The Concept of Alienation Towards Conceptual Clarity

The concept of alienation:towards conceptual clarity

Nisha NairDepartment of Organizational Behaviour & Human Resource Management,

Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India, and

Neharika VohraDepartment of Organizational Behaviour,

Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India

Abstract

Purpose – Although alienation as a concept has a rich history, it has suffered relative neglect inorganizational studies and one possible reason for the same is its conceptual ambiguity vis-a-vispopular and long-standing concepts of commitment/identification, satisfaction and engagement, thatrepresent the positive experience of work and which have sometimes been equated as the opposite ofwork alienation. Similarly, the negative experience of work has traditionally been captured byconcepts such as burnout/cynicism and counterproductive work behaviours/deviance. The purpose ofthis paper is to argue for refocusing attention on the concept of work alienation in management studiesas distinct from other related concepts.

Design/methodology/approach – The methodology integrated research from both quantitativeand qualitative approaches.

Findings – Through the analysis of the concept of alienation, along with other related concepts, theconceptual space for the study of alienation in organizational studies is pointed out. By examining thedefinition, and the antecedents and consequences of commitment, satisfaction, engagement, burnoutand workplace deviance, the overlaps and points of differences are highlighted.

Originality/value – The paper offers a conceptual level analysis and builds the argument forrefocusing attention on the study of work alienation. The juxtaposition of the related concepts clarifiesthat alienation has a unique contribution to make towards understanding the link between experienceat work and employee-related outcomes.

KeywordsEmployees behaviour, Job commitment, Job satisfaction, Stress, Social alienation, Alienation,Concepts, Engagement, Burnout, Deviance

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionUndisputedly, it is known and understood that employees’ cognitive evaluation of theirwork place, feelings about the place of work and attitudes towards work influence theirperformance in the work place. Positive behavioral states such as engagement andattitudes such as satisfaction and commitment have been the topic of study for the last20 years. However, negative workplace attitudes and affect such as cynicism,alienation and deviance, are not studied as often. This paper focuses on one suchnegative attitude and experience of work, which has been studied and discussed in the1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, with limited or decreasing interest among practitionersand researchers. Although Drucker (1969) early on alluded to the disenchantment ofmany educated professionals with their work, the form of this work alienation hasreceived little attention in contemporary management research. It is argued thatignoring alienation as a concept leaves a void in understanding the link between

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

The conceptof alienation

25

International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis

Vol. 20 No. 1, 2012pp. 25-50

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1934-8835

DOI 10.1108/19348831211215641

employee evaluation of the work place and performance. Certain negative behaviorssuch as workplace aggression and deviance (Greenberg and Barling, 1999; Robinsonand Bennett, 1995), and negative outcomes such as burnout (Cordes and Dougherty,1993; Jackson and Maslach, 1982) have been studied, however, the underlying affectand cognition in the form of alienation has largely been ignored. Alienation asdisenchantment or disconnect from work has sometimes been viewed as the opposite ofengagement (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000), commitment (Etzioni, 1961) or satisfaction(Seybolt and Gruenfeld, 1976), however, alienation cannot be fully accounted for by anyof these concepts as will be explored in greater detail in this paper.

Even though alienation came into prominence in the early writings of Marx(1844/1932), the concept itself finds reference across a broad range of subjects such astheology, philosophy, sociology, psychology and psychiatry (Johnson (1973) for areview of the usage of the term across various disciplines). The scientific treatment ofthe concept has largely been attempted by sociologists and to a limited extent bypsychologists (Kanungo, 1979). Traditionally studied with respect to the manual orblue collar worker, in the late 1970s and mid-1980s there was some research onalienation among the white collar or non-manual worker (Chisholm and Cummings,1979; Korman et al., 1981; Lang, 1985; Organ and Greene, 1981; Podsakoff et al., 1986).In one of the more recent textbooks on work and organization behavior, Bratton et al.(2007) draw attention to the fact that much of the psychology based research appearsindifferent and ignorant of the concept of alienation.

We agree with Kohn (1976, p. 113) when he said:

[. . .] most occupational studies, of course, do not purport to deal with alienation. Of those thatdo, some use job dissatisfaction as their index of alienation. But extrapolating from jobdissatisfaction or even from a lack of occupational commitment to feelings of alienation isunwarranted.

Perhaps it is the overuse of the concept in the sociological literature, an aversion to itsnegative tone, or conceptual ambiguity between alienation and other terms that hascontributed to its relative neglect in organization studies.

Going beyond the quantitative-qualitative divide, in this paper we seek to addressthe conceptual uniqueness of alienation in organizational studies, drawing on bothqualitative and quantitative research to inform our inquiry. We attempt to clarify thelinkages of alienation with other concepts, by first examining the concept of alienationand then each of the related concepts, in order to understand how the concepts havebeen defined and studied and also highlight the points of convergence/divergence.Through an examination of the antecedents and consequences of each of the conceptsand conceptual overlaps or differences, it is argued that it may be time to refocusattention on alienation as a distinct concept worthy of research attention inmanagement studies. Relevant propositions are advanced in this regard.

Work alienationIn his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx distinguishes three formsof alienation – alienation from the product of work, alienation in the process ofproduction and alienation from society. Marx conceptualized alienation as theseparation of the worker from ownership, where the worker is related to the product ofhis labor as to an alien object (Finifter, 1972), owing to the mechanization of production

IJOA20,1

26

and specialization of the division of labor (Bottomore, 1963). Weber’s treatment of theconcept of alienation (Gerth and Mills, 1946) has been similar to that of Marx whoviewed alienation as emerging from perceived lack of freedom and control at work.

In the late 1950s, Seeman’s (1959, 1975) seminal work postulated five alternatemeanings of alienation as opposed to its unidimensional conceptualization in terms ofpowerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and self estrangement. Thisconceptualization has been used in several empirical studies (Blauner, 1964; Dean,1961; Seeman, 1967; Shepard, 1977). Scholars in later years have questioned theadequacy of the dimensions and their interrelations for explaining alienation fully(Kanungo, 1979; Mottaz, 1981; Overend, 1975); it has even been argued that dimensionssuch as powerlessness and meaninglessness can be viewed as antecedents or evenconsequences of alienation, rather than being descriptive of alienation per se.

Conceptual ambiguity surrounding alienationAlienation has been referred to as a “panchreston” ( Johnson, 1973, p. 3), denoting itsvagueness and wide use as a general term, popular expression or a scientific term.Johnson also points that alienation as a term has acquired a semantic richness as wellas confusion attained by few words of corresponding significance. The ambiguitysurrounding the concept of alienation is rooted in a number of factors. For one, thetheoretical and operational definitions of alienation do not help reduce the ambiguitysurrounding it. Alienation as a concept has lent itself to various definitions andconsiderable confusion over its meanings, usage and measurement. Although Marxbrought the term alienation into focus with regard to the industrial workers’ separationof ownership and lack of control over his/her work, he has not offered a definition ofalienation. Marx was influenced by the work of Hegel who referred to alienation as theseparation of the mind from its essence (cited in Overend, 1975). Fromm (1955)discussed alienation as the mode of experience in which a person experienceshim/herself as an alien or in other words becomes estranged from the self. Horowitz(1966) suggests that alienation implies an intense separation first from objects of theworld, second from people and third from ideas about the world held by other people.In the literature of alienation, the concept has rarely been defined, although the termhas been used widely across disciplines. The core meaning of the concept of alienationhas also been identified with a dissociative state of the individual (a cognitive sense ofseparation) in relation to some other element in his or her environment (Kanungo, 1979;Overend, 1975). Most definitions allude to the sense of separation (Fromm, 1955;Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979) or dissociative state (Schacht, 1970) or disengagementfrom work (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000). In other words, the common theme appearingin most conceptualizations of alienation still appears to be the notion of estrangementor separation. Further, this separation has been discussed in relation to work(Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Kanungo, 1979), people (Horowitz, 1966), some otherelement in the environment or objects of the world (Horowitz, 1966; Schacht, 1970), andfrom the self itself (Fromm, 1955). Since the most basic understanding of alienationinvolves a separation or estrangement and given the varying targets of this separation,it would be best to define work alienation as estrangement or disconnect from work, thecontext or the self.

