The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.

htm

The concept of alienation: towards conceptual clarity

Nisha Nair
Department of Organizational Behaviour & Human Resource Management, Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India, and

The concept of alienation

25

Neharika Vohra
Department 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 in ` -vis organizational studies and one possible reason for the same is its conceptual ambiguity vis-a popular and long-standing concepts of commitment/identication, satisfaction and engagement, that represent the positive experience of work and which have sometimes been equated as the opposite of work alienation. Similarly, the negative experience of work has traditionally been captured by concepts such as burnout/cynicism and counterproductive work behaviours/deviance. The purpose of this paper is to argue for refocusing attention on the concept of work alienation in management studies as distinct from other related concepts. Design/methodology/approach The methodology integrated research from both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Findings Through the analysis of the concept of alienation, along with other related concepts, the conceptual space for the study of alienation in organizational studies is pointed out. By examining the denition, and the antecedents and consequences of commitment, satisfaction, engagement, burnout and workplace deviance, the overlaps and points of differences are highlighted. Originality/value The paper offers a conceptual level analysis and builds the argument for refocusing attention on the study of work alienation. The juxtaposition of the related concepts claries that alienation has a unique contribution to make towards understanding the link between experience at work and employee-related outcomes. Keywords Employees behaviour, Job commitment, Job satisfaction, Stress, Social alienation, Alienation, Concepts, Engagement, Burnout, Deviance Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction Undisputedly, it is known and understood that employees cognitive evaluation of their work place, feelings about the place of work and attitudes towards work inuence their performance in the work place. Positive behavioral states such as engagement and attitudes such as satisfaction and commitment have been the topic of study for the last 20 years. However, negative workplace attitudes and affect such as cynicism, alienation and deviance, are not studied as often. This paper focuses on one such negative attitude and experience of work, which has been studied and discussed in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, with limited or decreasing interest among practitioners and researchers. Although Drucker (1969) early on alluded to the disenchantment of many educated professionals with their work, the form of this work alienation has received little attention in contemporary management research. It is argued that ignoring alienation as a concept leaves a void in understanding the link between

International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 20 No. 1, 2012 pp. 25-50 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/19348831211215641

IJOA 20,1

26

employee evaluation of the work place and performance. Certain negative behaviors such as workplace aggression and deviance (Greenberg and Barling, 1999; Robinson and Bennett, 1995), and negative outcomes such as burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson and Maslach, 1982) have been studied, however, the underlying affect and cognition in the form of alienation has largely been ignored. Alienation as disenchantment or disconnect from work has sometimes been viewed as the opposite of engagement (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000), commitment (Etzioni, 1961) or satisfaction (Seybolt and Gruenfeld, 1976), however, alienation cannot be fully accounted for by any of 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 nds reference across a broad range of subjects such as theology, philosophy, sociology, psychology and psychiatry (Johnson (1973) for a review of the usage of the term across various disciplines). The scientic treatment of the concept has largely been attempted by sociologists and to a limited extent by psychologists (Kanungo, 1979). Traditionally studied with respect to the manual or blue collar worker, in the late 1970s and mid-1980s there was some research on alienation 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 appears indifferent 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 that do, some use job dissatisfaction as their index of alienation. But extrapolating from job dissatisfaction or even from a lack of occupational commitment to feelings of alienation is unwarranted.

Perhaps it is the overuse of the concept in the sociological literature, an aversion to its negative tone, or conceptual ambiguity between alienation and other terms that has contributed to its relative neglect in organization studies. Going beyond the quantitative-qualitative divide, in this paper we seek to address the conceptual uniqueness of alienation in organizational studies, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative research to inform our inquiry. We attempt to clarify the linkages of alienation with other concepts, by rst examining the concept of alienation and then each of the related concepts, in order to understand how the concepts have been dened and studied and also highlight the points of convergence/divergence. Through an examination of the antecedents and consequences of each of the concepts and conceptual overlaps or differences, it is argued that it may be time to refocus attention on alienation as a distinct concept worthy of research attention in management studies. Relevant propositions are advanced in this regard. Work alienation In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx distinguishes three forms of alienation alienation from the product of work, alienation in the process of production and alienation from society. Marx conceptualized alienation as the separation of the worker from ownership, where the worker is related to the product of his labor as to an alien object (Finifter, 1972), owing to the mechanization of production

and specialization of the division of labor (Bottomore, 1963). Webers treatment of the concept of alienation (Gerth and Mills, 1946) has been similar to that of Marx who viewed alienation as emerging from perceived lack of freedom and control at work. In the late 1950s, Seemans (1959, 1975) seminal work postulated ve alternate meanings of alienation as opposed to its unidimensional conceptualization in terms of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and self estrangement. This conceptualization has been used in several empirical studies (Blauner, 1964; Dean, 1961; Seeman, 1967; Shepard, 1977). Scholars in later years have questioned the adequacy of the dimensions and their interrelations for explaining alienation fully (Kanungo, 1979; Mottaz, 1981; Overend, 1975); it has even been argued that dimensions such as powerlessness and meaninglessness can be viewed as antecedents or even consequences of alienation, rather than being descriptive of alienation per se. Conceptual ambiguity surrounding alienation Alienation has been referred to as a panchreston (Johnson, 1973, p. 3), denoting its vagueness and wide use as a general term, popular expression or a scientic term. Johnson also points that alienation as a term has acquired a semantic richness as well as confusion attained by few words of corresponding signicance. The ambiguity surrounding the concept of alienation is rooted in a number of factors. For one, the theoretical and operational denitions of alienation do not help reduce the ambiguity surrounding it. Alienation as a concept has lent itself to various denitions and considerable confusion over its meanings, usage and measurement. Although Marx brought the term alienation into focus with regard to the industrial workers separation of ownership and lack of control over his/her work, he has not offered a denition of alienation. Marx was inuenced by the work of Hegel who referred to alienation as the separation of the mind from its essence (cited in Overend, 1975). Fromm (1955) discussed alienation as the mode of experience in which a person experiences him/herself as an alien or in other words becomes estranged from the self. Horowitz (1966) suggests that alienation implies an intense separation rst from objects of the world, second from people and third from ideas about the world held by other people. In the literature of alienation, the concept has rarely been dened, although the term has been used widely across disciplines. The core meaning of the concept of alienation has also been identied with a dissociative state of the individual (a cognitive sense of separation) in relation to some other element in his or her environment (Kanungo, 1979; Overend, 1975). Most denitions allude to the sense of separation (Fromm, 1955; Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979) or dissociative state (Schacht, 1970) or disengagement from work (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000). In other words, the common theme appearing in most conceptualizations of alienation still appears to be the notion of estrangement or separation. Further, this separation has been discussed in relation to work (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Kanungo, 1979), people (Horowitz, 1966), some other element in the environment or objects of the world (Horowitz, 1966; Schacht, 1970), and from the self itself (Fromm, 1955). Since the most basic understanding of alienation involves a separation or estrangement and given the varying targets of this separation, it would be best to dene work alienation as estrangement or disconnect from work, the context or the self. A second reason for the ambiguity surrounding the concept of alienation emerges from the fact that is not always clear if alienation is unidimensional (separateness)

