A typology of stigma within organizations: Access and treatment effects

• Author: M. Ronald Buckley,Sebastian Cortes‐Mejia,Phoebe Pahng,Michael Howe,James C. McElroy,James K. Summers
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2279
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Date: 01 September 2018

THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW

A typology of stigma within organizations: Access and

treatment effects

James K. Summers

1

|Michael Howe

1

|James C. McElroy

1

|M. Ronald Buckley

2

|

Phoebe Pahng

1

|Sebastian Cortes‐Mejia

1

1

Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.

2

University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma,

U.S.A.

Correspondence

James K. Summers, Department of

Management, Ivy College of Business, Iowa

State University, 2200 Gerdin Building, Ames,

Iowa 50011, U.S.A.

Email: jsummers@iastate.edu

Summary

Stigmatization is a process by which certain individuals are devalued and alienated from

specific types of social interactions, because they are perceived to possess a negatively

valenced characteristic (e.g., age, gender, and medical condition). Due to its diverse and

context‐driven nature, stigmatization potentially affects a large percentage of the

population. Consequently, many individuals are likely victimized by stigmatization

processes in a particular situation and subsequently may be deprived of the organiza-

tional opportunities available to nonstigmatized individuals. The purpose of this paper

is to review and organize the literature by drawing on a suggested typology of stigmas

found in organizations. We ground this novel typology in both the stigmatization and

management literatures, incorporating the dimensions of controllability and visibility

of stigmatizing attributes as well as whether or not the attribute is protected under

federal law. Because all stigmatizing characteristics are not equally deleterious, we

present 8 separate groups of stigmas and the differential effects that each have on

stigmatized individuals' opportunities within organizations (i.e., access and treatment

discrimination). Further, we outline mechanisms (i.e., imputed characteristics) that

underlie the differential treatment afforded those who are stigmatized. We then

provide a research roadmap to better understand the role stigmas play in organizations

moving forward.

KEYWORDS

discrimination,evaluation, hiring, promotion, stigma

“Stigma is the reason there is so much social and legal

discrimination against people.”

‐David L. Rosenbloom, Professor of Public Health, Boston

University

1|INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, stigma research has revolved around identity‐centric

characteristics, both visible

1

(i.e., race, gender, and age) and invisible

or concealable personal attributes including sexual orientation, religion,

and affliction with various illnesses (Sanchez & Schlossberg, 2001). As

the workplace becomes more diverse in terms of individual differences

across employees (e.g., new generations, cultures, and ideologies;

Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994) and employees are increasingly

asked to work closely with colleagues in team‐based organizational

structures (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), the potential for stigmas based

on a diverse set of personal characteristics also is increasing. Although

1

As noted by Clair, Beatty, and Maclean (2005), we recognize that in many cases,

there is disagreement over the most appropriate terminology for referring to

various individual attributes and we too adopt the approach of utilizing terms

presently in popular use without implying endorsement (or critique) of any

position in the ongoing debate.

Received: 16 November 2016 Revised: 10 February 2018 Accepted: 23 February 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2279

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:853–868. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 853

organizational research abounds on discrimination regarding protected

attributes, such as gender (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001) and race

(Link & Phelan, 2001), research exploring how to effectively implement

human resources (HR) practices to manage the myriad potentially stig-

matizing conditions likely to be exhibited by current and potential

employees is limited (Paetzold, Dipboye, & Elsbach, 2008).

In fact, despite its theoretical and practical importance, research

on stigmatization is scant in organizational and work settings in general

(Baur, Hall, Daniels, Buckley, & Anderson, 2018; Paetzold et al., 2008).

Moreover, the extant literature is deficient in terms of providing an

overarching framework for recognizing and grouping different types

of potentially stigmatizing attributes in a theoretically and practically

useful manner to promote a deeper understanding of the antecedents

and consequences of stigmatization in organizational settings. Thus,

the purpose of this paper is to develop a typology of the different

types of stigma found in organizations and to explicate their differen-

tial effects on individual entry (e.g., hiring decisions) and subsequent

treatment in organizations (e.g., evaluations and promotions).

Moreover, we focus on stigmas that are newer to the research

enterprise (e.g., body modification and mental illness) and forgo

emphasizing heavily established stigma (e.g., gender and race; see

Colella, McKay, Daniels, & Signal, 2012, for an in‐depth review of

these and other more established domains and McCord, Joseph,

Dhanani, & Beus, 2017, for a meta‐analysis). We also detail why

individuals are stigmatized due to the imputed characteristics imposed

upon stigmatized individuals by the observer(s)—that is, the inferences

(e.g., traits or behaviors) that raters bestow upon individuals with a

stigma (McElroy, Summers, & Moore, 2014).