A second reason for the ambiguity surrounding the concept of alienation emergesfrom the fact that is not always clear if alienation is unidimensional (separateness)


27

or if it is multidimensional. Third, there is significant overlap between the concept andits antecedents and consequences. For example, though meaninglessness has beenpostulated as a dimension of alienation by Seeman (1959), it has also been found to be afactor that leads to alienation in Mottaz’s (1981) empirical study. Fourth, owing to thelack of a clear definition, alienation overlaps with popularly used concepts related tothe positive experience of work/organization such as commitment, satisfaction andengagement, or constructs that capture the negative experience of work such asburnout and workplace deviance. A review of relevant literature on each of theseconcepts and their antecedents and consequences is undertaken in the followingsections, drawing attention to the points of convergence or ambiguity with alienationand with each other, so as to strengthen the argument that the concept of alienationcannot be substituted by any one of the concepts in question and deserves specificresearch attention in management study.

An exploration of concepts that have some overlap with alienationCommitmentFrom the beginning of the 1980s the psychological link between the individual and theorganization has predominantly been studied in the form of commitment (Allen andMeyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1979). An early contribution to understanding commitmentcame from Etzioni (1961) when he discussed the three forms, moral, calculative andalienative, in which individuals can be oriented towards the organization. Subsequentliterature however has neglected the alienative component, possibly as discussed bySwailes (2002) due to its negative orientation.

A construct that bears close resemblance to commitment is that of identification,more commonly appearing in the literature as organizational identification, defined asthe perception of oneness with or belongingness to the organization (Ashforth andMael, 1989). The perception of “oneness” (Ashforth and Mael, 1989) in terms of whichidentification is defined is in contrast to the “separateness” or disconnectednessassociated with alienation (Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979; Schacht, 1970). Hirschfeldand Feild (2000) have also equated an absence of identification to work alienation.The measures and the construct of identification have been critiqued for conceptualoverlap with commitment (Edwards and Peccei, 2007). Alternatively, some (Pratt, 1998;van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006) have attempted to clarify the difference betweenthe two constructs with identification conceptualized as cognition of the self in relationto the organization, and commitment as an outcome or affective response. Morerecently, Edwards and Peccei (2007) in their empirical research have considered thesubjective states of identification (cognitive and affective) and its attitudinal outcomes(involvement, pride and loyalty), as together contributing to organizationalcommitment.

The various definitions of commitment offered in the literature are shown in Table I.Analysis of the available definitions and conceptualization of organizational

commitment highlights the overlap with the concept of involvement and identification(Mowday et al., 1979, p. 27). Involvement has been defined as “the degree to which aperson is identified psychologically with his work or the importance of work in his totalself-image” (Lodhal and Kejner, 1965, p. 24). Morrow (1983) argues that the concept ofcommitment and job involvement are not sufficiently distinct to warrant separation.Similarly, identification appears as part of most commitment definitions, and is viewed

IJOA20,1

28

as integral to the commitment process (Dutton et al., 1994). As can be seen inTable II affective commitment is defined in terms of identification with the organization.

Alienation as separation or disconnect from work, and lack of commitment, appearsimilar but not identical. The relationship between the two is shown in Figure 1. Theattitude of being not committed may or may not lead to negative affect and belief aboutthe uselessness of work and sense of being pained, which in other words is the state offeeling alienated. Alienation is thus shown to overlap to some degree with lowcommitment and the two appear at the negative end of the continuum as opposed tocommitment at the positive end.

Source Definitions of commitment

Mowday et al.(1979)

The relative strength of an individual’s identification-with and involvement-in aparticular organization. Thought to involve: (a) a strong belief in and acceptanceof the organizations goals and values; (b) willingness to exert considerable efforton behalf of the organization; and (c) a desire to maintain membership

Cook and Wall(1980)

Organizational commitment defined in terms of identification, involvement andloyalty: (a) Identification: pride in the organization, internalization of theorganizations goals and values; (b) involvement: willingness to invest personaleffort as a member of the organization for the sake of the organization; and (c)loyalty: affection for and attachment to the organization; a sense of belongingnessmanifesting as a wish to stay

Farrell andRusbult (1981)

The likelihood that individuals remain with the job and feel attached to it whetheror not it is satisfying

DeCotiis andSummers (1987)

A two-dimensional construct centered on organizational goal and valueinternalization, and role involvement in terms of those goals and values

Meyer and Allen(1991)

Organization commitment consists of three components: affective commitment,continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective commitmentrefers to the employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with andinvolvement in an organization. Continuance commitment refers to an awarenessof the costs associated with leaving the organization. Normative commitmentreflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment

Table I.Definitions ofcommitment

Source Definitions of engagement

Kahn (1990, p. 694) The harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles;

in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,

cognitively, or emotionally during role performances

Rothbard (2001, p. 656) One’s psychological presence in or focus on role activities

Schaufeli et al. (2002, p. 74) A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized

by vigor, dedication, and absorption

Harter et al. (2002, p. 269) The individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as

enthusiasm for work

Frank et al. (2004, p. 15) Bringing discretionary effort to work, in the form of extra time,

brainpower and energy

Table II.Definitions of

engagement


29

Thus, it is argued that the absence of commitment need not necessarily translate intoalienation; the two could be separate states with both commitment and alienationfalling on a continuum from high to low and a step or jump from low commitment tolow alienation occurring due to factors unique to alienation. The distinction betweenthe two concepts is further discussed in the sections examining the antecedents andconsequences of the different concepts.

Work satisfactionThe hypothesis that certain class of industrial work causes alienation was studiedusing absenteeism as an index of dissatisfaction (Fried et al., 1972). Alienation has beenequated with work dissatisfaction and has been operationalized as absenteeism.Further, the operationalization of alienation has a high degree of overlap with worksatisfaction (Robinson et al., 1969). Seybolt and Gruenfeld (1976) point that thoughwork alienation and work satisfaction have had separate although parallel studyin the behavioral science literature, it has not been established if they are in factseparate attitudes or merely different facets of the same construct.

Work satisfaction has been defined as one’s sense of satisfaction not only with thework but also with the larger context within which work exists (Bussing et al., 1999).In that sense it is a multidimensional concept including job, organizational and workercharacteristics. Job characteristics have received the most attention in the study of jobsatisfaction (Glisson and Durick, 1988), which has been defined as “a pleasurable orpositive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences”(Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Fried (1991) found job satisfaction a correlate of work satisfactionthrough a meta-analytic comparison. Though work satisfaction has been usedinterchangeably with job satisfaction in much of the literature (Farkas and Tetrick,1989), the latter has been pointed out as narrower in scope than work satisfaction(Bussing et al., 1999).

On the face of it, work satisfaction may appear to be the opposite of alienation. Butsome have argued otherwise. Baxter (1982) discusses that instrumental job satisfactionis seen as a consequence of dealing with alienation. Watson (2003, p. 176) points thatalienation is not necessarily reflected in felt job dissatisfaction arguing that a personmay be happy sitting at a desk and sorting papers day-after-day in return for a wage,but could nevertheless be alienated if the person was not fulfilling him/herself in theway s/he might be if working under different conditions. Hall (1994, p. 111) alludesto the role of alienation beyond work dissatisfaction when he notes, “the negative sideof work is not dissatisfaction, it is alienation”.

Bussing et al. (1999) using a qualitative approach argues for six forms of worksatisfaction as stabilized work satisfaction, progressive work satisfaction, resigned

Figure 1.Relationship ofcommitment withalienation

LowCommitment

Commitment

(–) (+)

Alienation

IJOA20,1

30

work satisfaction, constructive work dissatisfaction, fixated work dissatisfaction andresigned work dissatisfaction. These forms are derived from various combinations ofthe criterion of:

. the comparison of actual work situation with personal aspirations;

. global levels of satisfaction;

. changes in level of aspiration; and

. controllability of the work.

