Dimensions of Dignity at Work

Sharon Bolton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• Print ISBN: 9781138433816
• eBook ISBN: 9781136410048
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Ethics
• Index: Business

What is dignity in and at work? How is it experienced differently by different groups of working people? Are there enduring divisions of dignity: unequal access to what is accepted to be a fundamental human right? How can we ensure that continued opportunities are available for the creation, maintenance and restoration of dignity at work? This edited collection of papers investigates the concept of dignity and what it means to people in their working lives: how we are perceived and valued as people in the workplace. Contributors to over a century of social and organizational analysis have talked about dignity at work, but the discussion has tended to take place under headings such as citizenship, satisfaction, mutuality, pride in work, responsible autonomy and ontological security, or to focus on mismanagement, over-long hours, a poor working environment, workplace bullying and harassment as the central facilitator of indignity at work. Dignity in and at work is a far more complex phenomenon than these representations would suggest. Neither is it enough to suggest that equal opportunity, work life balance and anti-bullying policies restore dignity to work, valuable interventions though they are in themselves. The papers featured in this edited collection suggest that we see dignity reordered and experienced in different ways depending on our own circumstances and viewpoints.

Part One: Defining Dignity

1 _____________________________________
Dignity in and at work: why it matters

Sharon C. Bolton

Why dignity? Why now?

Throughout the history of social science, dignity is a word that is continually used to express concern about various aspects of work. Within these concerns, we see a set of implicit understandings of what dignity is, and what it does, and profoundly, dignity as an essential need of the human spirit. Beginning with some of the earliest insights that inform contemporary analyses of work, we can see that, in different ways and relating their concerns to different eras, the founding fathers of the sociology of work each conceptualise increasing industrialisation as entailing a possible denial of dignity: Marx’ focus on alienation and capitalism as a threat to our ‘species being’, Durkheim’s concern that the relentless drive towards economic efficiency leads to a state of anomie (normlessness) and Weber’s pathos for the individual trapped in excessive bureaucratic rationality. Similarly, early writings on the human aspects of management briefly refer to the possibilities of dignity at work via a recognition of the need for self-esteem in work (Maslow, 1965) and, later, impassioned pleas for the ‘humanization of work’ are early precursors to new softer management practices leading to job enlargement, teamwork, industrial democracy and responsible autonomy (Freidman, 1977; Gemmill, 1977; Khan, 1981; Rosow, 1979; Ryan, 1977; Schumacer, 1979). Very recent prescriptions from high-profile management gurus mirror early human relations writings and call for management practice to create the conditions for dignity at work (Peters, 1995; Reeves, 2001), which reflect more critical accounts that focus on requirements for more interesting and meaningful work as a route to dignity at work (Agassi, 1986; Fox, 1994; Hodson, 1996, 2001; Hodson and Roscigno, 2004). As Matthew Fox eloquently states:

‘Our jobs are too small… Our work is not revelatory. For too many of us, work contains no mystery, no deep passion, no real truth. It is drudgery without meaning, sweat without purpose, duty without play, toil without learning. Worst of all, our work lacks dignity and hope for the future. And when our work lacks dignity and hope so do we’ (Fox, 1994, p. 122).

The focus of many of these studies has been almost entirely on the subjective elements of dignity at work, that is self-esteem, autonomy and meaningful work. This aspect of the dignity at work debate has most recently been colonised by the focus on bullying and harassment. The high-profile campaign for ‘dignity at work’ (cf. AMICUS and Andrea Adams Trust) draws attention to the everyday bullying behaviours that occur in the workplace serving to intimidate and oppress employees, coming both from the workplace hierarchy, and, whether through cultural consensus or individual mal-intent, from peers. This reflects a feeling that some fundamental rights are coming under pressure. The proposed UK ‘Dignity at Work Act’ advises that ‘every employee shall have the right to dignity at work’. However, in this framing, dignity at work is defined in very specific terms:

‘an employer commits a breach of the right to dignity at work of an employee if that employee suffers during his employment with the organisation harassment or bullying or any act or omission or conduct which causes him to be alarmed or distressed’ (Dignity at Work Act, 2001).

Linked to the focus on bullying, there have been varied calls for building cultures of respect (Ishmael, 1999; Rennie Peyton, 2003; Tehrani, 2004; Wright and Smye, 1997), where some of the core concerns of this campaign are clearly related to substantive structural matters not dissimilar to earlier concerns relating to autonomy and worth. Nevertheless, the campaign for ‘dignity at work’ focuses very much on indignities caused by intimidation from over-zealous managers or competitive colleagues and tends to miss that dignity at work is related to a wide range of issues not always linked to bullying.

