), thereby augmenting its appeal to potential entrants and customers and fostering its continued growth and significance. Moreover, these actions may also benefit employees, for example, providing opportunities to discreetly highlight and affirm expertise or gain outsiders’ social support (Baran et al., 2012). 19 Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007) label behaviors in which employees promote a favorable image of their organization or defend it against criticisms as “organization member proficiency.” Other scholars categorize these behaviors as a variant of prosocial organizational behavior/ organizational citizenship behavior, sometimes called “loyal boosterism” (e.g., Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; N. P. Podsakoff et al., 2014). We opt to use the term “external promotion of the occupation,” because we believe this term accurately and vividly captures the essence of the behavior in question. 121 However, in the presence of frequent negative occupational evaluations, employees who feel higher levels of social anxiety with outsiders could consider their involvement in externally promoting their occupation as a risky behavior. Indeed, externally promoting one’s occupation requires courage, as it may initiate or be responsive to others’ criticism of the occupation (Graham, 1991). Socially anxious individuals are likely to lack this courage; they tend to opt for self-preservation over self-promotion (Belschak et al., 2006; Leary & Jongman-Sereno, 2014; Wooten & Reed, 2000) and steer clear of topics and behaviours that could attract attention or disapproval (Cuming & Rapee, 2010). Leary (1995) referred to this tendency as “evasive self-presentation,” noting the inclination of socially anxious individuals to adopt a silent, evasive, or noncommittal demeanor to avoid discussing self-related topics. On the contrary, frequent experiences of positive occupational evaluations are expected to be related to lower levels of social anxiety with outsiders, which in turn encourages more active external promotion of the occupation, with a goal of reaffirming positive evaluations from outsiders. Thus, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2a. There is a negative indirect relationship between an employee’s negative occupational evaluation experiences (holding positive occupational evaluation experiences constant) and their external promotion of their occupation, mediated by increased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Hypothesis 2b. There is a positive indirect relationship between an employee’s positive occupational evaluation experiences (holding negative occupational evaluation experiences constant) and their external promotion of their occupation, mediated by decreased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. In addition to actions comprising evasive self-presentation, the disaffiliative behaviors that often accompany social anxiety have been shown to take the form of interpersonal withdrawal (Erath et al., 2007; Leary, 1983a; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). This withdrawal can manifest in numerous distinct ways, (K. H. Rubin et al., 2009). Guided by the self-presentational theory of social anxiety, we theorize that, in response to high levels of social anxiety with 122 outsiders, employees are likely to reduce their social engagement with friends and family, and diminish their psychological engagement with service recipients. Social engagement with friends and family. Humans are highly social organisms and their engagement in social activities with friends and family, and the relationships they derive from such engagement, play a significant role in their resource acquisition, maintenance, and overall well-being (Ilies et al., 2007; Watson, 2000). Furthermore, an employee’s engagement in social activities with their loved ones helps to “fulfill their family role” (Ilies et al., 2007, p. 1371), contributing to uplifting effects on not just the employee but those around them. Despite these benefits, employees may not always engage in social activities with friends and family, particularly when encountering social anxiety triggered from outsiders’ occupational evaluations. First, while some friends and family members might belong to the employee’s occupation, it is likely that many are occupational non-members. Consequently, employees might inadvertently categorize friends and family based on their perceived outsider status, fearing that these individuals will make negative judgements about them and their occupation during social engagements. Indeed, discussions about one’s work almost inevitably occur during social activities with friends and family, potentially setting the stage for assessments from loved ones themselves or from other acquaintances encountered at social functions. Supporting the idea that employees might reduce their involvement in social activities with friends and family in response to their social anxiety with outsiders, the apprehension of one’s occupation being negatively judged by outsiders is likely to reinforce a sense of “entitativity,” fostering the perception of occupational colleagues as one’s “in-group” (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 2014; Kreiner et al., 2006). This dynamic can draw an employee closer to their work peers and, frequently by extension, lead to a physical distancing 123 from their non-work friends and family. Indeed, turning toward one group often means turning away from another (Reid & Ramarajan, 2022). Additionally, the likelihood of physical withdrawal from anxiety-inducing social settings increases when physical retreat is both possible and perceived to incur relatively little costs (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Consequently, while employees are likely to continue to fulfill their essential obligations to friends and family, such as engaging in serious discussions or running errands—which could incur high personal costs if neglected—their involvement in leisurely activities can be scaled back fairly easily. Finally, employees who believe their occupation might lead to negative evaluations from outsiders may restrict their social engagement with friends and family for fear that these loved ones could also face judgments from others by association, a phenomenon termed “courtesy stigma” (Goffman, 1963). From this view, attending a social event together could risk not only one’s own social standing, but also tarnish the social standing of one’s friends or family. By the same logic, the decreased levels of social anxiety with outsiders associated with frequent positive occupational evaluations can encourage greater participation in social activities with friends and family. When this anxiety diminishes, individuals are less concerned about others’ judgements, making social events and interactions more comfortable. Thus, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 3a. There is a negative indirect relationship between an employee’s negative occupational evaluation experiences (holding positive occupational evaluation experiences constant) and their social engagement with friends and family, mediated by increased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Hypothesis 3b. There is a positive indirect relationship between an employee’s positive occupational evaluation experiences (holding negative occupational evaluation experiences constant) and their social engagement with friends and family, mediated by decreased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Psychological engagement with service recipients. Contrary to the social disengagement we expect to see with friends and family, we propose that employees will psychologically 124 disengage with the various external beneficiaries of their work and services when experiencing high levels of social anxiety with outsiders. Psychological disengagement from service recipients can have significant implications, as the quality of an employee’s interactions with these groups is vital to the competitive landscape of organizations and occupations (Chi et al., 2011; Salanova et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2017). Similar to friends and family, service recipients are likely to be viewed by employees as outsiders, which gives rise to a comparable worry that these individuals will cast negative evaluations of them or their occupation during social interactions. Perhaps amplifying this concern, an individual’s occupational affiliation is inherently exposed during at-work interactions with service recipients, rendering them susceptible to the related judgments. This dynamic becomes even more complex in public service occupations (e.g., law enforcement, tax collection, healthcare), where service recipients may have negative views of the occupation and may not have actively sought the service being provided (e.g., being arrested, being billed). However, in contrast to friends and family, employees are often bound to their service recipients by the nature of their work. This means that physically distancing themselves from these individuals could result in significant consequences, such as organizational penalties or sanctions. Under such circumstances, psychological disengagement is likely to occur: “Withdrawing from anxiety producing social situations is not always possible. Coexisting pressures (e.g., job demands[)] … may make the situation unavoidable, and there may be no way of exiting gracefully (without incurring severe social costs). When this occurs, people will cognitively withdraw.” (Schlenker & Leary, 1982, p. 657) Indeed, psychological disengagement from service recipients—attempting to distance oneself from recipients by interacting with them as if they are objects or numbers rather than as individuals—is a more subtle form of withdrawal than physical distancing. It can go unnoticed 125 by others, allowing an individual to avoid the anxiety-provoking aspects of social interactions without drawing attention to their discomfort (Ashforth et al., 2008; Maslach et al., 2001). Conversely, we expect frequent experiences of positive occupational evaluations to relate to lower levels of social anxiety with outsiders. Such social comfort (vs. anxiety) is foundational to the development of connections with others (Dobrow, 2013), as well as the nature of the relational rapport that develops thereafter (Rafaeli et al., 1997). Thus, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 4a. There is a negative indirect relationship between an employee’s negative occupational evaluation experiences (holding positive occupational evaluation experiences constant) and their psychological engagement with service recipients, mediated by increased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Hypothesis 4b. There is a positive indirect relationship between an employee’s positive occupational evaluation experiences (holding negative occupational evaluation experiences constant) and their psychological engagement with service recipients, mediated by decreased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. 4.2 Methods Because “enough is known [about occupational evaluations] to suggest formal hypotheses, but not enough is known to do so … at a safe distance from the phenomenon,” we used a multi-phase research that involved a blend of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Edmondson & McManus, 2007, p. 1166). First, between July 2020 and May 2021, we conducted 62 in-depth exploratory interviews with police officers belonging to a large Canadian police union to better understand the nature of employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations, as well as to enrich our theorizing. Second, between August and December 2021, we developed and validated two five-item measures assessing employees’ experiences with: (a) negative occupational evaluations (NOE), and (b) positive occupational evaluations (POE). Third, between March and June 2022, we administered a three-wave field survey using the NOE and POE scales we developed to test our overall theoretical model and hypotheses. Details about 126 the multiple studies we undertook to develop and validate the scales are located in Chapter 3. We summarize our multi-phase research process and the ten samples we used across each research phase in Table 4.1. Our NOE and POE scales are shown in Table 4.2. The primary focus of this article is on our field research as opposed to our scale development process. Below, we detail our qualitative study and multi-wave field study. 127 Table 4.1 Full research process and samples used RESEARCH PROCESS Phase description Purpose Sample(s) used Phase I: Two qualitative pilot studies of occupational evaluation experiences To gain an understanding of how occupational evaluations manifests and affect employees. 1, 2 Phase II: Scale item generation and reduction To generate an initial pool of items based on employees’ experiences with NOE and POE from within- and cross-occupational contexts. To subsequently eliminate items based on substantive validity. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Phase III: Psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales To ensure acceptable factor structure and model fit and finalize the scales based on model fit. To demonstrate temporal consistency. 6, 7, 8, and 9 8 Phase IV: Nomological network and convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of NOE and POE scales To show significant correlations between the NOE and POE scales and related “orbiting” constructs. To verify distinctness between the NOE and POE scales and related “orbiting” constructs. To test for significant relationships between the NOE and POE scales and other theoretically derived antecedents and outcomes. 9 Phase V: Hypothesis testing To test our hypotheses. 10 SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS Sample # Method N Data source Location Sample 1 Field research, in-depth interviewing 62 Members of a large Canadian police union, all of whom belonged to one Canadian police department Canada Sample 2 Survey involving open-ended questions 100 Full-time or part-time employees who consider themselves to have an occupation (Prolific.co) Worldwide Sample 3 POE vs. NOE item sort task (Q-sort task) 11 Business school graduate students or recent graduates US or Canada Sample 4 NOE vs. orbiting constructs item sort task (ANOVA-based approach; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999) 249 (~120 individual assessments of each NOE item) Adults with a master’s or doctorate degree in any field of study (Prolific.co) US, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand Sample 5 POE vs. orbiting constructs item sort task (ANOVA-based approach; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999) 182 (~120 individual assessments of each POE item) Adults with a master’s or doctorate degree in any field of study (Prolific.co) US, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand Sample 6 Survey containing NOE and POE items (for exploratory factor analysis) 150 Full-time or part-time employees who consider themselves to have an occupation (Prolific.co) US and UK Sample 7 Survey containing NOE and POE items (for confirmatory factor analysis) 201 Full-time or part-time employees who consider themselves to have an occupation (Prolific.co) US and UK 128 Sample # Method N Data source Location Sample 8 Two surveys containing NOE and POE items, administered one-week apart (for an analysis of test-retest reliability) 158 (matched at two time points) Full-time or part-time employees who consider themselves to have an occupation (Prolific.co) US and UK Sample 9 Cross-sectional survey containing NOE and POE scales and scales of orbiting constructs and theoretical antecedents and outcomes 149 Full-time or part-time employees who consider themselves to have an occupation (Prolific.co) US and UK Sample 10 Three-wave field survey with NOE and POE scales and scales for hypothesis testing 376 (Time 1) 287 (Time 2) 232 (Time 3) 213 (Fully matched) Members of a large Canadian police union, all of whom belonged to one Canadian police department Canada Table 4.2 The NOE and POE scales Dimension Item (Stem: “In the past month, I experienced others…”) Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) Saying mean or nasty things relating to my occupation. Taunting members of my occupation or ridiculing our work. Shaming members of my occupation for our work. Belittling my occupation. Labeling members of my occupation as bad. Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) Rooting for my occupation. Displaying signs, posters, or other visuals supporting my occupation. Labeling members of my occupation as good. Expressing positive stereotypes about my occupation. Admiring members of my occupation. 4.3 Field research studies and findings In January 2020, we embarked on a collaborative, multi-stage research project with a large Canadian police union to investigate officers’ mental health and well-being. From the start until July 2023, we conducted monthly meetings with the union president and two key leaders to 129 advance the research project. These interactions enabled us to gain a deep understanding of the context, co-develop the research instruments, jointly interpret data, and weave their rich insights into the fabric of our study, thereby sharpening the focus of our research questions. In July 2020, we commenced our qualitative data collection to better understand occupational stressors in this context from the employee perspective. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we modified our initial plan to conduct in-person focus groups, instead transitioning to one-on-one interviews, inadvertently increasing officers’ vulnerability and willingness to share personal experiences. Coincidentally, we began the interviewing process in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, as occupationally-relevant “mega-events” (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013) were unfolding. During this period, global Black Lives Matter protests and a Defund the Police movement in North America dominated the social discourse. The union (N ≈1,450) represents a large Canadian police department serving one large city and surrounding area. The scope of the union’s bargaining unit includes police officers20 (N ≈ 1,350) ranging in rank from constable to staff sergeant, who work in one of three divisions in the police department: operations, investigation, or support services, depending on their specialty (e.g., general patrol, organized crime, personnel services). Operations officers primarily work in a uniformed capacity, patrolling and actively enforcing criminal and traffic laws within the community. They follow a “four on, four off” schedule (four ~11-hour shifts, followed by four rest days), rotating every eight days between five different shift patterns, from the early “alpha” dayshift (0500–1600) to the late “echo” nightshift (1900–0600). Investigation officers spend 20 While most union members worked as police officers, some members were employed as jail guards (N ≈ 60) or special municipal constables (N ≈ 40). We only draw on police officer data due to comparatively low participation among these groups. 