Using the same criteria dimensions as offered by Bussing et al. (1999), it would appearthat work alienation is a likely extension and it is proposed here that:

H1. When there are unmet aspirations from work, low levels of both globalsatisfaction and work control, coupled with high personal aspirations, it couldresult in a state beyond work dissatisfaction manifesting in work alienation.

In other words, even if a worker is dissatisfied from work, but still harbors highaspirations and seeks greater meaning from it, and yet is unable to change work or thesituations surrounding it, then the sense of vexation that s/he may experience, is likelyto be far more pronounced than mere dissatisfaction. This state of estrangement oralienation from work would be a more natural outcome.

Although work satisfaction has been viewed as the opposite of work alienation bysome (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Robinson et al., 1969), it would appear that the stateof being dissatisfied does not fully capture the experience of alienation. Therelationship of work satisfaction with alienation is shown in Figure 2.

Work engagementAlienation as a state of separation or disconnect from work, would seem as an oppositeof the state of engagement in work. In discussing personal engagement anddisengagement at work, Kahn (1990) refers to disengagement as “the uncoupling of selffrom work roles” which bears resemblance to the dissociative state or estrangement ofself in alienation. Further, Hirschfeld and Feild (2000, p. 790) refer to alienationas disengagement from work. Therefore, the concept of work engagement bears closerscrutiny as a conceptual opposite of alienation.

Work engagement or employee engagement is a relatively new term emergentlargely in practitioner journals and with comparatively less empirical research thanother better known concepts (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006). Engagement hasbeen defined in many ways, but the most commonly used definition is the one offeredby Schaufeli et al. (2002) as shown in Table II.

Figure 2.Relationship of

satisfaction withalienation

Dis-satisfaction

Satisfaction

(–) (+)

Alienation


31

The definitions of Kahn (1990) and Rothbard (2001) focus on the performance of roleswhile Schaufeli et al. (2002) refer to engagement as a state of mind, with characteristicsthat represent the opposite of burnout. Research on burnout and engagement have foundthe two to be opposites of each other, with the engagement dimensions of vigor,dedication and absorption thought to represent parallel opposites of the burnoutdimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy(Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Frank et al.’s (2004) definitiontends to focus on discretionary behavior, which seems conceptually closer toorganizational citizenship behavior while Harter et al. (2002) refer to engagement assatisfaction. The question of whether work engagement can be discriminated fromorganizational commitment has also been posed (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006;Macey and Schneider, 2008). The vagueness of the concept of engagement is furthercompounded by its definitional overlap with other concepts of organizationalcommitment, involvement and satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002; Kanungo, 1979; Maceyand Schneider, 2008). Macey and Schneider’s (2008) discuss engagement inmuch broader terms as state, trait and behavioral engagement, ascribing to it bothattitudinal and behavioral components. However, the question of whether state andbehavioral engagement are indeed new and useful constructs has also been asked(Griffin et al., 2008; Newman and Harrison, 2008) and Newman and Harrison (2008)conclude through a qualitative inquiry that engagement is more relevant as a behavioralconstruct.

It has been noted (Saks, 2006) that engagement is not an attitude, but refers to thedegree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of their rolesthat may involve behavior in addition to emotions and cognitions. This may explainwhy engagement although posed as the positive antithesis of burnout (a behavioralmanifestation of alienation, discussed in greater detail in the next section) may also beconsidered as the polar opposite of alienation, which is argued to be a combination ofemotional and cognitive (psychological) separation from work. However, alienation ismore than mere cognitive evaluation; it also includes feeling of pain. Although alienationhas been referred to as a cognitive belief state (Kanungo, 1979), individuals refer to theexperience of alienation as “feeling alienated”, pointing to the role of affect in alienation.The poor attitude towards work and feeling of detachment when manifest in apsychological state of separation may be termed as alienation, while engagement is moreof a behavioral state of involvement and disengagement would not include the feelingsof pain or affective state of distress associated with alienation. The relation betweenalienation and engagement is shown in Figure 3.

The discussion thus far has focused on the concepts that are conceptually similar toalienation and yet represent the positive experience of work. We shall now examinetwo other concepts that refer to the negative experience of work and capture negativework attitudes and behavior, that of burnout and deviance or counterproductive workbehavior.

BurnoutIt has been suggested (Abraham, 2000) that burnout may be viewed as an outcome ofalienation. The diminishing interest in the concept of alienation in the literature mayalso be explained by the alternate study of the concept of burnout, deserving attentionhere as a separate concept for discussion.

IJOA20,1

32

Burnout as a phenomenon brought on by stress has been conceptualized as a severeresponse syndrome of emotional exhaustion, cynicism or depersonalization and reducedpersonal accomplishment (Burke and Mikkelsen, 2006; Cordes and Dougherty, 1993;Jackson et al., 1986; Toppinen-Tanner et al., 2002). Most researchers agree that the keycharacteristic of burnout is the state of emotional exhaustion caused by excessivepsychological and emotional demands (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et al., 1986;Moore, 2000). It is also marked by depersonalization and a cynical attitudetowards others in the organization, along with diminished personal accomplishmentcharacterized by feelings of job incompetence and a tendency to evaluate oneselfnegatively.

As discussed earlier, burnout has been posed as the conceptual opposite of workengagement (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002).The relationship between burnout and, alienation and engagement are shown inFigure 4. As can be seen, burnout may be viewed as an outcome of alienation as well asthe opposite of work engagement.

Workplace deviance/counterproductive work behaviorsResearch on the negative experience of work has received some attention in organizationalscience within the study of workplace deviance or counterproductive work behaviors.Workplace deviant behaviors encompass a wide array of negative work behaviors such astheft (Greenberg, 1990, 1993), absenteeism, withdrawal and withholding effort

Figure 4.Relationship of burnout

with alienation andengagement

(–) (+)

Alienation

EngagementBurnout

Figure 3.Relationship of

engagement withalienation

Dis-engagement

(–) (+)

Alienation Engagement


33

(Kidwell and Bennett, 1993) and unethical behaviors (Trevino and Youngblood, 1990).Workplace deviance has been defined as “voluntary behavior that violates significantorganizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, itsmembers, or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995, p. 557). A widely used typology ofdeviance as proposed by Robinson and Bennett (1995), classifies deviance as productiondeviance, property deviance, political deviance and personal aggression.

Both alienation and deviance refer to the darker or negative side of work. Someresearchers have suggested that deviant acts such as aggression emerge from a senseof alienation (Jermier, 1988; Seeman, 1967). While Seeman argues that alienationspawns frustration that manifests in hostility, Jermier (1988) links workplace sabotagemore directly to alienation. Thus, deviance may be better viewed as the behavioralmanifestation of alienation. The relationship between alienation and deviance, withalienation as a predictor of workplace deviance, is shown in Figure 5.

Examining antecedentsIn order to further establish the linkages between the concepts, in this section we explorethe antecedents of work alienation and then briefly examine the antecedents of the otherrelated concepts, for a better understanding of the concepts and their relationships. Thisis attempted to draw on empirical evidence for points of convergence or divergenceamong the concepts and further delineate the conceptual space of work alienation.

Antecedents of work alienationThe structural determinants of alienation have received much attention since the timeof Marx. In his classic study of industrial workers (blue collar) in different industrialsituations, Blauner (1964) was able to show that alienation varied by the type oftechnology and organizational structure found in the industrial setting. Level ofalienation was found to be lowest in the craft-based organization, at medium levels inthe chemical process industry, and highest in the assembly line characterized byroutine and repetitive tasks. The ability to use judgment and take responsibility wasnegatively correlated with the experience of alienation.