Our typology comprises three factors: the degree to which the

potentially stigmatizing condition is visible, controllable (Goffman,

1963), and legally protected in the United States (Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission). When combined, these three dimensions

produce eight distinct stigma categories, which we utilize to explain

how/why different types of stigmas influence the organizational out-

comes of affected individuals in terms of the degree to which they

experience access and treatment discrimination (Jones, 1997; Levitin,

Quinn, & Staines, 1971).

Consequently, we contribute to the literature (van Knippenberg,

2012) by systematically reviewing and integrating a wide‐ranging

stigma literature to highlight both relevant findings as well as gaps

requiring future research. Specifically, the purpose of this paper is

threefold. First, we create an organizationally relevant typology to

categorize stigmas. Second, we elucidate how the characteristics of a

potentially stigmatizing attribute, as described by combinations of

these dimensions, impact an individual's organizational experience.

Finally, we outline avenues for future research in order to better

understand what we currently do not know about stigmas and their

organizational effects.

2|STIGMA

According to Crocker, Major, and Steele (1998, p. 505), “stigmatized

individuals possess (or are believed to possess) some attribute, or

characteristic, that conveys a social identity that is devalued in a

particular social context.”An important note is that individuals need

not actually possess the characteristic; the perception that they

possess is sufficient for stigmatization to occur (Kulik, Bainbridge, &

Cregan, 2008). In the context of organizations, stigmas influence a

number of individual–organizational relationships including

recruitment (Dineen & Soltis, 2011) and hiring decisions (McElroy

et al., 2014), performance expectations and evaluations (Link & Phelan,

2001), and promotion rates (Puhl & Brownell, 2001).

Historically, stigma was thought to diminish a person's social

identity resulting in exclusion from future social interactions (Goffman,

1963); however, this is not the only explanation for how stigmatization

works (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Jones et al. (1984) proposed that a

person is stigmatized when a distinguishing feature results in specific

characteristics being attributed to that person (e.g., employees who

smoke have been found to be perceived as less productive than those

who do not smoke; Roulin & Bhatnagar, 2016) and that it is these

imputed characteristics that result in diminished social interaction,

not a rejection of the person as a whole. In employment contexts, this

view is highly pertinent as the imputed characteristics associated with

a stigmatizing attribute may deny a qualified applicant a job or a

deserving employee a promotion. Further, research on the effects of

stigma and related imputed characteristics associated with facial

piercings (McElroy et al., 2014), tattoos (Timming, 2015), and obesity

(Hosoda, Stone‐Romero, & Coats, 2003; Ruggs, Hebl, & Williams,

2015) supports the cogency of this view.

Consequently, stigmatization results in the stigmatized person

being negatively affected, typically manifesting in some form of

exclusion. However, not all characteristics are equally stigmatizing,

and the probability of stigmatization is greater when a particular

characteristic is visible and is perceived as being controllable (Crocker

et al., 1998; Jones et al., 1984). As such, these two dimensions “are

of critical importance in understanding the subjective experience of

stigmatized individuals”(Crocker et al., 1998, p. 507).

Further, for organizations doing business in the United States,

exclusion is not always an option (Outtz, 2011). Consequently, we

include a legally (i.e., U.S. federal law) protected dimension (Levitin

et al., 1971) in our typology of stigmas (e.g., Civil Right Act of

1964, Age Discrimination Act of 1967, Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990, Family Medical Leave Act; U.S. Department of Labor).

Simply put, some potentially stigmatized groups are shielded by law

(e.g., older employees), whereas others are not (e.g., those with pierc-

ings/tattoos), which likely influences the degree to which exclusion/

differential treatment may manifest. Given the myriad other national,

state, and local protections, we rely on federal law in the United

States when discussing whether a particular attribute is protected

or not. Although there are obviously additional legal protections that

exist at these levels (e.g., state laws protecting sexual orientation and

cross‐cultural legal differences), attempting to present a finer resolu-

tion would be intractable. Mirroring the contextual nature of stigma,

our goal is to provide an overall framework, with examples, recogniz-

ing that local differences may influence the assignation of a particular

attribute across multiple dimensions. Consequently, we base our

typology upon these three organizationally important dimensions:

visibility, controllability, and whether or not the attribute is legally

protected.

854 SUMMERS ET AL.