The concept of alienation

27

IJOA 20,1

28

or if it is multidimensional. Third, there is signicant overlap between the concept and its antecedents and consequences. For example, though meaninglessness has been postulated as a dimension of alienation by Seeman (1959), it has also been found to be a factor that leads to alienation in Mottazs (1981) empirical study. Fourth, owing to the lack of a clear denition, alienation overlaps with popularly used concepts related to the positive experience of work/organization such as commitment, satisfaction and engagement, or constructs that capture the negative experience of work such as burnout and workplace deviance. A review of relevant literature on each of these concepts and their antecedents and consequences is undertaken in the following sections, drawing attention to the points of convergence or ambiguity with alienation and with each other, so as to strengthen the argument that the concept of alienation cannot be substituted by any one of the concepts in question and deserves specic research attention in management study. An exploration of concepts that have some overlap with alienation Commitment From the beginning of the 1980s the psychological link between the individual and the organization has predominantly been studied in the form of commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1979). An early contribution to understanding commitment came from Etzioni (1961) when he discussed the three forms, moral, calculative and alienative, in which individuals can be oriented towards the organization. Subsequent literature however has neglected the alienative component, possibly as discussed by Swailes (2002) due to its negative orientation. A construct that bears close resemblance to commitment is that of identication, more commonly appearing in the literature as organizational identication, dened as the perception of oneness with or belongingness to the organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). The perception of oneness (Ashforth and Mael, 1989) in terms of which identication is dened is in contrast to the separateness or disconnectedness associated with alienation (Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979; Schacht, 1970). Hirschfeld and Feild (2000) have also equated an absence of identication to work alienation. The measures and the construct of identication have been critiqued for conceptual overlap with commitment (Edwards and Peccei, 2007). Alternatively, some (Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006) have attempted to clarify the difference between the two constructs with identication conceptualized as cognition of the self in relation to the organization, and commitment as an outcome or affective response. More recently, Edwards and Peccei (2007) in their empirical research have considered the subjective states of identication (cognitive and affective) and its attitudinal outcomes (involvement, pride and loyalty), as together contributing to organizational commitment. The various denitions of commitment offered in the literature are shown in Table I. Analysis of the available denitions and conceptualization of organizational commitment highlights the overlap with the concept of involvement and identication (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 27). Involvement has been dened as the degree to which a person is identied psychologically with his work or the importance of work in his total self-image (Lodhal and Kejner, 1965, p. 24). Morrow (1983) argues that the concept of commitment and job involvement are not sufciently distinct to warrant separation. Similarly, identication appears as part of most commitment denitions, and is viewed

Source Mowday et al. (1979)

Denitions of commitment The relative strength of an individuals identication-with and involvement-in a particular organization. Thought to involve: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and values; (b) willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (c) a desire to maintain membership Organizational commitment dened in terms of identication, involvement and loyalty: (a) Identication: pride in the organization, internalization of the organizations goals and values; (b) involvement: willingness to invest personal effort 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 belongingness manifesting as a wish to stay The likelihood that individuals remain with the job and feel attached to it whether or not it is satisfying A two-dimensional construct centered on organizational goal and value internalization, and role involvement in terms of those goals and values Organization commitment consists of three components: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to the employees emotional attachment to, identication with and involvement in an organization. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Normative commitment reects a feeling of obligation to continue employment

The concept of alienation

29

Cook and Wall (1980)

Farrell and Rusbult (1981) DeCotiis and Summers (1987) Meyer and Allen (1991)

Table I. Denitions of commitment

as integral to the commitment process (Dutton et al., 1994). As can be seen in Table II affective commitment is dened in terms of identication with the organization. Alienation as separation or disconnect from work, and lack of commitment, appear similar but not identical. The relationship between the two is shown in Figure 1. The attitude of being not committed may or may not lead to negative affect and belief about the uselessness of work and sense of being pained, which in other words is the state of feeling alienated. Alienation is thus shown to overlap to some degree with low commitment and the two appear at the negative end of the continuum as opposed to commitment at the positive end.