At a broader level, there are valuable critiques of contemporary work that highlight the inequalities in access to well-paid work and safe and secure working conditions, specific tangibles of the achievement of dignity at work. Polly Toynbee’s popular study of the working poor spans 30 years (1975, 2003) and highlights how structural inequalities have changed little over that period, with people working for barely, if not less than, the minimum wage whilst carrying out work that should be socially valued but is not and attracts poor material rewards. Similarly Abrams’ (2002) account of living ‘below the breadline’ points out that often it is only the non-material rewards – for example, the social connections and moments of humour and humanity – that make work bearable.¹ These accounts reflect growing concerns about the general availability of ‘good work’ (Coats, 2005b; Moynagh and Worsley, 2005; Powell and Snellman, 2004; Thompson, 2005). And yet despite reported disquiet about widening divisions in the labour market, policy makers continue to propose a narrow vision of equality of opportunity in a high-skill, high-reward economy (Department of Trade and Industry, 2004) – the widely invoked vision of a brave new world of ‘better’ work:

‘few people now toil under arduous or hazardous conditions. Most people work in safe, clean environments. Modern workplaces are a long way from the dark satanic mills of industrializing Britain. Increasingly, work environments look, feel, sound and even smell great… Toynbee and others are fighting the industrial battles of the past, when poorly paid workers were forced to work long hours in terrible conditions at jobs they hated. Work is not like that anymore’ (Reeves, 2001, pp. 70 and 140).

This upbeat theme is represented by the focus on the ‘high road’ of management, which promises a ‘softer’ style of management and includes the development and utilisation of new skills. Such a focus relies on an increasing availability of ‘good’ work created in a service producing economy which in turn relies on the utilisation of soft, tacit knowledge and promises a long overdue recognition of ‘people skills’ as a quantifiable expertise (Bolton, 2005; Coats, 2005a; Department of Trade and Industry, 2004; Westwood, 2002). Unfortunately, what many of these accounts appear to miss is that the new forms of work, which represent the largest growth in employment in the Knowledge Economy, may be cleaner and physically safer but have gruelling and monotonous aspects in the same way as the ‘dirty’ jobs they have replaced (Bolton and Houlihan, 2005; Boyd, 2002; Bunting, 2004; Callaghan and Thompson, 2001; Houlihan, 2002; Taylor et al., 2002; Thompson, 2005). That is not to say, however, that ‘dirty work’ has disappeared. On the contrary, the growth in ‘personal services’² partially represents a new ‘upstairs and downstairs’ where the ‘cash rich but time poor’ contract out domestic work – cleaning, gardening and child care – and a twenty-first century servant class emerges who regularly earn less than the minimum wage and have no employment rights or protection (Gregg and Wadsworth, 1996; Philpott, 2000; The Work Foundation, 2005).

Contemporary critical accounts of work offer a balance to the hyperbole of the knowledge economy rhetoric and question what the realities of work are for the majority of people. Whilst recognising that ‘bad’ work is unlikely to disappear (Coats, 2005a; Philpott, 2000; Taylor, 2002), there is a call to ensure that policy makers and companies recognise what the ingredients of good work might be – a recipe that clearly reflects the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) definition of ‘decent work’ in its emphasis on equality of access, employee voice and just reward (Coats, 2005b; Moynagh and Worsley, 2005; Taylor, 2002; Westwood, 2002). Given the focus on ‘good work’, and the growing concerns regarding its lack, an examination of work in the knowledge economy through the holistic lens of dignity at work seems timely.

Defining dignity and work

Human dignity is a concept that has been of central importance to western thinking and civilisation for centuries. For many, dignity is a matter of status and honour, free will and autonomy – indeed contemporary dictionary entries still fall back on the notion of dignity as ‘dignified status’ (Ackrill, 1981; Hampton, 1986). The concept of ‘dignity’ is what makes us human and separates us from animal life; it is something that we possess by virtue of our shared humanity (Pico della Mirandola, 1965; Sacks, 2002; Soyinka, 2004). Kant (1964) picks up on this latter theme in his secular account of people as ‘ends in themselves’ rather than a means to an end; he sees this as a principle of humanity that should be protected. Though often dismissed as a ‘softheaded attitude’ that naively attempts to replace ‘political with ethical ideas’ (Weber, 1947), Kantian thinking is built into moral and political philosophy and enshrined in international constitutions as a necessary commitment to the equal worth and dignity of all of humanity:

‘According to the morality of human rights, because every human being has inherent dignity, no one should deny that any human being has, or treat any human being as if she lacks, inherent dignity’ (Perry, 2005, p. 101).

