Seeing you seeing me: Stereotypes and the stigma magnification effect.

Abstract

Despite an increased interest in the phenomenon of stigma in organizations, we know very little about the interactions between those who are stigmatized and those who stigmatize them. Integrating both the perceptions of the stigmatized worker and the stigmatizing customer into one model, the present study addresses this gap. It examines the role of stereotypes held by customers of stigmatized organizations and metastereotypes held by the stigmatized workers themselves (i.e., their shared beliefs of the stereotypes customers associate with them) in frontline exchanges. To do so, data regarding frontline workers (vendors) of homeless-advocate newspapers from 3 different sources (vendors, customers, trained observers) were gathered. Multilevel path-analytic hypotheses tests reveal (a) how frontline workers' prototypicality for a stigmatized organization renders salient a stigma within frontline interactions and (b) how stereotypes by customers and metastereotypes by frontline workers interact with each other in such contacts. The results support a hypothesized interaction between frontline workers' metastereotypes and customers' stereotypes-what we call the "stigma magnification effect". The study also derives important practical implications by linking stigma to frontline workers' discretionary financial gains.

Frontline Employees' Innovative Service Behavior as Key to Customer Loyalty: Insights into FLEs' Resource Gain Spiral

“…These relatively high response rates are comparable to other studies relying on dyadic FLE and customer data (e.g., Mikolon et al, ; Wieseke, Homburg, and Lee, ). In addition, the hard‐copy questionnaires, handed out and collected by research assistants, helped increase the response rates, because potential respondents appear to value the personal interaction and explanations.…”

“…In unannounced visits to the various workplaces, six research assistants, using an identical, standardized procedure, approached 400 FLEs and asked them to participate in a study about “typical interaction situations with customers,” with no formal incentive provided. Similar to previous studies using dyadic data (e.g., Mikolon, Kreiner, and Wieseke, ), the research assistants received training in workshops that instructed them how to collect the data and approach both FLEs and customers. The assistants did not ask the companies for specific permission to collect such data.…”

A typology of stigma within organizations: Access and treatment effects

“…In addition, working in socially scorned industries (e.g., tobacco and pornography) may result in stigmatization independent of firm performance (Vergne, ). Moreover, employees who personify commonly held negative attributes of a particular industry segment are more likely to be stigmatized in their current role than those that appear incongruent (Mikolon, Kreiner, & Wieseke, ). Thus, both the characteristics of the organization itself as well as the industry it operates in may be a source of stigmatization.…”

Congruence work in stigmatized occupations: A managerial lens on employee fit with dirty work

“…Dick, ). As noted, stigma is a social construction (Douglas, ), and performing stigmatized tasks in front of clients or the public is likely to make the audience uncomfortable and the taint more salient for the worker, both of which may undermine smooth task performance (Mikolon, Kreiner, & Wieseke, ). In particular, physically tainted tasks such as euthanizing animals, embalming, and tending to ER patients, and morally tainted tasks with physically tainted overtones such as animal research and abortions, were routinely conducted behind closed doors, free from the discomfiting stare of outsiders.…”