Source Kahn (1990, p. 694)

Denitions of engagement The harnessing of organizational members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances Ones psychological presence in or focus on role activities A positive, fullling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption The individuals involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work Bringing discretionary effort to work, in the form of extra time, brainpower and energy

Rothbard (2001, p. 656) Schaufeli et al. (2002, p. 74) Harter et al. (2002, p. 269) Frank et al. (2004, p. 15)

Table II. Denitions of engagement

IJOA 20,1

Thus, it is argued that the absence of commitment need not necessarily translate into alienation; the two could be separate states with both commitment and alienation falling on a continuum from high to low and a step or jump from low commitment to low alienation occurring due to factors unique to alienation. The distinction between the two concepts is further discussed in the sections examining the antecedents and consequences of the different concepts. Work satisfaction The hypothesis that certain class of industrial work causes alienation was studied using absenteeism as an index of dissatisfaction (Fried et al., 1972). Alienation has been equated with work dissatisfaction and has been operationalized as absenteeism. Further, the operationalization of alienation has a high degree of overlap with work satisfaction (Robinson et al., 1969). Seybolt and Gruenfeld (1976) point that though work alienation and work satisfaction have had separate although parallel study in the behavioral science literature, it has not been established if they are in fact separate attitudes or merely different facets of the same construct. Work satisfaction has been dened as ones sense of satisfaction not only with the work 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 worker characteristics. Job characteristics have received the most attention in the study of job satisfaction (Glisson and Durick, 1988), which has been dened as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Fried (1991) found job satisfaction a correlate of work satisfaction through a meta-analytic comparison. Though work satisfaction has been used interchangeably 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. But some have argued otherwise. Baxter (1982) discusses that instrumental job satisfaction is seen as a consequence of dealing with alienation. Watson (2003, p. 176) points that alienation is not necessarily reected in felt job dissatisfaction arguing that a person may 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 fullling him/herself in the way s/he might be if working under different conditions. Hall (1994, p. 111) alludes to the role of alienation beyond work dissatisfaction when he notes, the negative side of work is not dissatisfaction, it is alienation. Bussing et al. (1999) using a qualitative approach argues for six forms of work satisfaction as stabilized work satisfaction, progressive work satisfaction, resigned

30

()

(+)

Figure 1. Relationship of commitment with alienation

Alienation

Low Commitment

Commitment

work satisfaction, constructive work dissatisfaction, xated work dissatisfaction and resigned work dissatisfaction. These forms are derived from various combinations of the 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 appear that work alienation is a likely extension and it is proposed here that: H1. When there are unmet aspirations from work, low levels of both global satisfaction and work control, coupled with high personal aspirations, it could result in a state beyond work dissatisfaction manifesting in work alienation. In other words, even if a worker is dissatised from work, but still harbors high aspirations and seeks greater meaning from it, and yet is unable to change work or the situations surrounding it, then the sense of vexation that s/he may experience, is likely to be far more pronounced than mere dissatisfaction. This state of estrangement or alienation from work would be a more natural outcome. Although work satisfaction has been viewed as the opposite of work alienation by some (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Robinson et al., 1969), it would appear that the state of being dissatised does not fully capture the experience of alienation. The relationship of work satisfaction with alienation is shown in Figure 2. Work engagement Alienation as a state of separation or disconnect from work, would seem as an opposite of the state of engagement in work. In discussing personal engagement and disengagement at work, Kahn (1990) refers to disengagement as the uncoupling of self from work roles which bears resemblance to the dissociative state or estrangement of self in alienation. Further, Hirschfeld and Feild (2000, p. 790) refer to alienation as disengagement from work. Therefore, the concept of work engagement bears closer scrutiny as a conceptual opposite of alienation. Work engagement or employee engagement is a relatively new term emergent largely in practitioner journals and with comparatively less empirical research than other better known concepts (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Saks, 2006). Engagement has been dened in many ways, but the most commonly used denition is the one offered by Schaufeli et al. (2002) as shown in Table II.

The concept of alienation

31

()

(+)

Alienation

Dissatisfaction

Satisfaction

Figure 2. Relationship of satisfaction with alienation

IJOA 20,1

32

The denitions of Kahn (1990) and Rothbard (2001) focus on the performance of roles while Schaufeli et al. (2002) refer to engagement as a state of mind, with characteristics that represent the opposite of burnout. Research on burnout and engagement have found the two to be opposites of each other, with the engagement dimensions of vigor, dedication and absorption thought to represent parallel opposites of the burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efcacy lez-Roma et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Frank et al.s (2004) denition (Gonza tends to focus on discretionary behavior, which seems conceptually closer to organizational citizenship behavior while Harter et al. (2002) refer to engagement as satisfaction. The question of whether work engagement can be discriminated from organizational commitment has also been posed (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006; Macey and Schneider, 2008). The vagueness of the concept of engagement is further compounded by its denitional overlap with other concepts of organizational commitment, involvement and satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002; Kanungo, 1979; Macey and Schneider, 2008). Macey and Schneiders (2008) discuss engagement in much broader terms as state, trait and behavioral engagement, ascribing to it both attitudinal and behavioral components. However, the question of whether state and behavioral engagement are indeed new and useful constructs has also been asked (Grifn et al., 2008; Newman and Harrison, 2008) and Newman and Harrison (2008) conclude through a qualitative inquiry that engagement is more relevant as a behavioral construct. It has been noted (Saks, 2006) that engagement is not an attitude, but refers to the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of their roles that may involve behavior in addition to emotions and cognitions. This may explain why engagement although posed as the positive antithesis of burnout (a behavioral manifestation of alienation, discussed in greater detail in the next section) may also be considered as the polar opposite of alienation, which is argued to be a combination of emotional and cognitive (psychological) separation from work. However, alienation is more than mere cognitive evaluation; it also includes feeling of pain. Although alienation has been referred to as a cognitive belief state (Kanungo, 1979), individuals refer to the experience 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 a psychological state of separation may be termed as alienation, while engagement is more of a behavioral state of involvement and disengagement would not include the feelings of pain or affective state of distress associated with alienation. The relation between alienation and engagement is shown in Figure 3. The discussion thus far has focused on the concepts that are conceptually similar to alienation and yet represent the positive experience of work. We shall now examine two other concepts that refer to the negative experience of work and capture negative work attitudes and behavior, that of burnout and deviance or counterproductive work behavior. Burnout It has been suggested (Abraham, 2000) that burnout may be viewed as an outcome of alienation. The diminishing interest in the concept of alienation in the literature may also be explained by the alternate study of the concept of burnout, deserving attention here as a separate concept for discussion.