A principal feature of this commitment is the central role work plays in human dignity as in ‘dignity in labour’, the right to decent work and the contribution that the possibilities for dignity contribute to a ‘moral economy’ and an equal and stable society (Durkheim, 1971; Lutz, 1995; Sayer, 2000; Smith, 1976; Veblen, 1994; Weber, 1947). And this remains the case in contemporary accounts of work and society, as dignity is closely associated with issues of respect, worth, esteem, equality, autonomy and freedom (Bourdieu, 1999; Charlesworth, 2000; Hodson, 2001; Personnel Today, 2005; Rayman, 2001; Sayer, 2005; Sennett, 2003). As such, the one word ‘dignity’ encompasses issues that have exercised scholars of work for decades and offers a holistic lens through which workplace issues might be examined. As Lutz eloquently states when speaking of human dignity and economics:

‘we now have a human standard that is strongly critical of any socioeconomic thought embodied in theory or institutions that either denies human equality, autonomy and responsibility, or otherwise encourages the disrespect or degradation of the humanity in others by manipulating or exploiting them’ (Lutz, 1995, p. 179).

This ‘human standard’ is now widely recognised, and the relationship between dignity and work and its realisation as a collective achievement rather than an individual attribute is enshrined in international constitutions (United Nations, 1948). Campaigning organisations such as the ILO’s (2005) call for an international standard for ‘decent work’, clearly linking the concept with the achievement of human dignity. Nevertheless, despite a common association, there is little doubt that dignity at work remains an elusive subject. There is general consensus, though originating from many different perspectives, that dignity is an essential core human characteristic. It is overwhelmingly presented as meaning people are worth something as human beings, that it is something that should be respected and not taken advantage of and that the maintenance of human dignity is a core contributor to a stable ‘moral order’. However, when entering the realms of work and the complexities of exchanging labour for a wage, the definitions become much less clear. In selling one’s labour does one also relinquish autonomy, freedom, equality and, often, well-being – the very ingredients of life that have been most commonly associated with human dignity? Or, is it the case that paid work can provide the means for all of these core elements of a quality life to be realised? For Marx, the selling of one’s labour leads to alienation and loss of dignity and yet he, and many others, suggests there is a fundamental dignity in labour.

Hodson’s insightful analysis of classic workplace ethnographies attempts to deal with these complexities within a framework of the ‘four faces of dignity’. He suggests there are four principal challenges to the achievement of human dignity in the workplace: ‘mismanagement and abuse, overwork, limits on autonomy and contradictions of employee involvement’ (Hodson, 2001, p. 5). Turning to the essences of it, Rayman (2001, p. 4) proposes that there are ‘three pillars of dignity at work – livelihood, self-respect, and social responsibility’. From this, it becomes apparent that dignity at work is a multifaceted phenomenon. Hodson, as many others, talks of meaningful work as a major source of dignity at work. However, he also adds economic and political dimensions to the topic when he talks of democracy, justice and equality. Likewise, Rayman (2001) speaks of a ‘dignity spectrum’ where people are placed depending on their ability to survive in conditions of global capitalism, underscoring the reality of the relative but deeply systemic and socially impacting dynamics of dignity. It is therefore important to see that it is not a mere case of dignity existing as a core human characteristic that is realised through fulfilling labour, but that various organisational structures and practices will impact on how dignity is realised and that the overarching structural relations of a capitalist economy in which organisations must operate and survive will, in turn, impact on how these organisational practices are shaped and implemented. We cannot therefore view dignity as an individual and situational thing, but must see its global relationships and consequences.

Building on this foundation, it might be suggested that dignity can be more clearly explored if its multidimensional character is highlighted. Despite the difficulties of arriving at a clear definition of dignity at work, there appears to be defining features that are widely recognised as necessary contributors. There are the objective factors of security, just reward, equality, voice and well-being, but there are also the subjective factors inherent in an understanding of human dignity, as presented in moral and political philosophy, of autonomy, meaning and respect. These objective and subjective factors might be usefully thought about as dimensions of dignity. Dignity in labour via interesting and meaningful work with a degree of responsible autonomy and recognised social esteem and respect may be understood as dignity in work; structures and practices that offer equality of opportunity, collective and individual voice, safe and healthy working conditions, secure terms of employment and just rewards would lead to workers attaining dignity at work. Thinking in terms of dimensions allows for a detailed analysis of dignity at work that covers many important issu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Contributors
• Acknowledgement
• PART I. Defining Dignity
• PART II. Dignity, Work and the Political Economy
• PART III. Dignity in Workplace Practice
• Notes
• Index