130 most of their work time at desks investigating serious crimes (e.g., sexual assault) to gather further evidence for criminal charges. They work daytime hours at one of the two headquarters or in the community as needed, following a “four-10 schedule” (four 10-hour days with three days off each week). Support services officers primarily work at desks on tasks such as personnel services (e.g., human resources, training), research and development, or accounting at one of the two headquarters, similarly working daytime hours following a four-10 schedule. Seniority and performance enable officers to gain experience in different divisions and rise through the ranks. 4.3.1 In-depth exploratory interviews Participants and procedure The police union helped us recruit 62 police officers (55% male) to participate in in-depth, exploratory one-on-one interviews. From July 2020 to May 2021, the first author (henceforth, “the interviewer”) conducted the interviews in a semi-structured manner, balancing (a) the need for consistency to facilitate comparative analysis across respondents with (b) the flexibility to explore emergent themes in greater depth. The interviews occurred in person or over Zoom, depending on each respondent’s preference and the COVID-19 directives followed by the university and police department at the time. Initial interviews, which lasted 90 minutes on average, were broad and designed to examine how police officers’ working conditions relate to their well-being. We utilized snowball and purposive sampling approaches (Patton, 2002), aiming for variation in department, gender, and tenure. After completing 13 interviews, based on the highly salient theme of the public’s (mis)treatment of their occupation, the interviewer began collecting data about critical incidents (Flanagan, 1954) when officers recalled others evaluating their occupation or them personally based on their occupational membership (vs. their personal behavior). To do so, the interviewer 131 described how some experiences help individuals “take the temperature” of how others feel about their occupation. The interviewer shared an example explaining how much graffiti in the city, at the time of data collection, conveyed a derogatory message about the police. Passersby presumably “consume” these occupationally relevant messages and may or may not be affected by them. The interviewer then asked the police officers to share (a) the various ways that they have “consumed” others’ attitudes21 toward their occupation and (b) the changes they observed within themselves, if any, following their exposure to these attitudes. In the vast majority of interviews (59/62), the interviewer pursued this line of inquiry after the respondent had already raised the theme of the public’s (mis)treatment of their occupation. The interviewer probed for officers’ experiences with both negative and positive occupational evaluations. Common themes emerging from our exploratory interviews Our exploratory interview data served two purposes—it enhanced our understanding of how employees perceive occupational evaluations and how these evaluation experiences can affect them. First, we drew on the critical incidents respondents described to develop the NOE and POE scales, which we validated in Spring 2022 (see Chapter 3). Second, we used the interview data to help us inductively understand the possible effects of occupational evaluations on employees and to generate hypotheses accordingly. Our qualitative data, as shown in Table 4.3, indicate that experiencing occupational evaluations seemingly had profound implications for employees’ social anxiety and (dis)affiliative behaviors. 21 Attitudes are “summary evaluations that elicit consistently favorable or unfavorable reactions toward an object or domain (Kuwabara et al., 2018, p. 52). We used the term attitude because we believe it is clearer to a layperson than the term evaluation. 132 Table 4.3 Representative quotes from exploratory qualitative interviews with police officers Dimension Exemplars Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) Respondent #26, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “I’m thinking of one example… I was driving down [the] street and a lady was looking at me when I was stopped at a red light. Just such a look of disgust on her face and she started shaking her head. Like she could not believe I existed. I was like, oh my God, like I’ve never had that. And it was literally just a look, and her shaking her head at me and staring at me, until I drove away.” Respondent #18, Investigation Division Police Officer, Male: “There’s a restaurant that said, basically, ‘fuck the police’ on one side, and ACAB, all cops are bad. … Back about 15 years ago … I was denied service in a restaurant. He says, ‘No you guys can leave. I’m not serving you guys.’” Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) Respondent #21, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “There are those encounters where someone finds out you’re a police officer and then they’re like, ‘Oh my god, thank you so much for what you do.’ Like, ‘You guys have a really hard job.’ And it’s like, ‘Oh, thanks for that.’ Right? So, there have been positive encounters and there have been letters of support being written by People to the police department that are distributed to us.” Respondent #31, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “A lot of people appreciate us. Signs, like all the first responders, frontline workers during the pandemic. People were really supportive of us … Just seeing the signs in the windows, commentary on the news, that kind of stuff. People do come up to us, I’d say at least once a week probably, someone comes up to me and just makes a general comment like, ‘Thank you for your service,’ or, ‘Thank you for doing what you do.’ And, you know, ‘Hope you’re having a great day,’ and that kind of stuff.” Social Anxiety with Occupational Outsiders Respondent #58, Operations Division Police Officer, Male: I definitely lost some sleep. … It would be the way people see me. Because obviously I’m a brand new officer so, you know, family and friends they-they were experiencing my change in career path with me, right? Um, but experiencing also being flooded with media, right? All the ‘police are all bad.’ Um, it makes me have that second [thought]– that background kind of like, ‘Ooh, I wonder if they think I’m like that?’ Or if they think, you know, I operate on the same – that maybe why I got into policing is to just you know, be that aggressive officer. It’s just that second guessing of myself, my own image to people.” Respondent #20, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “There’s a lot of anxiety. And it’s, there could be even – there’s internal anxiety. Social anxiety of, if I encounter this specific person, if I - my anxiety’s going to go through the roof. My cortisol is going to increase.” 133 Dimension Exemplars Disaffiliative Behavior 1: Reduced External Promotion of the Occupation Respondent #35, Investigation Division Police Officer, Female: “It was just chronic like, friends of mine just reposting stuff … So many people don’t know what ACAB [All Cops are Bastards] means, but, you know, we all know what that means. And I mean I’m single right now. You know the dating world. I don’t tell people what I do for a living, I tell them in person, because I need to get their reaction. There are people who won’t even want to meet you because of what you do for a living.” Respondent #5, Operations Division Police Officer, Female: “When people meet me, and I don’t know them, I don’t know if they hate cops or not. So, while we’re sussing each other out, they’ll say, ‘Hey what do you do?’ I’ll go, ‘I work for the city.’ … I don’t lead with, ‘I’m a police officer,’ cuz now it opens myself up to my behavior now being judged by these people.” Disaffiliative Behavior 2: Reduced Social Engagement with Friends and Family Respondent #62, Investigation Division Police Officer, Female: “I think that’s why a lot of us just tend to get, you know, on social circles that are within the department. Um, and you start to just – Yeah. Your friends are people that you work with. Your friends are people that are also police or police within other areas, … I can’t say, like I’ve lost friends because of my job, but there’s definitely people I’m not as connected to anymore.” Respondent #33, Investigation Division Police Officer, Female: “I was concerned that something was going to happen if people associated outside of work, if somebody made that connection [of me being a police officer]. … It was uncomfortable going into places a lot of times just because you didn’t know what kind of reaction you were going to get. It was kind of like a withdrawal from social media. From going out and like putting yourself out there, you know going to a restaurant or something like that.” Disaffiliative Behavior 3: Reduced Psychological Engagement with Service Recipients Respondent #17, Support Services Division Police Officer, Female: “The resentment kicks in. But also that moral injury. I feel - certainly for the older officers, that moral injury of like, you know, ‘We’re here for you when the times are really shitty.’ And now, the police attitude towards us is a real moral injury. Like, ‘You obviously don’t get the big picture,’ in terms of the public. … I feel like our members are kind of, what am I trying to say here? I guess less driven to do the work. What’s the point? But also, uh, not as emotionally invested.” Respondent #60, Operations Division Police Officer, Male: “[A colleague told me that] I seem like more of an angrier, hardened - hardened person. … I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to be a little more direct and whatnot … I have a little less patience now, is what I’ve noticed.” 134 4.3.2 Multi-wave field survey Participants and procedures Data collection. We also administered a three-wave web-based survey to members of the police union we described in the previous section. Before administering the surveys, the union leadership reviewed and provided feedback on the surveys, and we pilot tested them in February 2022 with a sample of our qualitative interviewees (N = 19). Respondents shared feedback on their comfort levels in responding to the questions, as well as the clarity of the questions, content relevance, and any technical issues experienced when taking the survey on their computers and mobile devices. We used this feedback to improve our survey instruments. We distributed our first survey wave on March 1, 2022 (N = 376), our second survey wave on May 15, 2022 (N = 287), and our third survey wave on June 1, 2022 (N = 232). Because of the various shift patterns, we administered the surveys over a 10-day period to maximize responses. For each of the three survey waves, officers received an e-mail invitation from the union president inviting them to participate. Employees interested in participating clicked a link in the email which led to a consent form; those who completed the form were granted access to the survey. To participate in the second or third survey wave, we required employees to complete the previous survey(s). Employees who previously participated in an in-depth interview or the pilot survey were able to take the surveys, but we removed their data prior to analysis. As a token of appreciation, we gave each respondent a gift card to either Amazon, Starbucks, or Tim Hortons upon returning each survey (T1 $10, T2 $20, T3 $25). We sent physical gift cards via the organization’s internal mail system. 135 Sample. We fully matched 213 respondents across the three surveys.22 The majority of our sample consisted of men (men: 75.1%, N = 160; women: 24.4%, N = 52; non-binary: .5%; N = 1). With respect to race, most of our sample self-identified as White (White: 69.0%, N = 147; non-White: 31.0%, N = 66). By division, most respondents worked in operations (operations: 57.3%; N = 122; investigation: 31.9%, N = 68; support services: 10.8%; N = 23). The average tenure for survey respondents was 14.54 (SD 7.47) years within the department. The union confirmed that these demographics are representative of the department’s workforce. Measures Negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). Testing our hypotheses required that we develop the tools to measure employees’ experiences with NOE and POE. To develop and validate a self-report measure of experiences with NOE and POE, we followed a rigorous scale development process guided by the recommendations of leading scale development experts (Colquitt et al., 2019; DeVellis, 1991; Hinkin, 1998; Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). Below, we briefly describe our process and the samples we used (see also Table 4.1). Chapter 3 provides a more detailed description. Our scale development process consisted of four overarching steps involving data collection from nine independent samples. Our first step improved our understanding of how occupational evaluations manifest and affect employees. It encompassed the 62 in-depth interviews with police officers that we previously described (sample 1) and a survey we administered in Prolific.co of 100 employees across different occupations (sample 2). In the 22 Unmatched respondents either made errors when entering their badge numbers, or “snuck in” to the second/third survey without previous survey participation (by their peers sharing the survey link with them vs. receiving it from the union president). 136 survey, we asked respondents, using open-ended questions, to describe times when they experienced others (e.g., family, friends, people on the internet) expressing negative or positive attitudes toward their occupation. In our second step, we developed items to measure the full spectrum of enacted occupational evaluations, creating the foundation for our NOE and POE scales. Drawing on the qualitative data from our first step, we developed 48 potential items (27 items reflecting NOE and 21 items reflecting POE). To reduce the items to those most suitable for assessing NOE and POE, respectively, and to ensure their distinctiveness from other constructs, we conducted three item sort tasks with three independent samples (samples 3-5). Item sort tasks provide a test of each item’s substantive validity, the extent to which the item reflects the construct of interest instead of alternative constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). In our third step, we assessed the psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales, and, in our fourth step, we examined their nomological networks. Through these steps, we collected survey data from four additional independent samples (samples 6-9) and used statistical procedures to assess the scales’ quality (e.g., factor structure, internal and temporal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity). Our efforts culminated in a 5-item NOE scale and a 5-item POE scale. In the first of our three field surveys with the police union, we measured NOE (α = .96) and POE (α = .87) using the scales we developed. We prefaced the response items with: “The following statements describe how people might behave toward your occupation and its membership (including you), because of their attitude toward your occupation. Please indicate how often during the past month you have experienced others engaging in the described behaviors, including either directly (e.g., in person) or indirectly (e.g., through social media).” 137 Each item began with the stem “In the past month, I experienced others…” A sample NOE item is “Saying mean or nasty things relating to my occupation,” and a sample POE item is “Admiring members of my occupation.” Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (always). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on our NOE and POE items showed that a two-factor model fit the data (χ2 [34, n = 213] = 70.39, CFI = .98, SRMR = .06) significantly better than an alternative one-factor model (Δχ2 (1) = 471.32, p < .001). All items loaded onto their proposed factors at p < .001, with factor loadings ranging from .88 to .96 for NOE and from .53 to .83 for POE, exceeding the recommended cut-off of .40 (Hinkin, 1998). The two dimensions had a significant factor correlation of -.35 (p < .01). Social anxiety with occupational outsiders. In the second survey, we measured social anxiety with occupational outsiders (α = .88) by following Nifadkar and Bauer (2016) and selecting six items from Mattick and Clarke’s (1998) social interaction anxiety scale that tapped into employees’ social anxiety with occupational outsiders. A sample item is “I find it difficult to mix comfortably with people outside of work.” We prefaced the response items with: “For each item, please indicate the degree to which you feel the statement is true for you, currently.” Responses ranged from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (extremely true of me). External promotion of the occupation. In the third survey, we measured external promotion of the occupation (α =.76) by adapting Griffin, Neal, and Parker’s (2007) three-item organization member proficiency scale, changing the referent from organization to occupation. A sample item is “Presented a positive image of your occupation to other people.” Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Because one item referenced an experience that the respondent may or may not have had (“defended your occupation if others criticized it”), we also provided a “not applicable” choice, which, if marked, we excluded when calculating the average. 