Burnout as a phenomenon brought on by stress has been conceptualized as a severe response syndrome of emotional exhaustion, cynicism or depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment (Burke and Mikkelsen, 2006; Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et al., 1986; Toppinen-Tanner et al., 2002). Most researchers agree that the key characteristic of burnout is the state of emotional exhaustion caused by excessive psychological and emotional demands (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et al., 1986; Moore, 2000). It is also marked by depersonalization and a cynical attitude towards others in the organization, along with diminished personal accomplishment characterized by feelings of job incompetence and a tendency to evaluate oneself negatively. As discussed earlier, burnout has been posed as the conceptual opposite of work lez-Roma et al., 2006; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002). engagement (Gonza The relationship between burnout and, alienation and engagement are shown in Figure 4. As can be seen, burnout may be viewed as an outcome of alienation as well as the opposite of work engagement. Workplace deviance/counterproductive work behaviors Research on the negative experience of work has received some attention in organizational science within the study of workplace deviance or counterproductive work behaviors. Workplace deviant behaviors encompass a wide array of negative work behaviors such as theft (Greenberg, 1990, 1993), absenteeism, withdrawal and withholding effort

The concept of alienation

33

()

(+)

Alienation

Disengagement

Engagement

Figure 3. Relationship of engagement with alienation

()

(+)

Alienation

Burnout

Engagement

Figure 4. Relationship of burnout with alienation and engagement

IJOA 20,1

34

(Kidwell and Bennett, 1993) and unethical behaviors (Trevino and Youngblood, 1990). Workplace deviance has been dened as voluntary behavior that violates signicant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both (Robinson and Bennett, 1995, p. 557). A widely used typology of deviance as proposed by Robinson and Bennett (1995), classies deviance as production deviance, property deviance, political deviance and personal aggression. Both alienation and deviance refer to the darker or negative side of work. Some researchers have suggested that deviant acts such as aggression emerge from a sense of alienation (Jermier, 1988; Seeman, 1967). While Seeman argues that alienation spawns frustration that manifests in hostility, Jermier (1988) links workplace sabotage more directly to alienation. Thus, deviance may be better viewed as the behavioral manifestation of alienation. The relationship between alienation and deviance, with alienation as a predictor of workplace deviance, is shown in Figure 5. Examining antecedents In order to further establish the linkages between the concepts, in this section we explore the antecedents of work alienation and then briey examine the antecedents of the other related concepts, for a better understanding of the concepts and their relationships. This is attempted to draw on empirical evidence for points of convergence or divergence among the concepts and further delineate the conceptual space of work alienation. Antecedents of work alienation The structural determinants of alienation have received much attention since the time of Marx. In his classic study of industrial workers (blue collar) in different industrial situations, Blauner (1964) was able to show that alienation varied by the type of technology and organizational structure found in the industrial setting. Level of alienation was found to be lowest in the craft-based organization, at medium levels in the chemical process industry, and highest in the assembly line characterized by routine and repetitive tasks. The ability to use judgment and take responsibility was negatively correlated with the experience of alienation.

()

(+)

Alienation

Figure 5. Relationship of workplace deviance with alienation

Workplace deviance

The greater the degree of formalization the greater the alienation felt (Aiken and Hage, 1966) among workers and professionals. However, Organ and Greene (1981) and Podsakoff et al. (1986) found formalization reduced alienation in both subgroups through a decrease in role ambiguity. Transformational leadership was also found to mitigate the alienative effect on employees in highly structured organizations (Sarros et al., 2002). Simpson (1999) found elements of the work context such as isolation and dual authority systems to be associated with alienation. Mottaz (1981) found lack of meaningful work to predict alienation across several occupational groups. Although the literature on the role of formalization is not very clear on its inuence on alienation, especially for professionals, it appears that centralization (Aiken and Hage, 1966), role ambiguity (Organ and Greene, 1981; Simpson, 1999), technology that grants less autonomy (Blauner, 1964; Kohn, 1976) and lack of meaningful work (Mottaz, 1981) are linked to alienation of the worker. Durkheim (1947, trans.) saw alienation as a consequence of the condition of anomie, which refers to the breakdown of norms in society leading to experienced normlessness. Compared to structural variables, research on individual level determinants of work alienation is relatively sparse. Finifter (1972, p. 9) reviews some of the classic writings on alienation of that period and concludes that alienation is produced by a discrepancy between strongly internalized aspirations, norms and values on one hand, and the opportunities perceived by the individual for fullling them, on the other. Along similar lines, Kanungo (1979) offers a motivational framework for understanding alienation through a qualitative lens, wherein the potentiality of work to satisfy basic human needs and expectancies of workers determine the amount of alienation. The effect of locus of control on alienation has also been studied. Individuals with an external locus of control tend to be more alienated from the work setting than those with an internal locus of control (Banai et al., 2004; Seeman, 1967). Expectancy disconrmation, contrary role demands, loss of afliative satisfactions and developmental life changes were found to be factors affecting alienation among professionals and managers (Korman et al., 1981). People from high socio economic status background were found to be more likely to experience alienation when encountering lack of fulllment (Lang, 1985) and Rosner and Putterman (1991) were able to show that demand for less alienating work increased with higher levels of education and living standards. Antecedents of commitment Skill variety, task autonomy, challenge and job scope have been shown to predict organizational commitment in a meta-analysis (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Group leader relations in terms of group cohesiveness, task interdependence, leader initiating structure, leader consideration and participative leadership were also found to be antecedents. Organizational characteristics of centralization and size, and role states of role ambiguity, role conict and role overload were some other determinants of commitment emergent from the meta-analysis. Other personal characteristics of age, sex, education, tenure, protestant work ethic and job level were also found to predict organizational commitment. Research also indicates a positive relationship between internal locus of control and organizational commitment (Coleman et al., 1999). Allen and Meyer (1990) note equity as another organizational predictor of commitment. A decade after the Mathieu and Zajac (1990) study, Meyer et al. (2002) conducted another meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of the three forms of commitment.