Figure 5.Relationship of workplacedeviance with alienation

(–) (+)

Alienation

Workplacedeviance

IJOA20,1

34

The greater the degree of formalization the greater the alienation felt (Aiken and Hage,1966) among workers and professionals. However, Organ and Greene (1981) andPodsakoff et al. (1986) found formalization reduced alienation in both subgroupsthrough a decrease in role ambiguity. Transformational leadership was also found tomitigate the alienative effect on employees in highly structured organizations(Sarros et al., 2002). Simpson (1999) found elements of the work context such as isolationand dual authority systems to be associated with alienation. Mottaz (1981) found lack ofmeaningful work to predict alienation across several occupational groups. Although theliterature on the role of formalization is not very clear on its influence on alienation,especially for professionals, it appears that centralization (Aiken and Hage, 1966), roleambiguity (Organ and Greene, 1981; Simpson, 1999), technology that grants lessautonomy (Blauner, 1964; Kohn, 1976) and lack of meaningful work (Mottaz, 1981) arelinked to alienation of the worker. Durkheim (1947, trans.) saw alienation as aconsequence of the condition of anomie, which refers to the breakdown of norms insociety leading to experienced normlessness.

Compared to structural variables, research on individual level determinants of workalienation is relatively sparse. Finifter (1972, p. 9) reviews some of the classic writings onalienation of that period and concludes that alienation is produced by “a discrepancybetween strongly internalized aspirations, norms and values on one hand, and theopportunities perceived by the individual for fulfilling them, on the other”. Along similarlines, Kanungo (1979) offers a motivational framework for understanding alienationthrough a qualitative lens, wherein the potentiality of work to satisfy basic human needsand expectancies of workers determine the amount of alienation. The effect of locus ofcontrol on alienation has also been studied. Individuals with an external locus of controltend to be more alienated from the work setting than those with an internal locus ofcontrol (Banai et al., 2004; Seeman, 1967). Expectancy disconfirmation, contrary roledemands, loss of affiliative satisfactions and developmental life changes were found tobe factors affecting alienation among professionals and managers (Korman et al., 1981).People from high socio economic status background were found to be more likelyto experience alienation when encountering lack of fulfillment (Lang, 1985)and Rosner and Putterman (1991) were able to show that demand for less alienatingwork increased with higher levels of education and living standards.

Antecedents of commitmentSkill variety, task autonomy, challenge and job scope have been shown to predictorganizational commitment in a meta-analysis (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Group leaderrelations in terms of group cohesiveness, task interdependence, leader initiatingstructure, leader consideration and participative leadership were also found to beantecedents. Organizational characteristics of centralization and size, and role states ofrole ambiguity, role conflict and role overload were some other determinants ofcommitment emergent from the meta-analysis. Other personal characteristics of age,sex, education, tenure, protestant work ethic and job level were also found to predictorganizational commitment. Research also indicates a positive relationship betweeninternal locus of control and organizational commitment (Coleman et al., 1999). Allen andMeyer (1990) note equity as another organizational predictor of commitment. A decadeafter the Mathieu and Zajac (1990) study, Meyer et al. (2002) conducted anothermeta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of the three forms of commitment.


35

In addition to the other variables identified, they found the individual differencevariables of internal locus of control and self efficacy to be positively related to affectivecommitment.

A comparison of the concepts of alienation and commitment indicate a number ofcommon antecedents such as the task characteristics of autonomy, skill variety, roleambiguity, organizational characteristics of centralization and individual levelcharacteristics of education and locus of control (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Allen andMeyer, 1990; Blauner, 1964; Coleman et al., 1999; Kohn, 1976; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990;Rosner and Putterman, 1991). However, there are other antecedent variables foralienation such as formalization, expectancy discrepancy, lack of control over work,meaninglessness and social isolation that have not been examined in the commitmentliterature as antecedents. In a study examining the influence of managerial andpersonal control (leadership, job characteristics, locus of control) on work alienationand organizational commitment, Banai et al. (2004) found that the predictor variablesexplained work related alienation but not commitment. This suggests that alienation isnot merely the polar opposite of commitment.

Antecedents of work satisfactionIn his causal model addressing predictors of work satisfaction, Abu-Bader (2000) foundthat satisfaction was a function of better collegial relationships, adequate workingconditions, higher education and greater autonomy. Organ and Greene (1974) foundrole ambiguity to be related to work dissatisfaction. Several studies (Glisson andDurick, 1988; Hackman and Oldham, 1975) have found role ambiguity (negativerelationship) and skill variety to be the most important predictors of satisfaction.A meta-analysis (Kinicki et al., 2002) of antecedents and consequences of jobsatisfaction reveal inequity at work and leader relations as additional antecedents. Intheir qualitative analysis of work meanings and satisfaction, Brown et al. (2001), showthat financial benefits, autonomy, and significant relationships outside of work relatedto work satisfaction. The individual characteristic of locus of control deserves specialattention, as this is the only individual level variable discussed in the literature asrelating to both work satisfaction and alienation (Mitchell et al., 1975). It has beensuggested that individuals who have an external locus of control tend to be morealienated from the work setting (Seeman, 1967). Individuals with an internal locus ofcontrol tend to be more satisfied in their work (Mitchell et al., 1975; Organ and Greene,1974) which is also consistent with the research on commitment (Coleman et al., 1999).

Some of the common antecedents of the concepts of alienation and satisfaction areautonomy (Abu-Bader, 2000; Blauner, 1964), ambiguity (Organ and Greene, 1974, 1981;Simpson, 1999), skill variety (Blauner, 1964; Glisson and Durick, 1988), education(Abu-Bader, 2000; Rosner and Putterman, 1991) and locus of control (Korman et al.,1981; Mitchell et al., 1975; Seeman, 1967). Other antecedents of alienation such asstructural elements of centralization, formalization, technology, lack of control andpowerlessness do not find mention as antecedents of work satisfaction, strengtheningthe argument that alienation is not just the opposite of work satisfaction.

Antecedents of work engagementThere has been little empirical research on factors that predict employee engagement. Ina study of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Saks (2006)

IJOA20,1

36

found job characteristics, perceived organization support and procedural justice topredict engagement. In his qualitative study, Kahn (1990) found the psychologicalconditions of meaningfulness, safety (sense of being able to employ self without fearof negative consequences) and availability (sense of possessing the necessary resourcesfor investing in role performances) to be associated with personal engagement in work.He points that employees will be more likely to engage themselves in theirwork to the extent that they perceive reward and recognition for their role performances.

Thus, the common antecedent of work alienation and engagement appear to beautonomy, variety (Blauner, 1964; Saks, 2006) and meaningfulness in work (Kahn, 1990;Mottaz, 1981). While there are fewer common antecedent variables for engagementwith alienation, it may be kept in mind that research on engagement is still in its earlystages.

Antecedents of burnoutAs originally conceptualized, burnout was believed to result from role overload andwork demands (Maslach and Jackson, 1984). Role conflict and role ambiguity have alsoreceived some attention as predictors of burnout in the literature ( Jackson et al., 1986).

Research also indicates that younger individuals report higher levels of burnout(Anderson and Iwanicki, 1984). Both high expectations and unmet expectations arethought to be sources of burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et al., 1986).Interpersonal interactions characterized by high frequency and high intensity are alsoassociated with higher emotional exhaustion (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993;Jackson et al., 1986). Work support is another antecedent that has been associatednegatively with burnout (Maslach and Jackson, 1984).

Unmet expectations and role ambiguity find mention as antecedents of bothalienation and burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Finifter, 1972; Organ and Greene,1981). Cynicism (a dimension of burnout) has been posed as an outcome of alienation(Abraham, 2000). Elsewhere, alienating conditions have been viewed as sources ofburnout among teachers (Pierce and Molloy, 1990). Therefore, alienation may be viewedas an antecedent with burnout as one of its manifestations.