138 Social engagement with friends and family. In the third survey, we measured social engagement with friends and family using Watson, Clark, McIntyre, and Hamaker’s (1992) social activity questionnaire. We included the nine items from the “social entertainment” and “active participation” dimensions, omitting the items from the “social responsibilities” dimension. A sample item is “Going out for a meal or drink.” Following Watson et al. (1992), we instructed respondents to only include an activity if it involved a significant level of social interaction with a friend or family member. Responses included 1 (never), 2 (1 time); 3 (2-4 times); 4 (5-9 times); and 5 (10+ times). Following Watson et al. (1992) and Ilies et al (2007), we created an index of overall social activity for the month by adding recoded versions of respondents’ scores (e.g., coding “2-4 times” with a score of 3). For a robustness check, we also created an average of respondents’ marked scores (α = .72) and an index adding these marked scores. All approaches of combining item scores yielded similar results. Psychological engagement with service recipients. In the third survey, we measured psychological engagement with service recipients (α = .71) using Maslach and Jackson’s (1981) 5-item depersonalization scale, representing the “attempt to put distance between oneself and service recipients by actively ignoring the qualities that make them unique and engaging people (Maslach et al., 2001, p. 403). A sample item is “I feel I treat some recipients as if they were impersonal ‘objects.’” Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To facilitate interpretation, we reverse coded the measure such that higher scores indicate higher, while lower scores indicate lower, levels of psychological engagement with service recipients. Control variables. We measured several control variables, applying them both to our mediator and outcome variables. We controlled for POE when examining the effects of NOE and NOE when examining the effects of POE. We also controlled for general mistreatment (α = .95) 139 using four items from the Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001) to show that the effects of NOE and POE are associated with social anxiety with occupational outsiders above and beyond the general levels of mistreatment employees receive during their work. A sample mistreatment item is “[People] put you down or were condescending to you.” Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Because individual differences in negative affectivity may shape employees’ experiences with (or reactivity to) both NOE and POE, as well as their work attitudes and performance (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 1993), we also controlled for negative affectivity (T1; α = .83) using the short version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Mackinnon et al., 1999). Further, we controlled for division because the different shiftwork patterns between divisions (operations, investigation, support services) could be associated with more/less frequent occupational evaluation experiences, and differing employee work attitudes and performance. Finally, we controlled for gender, race, and organizational tenure. Resource maintenance theories indicate that such demographic and “status” variables can provide potential resources for adaptation and coping (Hobfoll, 1989; Wright et al., 2007; Wright & Bonett, 2007), thereby influencing employees’ experience of social anxiety and the associated coping behaviors. Findings Data analysis. We report the means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables in Table 4.4, which are consistent with expectations. We analyzed our three-wave data adopting a simultaneous path modeling approach implemented in Mplus (Version 8; Muthén & Muthén, 2017), enabling us to estimate all hypothesized relationships in one model. We assessed the direct effects specified in Hypothesis 1a and 1b and the indirect effects specified in Hypotheses 2 through 4 using 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs) based on 5,000 resamples (MacKinnon & Lockwood, 2001) and maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. 140 We present our theoretical model with results in Figure 4.2. Consistent with Becker et al.’s (2016) recommendations, we replicated all of results with and without control variables as a robustness check. Our results consistently held. 141 Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics and correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Independent Variables 1 NOE 4.83 1.38 2 POE 3.03 .98 -.25*** Mediator 3 Social anxiety with occupational outsiders 2.23 .92 .26*** -.25*** Outcome Variables 4 External promotion of the occupation 3.41 1.05 -.02 .12 -.31*** 5 Social engagement with friends and family 19.07 11.00 -.08 .22** -.34*** .28*** 6 Psychological engagement with service recipients 2.57 .82 -.19** .21** -.37*** .18** .16* Control Variables 7 General mistreatment 2.39 1.06 .30*** -.14* .22*** .06 -.14* -.22** 8 Negative affectivity 1.87 .71 .18** -.15* .42*** -.12 -.23*** -.14* .34*** 9 Operations a .57 .50 .05 0 -.07 .12 .07 -.08 .18** -.09 10 Investigation b .32 .47 .01 .07 .08 -.09 -.03 .01 -.10 .10 -.79*** 11 Gender c .75 .43 .02 .15* -.03 .18** .06 -.15* -.02 -.02 .05 0 12 Race d .69 .46 -.05 -.09 .11 -.14* -.11 -.09 -.03 -.01 -.07 .02 -.10 13 Tenure 14.54 7.47 -.15* .06 -.03 -.05 -.11 -.05 -.15* .02 -.36*** .24*** .09 .21** Supplemental Analysis Variables (Mediators) 14 Acceptance: Positive Feelings about the Work 2.91 .76 -.20** .36*** -.41*** .41*** .31*** .35*** -.17* -.30*** .11 -.07 .11 -.05 -.09 15 Rejection: Negative Feelings about Outsiders’ Treatment of the Occupation 2.67 .99 .37*** -.16* .34*** .09 -.07 -.31*** .3*** .44*** 0 .02 .09 .09 -.03 -.22** * = p < .05, ** = p < .01,*** = p < .001 a 1 = Operations division, 0 = non-operations division (i.e., investigation or support services), b 1 = Investigation division, 0 = non-investigation division (i.e., operations or support services), c 1 = Male, 0 = Non-male, d 1 = White, 0 = Non-white 142 Figure 4.2 Primary analysis direct effects External Promotion of the Occupation Negative Occupational Evaluations (NOE) Social Anxiety with Occupational Outsiders Social Engagement with Friends and Family Positive Occupational Evaluations (POE) Psychological Engagement with Service Recipients Note: Unstandardized path estimates reported. For parsimony, we omit the control variables (general mistreatment, trait negative affectivity, gender, race, organizational tenure, division) from the diagram. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 .10* -.14* -.29*** -3.17*** -.35*** 143 Table 4.5 Primary analysis direct and indirect effects Path Effect Size 95% Confidence interval Direct effects (hypothesized): H1a: NOE → Social anxiety with occupational outsiders .10 [.01, .19] H1b: POE →Social anxiety with occupational outsiders -.14 [-.27,-.002] Direct effects (not hypothesized): NOE →External promotion of the occupation .02 [-.09, .14] POE →External promotion of the occupation .04 [-.12, .20] NOE →Social engagement with friends and family .32 [-.87, 1.52] POE →Social engagement with friends and family 1.54 [.07, 3.13] NOE →Psychological engagement with service recipients -.03 [-.11, .06] POE →Psychological engagement with service recipients .12 [.01, .22] Indirect effects (hypothesized): H2a: NOE →Social anxiety →External promotion of the occupation -.04 [-.08, -.01] H2b: POE →Social anxiety →External promotion of the occupation .05 [.005, .11] H3a: NOE →Social anxiety →Social engagement with friends and family -.32 [-.77, -.06] H3b: POE →Social anxiety →Social engagement with friends and family .43 [.07, 1.02] H4a: NOE →Social anxiety →Psychological engagement with service recipients -.03 [-.07, -.004] H4b: POE →Social anxiety →Psychological engagement with service recipients .04 [.002, .09] Note: Unstandardized path estimates reported. Bold text denotes significant effects. Control variables included: general mistreatment, trait negative affectivity, Division, gender, race, organizational tenure. 144 Hypothesis Testing. Hypothesis 1a predicted that employee experiences with NOE would be positively related to social anxiety with occupational outsiders, whereas Hypothesis 1b predicted that employee experiences with POE would be negatively related to social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Consistent with Hypothesis 1a, experiences with NOE were positively related to social anxiety with outsiders (b = .10; 95% CI: .01, .19). In support of Hypothesis 1b, experiences with POE were negatively related to social anxiety with outsiders (b = -.14; 95% CI: -.27,-.002). Together, these results show that experiences with occupational evaluations (i.e., NOE and POE) are associated with social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Hypothesis 2a predicted that there would be a negative indirect effect between employees’ experiences with NOE and their external promotion of the occupation through increased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Meanwhile, Hypothesis 2b predicted that there would be a positive indirect effect between employees’ experiences with POE and their external promotion of the occupation through decreased social anxiety with occupational outsiders. First, as described in the last paragraph, employee experiences with NOE were positively related to social anxiety with outsiders, and employee experiences of POE were negatively related to social anxiety with outsiders. Implied within these hypotheses was a negative association between social anxiety with occupational outsiders and external promotion of the occupation, which received support (b = -.35; 95% CI: -.52, -.19). Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, NOE’s indirect effect was negative and significant (ab = -.04; 95% CI: -.08, -.01). We also find support for Hypothesis 2b; POE’s indirect effect was positive and significant (ab = .05; 95% CI: .01, .11). Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b received empirical support. In a similar vein, Hypothesis 3a pertained to the negative indirect effect between employees’ experiences with NOE and their social engagement with friends and family through 145 social anxiety with occupational outsiders, whereas Hypothesis 3b pertained to the positive indirect effect between employees’ experiences with POE and their social engagement with friends and family through social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Implied within these hypotheses was a negative association between social anxiety with occupational outsiders and social engagement with friends and family, which received support (b = -3.17; 95% CI: -4.85, -1.58). Consistent with Hypothesis 3a, the negative indirect effect between NOE and social engagement with friends and family through social anxiety with occupational outsiders was significant (ab = -.32; 95% CI: -.77, -.06). Similarly, supporting Hypothesis 3b, the positive indirect effect between POE and social engagement with friends and family through social anxiety with occupational outsiders was significant (ab = .43; 95% CI: .07, 1.02). Finally, Hypothesis 4a predicted that there would be a negative indirect effect between employees’ experiences with NOE and their psychological engagement with service recipients through social anxiety with occupational outsiders. By contrast, Hypothesis 4b predicted that there would be a positive indirect effect between employees’ experiences with POE and their psychological engagement with service recipients through social anxiety with occupational outsiders. We have already explained NOE’s positive and POE’s negative relationship with social anxiety with outsiders. Implicit in Hypotheses 4a and 4b is the expectation that social anxiety with occupational outsiders is negatively associated with psychological engagement with service recipients, which found support (b = -.29; 95% CI: -.41, -.18). Supporting Hypothesis 4a, NOE’s indirect effect was negative and significant (ab = -.03; 95% CI: -.07, -.004). In a similar vein, in support of Hypothesis 4b, POE’s indirect effect was positive and significant (ab = .04; 95% CI: .002, .09). 146 Supplemental analysis. In a supplemental analysis, we expanded our investigation to include two additional explanatory mechanisms capturing employees’ (a) acceptance/ internalization of outsiders’ evaluations as appropriate, and (b) their rejection of these evaluations as inappropriate. As previously discussed, extant qualitative and theoretical research indicates that employees can accept or reject both NOE and POE, and that these processes may impact employee behavior. Therefore, our supplemental analysis sought to determine the extent to which our dependent variables were associated with employees’ social anxiety with outsiders, their acceptance of outsiders’ evaluations as appropriate, and/or their rejection of outsiders’ evaluations as inappropriate. Again, we assessed the direct and indirect effects through a simultaneous parallel mediation model in Mplus using 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped CIs based on 5,000 resamples and ML estimation, and confirmed the results held with and without control variables. We further detail our measurement approach and results below. When employees accept/internalize outsiders’ evaluations as appropriate, their feelings toward the work can shift, with NOE leading employees to feel less positively about their work and POE leading employees to feel more positively about their work. Thus, we measured employees’ acceptance of outsiders’ evaluations by asking employees how strongly they had experienced Pride, Shame (reversed), Hope, and Gratitude (α = .70) in relation to their work in the past one month. Responses ranged from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Observing a significant negative relationship between employees’ experiences with NOE and their positive feelings about work would signal employees’ acceptance/ internalization of the NOE as appropriate. On the other hand, for POE, observing a significant positive relationship between employees’ experiences with POE and their positive feelings about work would signal employees’ acceptance/ internalization of the POE as appropriate. 147 Another possibility entails employees’ rejecting outsiders’ evaluations as inappropriate. Upon rejection of outsiders’ evaluations—whether these evaluations are NOE or POE—employees tend to experience negative feelings (e.g., frustration, anger) towards those who express these evaluations. Hence, we measured employees’ rejection of outsiders’ evaluations as inappropriate by asking employees about the extent to which they had felt tense, betrayed, frustrated, and angry about how others acted toward their occupation in the past one month (α = .85). Responses ranged from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Employees’ rejection of either of NOE or POE would be reflected in a significant positive relationship between NOE or POE and their negative reactions about outsiders’ treatment of their occupation. We present the direct effects in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.6 and the indirect effects in Table 4.7. We found a non-significant relationship between employees’ experiences with NOE and their positive feelings towards the work, suggesting that employees in our sample did not accept/internalize the NOE as appropriate and thus feel less positively about their work. On the other hand, we identified a significant positive relationship between employees’ experiences with NOE and their negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation (b = .19; 95% CI: .11, .28), signaling that employees in our sample largely rejected the NOE as inappropriate. Results revealed a reverse pattern for POE. There was a significant positive relationship between employees’ experiences with POE and their positive feelings about the work (b = .23; 95% CI: .12, .33), but a non-significant relationship with their negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation. These findings indicate that employees in our sample accepted/internalized the POE as appropriate—thus viewing their work more favorably—rather than rejecting the POE as inappropriate and harboring negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation. 148 In light of these significant relationships, we examined the indirect effects between NOE and POE and the three outcomes variables. The indirect effects between NOE and POE and the outcomes variables through social anxiety with occupational outsiders remained significant when we included the two additional mechanisms reflecting employees’ acceptance and rejection of outsiders’ evaluations as (in)appropriate in the model. Notably though, we found evidence of parallel indirect effects between employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations (both NOE and POE) and two of the three outcome variables: employees’ external promotion of their occupation and their psychological engagement with service recipients. 149 Figure 4.3 Supplemental analysis direct effects Note: Unstandardized path estimates reported. For parsimony, we omit the control variables (general mistreatment, trait negative affectivity, gender, race, organizational tenure, division) from the diagram. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 150 Table 4.6 Supplemental analysis direct effects Mediators (Time 2) Outcome Variables (Time 3) Social Anxiety with Occupational Outsiders Acceptance: Positive Feelings about the Work Rejection: Negative Feelings about Outsiders’ Treatment of the Occupation External Promotion of the Occupation Social Engagement with Friends and Family Psychological Engagement with Service Recipients Fixed Effects Intercept 1.10 2.98 .37 1.83 17.71 3.02 Independent Variables NOE .10 [.01, .19] -.05 .19 [.11, .28] -.01 .15 .01 POE -.14 [-.27, -.002] .23 [.12, .33] -.03 -.06 1.13 .06 Control Variables General mistreatment .04 -.04 .08 .12 -.75 -.08 Negative affectivity .45 [.28, .63] -.23 [-.37, -.09] .51 [.31, .70] -.09 -1.53 .18 Operations a -.04 .13 -.01 .03 1.08 -.35 [-.66, -.02] Investigation b .11 .03 -.02 .26 1.45 -.22 Gender c .03 .13 .25 -.05 .19 -.31 [-.52, -.11] Race d .23 .002 .25 -.25 -1.27 -.06 Tenure -.01 -.01 -.002 .004 -.152 -.01 Mediators Social anxiety -.26 [-.43, -.10] -2.82 [-4.51, -1.17] -.22 [-.33, -.10] Acceptance: Positive Feelings about the Work .52 [.34, .71] 2.23 .26 [.12, .41] Rejection: Negative Feelings about Outsiders’ Treatment of the Occupation .25 [.11, .40] 1.33 -.16 [-.28, -.03] Note: N = 213. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Significant effects are bolded and reported with 95% Confidence Intervals italicized in square brackets. a 1 = Operations division, 0 = non-operations division (i.e., investigation or support services) b 1 = Investigation division, 0 = non-investigation division (i.e., operations or support services) c 1 = Male, 0 = Non-male d 1 = White, 0 = Non-white 151 Table 4.7 Supplemental analysis indirect effects Outcome Variable Path Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval External Promotion of the Occupation H2a: NOE →Social anxiety →External promotion -.03 -[.06, -.004] NOE →Acceptance (i.e., less positive feelings about the work) →External promotion -.03 [-.08, .01] NOE →Rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation)→External promotion .05 [.02, .09] H2b: POE →Social anxiety →External promotion .04 [.01, .10] POE →Acceptance (i.e., positive feelings about the work) →External promotion .12 [.06, .20] POE →Rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation)→External promotion -.01 [-.05; .03 Social Engagement with Friends and Family H3a NOE →Social anxiety →Social engagement -.28 [-.73, -.05] NOE →Acceptance (i.e., less positive feelings about the work) →Social engagement -.12 [-.43, .03] NOE →Rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation) →Social engagement .25 [-.03, .68] H3b POE →Social anxiety →Social engagement .39 [.06, .97] POE →Acceptance (i.e., positive feelings about the work) →Social engagement .51 [.03, 1.24]1 POE →Rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation) →Social engagement -.04 [-.37, .11] Psychological engagement with service recipients H4a: NOE →Social anxiety →Psychological engagement -.02 [-.05, -.003] NOE →Acceptance (i.e., less positive feelings about the work) →Psychological engagement -.01 [-.04, .01] NOE →Rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation) →Psychological engagement -.03 [-.07, -.01] H4b: POE →Social anxiety →Psychological engagement .03 [.002, .07] POE →Acceptance (i.e., positive feelings about the work) →Psychological engagement .06 [.02, .12] POE →Rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation) →Psychological engagement .01 [-.02, .034] Note: Unstandardized path estimates reported. Bold text denotes significant effects. Control variables included: general mistreatment, trait negative affectivity, division, gender, race, organizational tenure. 1 Note that the direct effect between employees’ accepting the POE as appropriate and their social engagement was non-significant (b = 2.23; 95% CI: -.06, 4.55). Scholarly perspectives diverge on the criteria for finding support for an indirect effect: some posit that both the a and b pathways should be statistically significant (MacKinnon et al., 2007), while others contend that inferences should be based on tests of the product of the two constituent paths (a x b; Hayes, 2009). 152 In the case of employees’ external promotion of their occupation, the analysis revealed two parallel indirect effects between NOE and employees’ external promotion of their occupation, which were opposite in sign. Indeed, the specific indirect effect between NOE and employees’ external promotion of their occupation via social anxiety with occupational outsiders was negative (ab = -.03; 95% CI: -.06, -.004). Meanwhile, the specific indirect effect between NOE and employees’ external promotion of their occupation through employees’ rejecting the NOE as inappropriate (i.e., feeling negatively about outsiders’ treatment of their occupation) was positive (ab = .05, 95% CI: .02, .09). Explaining this, the direct effect between social anxiety with occupational outsiders and employees’ external promotion of their occupation was negative (b = -.26; 95% CI: -.43, -.10), but the direct effect between rejection (i.e., negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation) and employees’ external promotion of their occupation was positive (b = .25; 95% CI: .11, .40). The analysis similarly revealed two parallel indirect effects between POE and employees’ external promotion of their occupation, though both were positive. Specifically, there was a significant positive indirect effect between employees’ experiences with POE and their external promotion of their occupation through both reduced social anxiety with occupational outsiders (ab = .04; 95% CI: .005, .10) and employees’ accepting/internalizing their experiences with POE as appropriate (i.e., feeling more positively about their work; ab = .12; 95% CI: .06, .20). Regarding employees’ psychological engagement with service recipients, we found a significant negative indirect effect between employees’ experiences with NOE and their psychological engagement with service recipients through both increased social anxiety with occupational outsiders (ab = -.02; 95% CI: -.05, -.003) and employees’ rejecting their experiences with NOE as inappropriate (i.e., feeling negatively about outsiders’ treatment of 153 their occupation; ab = -.03; 95% CI: -.07, -.01). For POE, we found a significant positive indirect effect between employees’ experiences with POE and their psychological engagement with service recipients through both reduced social anxiety with occupational outsiders (ab = .03; 95% CI: .002, .07) and employees’ accepting their experiences with POE as appropriate (i.e., feeling more positively about their work; ab = .06; 95% CI: .02, .12) With respect to employees’ social engagement with friends and family, we did not find strong support for parallel indirect effects; rather, the indirect effects from NOE and POE were primarily through social anxiety with occupational outsiders. Indeed, the only significant indirect effect between NOE and employees’ social engagement was through social anxiety with outsiders (ab = -.28; 95% CI: -.73, -.05). As for the relationship between POE and employees’ social engagement, two indirect effects were different from zero (via reducing social anxiety with outsiders: ab = .39; 95% CI: .06, .97; and via employees’ accepting the POE as appropriate i.e., feeling more positively about their work: ab = .51; 95% CI: .03, 1.24). However, the path involving employees’ accepting the POE as appropriate merits cautious consideration—although the indirect effect (ab) was detectably different from zero, one of its constituent paths was not. Namely, the direct effect between employees’ accepting the POE as appropriate (i.e., feeling more positively about their work) and their social engagement was non-significant (b = 2.23; 95% CI: -.06, 4.55). Some scholars maintain that evidence of an indirect effect necessitates significant paths from the independent variable to the mediator and from the mediator to the outcome variable (MacKinnon et al., 2007), while others contend that inferences about indirect effects should be based on tests of the product of the two constituent paths (Hayes, 2009). Adopting a conservative stance, we emphasize that our findings most convincingly support the 154 indirect effect between POE and employees’ social engagement with friends and family through a reduction in social anxiety with occupational outsiders. 4.4 Discussion The literature on social evaluations of occupations shows that employees are highly attuned to outsiders’ evaluations of their work. Appreciating this, scholars have developed rich insights into the effects on employees’ identities and behaviors when they accept or reject societal views of their occupations as either appropriate as inappropriate judgments of their occupation, and thereby as (in)accurate reflections of themselves as occupational members. Our research offers an entirely new point of view of how occupational evaluations can influence employees, as well as extends existing conversations about whether employees typically internalize or reject these evaluations and the consequent effects on their behavior. The driving theoretical premise behind our research was that the influence of occupational evaluations on employee behavior is unlikely to strictly depend on employees’ acceptance or rejection of these evaluations as appropriate judgements of their occupation. We argued that occupational evaluations, whether internalized or not, can influence employees’ expectations of how they will be perceived and treated by outsiders, either giving rise to or assuaging social anxiety. The level of an employee’s social anxiety with outsiders consequently shapes their behavior. To this end, drawing from the self-presentational theory of social anxiety, we examined the extent to which employees’ experiences with negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE) were associated with their social anxiety with occupational outsiders and (dis)affiliative behaviors. We found a positive relationship between employees’ experiences with NOE and their social anxiety with outsiders, and a negative relationship between employees’ experiences with POE and their social anxiety with 155 outsiders. Through their link to social anxiety with outsiders, we identified indirect effects between NOE and POE and three specific (dis)affiliative behaviors: (a) employees’ external promotion of their occupation; (b) their social engagement with friends and family; and (c) their psychological engagement with service recipients. Additionally, we clarified how employees’ acceptance and rejection of occupational evaluations as (in)appropriate judgments of their occupation relate to these (dis)affiliative behaviors. Specifically, we observed a positive association between employees’ experiences with NOE and their resentment toward outsiders’ treatment of their occupation. At the same time, we found no evidence of a negative relationship between NOE and employees’ positive feelings about their work. This pattern indicates that employees likely rejected the NOE as inappropriate rather than internalizing the NOE and having their views of work adversely affected. Through the link to heightened negative feelings about outsiders’ treatment of the occupation, experiences with NOE were indirectly connected to increased external promotion of the occupation but decreased psychological engagement with service recipients. Conversely, employees appeared to accept and internalize POE as appropriate. Indeed, experiences with POE were positively associated with positive feelings about work and showed no relationship with resentment toward outsiders’ treatment of the occupation. Through the link to increased positive feelings about the work, experiences with POE were indirectly associated with increased external promotion of the occupation and increased psychological engagement with service recipients. Importantly, these relationships operated alongside employees’ social anxiety with outsiders as parallel indirect effects. 156 4.4.1 Theoretical contributions The social evaluation of occupations. First, our research marks a significant advancement in the study of social evaluations of occupations by theorizing the role of social anxiety with outsiders in shaping how employees respond to NOE and POE. Researchers to date have highlighted that a key element affecting how occupational evaluations affect employees is whether employees internalize the views of others into their own feelings about the work and themselves (i.e., acceptance), or instead disregard these external judgments and maintain their personal views about their occupation (i.e., rejection). While it is crucial to understand how employees’ views of their work and themselves are shaped by external opinions, it is also essential to recognize that these processes are not enough to fully explain employee behavior in the face of NOE or POE. That is, no matter how much employees perceive NOE and POE as accurate or relevant, they are still likely to be cognizant of the impressions they are likely to make on others and the ridicule (admiration), criticism (approval), or exclusion (inclusion) they are likely to receive on the basis of their occupational membership (Leary, 1996). As such, by drawing attention to social anxiety with outsiders, we redress the literature by attending to the indispensable role of both inward-facing and outward-facing processes, arguing that a comprehensive analysis must account for the interrelation between employees’ internalized perceptions and their navigation of external social dynamics. Second, our research extends ongoing discussions regarding the degree to which employees internalize or reject occupational evaluations and how these responses influence their subsequent behaviors. Specifically, our findings that employees’ experiences with NOE are not related to their positive feelings about their work, but are associated with resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of their occupation, lend statistical weight to scholars’ long-held theoretical 157 and qualitative assertions that employees in stigmatized occupations tend to seriously question the legitimacy of their stigma rather than accepting their group’s disadvantage (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Moreover, our results showing that employees’ resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of their occupation is positively associated with their efforts to promote their occupation externally, yet negatively associated with their psychological engagement with service recipients, reinforce the idea that such rejection contributes to a tendency among employees to self-enhance but also “psychologically and socially withdraw” from non-supportive outsiders (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 425). Providing statistical evidence to support these claims is crucial, as scholars have acknowledged the theoretical plausibility of employees internalizing rather than rejecting NOE (Kreiner et al., 2006) and largely relied on qualitative evidence and theoretical arguments to illustrate and explain employees’ nonconformity to this expected pattern (see Zhang et al., 2021, for a review of studies addressing these dynamics). Our findings are also important, as they underscore the problematic aspects of employees’ rejection of NOE, showing that the resentment toward outsiders that marks rejection is associated with some employee behaviors that are at odds with organizational objectives. To date, the “dark side” of rejection has been downplayed in favor of portraying an overly optimistic view of employee resilience to NOE. We also provide compelling statistical evidence that challenges the prevailing trend in the field that suggests that although POE can be received positively, employees often reject such social approval of their occupation. We find that experiences with POE are associated with employees’ positive feelings about their work and not their resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of their occupation. These findings diverge from recent qualitative studies documenting varied responses to POE, frequently observing that employees meet outsiders’ 158 recognition of their occupation with hostility and perceive it as disingenuous (Cameron et al., 2022; Hennekam et al., 2020; Rapp et al., 2023). Our findings indicate a more receptive attitude towards POE, which, in turn, is associated with favourable employee behavior. These findings are intriguing as they raise questions about the influence of context; it is possible that employees in occupations facing high levels of stigma (e.g., policing)—potentially more so than those in other occupations (e.g., healthcare, gig work)—are more inclined to embrace POE. Another possibility is that, although employees express verbal rejection of POE, they nevertheless internalize POE, contributing to positive feelings about their work. A third interpretation is that, despite qualitative studies with the ability to capture detailed examples of individual employees rejecting POE, the general trend—as demonstrated by our quantitative analysis and survey research—is that employees accept POE. Hence, we encourage future studies to further explore and empirically assess the determinants of when and why employees do (not) internalize POE. Taken together, through examining both the roles of social anxiety with outsiders and employees’ acceptance/rejection of occupational evaluations as (in)appropriate, we clarify the pathways between negative and positive occupational evaluations and important employee (dis)affiliative behaviors. Our findings indicate that employees’ experiences with NOE and POE are associated with their (dis)affiliative behaviors through both shared and distinct mechanisms. Regarding a common path: NOE and POE have opposite relationships with social anxiety with outsiders, with NOE being linked to increased social anxiety with outsiders and POE being linked to decreased social anxiety with outsiders. In terms of unique paths: NOE is positively related to resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of the occupation, while POE is positively related to positive feelings about the work. Through these mechanisms, we observe parallel indirect effects linking both NOE and POE to employees’ external promotion of their occupation 159 and psychological engagement with service recipients. For NOE, these indirect effects operate through heightened social anxiety and resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of the occupation—and, interestingly, these NOE effects can counteract each other or operate in conjunction. Indeed, while social anxiety with outsiders is associated with decreased external promotion of the occupation, resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of the occupation is associated with increased external promotion of the occupation. However, both factors have negative relationships with psychological engagement with service recipients. For POE, the positive indirect effects between POE and these outcome variables emerge through a reduction in social anxiety with outsiders and an enhancement of positive feelings about the work. As for social engagement with friends and family, our findings suggest that the indirect effects between NOE and POE and this engagement operate mainly through mainly through increased (reduced) social anxiety with outsiders. Social anxiety. Beyond contributing to the literature on social evaluations of occupations, our findings spotlight the critical impact of social anxiety on the workforce and workplace. Social anxiety, although widely recognized as important in broader academic and practical contexts, remains understudied by management scholars. While there have been intermittent examinations in consumer behavior and isolated studies on its effects on employees, such as “sales call anxiety,” the broader ramifications of social anxiety on employees and organizations remain largely uncharted territory. This paucity of research is intriguing in light of the explicit calls from scholars who emphasize the importance of “developing a better theoretical and empirical understanding of the role of social anxiety at work” for the benefit of both employees and organizations (Cheng & McCarthy, 2018, p. 554). 