The concept of alienation

35

IJOA 20,1

36

In addition to the other variables identied, they found the individual difference variables of internal locus of control and self efcacy to be positively related to affective commitment. A comparison of the concepts of alienation and commitment indicate a number of common antecedents such as the task characteristics of autonomy, skill variety, role ambiguity, organizational characteristics of centralization and individual level characteristics of education and locus of control (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Allen and Meyer, 1990; Blauner, 1964; Coleman et al., 1999; Kohn, 1976; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Rosner and Putterman, 1991). However, there are other antecedent variables for alienation such as formalization, expectancy discrepancy, lack of control over work, meaninglessness and social isolation that have not been examined in the commitment literature as antecedents. In a study examining the inuence of managerial and personal control (leadership, job characteristics, locus of control) on work alienation and organizational commitment, Banai et al. (2004) found that the predictor variables explained work related alienation but not commitment. This suggests that alienation is not merely the polar opposite of commitment. Antecedents of work satisfaction In his causal model addressing predictors of work satisfaction, Abu-Bader (2000) found that satisfaction was a function of better collegial relationships, adequate working conditions, higher education and greater autonomy. Organ and Greene (1974) found role ambiguity to be related to work dissatisfaction. Several studies (Glisson and Durick, 1988; Hackman and Oldham, 1975) have found role ambiguity (negative relationship) and skill variety to be the most important predictors of satisfaction. A meta-analysis (Kinicki et al., 2002) of antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction reveal inequity at work and leader relations as additional antecedents. In their qualitative analysis of work meanings and satisfaction, Brown et al. (2001), show that nancial benets, autonomy, and signicant relationships outside of work related to work satisfaction. The individual characteristic of locus of control deserves special attention, as this is the only individual level variable discussed in the literature as relating to both work satisfaction and alienation (Mitchell et al., 1975). It has been suggested that individuals who have an external locus of control tend to be more alienated from the work setting (Seeman, 1967). Individuals with an internal locus of control tend to be more satised 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 are autonomy (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 as structural elements of centralization, formalization, technology, lack of control and powerlessness do not nd mention as antecedents of work satisfaction, strengthening the argument that alienation is not just the opposite of work satisfaction. Antecedents of work engagement There has been little empirical research on factors that predict employee engagement. In a study of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Saks (2006)

found job characteristics, perceived organization support and procedural justice to predict engagement. In his qualitative study, Kahn (1990) found the psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety (sense of being able to employ self without fear of negative consequences) and availability (sense of possessing the necessary resources for investing in role performances) to be associated with personal engagement in work. He points that employees will be more likely to engage themselves in their work to the extent that they perceive reward and recognition for their role performances. Thus, the common antecedent of work alienation and engagement appear to be autonomy, variety (Blauner, 1964; Saks, 2006) and meaningfulness in work (Kahn, 1990; Mottaz, 1981). While there are fewer common antecedent variables for engagement with alienation, it may be kept in mind that research on engagement is still in its early stages. Antecedents of burnout As originally conceptualized, burnout was believed to result from role overload and work demands (Maslach and Jackson, 1984). Role conict and role ambiguity have also received 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 are thought to be sources of burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et al., 1986). Interpersonal interactions characterized by high frequency and high intensity are also associated with higher emotional exhaustion (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et al., 1986). Work support is another antecedent that has been associated negatively with burnout (Maslach and Jackson, 1984). Unmet expectations and role ambiguity nd mention as antecedents of both alienation 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 of burnout among teachers (Pierce and Molloy, 1990). Therefore, alienation may be viewed as an antecedent with burnout as one of its manifestations. Antecedents of workplace deviance Some 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 the situational or organizational predictors of deviance, there is mention of job/role ambiguity (Raelin, 1994), use of control or excessive surveillance (Greenberg and Barling, 1999), job stressors (Bruk-Lee and Spector, 2006), and perceptions of injustice (Everton et al., 2007; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997) as predictors of workplace deviance. The common antecedents of alienation and deviance include ambiguity (Organ and Greene, 1981; Raelin, 1994) and external locus of control (Banai et al., 2004; Fox and Spector, 1999). It may also be noted that control as an antecedent has different meanings with reference to alienation and workplace deviance. Considering work alienation, it refers to the lack of control over ones work (Kohn, 1976; Marx, 1932/1844), while in the case of workplace deviance it alludes to the use of surveillance or employee control (Greenberg and Barling, 1999).

The concept of alienation

37

IJOA 20,1

Examining consequences In this section we examine the consequences of work alienation and the other concepts to complete the picture and rene our understanding of work alienation and its relation to the discussed concepts. Consequences of work alienation The 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, such as Capital, Marx also distinguishes the ideological phenomenon it produces, such as objectication or commodity fetishism (Overend, 1975). Marcuse (1972) also discusses rising consumerism among the labor force that works for purely instrumental reasons as a 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. When work becomes meaningless in itself, people substitute extrinsic ends as important goals, or simply lower their expectations from work. Frustration or aggression, as a likely outcome of alienation has also been discussed by some researchers (Jermier, 1988; Seeman, 1967). Seeman suggests that with the built up frustration and disaffection emanating from alienation, prejudiced attitudes and even hostility towards minorities are likely outcomes. Workplace sabotage ( Jermier, 1988) is viewed as another outcome of alienation from work. Passive forms of resistance 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 by Durkheim, 1952, trans.). Consequences of commitment There is a strong link between commitment and pro-social or citizenship behavior (Meyer et al., 2002). Empirical analysis (Meyer et al., 1993) shows affective commitment to 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 normative commitment to be consistently related to organizational citizenship behavior. Research has also shown a negative relationship between commitment and both turnover and absenteeism (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). There is also some evidence of a positive link between affective commitment and performance, even though the relationship is not very strong (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). The consequences of alienation and commitment appear to differ, with more extreme consequences for the individual and the organization (in terms of deviant acts and a turn away from work) for an alienated individual. That is, a person who is not committed or committed to a little extent, is likely to leave the organization, hold an intention to quit, not engage in extra role behavior or possibly perform poorly, but may or may not be estranged from the self, work or its context. Consequences of work satisfaction Work satisfaction has been shown to bear a negative relationship to turnover and absenteeism (Abu-Bader, 2000; Kinicki et al., 2002). Other consequences of satisfaction include citizenship behavior and performance (Kinicki et al., 2002). Several studies have