Antecedents of workplace devianceSome of the individual level predictors of deviance include personality traits of anger,external locus of control (Fox and Spector, 1999), conscientiousness, agreeableness,self-monitoring (Parks and Mount, 2005) and idealism (Henle et al., 2005). Among thesituational or organizational predictors of deviance, there is mention of job/roleambiguity (Raelin, 1994), use of control or excessive surveillance (Greenbergand Barling, 1999), job stressors (Bruk-Lee and Spector, 2006), and perceptions ofinjustice (Everton et al., 2007; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997) as predictors of workplacedeviance.

The common antecedents of alienation and deviance include ambiguity (Organ andGreene, 1981; Raelin, 1994) and external locus of control (Banai et al., 2004; Fox andSpector, 1999). It may also be noted that control as an antecedent has different meaningswith reference to alienation and workplace deviance. Considering work alienation, itrefers to the lack of control over one’s work (Kohn, 1976; Marx, 1932/1844), while in thecase of workplace deviance it alludes to the use of surveillance or employee control(Greenberg and Barling, 1999).


37

Examining consequencesIn this section we examine the consequences of work alienation and the other conceptsto complete the picture and refine our understanding of work alienation and its relationto the discussed concepts.

Consequences of work alienationThe turn to leisure as a means of escape is seen as a consequence of alienation(Karl Marx: Early Writings, reprinted in Finifter, 1972, p. 14). In his later writings, suchas Capital, Marx also distinguishes the ideological phenomenon it produces, suchas objectification or commodity fetishism (Overend, 1975). Marcuse (1972) also discussesrising consumerism among the labor force that works for purely instrumental reasons asa result of alienation.

Seeman (1967) discusses the consequences of work alienation in terms of anomia,withdrawal, status seeking, intergroup hostility and a sense of powerlessness. Whenwork becomes meaningless in itself, people substitute extrinsic ends as importantgoals, or simply lower their expectations from work.

Frustration or aggression, as a likely outcome of alienation has also been discussedby some researchers ( Jermier, 1988; Seeman, 1967). Seeman suggests that with the builtup frustration and disaffection emanating from alienation, prejudiced attitudes andeven hostility towards minorities are likely outcomes. Workplace sabotage ( Jermier,1988) is viewed as another outcome of alienation from work. Passive forms ofresistance such as workplace cynicism have also been linked to alienation (Abraham,2000). The various other correlates of alienation have been summarized by Dean (1961)as apathy, cynicism, psychosis, regression and even suicide (as discussed byDurkheim, 1952, trans.).

Consequences of commitmentThere is a strong link between commitment and pro-social or citizenship behavior(Meyer et al., 2002). Empirical analysis (Meyer et al., 1993) shows affective commitmentto be related to extra role behaviors such as civic virtue, conscientiousness and altruism.The meta-analysis conducted by Meyer et al. (2002) shows affective and normativecommitment to be consistently related to organizational citizenship behavior. Researchhas also shown a negative relationship between commitment and both turnover andabsenteeism (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). There is also some evidence ofa positive link between affective commitment and performance, even though therelationship is not very strong (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002).

The consequences of alienation and commitment appear to differ, with moreextreme consequences for the individual and the organization (in terms of deviant actsand a turn away from work) for an alienated individual. That is, a person who is notcommitted or committed to a little extent, is likely to leave the organization, hold anintention to quit, not engage in extra role behavior or possibly perform poorly, but mayor may not be estranged from the self, work or its context.

Consequences of work satisfactionWork satisfaction has been shown to bear a negative relationship to turnover andabsenteeism (Abu-Bader, 2000; Kinicki et al., 2002). Other consequences of satisfactioninclude citizenship behavior and performance (Kinicki et al., 2002). Several studies have

IJOA20,1

38

looked at the causal relationship between work satisfaction and commitment whichhas been shown to be both an outcome of satisfaction (Meyer and Allen, 1997) as wellas its antecedent (Bateman and Strasser, 1984). Alternatively, Farkas and Tetrick(1989) argue that commitment and satisfaction may be either cyclically or reciprocallyrelated. This also provides support for the conceptual overlap between satisfaction andcommitment.

While lack of work satisfaction is associated with turnover, performance andcitizenship behavior, consequences of work alienation, similar to that discussed withregard to commitment, are not only about reduced effort or not engaging in extra rolebehaviors, but actual damage to the self or organization through employee acts such asaggression/deviance or suffering burnout.

Consequences of work engagementWith research on work engagement still in the nascent stage, there is less empiricalwork on the consequences of engagement. Of those that find mention, engagement inwork is thought to determine engagement in citizenship behavior (Saks, 2006) andnegatively influence intention to quit (Saks, 2006). Employee engagement has also beenrelated to productivity and performance (Harter et al., 2002). Compared to alienation,the consequences of dis-engagement again appear less lethal or threatening to the selfand organization.

Consequences of burnoutA variety of mental and physical health problems have been linked to burnout( Jackson and Maslach, 1982; Kahill, 1988) that includes depression, anxiety, fatigue,insomnia, headaches and other such health ailments. The development of negativeattitudes towards clients, job, the organization and oneself has also been noted as aconsequence of burnout (Kahill, 1988). Withdrawal behaviors such as taking longerbreaks and distancing from clients have also been reported (Jackson and Schuler,1983). Some of the other outcomes related to burnout in the literature include turnoveror intention to quit ( Jackson et al., 1986), absenteeism (Firth and Britton, 1989)and performance (Chandrasekar and Ng, 2007). In addition, consumptive behaviorssuch as alcohol and drug abuse have also been reported (Jackson and Maslach, 1982).

Since burnout has also been discussed as an outcome of alienation (Abraham, 2000;Pierce and Molloy, 1990), some outcomes of alienation such as consumption alsoappear as outcomes of burnout.

Consequences of workplace devianceThere is evidence to suggest that deviant behaviors such as theft and damage toproperty result in monetary losses for the organization (Murphy, 1993). Additionally,various other indirect costs such lost production time and damage to reputation havebeen suggested (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Workplace deviance has also been foundto be negatively associated with business performance (Dunlop and Lee, 2004) anddecreased productivity (Henle et al., 2005).

Deviant acts have also been discussed as outcomes of alienation ( Jermier, 1988;Seeman, 1967). Therefore, outcomes of deviance such as reduced performance,productivity and damage to the organization may also be viewed as likely outcomes ofwork alienation.


39

Distilling conceptual overlaps/ambiguity of alienation with relatedconceptsThe discussion so far has dwelt upon a basic understanding of the concept of alienationand other related concepts. As pointed out earlier, the concept of alienation has notreceived much attention in the literature after the 1980s, and its relative neglect in themanagement sciences is particularly striking. One possible reason may be the emergenceof similar more positive concepts or other popular concepts capturing the negative sideof work. The preceding detailed conceptual exploration of work satisfaction,commitment, engagement, burnout and deviance, reveal conceptual ambiguity andoverlap with alienation, sometimes definitionally and also when examined from theperspective of similarity and differences in the factors that explain the concept and alsothe consequences. A comparative picture of the antecedents and consequences of thevarious concepts is shown in Figure 6. The variables in common with those of alienationare underlined in the figure for easy reference.