160 Addressing this oversight, we proposed that social anxiety can exert surprisingly powerful effects on employee behavior. Specifically, we introduced and examined a distinct type of social anxiety—social anxiety with occupational outsiders, offering a vivid portrayal of this anxiety through our qualitative field data with police officers. Further, our multi-wave field survey shed light its detrimental links to employees’ external promotion of their occupation, social engagement with friends and family, and psychological engagement with service recipients. Understanding social anxiety with occupational outsiders is of particular theoretical and practical significance, given that many employees now have regular contact with many different types of outsiders (e.g., patients, customers, clients, the general public) in their work (Cardador & Pratt, 2018). More broadly, in bringing the societal conversation about social anxiety into management, we lay a foundation for future research to dig deeper into its effects and develop helpful solutions for those affected. 4.4.2 Practical implications Finally, our research has practical implications, as it as it highlights the need for organizational strategies to address employees’ social anxiety with outsiders and resentment toward outsiders’ treatment of the occupation in response to NOE. Notably, prior studies have established that managers in stigmatized occupations tend to be aware of outsiders’ NOE and use techniques to help employees maintain positive identities and views of their work in the face of outsider disapproval (Ashforth et al., 2007, 2017). Our findings reinforce the effectiveness of these managerial approaches in preserving employees’ positive views of their work, yet they also hint at the potential for these strategies to fall short in alleviating all adverse effects associated with NOE. Indeed, our research revealed that while experiences with NOE were not associated with a reduction in employees’ positive feelings towards their work, they were associated with 161 social anxiety with outsiders and resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of the occupation—both of which were found to have relationships with detrimental employees behaviors. Mitigating the impact of NOE on these adverse outcomes likely necessitate managerial strategies distinct from those aimed at preserving identity. As a first step, managers could focus on helping employees develop coping tactics to manage their social anxiety with outsiders and resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of the occupation. For instance, training employees in situation modification, which involves deliberate problem-solving actions to change the environment, and attentional deployment, concentrating intensely on a specific focus, could serve as effective strategies. Both techniques have demonstrated potential in aiding employees to manage forms of social anxiety (Belschak et al., 2006) and might similarly prove advantageous for dealing with social anxiety with outsiders. However, to tackle the root cause, leaders may need to adopt a more proactive approach by actively shaping society’s perceptions of their occupations to ultimately lessen employees’ encounters with NOE. While existing research shows that managers sometimes confront clients about NOE (Ashforth et al., 2007), Wang et al. (2021) reveals that both primary stakeholders (e.g., clients) and secondary stakeholders (e.g., the media) play an important role in amplifying social evaluations of occupations and encouraging outsiders to express these evaluations. Therefore, we recommend that leaders collaborate with powerful social arbiters to promote positive views of the occupations they represent. In so doing, they should prioritize educating the public about the actual work that employees perform, as occupational evaluations may be fueled by misconceptions or a lack of knowledge about the work realities integral to an occupation (Vough et al., 2013). Finally, we recommend future collaborations between scholars and practitioners to explore the possibility that common managerial strategies intended to protect employee identity 162 against NOE could unintentionally lead to the negative outcomes identified in our research. For instance, it is well-documented that managers often “condemn condemners” and cast blame on clients (Ashforth et al., 2007). Investigating the extent to which these actions fuel employees’ resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of their occupation and their disengagement from service recipients is crucial. Should this be the case, re-evaluating and adjusting these managerial approaches could present a valuable path for mitigating these adverse effects. 4.4.3 Limitations and future directions Our research has several limitations, offering interesting avenues for future scholarship. First, although we used several cross-occupational samples to develop and validate our NOE and POE scales (see Table 4.1), we conducted our field research and tested our full theoretical model in a single occupational context, with police officers. At the time of the study, policing, race, and police brutality were at the forefront of the North American discourse, contributing to deep polarization in outsiders’ evaluations of police. It is possible that this societal context strengthened or weakened the effects of NOE or POE. That is, police officers may have become desensitized to NOE, or the effects of POE may have been amplified in an environment where criticism of the police dominated the social discourse. Thus, we encourage researchers in future work to examine the effects of occupational evaluations in a variety of occupational contexts. Second, our focus on employees’ perceptions of occupational evaluations represents a boundary condition of our research. Consistent with much research focusing on employees’ experiences with social interactions (e.g., abusive supervision, workplace bullying, customer mistreatment), perceived occupational evaluations may be conceptually distinct from objective occupational evaluations. For example, individuals cannot perceive occupational evaluations (even if these evaluations were objectively enacted) if they are completely unaware of their 163 existence, as would be the case if an employee’s housing or job application was rejected or accepted on the basis of their occupation alone. Alternatively, individuals may perceive objectively benign actions (e.g., an untimely frown or smile directed toward them while in uniform) as occupational evaluations. If an employee perceives an action as an occupational evaluation, even if the action does not truly reflect the instigator’s underlying judgement of the employee’s occupation, the action may nevertheless affect the employee. Third, we assessed occupational evaluations from the focal employee’s perspective using surveys. Like all methods, survey research has weaknesses. For instance, our approach required employees to recollect or summarize their occupational evaluation experiences. Additionally, common method bias could have influenced our results, despite our concerted efforts to control for it. Specifically, we administered our surveys on three occasions and examined relations between constructs assessed at different times. Due to this separation, respondents’ responses from prior surveys were likely less accessible in memory, thereby diminishing the probability of method effects associated with consistency and transient affective states (P. M. Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). Taken together, these limitations suggest that future research would benefit from other methods, such as the use of experience sampling methodology (Beal, 2015) to provide a finer-grained examination of how NOE and POE accumulate to drive outcomes, or experimental methodologies that objectively expose employees to NOE or POE to disentangle causal effects. Such methods could enable studies into whether NOE and POE emerging from different sources (e.g., friends, family, clients, strangers) have different effects, or whether NOE and POE directed toward an occupation as a whole, versus toward individual employees, differ in strength. 164 Another important avenue for future research is to consider the negative implications of POE for targets and beyond. We found that frequent experiences of POE were associated with diminished social anxiety with outsiders and increased positive feelings toward work, and indirectly connected to employees’ external promotion of their occupation and depth of engagement with various outsiders. However, Krumboltz (1992) emphasized the broader societal costs incurred when outsiders behave differently toward people based on occupational membership—even when such behavior is subjectively positive in nature. Specifically, “favored treatment for some is discrimination against others … assigning high prestige to some occupations denigrates others … [and] persuading others to base career choices on occupational prestige produces potential unhappiness.” (Krumboltz, 1992, pp. 514–515). Consequently, though our research reveals some of the benefits of POE for members of the focal occupation, POE may not necessarily be positive for everyone, all the time. For instance, third party observers of POE may consequently feel worse about their own occupations. We urge scholars to investigate the circumstances under which POE results in positive or negative outcomes, and for whom. 4.5 Conclusion In an era marked by heightened social connectivity and escalating polarization, employees are more frequently encountering evaluations of their occupations across work and social settings. Our paper enriches theory by shedding light on how occupational evaluations—both negative and positive—can affect employees, extending the conversation beyond traditional considerations of identity to include social anxiety with outsiders and the associated behavioral implications. We aspire to motivate further inquiries into occupational evaluations and their full impact for various stakeholders, including employees, organizations, and third-party observers. It 165 is our hope that through these efforts, we can identify effective strategies for minimizing the adverse consequences and maximizing the positive benefits of occupational evaluations. 166 Chapter 5: Conclusion 5.1 Summary of research This dissertation makes valuable contributions to the literature on how employees and audiences understand and evaluate occupations, offering insights into the impact of these assessments on employees’ work experiences. In my first paper (Chapter Two), I focused on how employees understand their own occupations and how these understandings impact their work experiences. Using qualitative methods, I demonstrated that employees’ views of their work are influenced by the overarching occupational ideologies upheld by their occupational community. These ideologies consist of shared beliefs among occupational members that define the purpose and significance of the occupation. However, I argue that this reliance on occupational ideologies can be problematic, as these ideologies often tend to be self-serving in nature. Consequently, employees come to view their work through an idealized lens, only to confront the daily realities of their job that may not align with these idealized expectations, undermining their sense of work meaningfulness. In response, I identified three overarching approaches that employees use to attempt to restore work meaningfulness. These findings challenge the prevailing perspective among management scholars that employees primarily benefit from their occupational community’s shared ideology (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dressel & Petersen, 1982; Kreiner et al., 2006), as well as enrich the literature on meaningful work (e.g., Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Rosso et al., 2010; Schabram & Maitlis, 2017). In my second paper (Chapter Three) and third paper (Chapter Four), I shifted the focus to how audiences evaluate occupations and how their expressions of these evaluations affect employees’ work experiences. Although it is common for individuals to publicly express their 167 evaluations of certain occupations, the impact of such behavior on employees remains poorly understood. In the second paper, I developed and validated two measurement scales for employees to quantify their exposure to enacted negative occupational evaluations (NOE) and positive occupational evaluations (POE). Phase 1 of this process included two qualitative pilot studies of employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations, laying the foundation for inductive item development. Phase 2 established the content validity of the NOE and POE measures. Phase 3 examined the psychometric properties of the NOE and POE scales, and Phase 4 situated NOE and POE within an initial nomological network. This paper enriches the literature on the social evaluation of occupations (e.g., Bosmans et al., 2016; Hamilton et al., 2019; Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020; Spataro & Cohen, 2020; Tracy & Scott, 2006; M. S. Wang et al., 2021) by building a foundation for future studies to measure employee experiences of occupational evaluations and paving the way for research on the effects of these evaluations and strategies to help employees manage them. In the third paper, I delved deeper into the study of occupational evaluations by conducting a multi-wave field survey. My findings indicated that employees’ experiences with NOE and POE influence important (dis)affiliative behaviors via both shared and distinct mechanisms. Regarding a common path: NOE and POE have opposite effects on social anxiety with outsiders, with NOE exacerbating and POE alleviating this anxiety. In terms of unique paths, employees tend to reject rather than internalize NOE, fostering resentment towards outsiders’ treatment of the occupation. Meanwhile, employees internalize POE, boosting their positive feelings about their work. Through these respective mechanisms, parallel indirect effects link both NOE and POE to several important (dis)affiliative behaviors. These findings augment current understandings of the how and why occupational evaluations influence employees 168 (Cameron et al., 2022; Hennekam et al., 2020; Rapp et al., 2023), as well as advance research on employees’ experience of social anxiety (Belschak et al., 2006; Nifadkar & Bauer, 2016; Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2000, 2003). 5.2 Managerial implications From a managerial perspective, comprehending—and, consequently, being able to influence—how employees understand and are affected by their occupations is of critical importance. That is, for managers and practitioners, merely focusing on organizational dynamics is insufficient. Employees are not just part of organizations; they are also active participants in specific occupational roles within those organizations, and often in frequent contact with audiences beyond organizational boundaries. To this end, this dissertation provides managers and practitioners with a range of valuable insights and tools, many of which speak to socializing and training employees regarding occupational and audience dynamics to enhance their effectiveness in the workplace. Managers have historically been advised to actively promote occupational ideologies that reframe, recalibrate, and refocus the meaning of work (Harvard Business Review, 2007). One of the reasons why managers have been advised to do so is because employees can face negative evaluations of their occupations from those outside their occupation, and such ideological defenses can help employees to maintain a positive identity in the face of such stigmatization. Through numerous qualitative studies, this approach, along with several other defensive tactics, has consistently demonstrated its ability to shield employees from internalizing negative self-views and views of the work, even when faced with external stigmatization (Mikolon et al., 2021; Tracy & Scott, 2006). 169 Contrary to prevailing advice for managers to actively promote occupational ideologies that reframe, recalibrate, and refocus the meaning of work, the first paper of this dissertation raises the possibility that doing so can also pose problems. Indeed, the paper suggests that such an approach can lead occupational ideologies to become untethered from the tasks that employees are required to perform as part of their work, ultimately jeopardizing employees’ experience of meaningfulness in their everyday work practices. Instead, the paper’s findings recommend that managers should proactively engage in employee socialization efforts aimed at cultivating a more realistic view of the work. Simultaneously, they should foster positive beliefs concerning the nature and importance of employees’ actual work practices. These initiatives are likely to mitigate the occurrence of an occupational ideology-reality disconnect—an unsettling experience capable of triggering adverse and counterproductive employee behaviors that are at odds with organizational objectives. The second and third papers of this dissertation further raise questions about the effectiveness of managerial efforts—such as the development of occupational ideologies that enhance the work’s positive value—in shielding employees from external occupational evaluations. Taken together, these two papers suggest that managers might have to extend their focus beyond merely maintaining employees’ positive perceptions of themselves and their work. Although beneficial, such strategies might not fully mitigate the undesirable impacts stemming from negative occupational evaluations. For instance, my findings indicate that although employees effectively maintain positive feelings about their work in the face of negative occupational evaluations, they nevertheless grapple with social anxiety as a result of these evaluations and resentment toward outsiders’ treatment of their occupation. 