38

looked at the causal relationship between work satisfaction and commitment which has been shown to be both an outcome of satisfaction (Meyer and Allen, 1997) as well as its antecedent (Bateman and Strasser, 1984). Alternatively, Farkas and Tetrick (1989) argue that commitment and satisfaction may be either cyclically or reciprocally related. This also provides support for the conceptual overlap between satisfaction and commitment. While lack of work satisfaction is associated with turnover, performance and citizenship behavior, consequences of work alienation, similar to that discussed with regard to commitment, are not only about reduced effort or not engaging in extra role behaviors, but actual damage to the self or organization through employee acts such as aggression/deviance or suffering burnout. Consequences of work engagement With research on work engagement still in the nascent stage, there is less empirical work on the consequences of engagement. Of those that nd mention, engagement in work is thought to determine engagement in citizenship behavior (Saks, 2006) and negatively inuence intention to quit (Saks, 2006). Employee engagement has also been related to productivity and performance (Harter et al., 2002). Compared to alienation, the consequences of dis-engagement again appear less lethal or threatening to the self and organization. Consequences of burnout A 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 negative attitudes towards clients, job, the organization and oneself has also been noted as a consequence of burnout (Kahill, 1988). Withdrawal behaviors such as taking longer breaks and distancing from clients have also been reported (Jackson and Schuler, 1983). Some of the other outcomes related to burnout in the literature include turnover or intention to quit (Jackson et al., 1986), absenteeism (Firth and Britton, 1989) and performance (Chandrasekar and Ng, 2007). In addition, consumptive behaviors such 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 also appear as outcomes of burnout. Consequences of workplace deviance There is evidence to suggest that deviant behaviors such as theft and damage to property result in monetary losses for the organization (Murphy, 1993). Additionally, various other indirect costs such lost production time and damage to reputation have been suggested (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Workplace deviance has also been found to be negatively associated with business performance (Dunlop and Lee, 2004) and decreased 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 of work alienation.

The concept of alienation

39

IJOA 20,1

40

Distilling conceptual overlaps/ambiguity of alienation with related concepts The discussion so far has dwelt upon a basic understanding of the concept of alienation and other related concepts. As pointed out earlier, the concept of alienation has not received much attention in the literature after the 1980s, and its relative neglect in the management sciences is particularly striking. One possible reason may be the emergence of similar more positive concepts or other popular concepts capturing the negative side of work. The preceding detailed conceptual exploration of work satisfaction, commitment, engagement, burnout and deviance, reveal conceptual ambiguity and overlap with alienation, sometimes denitionally and also when examined from the perspective of similarity and differences in the factors that explain the concept and also the consequences. A comparative picture of the antecedents and consequences of the various concepts is shown in Figure 6. The variables in common with those of alienation are underlined in the gure for easy reference. The comparative gure clearly shows that there are unique antecedents and consequences of alienation as compared to those of related concepts. The greatest overlap of antecedents with alienation is with that of commitment. The gure also indicates that commitment and satisfaction have a number of antecedents and consequences in common. Commitment appears both as an antecedent (Bateman and Strasser, 1984)
- Structural Centralization - Task Related Autonomy, variety, challenge, scope, role ambiguity, conflict, task overload -Organization related Equity, organizational support, leader relations - Individual Level Education, internal locus of control, self efficacy,age, gender, tenure, job level

- Structural Technology, centralization, formalization - Task Related Autonomy (), skill variety (), role ambiguity, lack of control - Individual Level Education, external locus of control, need/expectation discrepancy - States Powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation

- Task Related Autonomy, role ambiguity (), skill variety - Organization related Equity, leader relations, instrumental rewards, working conditions - Individual Level Education, age, internal locus of control - Concepts Commitment

- Task Related Autonomy, skill variety, feedback, task identity and significance -Organization related Justice, perceived organizational support, rewards and recognition - Other Psychological conditions of perceived meaningfulness, availability, safety

- Task/Org Related Role ambiguity, role conflict, role demands, work support (), interpersonal interactions - Individual Level Age (), unmet expectations - Concepts Alienation

- Task Related role ambiguity, job stressors - Organization related Perceptions of injustice, surveillance /control - Individual Level External locus of control, anger, conscientiousness, agreeableness, self monitoring, idealism

Alienation

Commitment

Work Satisfaction

Work Engagement

Burnout

Deviance

Figure 6. Antecedents and consequences for the concepts

- Individual Level Lower expectations from work, anomie, powerlessness, frustration/aggres sion, deviance, cynicism, psychosis, suicide - Substitution (Leisure, consumption) - Concepts Burnout, deviance

- Individual Level Pro-social behavior (OCB), absenteeism (), turnover (), performance - Concepts Satisfaction

- Individual Level Turnover, absenteeism, OCB, performance - Concepts Commitment

- Individual Level Turnover, OCB, performance

- Individual Level Health problems, withdrawal behavior, negative attitudes, turnover, performance - Substitution Consumption (alcohol, drugs)

- Individual Level Decreased productivity, performance

Note: Common variables appearing in relation to alienation are underlined

as well as a consequence of work satisfaction (Meyer and Allen, 1997), which further points to the conceptual overlap between the two concepts. There is also support for the theoretical and operational similarity of work engagement with commitment and satisfaction (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 with alienation, they are better viewed as outcomes of alienation (Abraham, 2000; Jermier, 1988; Pierce and Molloy, 1990; Seeman, 1967). The relationships between the concepts which have some overlap/ambiguity with alienation, based on the antecedents and consequences and as summarized from the discussion earlier, are shown in Figure 7. The conceptual overlap between commitment, satisfaction and engagement is indicated by the overlapping circles as shown in Figure 6. Alienation which denotes a negative association with work appears at the negative end of the continuum while concepts that represent positive associations with work (satisfaction, engagement) or the organization (commitment) appear at the positive end of the continuum. As discussed earlier, alienation has been equated variously as the opposite of commitment, satisfaction and work engagement, concepts which have some degree of overlap with each other. This relationship is shown by the double arrowed line connecting alienation with the other concepts representing their opposite nature. Similarly, burnout and deviance, capturing the negative side of work, appear at the negative end of the continuum and as outcomes of work alienation. Since burnout has also been equated as the opposite of engagement lez-Roma et al., 2006; Maslach et al., 2001), there is a dashed line connecting (Gonza burnout to engagement. This is understandable, since engagement has been discussed as having behavioral connotations (Newman and Harrison, 2008; Saks, 2006) and burnout can also be viewed as a behavioral manifestation of work alienation. Commitment, which encompasses involvement and identication, has been discussed as the opposite of alienation (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Kanungo, 1979; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Work engagement appears as the opposite of alienation from the way the concepts have been dened (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Kahn, 1990)