The comparative figure clearly shows that there are unique antecedents andconsequences of alienation as compared to those of related concepts. The greatest overlapof antecedents with alienation is with that of commitment. The figure also indicates thatcommitment and satisfaction have a number of antecedents and consequences incommon. Commitment appears both as an antecedent (Bateman and Strasser, 1984)

Figure 6.Antecedents andconsequences forthe concepts

Alienation CommitmentWork

Satisfaction

- Structural Technology,centralization, formalization- Task RelatedAutonomy (–), skillvariety (–), roleambiguity, lack ofcontrol- Individual LevelEducation,external locus ofcontrol, need/expectationdiscrepancy- StatesPowerlessness,meaninglessness,normlessness,social isolation

- Individual LevelLowerexpectations fromwork, anomie,powerlessness, frustration/aggression, deviance,cynicism,psychosis, suicide- Substitution(Leisure,consumption)- ConceptsBurnout, deviance

- StructuralCentralization- Task RelatedAutonomy, variety, challenge,scope, roleambiguity, conflict,task overload-OrganizationrelatedEquity,organizationalsupport, leaderrelations- Individual LevelEducation,internal locus ofcontrol, selfefficacy,age,gender, tenure,job level

- Individual LevelPro-socialbehavior (OCB),absenteeism (–),turnover (–),performance- ConceptsSatisfaction

- Task RelatedAutonomy, roleambiguity (–), skillvariety- OrganizationrelatedEquity, leaderrelations,instrumentalrewards, workingconditions- Individual LevelEducation, age,internal locus ofcontrol- ConceptsCommitment

- Individual LevelTurnover,absenteeism,OCB,performance- ConceptsCommitment

WorkEngagement

- Task RelatedAutonomy, skillvariety, feedback,task identity andsignificance-OrganizationrelatedJustice, perceivedorganizationalsupport, rewardsand recognition- OtherPsychologicalconditions ofperceivedmeaningfulness, availability, safety

- Individual LevelTurnover, OCB,performance

Burnout

- Task/OrgRelatedRole ambiguity,role conflict, roledemands, worksupport (–),interpersonalinteractions- Individual LevelAge (–), unmetexpectations- ConceptsAlienation

- Individual LevelHealth problems,withdrawalbehavior, negativeattitudes,turnover,performance- SubstitutionConsumption(alcohol, drugs)

Deviance

- Task Relatedrole ambiguity, jobstressors- OrganizationrelatedPerceptions ofinjustice,surveillance/control- Individual LevelExternal locus ofcontrol, anger,conscientiousness,agreeableness,self monitoring,idealism

- Individual LevelDecreasedproductivity, performance

Note: Common variables appearing in relation to alienation are underlined

IJOA20,1

40

as well as a consequence of work satisfaction (Meyer and Allen, 1997), which furtherpoints to the conceptual overlap between the two concepts. There is also support for thetheoretical and operational similarity of work engagement with commitment andsatisfaction (Harter et al., 2002; Saks, 2006). Thus, the concepts of commitment,satisfaction and work engagement appear to have some degree of conceptual overlap.While burnout and deviance capture the negative side of work and may be confused withalienation, they are better viewed as outcomes of alienation (Abraham, 2000; Jermier,1988; Pierce and Molloy, 1990; Seeman, 1967). The relationships betweenthe concepts which have some overlap/ambiguity with alienation, based on theantecedents and consequences and as summarized from the discussion earlier, are shownin Figure 7.

The conceptual overlap between commitment, satisfaction and engagement isindicated by the overlapping circles as shown in Figure 6. Alienation which denotes anegative association with work appears at the negative end of the continuum whileconcepts that represent positive associations with work (satisfaction, engagement) or theorganization (commitment) appear at the positive end of the continuum. As discussedearlier, alienation has been equated variously as the opposite of commitment, satisfactionand work engagement, concepts which have some degree of overlap with each other. Thisrelationship is shown by the double arrowed line connecting alienation with the otherconcepts representing their opposite nature. Similarly, burnout and deviance, capturingthe negative side of work, appear at the negative end of the continuum and as outcomes ofwork alienation. Since burnout has also been equated as the opposite of engagement(Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006; Maslach et al., 2001), there is a dashed line connectingburnout to engagement. This is understandable, since engagement has been discussed ashaving behavioral connotations (Newman and Harrison, 2008; Saks, 2006) and burnoutcan also be viewed as a behavioral manifestation of work alienation.

Commitment, which encompasses involvement and identification, has beendiscussed as the opposite of alienation (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Kanungo, 1979;Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Work engagement appears as the opposite of alienation fromthe way the concepts have been defined (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Kahn, 1990)

Figure 7.Relationship betweenalienation and related

concepts

(–) (+)

Commitment Satisfaction

Alienation

EngagementDeviantBehavior

Burnout


41

and operationalized (Korman et al., 1981; Lang, 1985; Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2006). Worksatisfaction again emerges as a polar opposite of alienation from the way alienation hasbeen operationalized (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Robinson et al., 1969) and suggested bysome researchers (Seybolt and Gruenfeld, 1976; Fried et al., 1972). Work alienation wouldhave to be conceptualized as falling on a continuum with work satisfaction andalienation at the extreme end (not merely equated with work dissatisfaction as has beendone before). This argument has already been made while analyzing the six states ofwork satisfaction offered by Bussing et al. (1999). Considering negative attitudes andoutcomes of work, both burnout and deviance have received some attention in theliterature. It is argued that a study of burnout or deviance alone would not sufficientlyexplain or capture the state of being alienated.

Based on the discussion thus far, we propose the following relationships andpropositions:

H2. Lack of commitment is significantly different from work alienation withfactors predicting commitment, or its outcomes, leaving substantialunexplained variance in explaining work alienation.

H3. Work dissatisfaction is significantly different from work alienation withfactors predicting satisfaction/dissatisfaction, or its outcomes, leavingsubstantial unexplained variance in explaining work alienation.

H4. Lack of engagement is significantly different from work alienation withfactors predicting engagement, or its outcomes, leaving substantialunexplained variance in explaining work alienation.

H5. Burnout is distinct from work alienation and may be viewed as a likelyoutcome of work alienation, with factors predicting burnout, or its outcomes,leaving substantial unexplained variance for explaining work alienation.

H6. Workplace deviance is distinct from work alienation and may be viewed as abehavioral manifestation of work alienation, with factors predicting deviance,or its outcomes, leaving substantial unexplained variance in explaining workalienation.

While the arguments provided in the paper are grounded in the literature and arrivedat through a conceptual understanding of the concepts and their relationships (basedon both quantitative studies and qualitative research), further empirical testing isrequired to test these propositions in order to establish that work alienation issignificantly distinct from the discussed concepts, with considerable unexplainedvariance left on the table even after accounting for each of the other concepts.

Methodology of conducting a literature reviewThe methodology we followed to guide our exploration, seeks to integrate research fromboth quantitative and qualitative approaches. That the concept of alienation stillremains confounding points to the need to integrate and synthesize what we know aboutthe concept from both empirical studies as well as qualitative basis of inquiry. Towardsdemystifying the concept of alienation, we first examined the literature on workalienation and the literature on other concepts for which there were indications of somedegree of overlap or confounding with alienation, as emergent from the literature review.

IJOA20,1

42

We also examined the definitions of each of the concepts carefully for potential areas ofoverlap. Overlapping concepts were chosen, based on likely strong positive correlationor strong negative correlation with alienation and their widespread usage in studyingemployee attitudes in research and by practitioners.

To further understand the conceptual space of work alienation, we examined theantecedents and consequences of work alienation and each of the other related concepts.In other words, the intent is to see if there are antecedents or consequences of workalienation that are unique as compared to the predictors or outcomes of related concepts.Thus, it would be possible to argue that ignoring alienation would lead to a poorunderstanding of factors and consequences that may influence the organization and itsworking. A possible parallel method may be to undertake a quantitative analysis toexamine unexplained variance from related organizational attitudes. Such analysiswould have to assume that all possible antecedents and consequences have beenincluded in all or some of the studies. The impossibility of such an assumption need notbe expanded on. Thus, we attempt to do this through a conceptual investigation of thepossible antecedents and consequences of each of the concepts, in order to map theconceptual space for work alienation.