170 Collectively, these papers open the door to new perspectives on how managers can support employees in navigating outsiders’ evaluations of their occupations. For instance, extant social anxiety research (Belschak et al., 2006) reveals that it may be helpful for managers to engage train employees in situation modification or attentional deployment to influence the relationships between employees’ experiences with occupational evaluations and their social anxiety with outsiders, and their social anxiety with outsiders and consequent disaffiliative behaviors. Managers may also want to be mindful about how their efforts to safeguard employees from the identity effects of external occupational evaluations (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007, 2017) could have unintended repercussions, for instance, fostering resentment toward outsiders and consequently diminishing employees’ engagement with service recipients. More broadly, the second and third papers equip scholars, practitioners, and managers with the tools to quantitatively assess the extent to which experiences with occupational evaluations (NOE and POE) influence employee outcomes, and whether various strategies and factors influence these relationships. 5.3 Final remarks Together, this three-paper dissertation offers important theoretical and practical insights into how employees and audiences understand and evaluate occupations, and the subsequent impact on employees’ work experiences. The findings underscore the pivotal role of occupations and audiences in shaping employees’ work lives. My hope is for this dissertation to encourage future research that further unravels the role of occupations and audiences in understanding when, why, and how employees behave, make decisions, and form specific attitudes and perceptions in workplace settings. 171 References Ajay, B., Vough, H. C., & Oliver, D. (2023). So, what do you do? Exploring identity claiming by entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Discoveries. Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Monthly Review Press. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732–740. Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. (2016). Three lenses on occupations and professions in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 183–244. Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 260–272. Asher, M., Asnaani, A., & Aderka, I. M. (2017). Gender differences in social anxiety disorder: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 56, 1–12. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Erlbaum. Ashforth, B. E., Joshi, M., Anand, V., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). Extending the expanded model of organizational identification to occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2426–2448. 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. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2013). Profane or profound? Finding meaning in dirty work. In B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 127–150). American Psychological Association. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2014). Dirty work and dirtier work: Differences in countering physical, social, and moral stigma. Management and Organization Review, 10(1), 81–108. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 149–174. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. (2017). Congruence work in stigmatized occupations: A managerial lens on employee fit with dirty work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 1260–1279. Ashforth, B. E., Kulik, C. T., & Tomiuk, M. A. (2008). How service agents manage the person-role interface. Group & Organization Management, 33(1), 5–45. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. Augustine, G. L., & Piazza, A. (2022). Category evolution under conditions of stigma: The segregation of abortion provision into specialist clinics in the United States. Organization Science, 33(2), 624–649. Banks, S. (2020). Ethics and values in social work. Bloomsbury Publishing. 172 Baran, B. E., Rogelberg, S. G., Carello Lopina, E., Allen, J. A., Spitzmüller, C., & Bergman, M. (2012). Shouldering a silent burden: The toll of dirty tasks. Human Relations, 65(5), 597–626. Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1–24. Baum, S. K., & Stewart, R. J. (1990). Sources of meaning through the lifespan. Psychological Reports, 67, 3–14. Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. Guilford. Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 383–407. Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. (1961). Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. University of Chicago Press. Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. Belschak, F., Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Coping with sales call anxiety: The role of sale perseverance and task concentration strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 403–418. Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. (2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21, 973–994. Beyer, J. M., Dunbar, R. C. M., & Meyer, A. D. (1988). Comment: The concept of ideology in organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13, 483–489. Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206. Bloom, M., Colbert, A. E., & Nielsen, J. D. (2021). Stories of calling: How called professionals construct narrative identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66, 298–338. Bohm, K., & Kurland, L. (2018). The accuracy of medical dispatch—A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 26, 1–10. Bosmans, K., Mousaid, S., De Cuyper, N., Hardonk, S., Louckx, F., & Vanroelen, C. (2016). Dirty work, dirty worker? Stigmatisation and coping strategies among domestic workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 54–67. Brady, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Liang, L. H. (2017). Moving beyond assumptions of deviance: The reconceptualization and measurement of workplace gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1), 1–25. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725. Brooks, A. W., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Smart people ask for (my) advice: Seeking advice boosts perceptions of competence. Management Science, 61(6), 1421–1435. Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 20–40. 173 Bryan, J. H. (1966). Occupational ideologies and individual attitudes of call girls. Social Problems, 13, 441–450. Budnick, C. J., Anderson, E. M., Santuzzi, A. M., Grippo, A. J., & Matuszewich, L. (2019). Social anxiety and employment interviews: Does nonverbal feedback differentially predict cortisol and performance? Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 32(1), 67–81. Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 717–741. Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32–57. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 849. Buser, T., & Yuan, H. (2023). Public speaking aversion. Management Science, 69(5), 2746–2760. Cahill, S. E. (1999). The boundaries of professionalization: The case of North American funeral direction. Symbolic Interaction, 22(2), 105–119. Cameron, L., Chan, C. K., & Anteby, M. (2022). Heroes from above but not (always) from within? Gig workers’ reactions to the sudden public moralization of their work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 172, 104179. Cardador, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2018). Becoming who we serve: A model of multi-layered employee–customer identification. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 2053–2080. Carton, A. M. (2017). I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon”: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 323–369. Catalino, L. I., Furr, R. M., & Bellis, F. A. (2012). A multilevel analysis of the self-presentation theory of social anxiety: Contextualized, dispositional, and interactive perspectives. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(4), 361–373. Cavaliere, G. A. (2020). COVID-19: Is now the time for EMS-initiated refusal? Journal of Emergency Medical Services. Epub 15 April. https://www.jems.com/patient-care/is-now-the-time-for-ems-initiated-refusal/, Caza, B. B., Moss, S., & Vough, H. (2018). From synchronizing to harmonizing: The process of authenticating multiple work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 703–745. Caza, B. B., Vough, H., & Puranik, H. (2018). Identity work in organizations and occupations: Definitions, theories, and pathways forward. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 889–910. Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109–126). Little Brown. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. Cheng, B. H., & McCarthy, J. M. (2018). Understanding the dark and bright sides of anxiety: A theory of workplace anxiety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 537–560. Chi, N. W., Grandey, A. A., Diamond, J. A., & Krimmel, K. R. (2011). Want a tip? Service performance as a function of emotion regulation and extraversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1337–1346. 174 Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1243–1265. Conroy, S. A., Becker, W. J., & Menges, J. I. (2017). The meaning of my feelings depends on who I am: Work-related identifications shape emotion effects in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1071–1093. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. M. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). McGraw-Hill. Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(6), 595–606. Crosina, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2019). Toward a model of organizational mourning: The case of former Lehman Brothers bankers. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 66–98. Cuming, S., & Rapee, R. M. (2010). Social anxiety and self-protective communication style in close relationships. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(2), 87–96. Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology based self service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201. Dahm, P. C., Kim, Y., Glomb, T. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2019). Identity affirmation as threat? Time-bending sensemaking and the career and family identity patterns of early achievers. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1194–1225. Data USA. (2017). Emergency medical technicians & paramedics: Diversity. Data USA. https://datausa.io/profile/soc/emergency-medical-technicians-paramedics#demographics, de Rond, M., & Lok, J. (2016). Some things can never be unseen: The role of context in psychological injury at war. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1965–1993. DeSimone, J. A. (2015). New techniques for evaluating temporal consistency. Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 133–152. Desmichel, P., & Rucker, D. D. (2023). Dominance versus prestige hierarchies: How social hierarchy base shapes conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Research. Desmond, M. (2007). On the fireline: Living and dying with wildland firefighters. University of Chicago Press. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications. DiBenigno, J. (2022). How idealized professional identities can persist through client interactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(3), 865–912. Dick, P. (2005). Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force. Human Relations, 58(11), 1363–1390. Dierdorff, E. C. (2019). Toward reviving an occupation with occupations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 397–419. Dobrow, S. R. (2013). Dynamics of calling: A longitudinal study of musicians. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 431–452. Dobrow, S. R., & Tosti-Kharas, J. (2012). Listen to your heart? Calling and receptivity to career advice. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 264–280. 175 Dobrowolski, K. (1966). Studies in occupational ideologies. The Polish Sociological Bulletin, 14, 89–102. Dressel, P. L., & Petersen, D. M. (1982). Becoming a male stripper: Recruitment, socialization, and ideological development. Work and Occupations, 9, 387–406. Dryman, M. T., Gardner, S., Weeks, J. W., & Heimberg, R. G. (2016). Social anxiety disorder and quality of life: How fears of negative and positive evaluation relate to specific domains of life satisfaction. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 38, 1–8. Duckworth, K. L., Bargh, J. A., Garcia, M., & Chaiken, S. (2002). The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli. Psychological Science, 13(6), 513–519. Dunbar, R. L. M., Dutton, J. M., & Torbert, W. R. (1982). Crossing mother: Ideological constraints on organizational improvements. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 91–108. Dutton, J. E., Debebe, G., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2016). Being valued and devalued at work. In B. A. Bechky & K. D. Elsbach (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research: Best papers from the Davis Conference on Qualitative Research (Vol. 3, pp. 9–51). Information Age Publishing, Inc. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. Eisenhardt, K., Graebner, M., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1113–1123. Elliott, P. R. C. (1972). The sociology of the professions. Macmillan International Higher Education. Elsbach, K. D. (2009). Identity affirmation through “signature style”: A study of toy car designers. Human Relations, 62(7), 1041–1072. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476. Erath, S. A., Flanagan, K. S., & Bierman, K. L. (2007). Social anxiety and peer relations in early adolescence: Behavioral and cognitive factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(3), 405–416. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford University Press. Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 603–637. Feeney, J. R., McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. (2015). Applicant anxiety: Examining the sex‐linked anxiety coping theory in job interview contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(3), 295–305. Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 557–572. Fernandes, C. R., Yu, S., Howell, T. M., Wood Brooks, A., Kilduff, G. J., & Pettit, N. C. (2021). What is your status portfolio? Higher status variance across groups increases interpersonal helping but decreases intrapersonal well-being. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 56–75. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Fine, G. A. (1996). Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens. Administration Science Quarterly, 41(1), 90–115. 176 Flanagan, J. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 59(4), 257–272. Ganzeboom, H. B., De Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1–56. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2011). The associative–propositional evaluation model. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 59–127). Elsevier. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books. George, M. M., Strauss, K., Mell, J. N., & Vough, H. C. (2023). When “who I am” is under threat: Measures of threat to identity value, meanings, and enactment. Journal of Applied Psychology. Gill, M. J. (2015). Elite identity and status anxiety: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of management consultants. Organization, 22(3), 306–325. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Wiedenfeld and Nicholson. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall. Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249–270. Grandy, G. (2008). Managing spoiled identities: Dirty workers ’ struggles for a favourable sense of self. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 3(3), 176–198. Grandy, G., & Mavin, S. (2012). Occupational image, organizational image and identity in dirty work: Intersections of organizational efforts and media accounts. Organization, 19(6), 765–786. Granger, S., Barker Caza, B., Ashford, S. J., & Reid, E. M. (2022). Adapting to a jolt: A mixed methods study identifying challenges and personal resources impacting professional gig workers’ well-being during COVID-19. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 138, 103784. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417. Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. Grant, A. M., Berg, J. M., & Cable, D. M. (2014). Job titles as identity badges: How self-reflective titles can reduce emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1201–1225. Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946–955. Grazian, D. (2015). American zoo: A sociological safari. Princeton University Press. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. 177 Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2020). Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 591–612. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison‐Wesley. Hamilton, P., Redman, T., & McMurray, R. (2019). ‘Lower than a snake’s belly’: Discursive constructions of dignity and heroism in low-status garbage work. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 889–901. Harvard Business Review. (2007). How to teach pride in “dirty work.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2007/09/how-to-teach-pride-in-dirty-work, Hauser, R. M., & Warren, J. R. (1997). Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: A review, update, and critique. Sociological Methodology, 27, 177–298. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. Henderson, K. E., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2012). When broken promises threaten one’s identity: The impact of psychological contract breach on self-identity threat. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 12(3), 81–98. Hennekam, S., Ladge, J., & Shymko, Y. (2020). From zero to hero: An exploratory study examining sudden hero status among nonphysician health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1088–1100. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 104–121. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 175–186. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press. Hughes, E. C. (1951). Work and the self. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social Psychology at the Crossroads (pp. 313–323). Harper & Brothers. Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Free Press. Hughes, E. C. (1984). The sociological eye: Selected papers. Transaction Books. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791. Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1368–1379. Jensen, M. C. F. (2017). Gender stereotypes and the reshaping of stigma in rehabilitative eldercare. Gender, Work and Organization, 24(6), 656–674. Jiang, W. Y. (2021). Sustaining meaningful work in a crisis: Adopting and conveying a situational purpose. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(3), 806–853. 178 Jiang, W. Y., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2023). Perceiving fixed or flexible meaning: Toward a model of meaning fixedness and navigating occupational destabilization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(4), 1008–1055. Johnston, M. S., & Hodge, E. (2014). “Dirt, death and danger? I don’t recall any adverse reaction..”: Masculinity and the taint management of hospital private security work. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(6), 546–558. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. Jost, J. T., & Elsbach, K. D. (2001). How status and power differences erode personal and social identities at work: A system justification critique of organizational applications of social identity theory. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 181–196). Psychology Press. Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261–271. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. Kahn, W. A. (2019). Dynamics and implications of distress organizing. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1471–1497. Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Social anxiety spectrum and diminished positive experiences: Theoretical synthesis and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(3), 348–365. Kim, S. S., Shin, D., Vough, H., Hewlin, P. F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). How do callings relate to job performance? The role of organizational commitment and ideological contract fulfillment. Human Relations, 71, 1319–1347. Konner, M. (1988). Becoming a doctor: A journey of initiation in medical school. Penguin Books. Kreiner, G. E., Ashforth, B. E., & Sluss, D. M. (2006). Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work: Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organization Science, 17(5), 619–636. Kreiner, G. E., Mihelcic, C. A., & Mikolon, S. (2022). Stigmatized work and stigmatized workers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 95–120. Krumboltz, J. D. (1992). The dangers of occupationism. Counseling Psychologist, 20, 511–518. Kuwabara, K., Hildebrand, C. A., & Zou, X. (2018). Lay theories of networking: How laypeople’s beliefs about networks affect their attitudes toward and engagement in instrumental networking. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 50–64. Lai, J. Y. M., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2013). Defining who you are not: The roles of moral dirtiness and occupational and organizational disidentification in affecting casino employee turnover intention. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1659–1666. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company. Leary, M. R. (1983a). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66–75. Leary, M. R. (1983b). The conceptual distinctions are important: Another look at communication apprehension and related constructs. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 305–312. 179 Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. WCB Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Leary, M. R. (1996). Current social image. In Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior (1st ed.). Routledge. Leary, M. R., & Atherton, S. C. (1986). Self-efficacy, social anxiety, and inhibition in interpersonal encounters. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 256–267. Leary, M. R., & Jongman-Sereno, K. P. (2014). Social anxiety as an early warning system: A refinement and extension of the self-presentation theory of social anxiety. In Social anxiety: Clinical, developmental, and social perspectives (pp. 579–597). Elsevier. Leavitt, K., Reynolds, S. J., Barnes, C. M., Schilpzand, P., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). Different hats, different obligations: Plural occupational identities and situated moral judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1316–1333. Ledgerwood, A., Eastwick, P. W., & Smith, L. K. (2018). Toward an integrative framework for studying human evaluation: Attitudes toward objects and attributes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(4), 378–398. Lee Cunningham, J., Gino, F., Cable, D. M., & Staats, B. R. (2021). Seeing oneself as a valued contributor: Social worth affirmation improves team information sharing. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1816–1841. Lepisto, D. A. (2022). Ritual work and the formation of a shared sense of meaningfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 65(4), 1327–1352. Lepisto, D. A., & Pratt, M. G. (2017). Meaningful work as realization and justification: Toward a dual conceptualization. Organizational Psychology Review, 7, 99–121. Liaschenko, J., & Peter, E. (2004). Nursing ethics and conceptualizations of nursing: Profession, practice and work. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46(5), 488–495. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. Lips-Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS). Group and Organization Management, 37(5), 655–685. Locke, K. D. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Sage. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. (1999). A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(3), 405–416. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614. MacKinnon, D. P., & Lockwood, C. (2001). Distribution of products tests for the mediated effect. Unpublished manuscript. Mahalingam, R., & Selvaraj, P. (2022). Ambedkar, radical interdependence and dignity: A study of women mall janitors in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(4), 813–828. Maitlis, S. (2009). Who am I now? Sensemaking and identity in posttraumatic growth. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 47–76). Psychology Press. 180 Maitlis, S. (2012). Posttraumatic growth: A missed opportunity for positive organizational scholarship. In G. M. Spreitzer & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 909–923). Oxford University Press. Marier, C. J., & Moule, R. K. (2019). Feeling blue: Officer perceptions of public antipathy predict police occupational norms. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(5), 836–857. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (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, 11–37. McAlone, N. (2018). The most attractive jobs in America for men and women, according to Tinder swipes. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/attractive-jobs-people-on-tinder-swipe-right-on-the-most-2018-9 McCarthy, J., & Goffin, R. (2004). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 607–637. Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(3), 268–292. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Free Press. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. Mikolon, S., Alavi, S., & Reynders, A. (2021). The catch-22 of countering a moral occupational stigma in employee-customer interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1714–1739. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127–142. Morrison, A. S., & Heimberg, R. G. (2013). Social anxiety and social anxiety disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 249–274. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians. (2021). Code of ethics. https://www.naemt.org/about-ems/code-of-ethics, Nelsen, B. J., & Barley, S. R. (1997). For love or money? Commodification and the construction of an occupational mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 619–653. Nifadkar, S. S., & Bauer, T. N. (2016). Breach of belongingness: Newcomer relationship conflict, information, and task-related outcomes during organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 1–13. 181 Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 996–1015. O’Donnell, J., Weitz, T. A., & Freedman, L. R. (2011). Resistance and vulnerability to stigmatization in abortion work. Social Science and Medicine, 73, 1357–1364. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200. Patil, S. V. (2019). “The public doesn’t understand”: The self-reinforcing interplay of image discrepancies and political ideologies in law enforcement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(3), 737–769. Patil, S. V., & Lebel, R. D. (2019). “I want to serve but the public does not understand:” Prosocial motivation, image discrepancies, and proactivity in public safety. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154, 34–48. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Pescosolido, B. A., & Martin, J. K. (2015). The stigma complex. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 87–116. Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662. Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673–690. Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. (2005). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 1–36). JAI Press. Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S87–S119. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. Pollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V. P., & Han, J. H. (2019). Which of these things are not like the others? Comparing the rational, emotional, and moral aspects of reputation, status, celebrity, and stigma. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 444–478. Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 309–327). Berrett-Koehler. Pratt, M. G., Lepisto, D. A., & Dane, E. (2019). The hidden side of trust: Supporting and sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 398–434. 182 Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262. Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. 70(4), 706–719. Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 9–45. Rapp, D., Hughey, J. M., & Kreiner, G. E. (2023). Dirty heroes? Healthcare workers’ experience of mixed social evaluations during the pandemic. Academy of Management Journal. Reid, E., & Ramarajan, L. (2022). Seeking purity, avoiding pollution: Strategies for moral career building. Organization Science, 33(5), 1909–1937. Ritzen, S. (2020). What does ‘ACAB’ mean? Daily Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/what-does-acab-mean-1312/ Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960. Rogers, D., & Berg, I. E. (1961). Occupation and ideology: The case of the small businessman. Human Organization, 20, 103–111. Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–47. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage. Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 141–171. Rubin, M. (2009). How to tell a good war story. https://www.emsworld.com/index.php/article/10319963/how-tell-good-war-story, Ruebottom, T., & Toubiana, M. (2020). Constraints and opportunities of stigma: Entrepreneurial emancipation in the sex industry. Academy of Management Journal. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227. Sandefur, R. L. (2015). Elements of professional expertise understanding relational and substantive expertise through lawyers’ impact. American Sociological Review, 80, 909–933. Santoro, D. A. (2011). Good teaching in difficult times: Demoralization in the pursuit of good work. American Journal of Education, 118(1), 1–23. 183 Schabram, K., & Maitlis, S. (2017). Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 584–609. Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641–669. Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 1–22. Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 385–417. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage. Seim, J. (2020). Bandage, sort, and hustle: Ambulance crews on the front lines of urban suffering. University of California Press. Shantz, A., & Booth, J. E. (2014). Service employees and self-verification: The roles of occupational stigma consciousness and core self-evaluations. Human Relations. Shepherd, D. A., Maitlis, S., Parida, V., Wincent, J., & Lawrence, T. B. (2022). Intersectionality in intractable dirty work: How Mumbai ragpickers make meaning of their work and lives. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1680–1708. Sherman, R. (2010). “Time is our commodity”: Gender and the struggle for occupational legitimacy among personal concierges. Work and Occupations, 37(1), 81–114. Simons, T., & Ingram, P. (1997). Organization and ideology: Kibbutzim and hired labor, 1951–1965. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 784–813. Slutskaya, N., Simpson, R., Hughes, J., Simpson, A., & Uygur, S. (2016). Masculinity and class in the context of dirty work. Gender, Work and Organization, 23(2), 165–182. Solomon, J., & Martin, A. (2019). Competitive victimhood as a lens to reconciliation: An analysis of the black lives matter and blue lives matter movements. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 37(2), 7–31. Soni‐Sinha, U., & Yates, C. A. B. (2013). ‘Dirty work?’ Gender, race and the union in industrial cleaning. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(6), 737–751. Spataro, S., & Cohen, L. E. (2020). Glossing over: How magazine fact checkers use conditional self-presentation to straddle glamour and dreariness in their work. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 82–103. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Starbuck, W. H. (1982). Congealing oil: Inventing ideologies to justify acting ideologies out. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 1–27. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press. 184 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.) (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall. Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28, 571–586. Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. (2013). Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in U.S. Communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 111–148. Tolbert, P. S. (1991). Occupations, organizations, and boundaryless careers. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 331–349). Oxford University Press. Toubiana, M., & Ruebottom, T. (2022). Stigma hierarchies: The internal dynamics of stigmatization in the sex work occupation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(2), 515–552. Tracy, S. J., & Scott, C. (2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America’s heroes” and the “scum of law enforcement.” Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 6–38. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–669. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press. Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2009). Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 341–352. Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society (pp. 67–130). Rand McNally & Co. Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics, 7, 18–36. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward of theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Sales call anxiety: Exploring what It means when fear rules a sales encounter. Source: Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 88–101. Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2003). Exploring the role of self- and customer-provoked embarrassment in personal selling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(3), 233–258. Vergne, J. (2012). Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed-methods study of the global arms industry, 1996–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1027–1052. Vough, H., Cardador, T. M., Bednar, J. S., Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2013). What clients don’t get about my profession: A model of perceived role-based image discrepancies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1050–1080. 185 Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. (2017). Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can also hurt me: The relationship between customer verbal aggression and employee incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2), 163–179. Walsh, E. J. (1975). Dirty work, race and self-esteem. Institute of Labor Relations, University of Michigan. Walsh, I. J., Pazzaglia, F., Lyle, M. C., & Sonpar, K. (2023). Professional credibility under attack: Responses to negative social evaluations in newly contested professions. Human Relations, 76(5), 746–775. Wan, L. C., & Wyer, R. S. (2015). Consumer reactions to attractive service providers: Approach or avoid? Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 578–595. Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 312–334. Wang, M. S., Raynard, M., & Greenwood, R. (2021). From grace to violence: Stigmatizing the medical profession in China. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1842–1872. Wang, Y., Stoner, J. L., & John, D. R. (2019). Counterfeit luxury consumption in a social context: The effects on females’ moral disengagement and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 207–225. Wanous, J. P. (1973). Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, and job survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(3), 327–332. Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. Guilford Press. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect, personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 1011–1025. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. Weiss, R. M., & Miller, L. E. (1987). The concept of ideology in organizational analysis: The sociology of knowledge or the social psychology of beliefs? Academy of Management Review, 12, 104–116. Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health. Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351. Wooten, D. B., & Reed, A. (2000). A conceptual overview of the self-presentational concerns and response tendencies of focus group participants. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(3), 141–153. Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33(2), 141–160. Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 93–104. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201. Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage. 186 Yuan, Z., Cockburn, B. S., Astrove, S. L., & Buis, B. C. (2021). Sacrificing heroes or suffering victims? Investigating third parties’ reactions to divergent social accounts of essential employees in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1435–1447. Zhan, Y., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2016). Interpersonal process of emotional labor: The role of negative and positive customer treatment. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), 525–557. Zhang, R., Wang, M. S., Toubiana, M., & Greenwood, R. (2021). Stigma beyond levels: Advancing research on stigmatization. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 188–222. 187 Appendices Appendix A EMS interview participant inventory (chapter 2) Interview # Pseudonym Occupation at Time of Interview Gender (male/female) Age Group EMS Industry Tenure (in years) 1 Dana Paramedic, Primary Care & Emergency Medical Dispatcher M 26–30 9 2 Hunter Paramedic, Primary Care M 26–30 3 3 Hayden Paramedic, Primary Care M 31–35 13 4 Blake Paramedic, Primary Care (Pediatric Unit) M 36–40 15 5 Jordan Paramedic, Primary Care F 51–55 5 6 Parker Paramedic, Primary Care F 26–30 1 7 Sam Paramedic, Primary Care M 31–35 15 8 Luis Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 19–25 2 9 Quinn Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 26–30 7 10 Rowan Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 19–25 5 11 Peter Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 26–30 1 12 Charlie Paramedic, Primary Care & Firefighter M 26–30 4 13 Adrian Paramedic, Primary Care & Firefighter M 31–35 12 14 Laurel Emergency Medical Technician, Advanced F 19–25 4 15 Julian Paramedic, Certified Flight Paramedic M 41–45 14 16 Cameron Paramedic, Primary Care M 36–40 8 17 Austin Paramedic, Primary Care & Firefighter M 46–50 10 18 Tony Paramedic, Primary Care M 19–25 4 19 Devon Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 36–40 2 20 Alex Paramedic, Primary Care M NA 5 21 Zayan Paramedic, Primary Care M 41–45 19 22 Jamal Paramedic, Primary Care M 31–35 15 23 Morgan Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 31–35 2 24 Taylor Paramedic, Primary Care M 19–25 2 25 Jamie Emergency Medical Technician, Basic M 26–30 2 26 Dakota Emergency Medical Technician, Advanced F 1925 5 27 Michael Paramedic, Primary Care M 26–30 10 28 Layne Emergency Medical Technician, Basic F 36–40 7 29 Shannon Paramedic, Advanced Care F 31–35 8 30 Val Paramedic, Advanced Care F 41–45 17 31 Denise Paramedic, Advanced Care F 46–50 13 32 Marion Paramedic, Primary Care F 41–45 25 33 Raquel Paramedic, Primary Care F 26–30 6 34 Camille Paramedic, Primary Care F 31–35 4 35 Ava Paramedic, Advanced Care F 26–30 10 188 Appendix B EMS interview guide (chapter 2) I. Employee Background and Work 1. How would you describe your job? 2. How did you come to work as a _______? • What motivated your occupational choice?23 • How would you describe the decision to choose this occupation? 3. What do you like about your current role as a ________? 4. What do you dislike about your current role as a ________? 5. In what way is your experience similar or different to what you had anticipated it to be when you decided to pursue this line of work? 6. How long have you been working as a ________? • Did you work in similar roles before taking this current role? • If yes, what were they? How long did you work in each of these roles? 7. Can you walk me through your daily routine at work? • To what extent do you work in teams? • How much do team members or work groups rely on each other? II. Questions Leading to a Discussion of Death and Dying 8. How would you describe what you are exposed to in the workplace on a typical day? 9. How would you describe a particularly challenging day at work? • Can you describe a day at work that stood out in your mind as being out of the ordinary? • How often do days like this occur? • What thoughts go through your mind on such days? 10. Do most of your coworkers respond to these types of challenges at work similarly or differently to each other? • Can you provide an example? 11. I want you to take a few minutes and think about a particularly vivid experience that you’ve had at work related to death and dying. Starting from the beginning, can you tell me what happened? • Can you elaborate? • How were you feeling at the time? • How often do these events occur? • Have your thoughts about these kinds of events changed over time? • Have your reactions to these kinds of events changed over time? III. Wrapping Up 12. What year were you born?24 13. Is there anything we haven’t covered that you’d like to mention about the experience of working as a _____? 23 Bullet points below a given question indicate common follow-up questions. 24 Note that the Behavioural Research Ethics Board required that we not ask for informants’ age or date of birth, only the year in which they were born. 189 Appendix C Policing interview participant inventory (chapter 3 and chapter 4) Interview # Occupation Division Rank Gender (male/female) Industry Tenure (in years) 1 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 20 2 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 17 3 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant F 25 4 Police Officer Investigation Staff Sergeant F 22 5 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant F 18 6 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 23 7 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 24 8 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 25 9 Police Officer Operations Sergeant M 21 10 Police Officer Investigation Staff Sergeant M 26 11 Police Officer Support Services Staff Sergeant F 20 12 Police Officer Operations Constable F 12 13 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 19 14 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 24 15 Police Officer Support Services Staff Sergeant F 23 16 Police Officer Support Services Constable F 20 17 Police Officer Support Services Constable F 22 18 Police Officer Investigation Staff Sergeant M 20 19 Police Officer Support Services Constable M 14 20 Police Officer Operations Constable F 5 21 Police Officer Operations Constable F 19 22 Police Officer Operations Constable F 4 23 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant F 18 24 Police Officer Operations Constable F 14 25 Police Officer Operations Constable F 8 26 Police Officer Operations Constable F 6 27 Police Officer Support Services Constable M 17 28 Police Officer Investigation Constable F 17 29 Police Officer Operations Constable F 7 30 Police Officer Investigation Staff Sergeant M 28 31 Police Officer Operations Constable F 14 32 Police Officer Operations Constable F 24 33 Police Officer Investigation Constable F 8 34 Police Officer Support Services Staff Sergeant F 22 35 Police Officer Investigation Constable F 12 36 Police Officer Support Services Constable F 20 37 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 20 38 Police Officer Operations Constable M 6 39 Police Officer Support Services Staff Sergeant F 17 40 Police Officer Operations Constable F 3 41 Police Officer Operations Constable M 7 42 Police Officer Operations Constable M 3 43 Police Officer Operations Constable M 18 44 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 20 45 Police Officer Operations Constable M 4 46 Police Officer Operations Constable M 15 47 Police Officer Operations Constable M 14 48 Police Officer Operations Constable F 4 49 Police Officer Operations Constable M 7 50 Police Officer Operations Constable M 10 51 Police Officer Operations Constable M 3 52 Police Officer Operations Constable M 1 53 Police Officer Operations Constable M 2 54 Police Officer Investigation Constable F 6 55 Police Officer Operations Constable M 1 190 Interview # Occupation Division Rank Gender (male/female) Industry Tenure (in years) 56 Police Officer Investigation Constable M 6 57 Police Officer Operations Staff Sergeant M 31 58 Police Officer Operations Constable M 2 59 Police Officer Investigation Constable M 15 60 Police Officer Operations Constable M 2 61 Police Officer Operations Constable M 30 62 Police Officer Investigation Constable F 9 191 Appendix D Policing exploratory interview guide (chapter 3 and chapter 4) I. Employee Background and Work 1. Please describe your role in law enforcement. What do you do in your job? 2. How long have you worked in law enforcement II. Purpose of Work 3. What attracted you to work in law enforcement? 4. What do you consider to be the purpose of a law enforcement officer? 5. To what degree are most law enforcement officers able to fulfill this purpose? III. Work Challenges and Stressors 6. Please describe the greatest challenges that frontline law enforcement officers face in their job. 7. For you, what are the biggest stressors that “drain your bucket”? 8. How do you know when your “bucket” is getting low? 9. How would I know, that is, if I was looking at you or observing you? 10. What resources help you manage your work-related emotions? III. Occupational Evaluations (added after Interview 13) Some experiences help individuals “take the temperature” of how others feel about their occupation (provide graffiti example)… 11. In what ways do you “consume” others’ attitudes toward your occupation? (probe for negative and positive examples) 12. How do these experiences influence you, in the moment (i.e., as they happen)? 13. What about as you have more and more of these experiences? IV. Closing 14. What would you say to a relative or close friend considering working as a law enforcement officer in the [organization]? 15. Is there anything else we should know about how law enforcement officers’ work influences their mental health and physical well-being? 192 Appendix E Summary of the NOE item reduction phases and results (chapter 3) Status Item N F NOE M (SD) Occupational stigma consciousness M (SD) F Customer mistreatment M (SD) F Public antipathy toward occupation M (SD) F Retained Saying mean or nasty things relating to my occupation 118 F(3, 351): 76.52*** 4.25a (1.29) 3.37b (1.25) F(1, 351): 39.61*** 2.18c (1.19) F(1, 351): 181.88*** 3.59b (1.26) F(1, 351): 8.07** Taunting members of my occupation or ridiculing our work 115 F(3, 342): 29.23*** 4.03a (1.28) 3.36b (1.35) F(1, 342): 22.13*** 2.72c (1.52) F(1, 342): 60.85*** 3.63b (1.31) F(1, 342): 4.70* Shaming members of my occupation for our work 121 F(3, 360): 32.71*** 4.03a (1.33) 3.41b (1.26) F(1, 360): 17.51*** 2.63c (1.50) F(1, 360): 72.88*** 3.69b (1.28) F(1, 360): 7.72** Belittling my occupation 119 F(3, 354): 44.19*** 4.02a (1.32) 3.39b (1.37) F(1, 354): 19.06*** 2.44c (1.28) F(1, 354): 105.84*** 3.61b (1.32) F(1, 354): 7.67** Labeling members of my occupation as bad 121 F(3, 360): 77.17*** 4.01a (1.31) 3.64b (1.31) F(1, 360): 7.46** 2.12c (1.21) F(1, 360): 207.35*** 3.71b (1.35) F(1, 360): 16.71*** Final items eliminated due to conceptual imprecision, redundancy, and/or wordiness Making rude or obscene gestures or comments relating to my occupation. 115 F(3, 342): 37.40*** 4.10a (1.37) 3.16c (1.37) F (1, 342): 41.99*** 2.62d (1.47) F (1, 342): 63.96*** 3.59b (1.39) F (1, 342): 6.25* Criticizing my occupation 115 F(3, 342): 59.99*** 3.97a (1.33) 3.17c (1.40) F(1, 342): 27.56*** 2.03d (1.18) F(1, 342): 138.22*** 3.52b (1.32) F(1, 342): 14.20*** Reacting negatively toward my occupation 118 F(3, 351): 44.44*** 3.92a (1.44) 3.47b (1.30) F(1, 351): 8.08** 2.25c (1.33) F(1, 351): 116.55*** 3.58b (1.28) F(1, 351): 8.68** Eliminated due to Duncan’s new multiple range test Expressing disapproval of my occupation 121 F(3, 360): 62.76*** 4.02a (1.36) 3.51b (1.28) F(1, 360): 13.34*** 2.25c (1.32) F(1, 360): 156.62*** 3.75ab (1.25) F(1, 360): 18.32*** Displaying signs, posters, or other visuals opposing my occupation 119 F(3, 354): 68.00*** 3.82a (1.48) 3.24b (1.47) F(1, 354): 15.80*** 1.98c (1.18) F(1, 354): 154.28*** 3.70a (1.44) F(1, 354): 34.35*** Threatening violence toward members of my occupation 121 F(3, 360): 15.64*** 3.81a (1.40) 2.90b (1.37) F(1, 360): 33.16*** 2.96b (1.52) F(1, 360): 8.42** 3.52a (1.42) F(1, 360): 5.33* Damaging or defacing property with derogatory messages toward my occupation 118 F(3, 351): 51.31*** 3.73a (1.45) 3.14b (1.45) F(1, 351): 14.93*** 1.99c (1.25) F(1, 351): 117.44*** 3.53a (1.41) F(1, 351): 21.56*** Being inconsiderate toward my occupation 115 F(3, 342): 25.15*** 3.63a (1.37) 3.02b (1.36) F(1, 342): 15.59*** 2.37c (1.37) F(1, 342): 50.34*** 3.40a (1.34) F(1, 342): 9.53** Damaging or defacing property belonging to members of my occupation 121 F(3, 360): 12.02*** 3.30a (1.46) 2.80b (1.36) F(1, 360): 9.98** 2.50b (1.54) F(1, 360): 16.51*** 3.27a (1.40) F(1, 360): 9.99** Eliminated due to planned contrasts Giving dirty looks to members of my occupation 121 F(3, 360): 45.70*** 4.03a (1.26) 3.30b (1.33) F(1, 360): 28.72*** 2.44c (1.28) F(1, 360): 106.62*** 3.40b (1.32) F(1, 360): 1.76 Expressing negative stereotypes about my occupation 115 F(3, 342): 60.78*** 3.92a (1.39) 3.74ab (1.38) F(1, 342): 1.43 2.09c (1.12) F(1, 342): 173.75*** 3.58b (1.40) F(1, 342): 7.15** 193 Status Item N F NOE M (SD) Occupational stigma consciousness M (SD) F Customer mistreatment M (SD) F Public antipathy toward occupation M (SD) F Rooting against my occupation 118 F(3, 351): 49.15*** 3.70a (1.40) 3.36b (1.37) F(1, 351): 5.47* 2.19c (1.26) F(1, 351): 107.55*** 3.80a (1.30) F(1, 351): 34.42*** Disapproving of the decision to work in my occupation 115 F(3, 342): 61.35*** 3.65a (1.38) 3.56a (1.26) F(1, 342): 0.46 2.02b (1.18) F(1, 342): 168.58*** 3.52a (1.31) F(1, 342): 15.01*** Engaging in violence toward members of my occupation 118 F(3, 351): 13.85*** 3.58a (1.59) 2.77c (1.53) F(1, 351): 25.52*** 2.68c (1.53) F(1, 351): 12.85*** 3.25b (1.56) F(1, 351): 3.18 Withholding goods or services from members of my occupation 119 F(3, 354): 36.99*** 3.39a (1.54) 3.13a (1.41) F(1, 354): 2.96· 2.00b (1.26) F(1, 354): 91.76*** 3.34a (1.43) F(1, 354): 16.26*** Avoiding members of my occupation 121 F(3, 360): 43.81***a 3.25b (1.44) 3.37b (1.36) F(1, 360): 0.73 2.12c (1.21) F(1, 360): 89.18*** 3.68a (1.32) F(1, 360): 41.54*** Avoiding conversation about my occupation 118 F(3, 351): 60.25*** 2.86a (1.35) 3.00a (1.25) F(1, 351): 1.28 1.56b (1.04) F(1, 351): 153.72*** 3.00a (1.21) F(1, 351): 25.76*** Note. Planned contrast results for each comparison construct are shown below the mean and standard deviation. Results of Duncan’s new multiple range test are indicated by the letters a, b, c, and d in superscript in each row. For each item, means with the same letter in superscript in a given row are not significantly different. For example, if a is attached to two constructs, they are not significantly different. p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 194 Appendix F Summary of the POE item reduction phases and results (chapter 3) Status Item N F POE M (SD) Occupational stigma consciousness M (SD) F Customer mistreatment M (SD) F Public antipathy toward occupation M (SD) F Retained Rooting for my occupation 123 F(3, 366): 46.99*** 4.04a (1.21) 2.60c (1.34) F(1, 366): 110.98*** 2.75c (1.28) F(1, 366): 23.48*** 3.41b (1.33) F(1, 366): 6.51* Displaying signs, posters, or other visuals supporting my occupation 122 F(3, 363): 36.71*** 4.02a (1.36) 2.61d (1.36) F(1, 363): 95.85*** 3.00c (1.37) F(1, 363): 6.24* 3.54b (1.35) F(1, 363): 8.04** Labeling members of my occupation as good 123 F(3, 366): 38.80*** 4.00a (1.21) 2.72c (1.40) F(1, 366): 79.15*** 2.80c (1.25) F(1, 366): 20.13*** 3.66b (1.12) F(1, 366): 17.12*** Expressing positive stereotypes about my occupation 119 F(3, 354): 50.35*** 3.94a (1.26) 2.34d (1.25) F(1, 354): 135.94*** 2.75c (1.22) F(1, 354): 10.74** 3.24b (1.26) F(1, 354): 4.38* Admiring members of my occupation 123 F(3, 366): 32.70*** 3.92a (1.22) 2.70c (1.39) F(1, 366): 68.13*** 2.74c (1.16) F(1, 366): 19.78*** 3.50b (1.24) F(1, 366): 10.18** Final items eliminated due to conceptual imprecision, redundancy, and/or wordiness Expressing approval of my occupation 123 F(3, 366): 51.36*** 4.26a (1.06) 2.78c (1.38) F(1, 366): 116.38*** 2.85c (1.18) F(1, 366): 31.50*** 3.58b (1.16) F(1, 366): 6.21* Items eliminated due to planned contrasts Reacting positively toward my occupation 119 F(3, 354): 47.85*** 4.34a (1.04) 2.89c (1.34) F(1, 354): 99.51*** 2.78c (1.26) F(1, 354): 43.96*** 3.37b (1.29) F(1, 354): 0.08 Genuinely praising my occupation 119 F(3, 354): 39.00*** 4.23a (1.18) 2.95c(1.36) F(1, 354):71.13*** 2.72c (1.25) F(1, 354): 43.55*** 3.49b (1.24) F(1, 354): 2.30 Saying nice things relating to my occupation 122 F(3, 363): 37.19*** 4.18a (1.14) 3.02c (1.34) F(1, 363): 67.05*** 2.79c (1.20) F(1, 363): 44.52*** 3.34b (1.21) F(1, 363) :0.01 Making polite or kind gestures or comments relating to my occupation 120 F(3, 357): 35.45*** 4.13a (1.15) 3.19b (1.31) F(1, 357): 43.98*** 2.69c (1.23) F(1, 357): 62.33*** 3.32b (1.22) F(1, 357): 0.04 Approaching members of my occupation in a positive way 119 F(3, 354): 33.12*** 3.96a (1.20) 2.95b (1.33) F(1, 354): 47.31*** 2.54c (1.13) F(1, 354): 52.05*** 3.15b (1.27) F(1, 354): 0.001 Thanking members of my occupation for our work 120 F(3, 357): 25.73*** 3.86a (1.29) 3.65a (1.30) F(1, 357): 2.19 2.78b (1.15) F(1, 357): 63.26*** 3.83a (1.21) F(1, 357): 11.75*** Being considerate toward my occupation 122 F(3, 363): 14.17*** 3.70a (1.14) 2.91b (1.22) F(1, 363): 33.67*** 3.04b (1.31) F(1, 363): 5.04* 3.00b (1.20) F(1, 363): 3.82 Giving gifts to members of my occupation 123 F(3, 366): 26.63*** 3.43a (1.40) 3.13b (1.39) F(1, 366): 4.19* 2.18c (1.16) F(1, 366): 74.95*** 3.02b (1.35) F(1, 366): 0.74 Note. Planned contrast results for each comparison construct are shown below the mean and standard deviation. Results of Duncan’s new multiple range test are indicated by the letters a, b, c, and d in superscript in each row. For each item, means with the same letter in superscript in a given row are not signific antly different. For example, if a is attached to two constructs, they are not significantly different. p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Business Administration - Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Van Jaarsveld, Danielle Dorice
Three papers examining how employees and audiences understand and evaluate occupations
Text