The concept of alienation

41

()

(+)

Alienation Commitment Satisfaction

Deviant Behavior

Burnout

Engagement

Figure 7. Relationship between alienation and related concepts

IJOA 20,1

42

and operationalized (Korman et al., 1981; Lang, 1985; Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2006). Work satisfaction again emerges as a polar opposite of alienation from the way alienation has been operationalized (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Robinson et al., 1969) and suggested by some researchers (Seybolt and Gruenfeld, 1976; Fried et al., 1972). Work alienation would have to be conceptualized as falling on a continuum with work satisfaction and alienation at the extreme end (not merely equated with work dissatisfaction as has been done before). This argument has already been made while analyzing the six states of work satisfaction offered by Bussing et al. (1999). Considering negative attitudes and outcomes of work, both burnout and deviance have received some attention in the literature. It is argued that a study of burnout or deviance alone would not sufciently explain or capture the state of being alienated. Based on the discussion thus far, we propose the following relationships and propositions: H2. Lack of commitment is signicantly different from work alienation with factors predicting commitment, or its outcomes, leaving substantial unexplained variance in explaining work alienation. H3. Work dissatisfaction is signicantly different from work alienation with factors predicting satisfaction/dissatisfaction, or its outcomes, leaving substantial unexplained variance in explaining work alienation. H4. Lack of engagement is signicantly different from work alienation with factors predicting engagement, or its outcomes, leaving substantial unexplained variance in explaining work alienation. H5. Burnout is distinct from work alienation and may be viewed as a likely outcome 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 a behavioral manifestation of work alienation, with factors predicting deviance, or its outcomes, leaving substantial unexplained variance in explaining work alienation. While the arguments provided in the paper are grounded in the literature and arrived at through a conceptual understanding of the concepts and their relationships (based on both quantitative studies and qualitative research), further empirical testing is required to test these propositions in order to establish that work alienation is signicantly distinct from the discussed concepts, with considerable unexplained variance left on the table even after accounting for each of the other concepts. Methodology of conducting a literature review The methodology we followed to guide our exploration, seeks to integrate research from both quantitative and qualitative approaches. That the concept of alienation still remains confounding points to the need to integrate and synthesize what we know about the concept from both empirical studies as well as qualitative basis of inquiry. Towards demystifying the concept of alienation, we rst examined the literature on work alienation and the literature on other concepts for which there were indications of some degree of overlap or confounding with alienation, as emergent from the literature review.

We also examined the denitions of each of the concepts carefully for potential areas of overlap. Overlapping concepts were chosen, based on likely strong positive correlation or strong negative correlation with alienation and their widespread usage in studying employee attitudes in research and by practitioners. To further understand the conceptual space of work alienation, we examined the antecedents 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 work alienation 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 poor understanding of factors and consequences that may inuence the organization and its working. A possible parallel method may be to undertake a quantitative analysis to examine unexplained variance from related organizational attitudes. Such analysis would have to assume that all possible antecedents and consequences have been included in all or some of the studies. The impossibility of such an assumption need not be expanded on. Thus, we attempt to do this through a conceptual investigation of the possible antecedents and consequences of each of the concepts, in order to map the conceptual space for work alienation. Summarizing, the process we followed to dene the space for the study of work alienation was multifold. We rst performed an extensive literature review of the concept of alienation, both within organizational studies as well as with regard to other disciplines such as that of sociology. This also pointed us to the other more popular organizational attitudes with which work alienation might have some overlap with. The next step was an examination of each of these concepts, to understand how they relate to work alienation and to tease out points of convergence and divergence. In this, we examined 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 uniqueness of the concept of alienation we argued that it cannot be understood by merely looking at the other concepts with which alienation might bear a resemblance (either individually or collectively), thus we also examined the antecedents and consequences of all the concepts. The intent was to juxtapose them with the antecedents and consequence of work alienation to see if alienation may uniquely contribute to our understanding of organizational attitudes that inuence the experience and performance of an employee. Our conceptual analysis leads us to conclude that work alienation as a construct is conceptually distinct and merits separate research attention. While the approach we followed was a qualitative exploration, the data for our inquiry was both qualitative as well as quantitative. Studies attempting to explain the meaning of the concept often start out as a theoretical endeavor and later move on to conduct empirical studies. In the theoretical exposition the dominant approach is either qualitative or quantitative. However, in this paper we use a recursive approach, where in an attempt to make sense of vast amounts of existing literature the search becomes an inquiry embedded in quantitative research. Such an approach provides a unique opportunity to bridge the quantitative-qualitative divide, where the objective of the research overcomes the articial barriers between qualitative and quantitative research. The challenge often is to step beyond the boundaries of competing claims of truth by either research paradigms, instead seeking to integrate and draw insights from both modes of inquiry.