Summarizing, the process we followed to define the space for the study of workalienation was multifold. We first performed an extensive literature review of theconcept of alienation, both within organizational studies as well as with regard to otherdisciplines such as that of sociology. This also pointed us to the other more popularorganizational attitudes with which work alienation might have some overlap with. Thenext step was an examination of each of these concepts, to understand how they relate towork alienation and to tease out points of convergence and divergence. In this, weexamined both concepts that are likely to bear a positive relationship with alienation(burnout and workplace deviance) as well as those that may bear a negative relationship(such as commitment, satisfaction and engagement). Towards clarifying the uniquenessof the concept of alienation we argued that it cannot be understood by merely looking atthe other concepts with which alienation might bear a resemblance (either individuallyor collectively), thus we also examined the antecedents and consequences of all theconcepts. The intent was to juxtapose them with the antecedents and consequence ofwork alienation to see if alienation may uniquely contribute to our understanding oforganizational attitudes that influence the experience and performance of an employee.Our conceptual analysis leads us to conclude that work alienation as a construct isconceptually distinct and merits separate research attention.

While the approach we followed was a qualitative exploration, the data for ourinquiry was both qualitative as well as quantitative. Studies attempting to explain themeaning of the concept often start out as a theoretical endeavor and later move on toconduct empirical studies. In the theoretical exposition the dominant approach is eitherqualitative or quantitative. However, in this paper we use a recursive approach, wherein an attempt to make sense of vast amounts of existing literature the search becomesan inquiry embedded in quantitative research. Such an approach provides a uniqueopportunity to bridge the quantitative-qualitative divide, where the objectiveof the research overcomes the artificial barriers between qualitative and quantitativeresearch. The challenge often is to step beyond the boundaries of competing claims oftruth by either research paradigms, instead seeking to integrate and draw insightsfrom both modes of inquiry.


43

ConclusionThere is a call (Dahms, 2006; Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000) for focusing on alienation as aunique construct worthy of more research attention. Given that alienation is not merelythe polar opposite of any one concept, but has been linked to satisfaction, commitment,engagement, burnout and deviance variously, it stands as a concept in its own rightworthy of greater attention by management scholars. What is being said is thatindividually work satisfaction, engagement, commitment, burnout or deviance cannotfully account for work alienation. Figure 6 also shows that all the antecedent conditionsand consequent states of alienation do not get fully explained by the antecedents andconsequences of the other concepts, even though there are overlaps across. Further,some of the consequences of alienation such as workplace cynicism, aggression orfrustration that could manifest in deviant behavior, and even suicide as an extremecase in point, imply that overlooking the concept of alienation in organization studiescould be a dangerous oversight. The more acute consequences of alienation as opposedto the milder counterparts of reduced pro-social behavior, absenteeism or turnoverfurther warrant renewed interest in the concept.

Considering that the concept of work alienation, both from a purely quantitativeanalysis and from qualitative treatments, continues to be warped in confusionheightens the need for greater integration and unification of compartmentalizedapproaches. Using such an approach our paper demystifies alienation and createsspace for it to be studied separately.

References

Abraham, R. (2000), “Organizational cynicism: bases and consequences”, Genetic, Social, andGeneral Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 269-92.

Abu-Bader, S.H. (2000), “Work satisfaction, burnout, and turnover among social workers inIsrael: a causal diagram”, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 9, pp. 191-200.

Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1966), “Organizational alienation: a comparative analysis”, AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 497-507.

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “Measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63,pp. 1-18.

Anderson, M.B.G. and Iwanicki, E.F. (1984), “Teacher motivation and its relationship toburnout”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 109-32.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.

Banai, M., Reisel, W.D. and Probst, T.M. (2004), “A managerial and personal control model:predictions of work alienation and organizational commitment in hungary”, Journal ofInternational Management, Vol. 10, pp. 375-92.

Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S. (1984), “A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents oforganizational commitment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 95-112.

Baxter, B. (1982), Alienation and Authenticity: Some Consequences for Organized Work,Tavistock Publications, London.

Blauner, R. (1964), Alienation and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Bottomore, T.B. (1963), Karl Marx: Early Writings, Watts and Co., London (translated byT.B. Bottomore).

IJOA20,1

44

Bratton, J., Callinan, M., Forshaw, C. and Sawchuk, P. (2007), Work and Organizational Behavior:Understanding the Workplace, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Brown, A., Kitchell, M., O’Neill, T., Lockliear, J., Vosler, A., Kubek, D. and Dale, L. (2001),“Identifying meaning and perceived level of satisfaction within the context of work”,Work, Vol. 16, pp. 219-26.

Bruk-Lee, V. and Spector, P. (2006), “The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors link:are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same?”, Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 145-56.

Burke, R.J. and Mikkelsen, A. (2006), “Burnout among Norwegian police officers: potentialantecedents and consequences”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 64-83.

Bussing, A., Bissels, T., Fuchs, V. and Perrar, K.M. (1999), “A dynamic model of worksatisfaction: qualitative approaches”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 999-1028.

Chandrasekar, N.A. and Ng, K.-Y. (2007), “An integrative job demand-resource model of burnoutand job performance: a meta-analytic path analysis”, Academy of ManagementProceedings, pp. 1-6.

Chisholm, R.F. and Cummings, T.G. (1979), “Job characteristics, alienation, and work-relatedbehavior: a study of professional employees”, Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 57-70.

Coleman, D.F., Irving, G.P. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), “Another look at the locus ofcontrol-organizational commitment relationship: it depends on the form ofcommitment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 995-1001.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizationalcommitment and personal need non-fulfillment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.

Cordes, C.L. and Dougherty, T.W. (1993), “A review and integration of research on job burnout”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 621-56.

Dahms, H.F. (2006), “Does alienation have a future? Recapturing the core of alienation theory”,in Langman, L. and Kalekin-Fishman, D. (Eds), The Evolution of Alienation: Trauma,Promise, and the Millennium, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford.

Dean, D.G. (1961), “Alienation: its meaning and measurement”, American Sociological Review,Vol. 5, pp. 753-8.

DeCotiis, T.A. and Summers, T.P. (1987), “A path analysis of a model of the antecedentsand consequences of organizational commitment”, Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 7,pp. 445-70.

Drucker, P.F. (1969), The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society, Harper andRow, New York, NY.

Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004), “Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, andbusiness unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 67-80.

Durkheim, E. (1947), Division of Labour in Society, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL (translated byG. Simpson).

Durkheim, E. (1952), Suicide, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (translated by J.A. Spauldingand G. Simpson).

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and memberidentification”, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63.


45

Edwards, M.R. and Peccei, R. (2007), “Organizational identification: development and testing of aconceptually grounded measure”, European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 25-57.

Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvementand their Correlates, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Everton, W.J., Jolton, J.A. and Mastrangelo, P.M. (2007), “Be nice and fair or else: understandingreasons for employees’ deviant behavior”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26No. 2, pp. 117-31.

Farkas, A.J. and Tetrick, L.E. (1989), “A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal orderingof satisfaction and commitment to turnover decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 855-68.

Farrell, D. and Rusbult, C.E. (1981), “Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, jobcommitment, and turnover: the impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 78-95.

Finifter, A.W. (Ed.) (1972), Alienation and the Social System, Wiley, London.

Firth, H. and Britton, P. (1989), “Burnout, absence and turnover among British nursing staff”,Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 55-9.

Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (1999), “A model of work frustration-aggression”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 915-31.

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), “The race for talent: retaining and engagingworkers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 12-26.

Fried, J., Weitman, M. and Davis, M.K. (1972), “Man-machine interaction and absenteeism”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 428-9.

Fried, Y. (1991), “Meta-analytic comparison of the job diagnostic survey and job characteristicsinventory as correlated of work satisfaction and performance”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 690-7.

Fromm, E. (1955), The Sane Society, Rinehart, New York, NY.

Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (1946), From Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Glisson, C. and Durick, M. (1988), “Predictors of job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment in human services organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33,pp. 61-81.

Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lloret, S. (2006), “Burnout and workengagement: independent factors or opposite poles?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 68, pp. 165-74.

Greenberg, J. (1990), “Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost ofpay cuts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 561-8.

Greenberg, J. (1993), “Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderatorsof theft reactions to underpayment inequity”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 54, pp. 81-103.

Greenberg, L. and Barling, J. (1999), “Predicting employee aggression against coworkers,subordinates and supervisors: the roles of person behaviors and perceived workplacefactors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 897-913.

