Rethinking scholarly assumptions about vulnerable workers: A call for reflection and action
Dr Catherine Deen (@cathsdeen) summarises two recent publications with colleagues aimed at thinking about how to better include ‘vulnerable workers’ in the field of careers and management. Bringing together research on people with many different experiences of impairment and marginalisation, she argues that prevailing assumptions in management research don’t match the situations and experiences of vulnerable workers.
Inequality persists as a grand challenge that has extensive repercussions for individuals (e.g., poverty and exclusion) and societies at large (e.g., economic instability and crime). In the realm of vocational and management research, a fresh impetus has emerged to undertake scholarship that resonates with society's concerns about the struggles faced by vulnerable workers. Vulnerable workers include a broad group of people who have lower levels of human capital resulting from the vicious cycle of psychosocial constraints such as ill health (physical or mental), poverty, history of abuse, addiction, among other conditions. Vulnerable workers are at risk of being abused, exploited, or wounded at work – whether physically, psychologically, socially, or a combination of these.
While the academic community has made strides in examining the experiences of people with disability and LGBTQIA+ workers, there are many “missing persons” in the literature resulting in huge gaps in our understanding of unique types of vulnerable workers. For instance, Restubog and colleagues (2021) underscored that since the year 2000, there have been fewer than 50 articles in top-tier management journals about people in specific categories such as workers with chronic illnesses (e.g., HIV, cancer), mental health issues (e.g., depression), migrants and refugees, victims of violence, and previously incarcerated individuals. These “missing persons” are active in the workforce, and confront an array of vocational barriers such as discrimination, marginalization, and stigmatization. As inequality persists in workplaces, it is time for us to intensify efforts to shed light on the intricacies of vulnerable workers’ unique experiences.
A note on terminology
I note that the use of the word “vulnerable” may be contentious for some readers. For example, the social model of disability holds that the experience of being disabled stems from a society that does not make adjustments for people with impairments to participate fully in social and political life, and thus some may prefer “marginalized”. I do not discount this important point and acknowledge the scholarly and activist discussion about this terminology. In this blog, I apply a definition of “vulnerable workers” from Audenaert et al. (2020) who offered a psychosocial perspective. My colleagues and I recognize that the terminology used in academic literature must be clarified (i.e., marginalized, vulnerable), and explore these points in our article in the Journal of Vocational Behaviour.
Why study “missing persons” in the vulnerable workforce literature?
Photo by Brian Lundquist on Unsplash
There are three compelling reasons why scholars and policymakers must examine the experiences of vulnerable workers. First, vulnerable workers are a significant proportion of the global workforce. For instance, the International Labor Organization reports that there are about 244 million migrants (3.3% of the total population, about 73% of whom are workers) and that there are about 2 billion workers who are informally employed and vulnerable worldwide.
Second, vulnerable workers grapple with substantial career hurdles, including a range of abuses such as low wages, precarious labor conditions, and unsafe work environments. These injustices underscore the need for collaborative interdisciplinary efforts toward resolutions.
Lastly, owing to their distinct attributes and situations, conventional academic assumptions—such as prevalent theories and models—about the general workforce will not be universally applicable to vulnerable workers. Given that management scholarship has historically relied on samples largely representing WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) and POSH (Professionals with Official jobs in Safe, High-income countries) demographics, our accumulated knowledge thus far likely does not encapsulate vulnerable workers’ experiences.
Here, I summarise prevailing assumptions about the general workforce that may not necessarily correspond to the reality of vulnerable workers.
Recruitment and selection
Recruitment and selection research highlights how to attract high-performing applicants to maximize organizational performance. There is also an assumption that applicants choose jobs based on a range of positive factors such as person-organisation fit, job design, and available alternatives.
These traditional assumptions about attracting applicants and job choices may not hold for vulnerable workers. While the general workforce may be able to choose based on their skills and preferences, most vulnerable workers do not have that luxury. Their choices are limited by circumstances that may (or may not) be linked to their vulnerability.
For instance, migrants and refugees confront unique obstacles when entering their host country’s workforce. Many have non-transferable job qualifications, which makes it difficult and expensive for them to formally enter the labour market.
Career development
Conventional research on career development assumes that employees navigate various career stages, steer their own career paths, and/or possess resources that support their development. In turn, this is based on an assumption that workers have access to suitable employment that facilitates their career growth and sustains their work. In actuality, vulnerable workers often work to fulfill essential survival needs, and they might find themselves compelled to accept whatever available job comes their way, regardless of its quality or working conditions.
For instance, undocumented young adults expressed that financial pressures substantially diminish their autonomy and create barriers to them seeking decent employment. Also, experiences of marginalization (e.g., exclusion, discrimination) curtail their freedom to independently shape their careers. Turning to voices from workers with chronic illnesses, breast cancer survivors described how their treatments impacted their careers negatively due to loss of control over their career trajectory and related decisions. Similarly, people who have spent time in prison revealed that while they received training on how to navigate the job search process, they lacked awareness about their career interests, needs, and values.
Authenticity at work
Research about authenticity at work has received much attention in the past decade. Viewed from the individual perspective, authenticity at work involves aligning one’s inner self and identity with external behaviours. Theory suggests that authenticity at work bolsters well-being, engagement, and work performance.
However, authenticity can be perilous for vulnerable workers due to potential discrimination and exclusion. For instance, those who disclose their HIV status face stigma which may lead to negative emotions and poor performance. Likewise, prior discrimination experiences make chronically ill workers anticipate further bias, prompting concealment and increased job strain. Employees with autism may avoid discussing their condition to evade stigma and stereotypes. In essence, while authenticity at work may have its benefits, the experiences of vulnerable workers demand careful consideration, given the risks they face.
A call for reflection and action
In the careers and management field, we need to think much more critically about the theoretical assumptions we make regarding the vocational experiences of overlooked vulnerable workers. It is time for scholars to reflect and commence research that properly captures the experiences of “missing persons” from careers discourse. Otherwise, organizational research will continue to prioritize the well-understood, safe, and privileged subset of employees – leading us to impose unsuitable theories and assumptions on large sections of our workforce.
Based on:
Restubog, S. L. D., Deen, C. M., Decoste, A., & He, Y. (2021). From vocational scholars to social justice advocates: Challenges and opportunities for vocational psychology research on the vulnerable workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103561
Restubog, S. L. D., Schilpzand, P., Lyons, B., Deen, C. M., & He, Y. (2023). The vulnerable workforce: A call for research. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231177446
Post moderated by @DrSophieYates