The concept of alienation

43

IJOA 20,1

44

Conclusion There is a call (Dahms, 2006; Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000) for focusing on alienation as a unique construct worthy of more research attention. Given that alienation is not merely the 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 right worthy of greater attention by management scholars. What is being said is that individually work satisfaction, engagement, commitment, burnout or deviance cannot fully account for work alienation. Figure 6 also shows that all the antecedent conditions and consequent states of alienation do not get fully explained by the antecedents and consequences of the other concepts, even though there are overlaps across. Further, some of the consequences of alienation such as workplace cynicism, aggression or frustration that could manifest in deviant behavior, and even suicide as an extreme case in point, imply that overlooking the concept of alienation in organization studies could be a dangerous oversight. The more acute consequences of alienation as opposed to the milder counterparts of reduced pro-social behavior, absenteeism or turnover further warrant renewed interest in the concept. Considering that the concept of work alienation, both from a purely quantitative analysis and from qualitative treatments, continues to be warped in confusion heightens the need for greater integration and unication of compartmentalized approaches. Using such an approach our paper demysties alienation and creates space for it to be studied separately.
References Abraham, R. (2000), Organizational cynicism: bases and consequences, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 269-92. Abu-Bader, S.H. (2000), Work satisfaction, burnout, and turnover among social workers in Israel: a causal diagram, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 9, pp. 191-200. Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1966), Organizational alienation: a comparative analysis, American Sociological Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 497-507. Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), Measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative 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 to burnout, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 109-32. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), Social identity theory and the organization, Academy of Management 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 of International Management, Vol. 10, pp. 375-92. Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S. (1984), A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational 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 by T.B. Bottomore).

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., ONeill, 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 conicts with supervisors and coworkers the same?, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 145-56. Burke, R.J. and Mikkelsen, A. (2006), Burnout among Norwegian police ofcers: potential antecedents 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 work satisfaction: 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 burnout and job performance: a meta-analytic path analysis, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 1-6. Chisholm, R.F. and Cummings, T.G. (1979), Job characteristics, alienation, and work-related behavior: 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 of control-organizational commitment relationship: it depends on the form of commitment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 995-1001. Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulllment, 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 Littleeld, 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 antecedents and 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 and Row, New York, NY. Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004), Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 67-80. Durkheim, E. (1947), Division of Labour in Society, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL (translated by G. Simpson). Durkheim, E. (1952), Suicide, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson). Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), Organizational images and member identication, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63.

The concept of alienation

45

IJOA 20,1

46

Edwards, M.R. and Peccei, R. (2007), Organizational identication: development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 25-57. Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement and 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: understanding reasons for employees deviant behavior, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 117-31. Farkas, A.J. and Tetrick, L.E. (1989), A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of 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, job commitment, 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 of Organizational 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 engaging workers 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 characteristics inventory as correlated of work satisfaction and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 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 organizational commitment in human services organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33, pp. 61-81. lez-Roma , V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Lloret, S. (2006), Burnout and work Gonza engagement: 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 of pay cuts, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 561-8. Greenberg, J. (1993), Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 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 workplace factors, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 897-913. Grifn, M.A., Parker, S.K. and Neal, A. (2008), Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful construct?, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 48-51.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), Development of a job diagnostic survey, Journal of Applied 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 be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?, European Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-27. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business-unit-level relationship between employee 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 in workplace 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 a general commitment to work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 789-800. Horowitz, I.L. (1966), On alienation and the social order, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 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 burnout phenomenon, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 630-40. Jermier, J. (1988), Sabotage at work: the rational view, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 6, pp. 85-9. Johnson, F. (Ed.) (1973), Alienation: Concept, Term, and Meanings, 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 at work, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724. Kanungo, R.N. (1979), The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 119-38. Kidwell, R.E. and Bennett, N. (1993), Employee propensity to withhold effort: a conceptual model 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 the construct validity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32. Kohn, M.L. (1976), Occupational structure and alienation, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82 No. 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 and professionals, 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.

The concept of alienation

47

IJOA 20,1

Lodhal, T.M. and Kejner, M. (1965), The denition 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 and Organizational 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 Psychological Annual: 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 organizational commitment, 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 and normative commitment to the organization: a metaanalysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences, 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 work satisfaction, 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 exhaustion consequences, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 335-49. Morrow, P.C. (1983), Concept redundancy in organizational research: the case of work commitment, 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 work engagement 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 professional involvement: a compensatory process approach, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 237-52. Overend, T. (1975), Alienation: a conceptual analysis, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 301-22.

48

Parks, L. and Mount, M.K. (2005), The dark side of self-monitoring: engaging in counterproductive behaviors at work, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 11-16. Pierce, C.M.B. and Molloy, G.N. (1990), Psychological and biographical differences between secondary school teachers experiencing high and low levels of burnout, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 37-51. Podsakoff, P.M., Williams, L.J. and Todor, W.D. (1986), Effects of organizational formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 820-31. Pratt, M.G. (1998), To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identication, in Whetton, D.A. and Godfrey, P.C. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations, Sage, London, pp. 171-207. Raelin, J.A. (1994), Three scales of professional deviance within organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 483-501. Robinson, J.P., Athanasiou, R. and Head, K.B. (1969), Measures of Occupational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics, Institute of Social Research, Ann Arbour, MI. Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: 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 alienating work, 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 family roles, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-84. Rousseau, D.M. (1998), Why workers still identify with organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 217-33. Saks, A.M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial 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), Work alienation 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 engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-16. lez-Roma , V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), The measurement of Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonza engagement and burnout: a two sample conrmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of Happiness 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 Sociological Review, 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 work satisfaction measures, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 193-202.

The concept of alienation

49

IJOA 20,1

50

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 to electronic control and beyond, Current Sociology, No. 2, pp. 47-75. Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the role of distributive, 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-collar and blue-collar jobs: eight year prospective study of exhaustion, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 555-70. Trevino, L.K. and Youngblood, S.A. (1990), Bad apples in bad barrels: a causal analysis of ethical decision making behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 378-85. van Knippenberg, D.V. and Sleebos, E. (2006), Organizational identication versus organizational commitment: self denition, social exchange, and job attitudes, Journal of 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 the organization: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49, pp. 252-76. About the authors Nisha Nair is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Indian Institute of Management Indore. She received her Doctoral degree as a Fellow of the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. Her research interests are in the areas of work alienation, workplace deviant behaviour, organizational development and emotions and conict. Neharika Vohra is a Professor in Organizational Behavior at IIM Ahmedabad. She obtained her PhD in Psychology from University of Manitoba, Canada and her research interests are in the areas of leadership, commitment, positive organizational behaviour, engagement/alienation, and cross-cultural competence.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

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