Griffin, M.A., Parker, S.K. and Neal, A. (2008), “Is behavioral engagement a distinct and usefulconstruct?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 48-51.

IJOA20,1

46

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of a job diagnostic survey”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-70.

Hall, R.H. (1994), Sociology of Work, Pine Forge Press, London.

Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement bediscriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?”, EuropeanPsychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-27.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-79.

Henle, C.A., Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2005), “The role of ethical ideology inworkplace deviance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 219-30.

Hirschfeld, R.R. and Feild, H.S. (2000), “Work centrality and work alienation: distinct aspects of ageneral commitment to work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 789-800.

Horowitz, I.L. (1966), “On alienation and the social order”, Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 230-7.

Jackson, S.E. and Maslach, C. (1982), “After-effects of job-related stress: families as victims”,Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 63-77.

Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1983), “Preventing employee burnout”, Personnel, Vol. 60 No. 2,pp. 58-68.

Jackson, S.E., Schwab, R.L. and Schuler, R.S. (1986), “Toward an understanding of the burnoutphenomenon”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 630-40.

Jermier, J. (1988), “Sabotage at work: the rational view”, Research in the Sociology ofOrganizations, Vol. 6, pp. 85-9.

Johnson, F. (Ed.) (1973), Alienation: Concept, Term, andMeanings, Seminar Press, New York, NY.

Kahill, S. (1988), “Symptoms of professional burnout: a review of the empirical evidence”,Canadian Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 284-97.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement atwork”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.

Kanungo, R.N. (1979), “The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 119-38.

Kidwell, R.E. and Bennett, N. (1993), “Employee propensity to withhold effort: a conceptualmodel to intersect three avenues of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18,pp. 429-56.

Kinicki, A.J., Mckee-Ryan, F.M., Schriesheim, C.A. and Carson, K.P. (2002), “Assessing theconstruct validity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32.

Kohn, M.L. (1976), “Occupational structure and alienation”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82No. 1, pp. 111-30.

Korman, A.K., Wittig-Berman, U. and Lang, D. (1981), “Career success and personal failure:alienation in professionals and managers”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 342-60.

Lang, D. (1985), “Preconditions for three types of alienation in young managers andprofessionals”, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 171-82.

Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 1297-351.


47

Lodhal, T.M. and Kejner, M. (1965), “The definition and measurement of job involvement”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 24-33.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.

Marcuse, H.B. (1972), One Dimensional Man, Abacus, London.

Marx, K. (1932), “Economic and philosophical manuscripts”, Marz-Engels Gesamtuasgabe, Vol. 3,Marx-Engels Institute, Berlin (originally published, 1844).

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.

Maslach, C.M. and Jackson, S.E. (1984), “Burnout in organizational setting”, Applied PsychologicalAnnual: Applications in Organizational Settings, Vol. 5, pp. 133-53.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,pp. 171-94.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Sage, London.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 78, pp. 538-51.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organization: a metaanalysis of antecedents, correlates andconsequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-52.

Mitchell, T.R., Smyser, C.M. and Weed, S.E. (1975), “Locus of control: supervision and worksatisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 623-31.

Moore, J.E. (2000), “Why is this happening? A causal attribution approach to work exhaustionconsequences”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 335-49.

Morrow, P.C. (1983), “Concept redundancy in organizational research: the case of workcommitment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 486-500.

Mottaz, C.J. (1981), “Some determinants of work alienation”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 22,pp. 515-29.

Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Murphy, K.R. (1993), Honesty in the Workplace, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

Newman, D.A. and Harrison, D.A. (2008), “Been there, bottled that: are state and behavioral workengagement new and useful construct ‘wines’?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Vol. 1, pp. 31-5.

Organ, D.W. and Greene, C.N. (1974), “Role ambiguity, locus of control, and work satisfaction”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 101-2.

Organ, D.W. and Greene, C.N. (1981), “The effects of formalization on professionalinvolvement: a compensatory process approach”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 26, pp. 237-52.

Overend, T. (1975), “Alienation: a conceptual analysis”, Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 301-22.

IJOA20,1

48

Parks, L. and Mount, M.K. (2005), “The ‘dark side’ of self-monitoring:engaging in counterproductive behaviors at work”, Academy of ManagementProceedings, pp. 11-16.

Pierce, C.M.B. and Molloy, G.N. (1990), “Psychological and biographical differences betweensecondary school teachers experiencing high and low levels of burnout”, British Journal ofEducational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 37-51.

Podsakoff, P.M., Williams, L.J. and Todor, W.D. (1986), “Effects of organizational formalizationon alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 820-31.

Pratt, M.G. (1998), “To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification”,in Whetton, D.A. and Godfrey, P.C. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Building TheoryThrough Conversations, Sage, London, pp. 171-207.

Raelin, J.A. (1994), “Three scales of professional deviance within organizations”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 483-501.

Robinson, J.P., Athanasiou, R. and Head, K.B. (1969), Measures of Occupational Attitudes andOccupational Characteristics, Institute of Social Research, Ann Arbour, MI.

Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplacebehaviors: a multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38,pp. 555-72.

Rosner, M. and Putterman, L. (1991), “Factors behind the supply and demand for less alienatingwork, and some international illustrations”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 18-41.

Rothbard, N.P. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and familyroles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-84.

Rousseau, D.M. (1998), “Why workers still identify with organizations”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 217-33.

Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-19.

Sarros, J.C., Tanewski, G.A., Winter, R.P., Santora, J.C. and Densten, I.L. (2002), “Workalienation and organizational leadership”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 13,pp. 285-304.

Schacht, R. (1970), Alienation, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagementwith a short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-16.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement ofengagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal ofHappiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.

Seeman, M. (1959), “On the meaning of alienation”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 24 No. 6,pp. 783-91.

Seeman, M. (1967), “On the personal consequences of alienation in work”, American SociologicalReview, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 273-85.

Seeman, M. (1975), “Alienation studies”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 1, pp. 91-123.

Seybolt, J.W. and Gruenfeld, L. (1976), “The discriminant validity of work alienation and worksatisfaction measures”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 193-202.


49

Shepard, J.M. (1977), “Technology, alienation and satisfaction”, Annual Review of Sociology,Vol. 3, pp. 1-21.

Simpson, I.H. (1999), “Historical patterns of workplace organization: from mechanical toelectronic control and beyond”, Current Sociology, No. 2, pp. 47-75.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the role ofdistributive, procedural, and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82,pp. 434-43.

Swailes, S. (2002), “Organizational commitment: a critique of the construct and measures”,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155-78.

Toppinen-Tanner, S., Kalimo, R. and Mutanen, P. (2002), “The process of burnout in white-collarand blue-collar jobs: eight year prospective study of exhaustion”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 23, pp. 555-70.

Trevino, L.K. and Youngblood, S.A. (1990), “Bad apples in bad barrels: a causal analysisof ethical decision making behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 378-85.

van Knippenberg, D.V. and Sleebos, E. (2006), “Organizational identification versusorganizational commitment: self definition, social exchange, and job attitudes”, Journalof Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 571-84.

Watson, T.J. (2003), Sociology, Work and Industry, 4th ed., Routledge, London.

Further reading

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to theorganization: an examination of construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49,pp. 252-76.

About the authorsNisha Nair is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Indian Institute ofManagement Indore. She received her Doctoral degree as a Fellow of the Indian Institute ofManagement Ahmedabad. Her research interests are in the areas of work alienation, workplacedeviant behaviour, organizational development and emotions and conflict.

Neharika Vohra is a Professor in Organizational Behavior at IIM Ahmedabad. She obtainedher PhD in Psychology from University of Manitoba, Canada and her research interests are inthe areas of leadership, commitment, positive organizational behaviour, engagement/alienation,and cross-cultural competence.

IJOA20,1

50

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Documents

The Concept of Alienation Towards Conceptual Clarity