Employee Objectification in Modern Organizations: Who Has Swept Personal Dignity Under the Carpet?

Abstract

Background: Separately conducted studies on the phenomena of personal dignity and objectification at the workplace seek a common goal of ensuring psychological and physical wellbeing in the workplace. Objectives: Since the conception of dignity is highly important for a better understanding of the phenomenon of the person’s objectification, this scoping review explored how personal dignity was revealed in managerial studies on employee objectification. Methods: Using the algorithm selected for this study, a total of 192 articles were retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) databases, of which 12 theoretical and empirical studies were selected for further analysis. The study employed a modified PRISMA methodology, based on PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The data on authors, year of publication, study type, sample, main conclusions, and provided recommendations were extracted. Results: In order to achieve the purpose of the research, it explored how objectification and the dignity of employees were treated and what recommendations to practitioners were made. It was found that the themes examined in the studies covered two main categories: cultural (of the organization and society) and relational (vertical and horizontal relations, including the use of technologies). Conclusions: The research results show that, so far, a more general definition of employee objectification is lacking and that personal dignity, which would allow for the revision of this conception, remains unhighlighted.

1. Introduction

Although objectification, which means the reduction of a person to an object, has historically deeply permeated the field of work, this process of dehumanization began to be empirically studied only recently (Baldissarri et al., 2022). The objectification of employees is promoted by increasing work intensity, technological control, and instrumentalized management practices (Andrighetto et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2015). This phenomenon, also referred to as the person’s instrumentalization or reification, poses a threat to the employee’s dignity (Mardosas et al., 2021; Vveinhardt, 2022). Therefore, there is a need to evaluate how this tendency to reduce the individual to the object is reflected in scientific studies examining the value of the employee as a person. Treating employees as objects (whether inanimate objects or animals) rather than as human beings causes strong negative emotions and is considered a humiliation of inherent dignity (Lucas, 2015). This suggests that in consciousness, unique humanness and dignity are closely interlinked dimensions. Therefore, to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of personal objectification and related consequences, the conception of dignity is crucial (Gibson et al., 2023; Lucas, 2015).

Workplace dignity is commonly understood as a personal sense of value, worth, respect, or esteem, which is also related to relationships with other persons (Lucas, 2015). Research shows that ensuring workplace dignity has a significant impact on the personal wellbeing of employees in the organization (Teixeira et al., 2021), positively affects employee behaviour and predicts increased employee engagement (Lucas et al., 2017), as well as promoting discretionary work effort (Ahmed et al., 2023). Meanwhile, a violation of dignity can lead to the experiences of inferiority, a reduced sense of security (Khademi et al., 2012), and is related to intentions to change job (Khademi et al., 2012; Mertz et al., 2024). Therefore, much research has focused on the conditions that contribute to the violation of employee dignity or help ensure their dignity (Lucas et al., 2017).

The term human dignity often arises when examining the problem of personal objectification (Sainz et al., 2023; Vveinhardt, 2022). Workplace objectification is understood as a tendency to reduce a person to an object (Auzoult, 2021; Belmi & Schroeder, 2021; Valtorta & Monaci, 2023). This is also known as a form of the individual’s dehumanization, the manifestation of which, in the work environment, promotes the tendency of the very employees to objectify themselves (Valtorta & Monaci, 2023). Research shows that such trends aggravate the psychological functioning of employees (Hamel et al., 2024), and lead to a decrease in wellbeing, and to depressive moods and self-harm (Dai et al., 2023), as well as reducing commitment to the organization (Valtorta & Monaci, 2023).

Thus, personal dignity is inextricably linked to humanness, which is threatened by the trends of the person’s objectification at the workplace. Although considerable attention has been paid to the instrumentalization that undermines a person’s dignity or leads to their objectification in philosophical works, research in the field of management science has been rather slow to delve into the causes and consequences of this phenomenon (Vveinhardt, 2022). Typically, these phenomena are analyzed separately or dignity emerges only in the context of objectification (e.g., de Souza Reis et al., 2021). In addition, there is still a lack of clarity on the causes of the person’s dehumanization and objectification in an organization (Sainz et al., 2023).

To fill this gap and find out the implications for employee wellbeing and organizational dynamics, further research is needed, which can be guided by a scoping review (Lopez-Cortes et al., 2022; M. D. J. Peters et al., 2015). According to M. D. J. Peters et al. (2015), this method is mostly used for “reconnaissance”. That is, to explain the working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or domain. It is also employed to identify how research is conducted on a particular topic or area (Munn et al., 2018). Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify how personal dignity was revealed in the managerial research on employee objectification. Secondary aims included identifying (1) the conceptions of objectification and dignity used in research, and (2) research-based management recommendations related to objectification and dignity.

Thus, the focus is on how the problem of employee objectification is examined in the management science literature, what connections this phenomenon has with the conception of human dignity, and what recommendations researchers offer to organizations seeking to recognize and address related problems. Recommendations not only aid in better understanding the research results but also help organizations identify and mitigate threats posed by employee objectification as well as strengthen the compatibility of management practices with personal dignity. All of this is important in the contexts of employee wellbeing, workers’ relationships with organizations, and their quality of work. Nevertheless, in the management literature, these phenomena are often examined separately. Therefore, in order to combine these dimensions, it is necessary to assess how the issues of objectification and dignity are raised and interpreted in management contexts.

The article consists of the following sections: a literature review, a description of research methods, results and discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for further research. The conceptions of personal objectification and personal dignity were first discussed. Then, after defining the methodological parameters of the research, a scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR method. Afterwards, twelve relevant studies were selected from the Scopus and Web of Science databases and analyzed as to how they conceptualized employee objectification and dignity as well as what management recommendations were provided. Finally, it was stated that the objectification of employees is often analyzed separately from the concept of personal dignity, ambiguous definitions are often applied, and practical managerial insights often remain superficial, which indicate the necessity of integrating the dimension of dignity into further research and management practice.

2. Literature Review

In philosophy, according to Papadaki (2010), a necessary and sufficient condition for objectification is to deny humanness by treating the individual as a thing. In a similar way, objectification is explained in the social sciences. Workplace objectification reflects instrumentality and the denial of humanness in work relationships (Auzoult, 2021).

Baldissarri et al. (2022) identify objectification as one of the forms of dehumanization. According to the authors, when the objectification process “is active, workers are denied all the dimensions of humanness: they are seen as passive entities that are unable to decide on their own, and their personal initiatives are scorned” (Baldissarri et al., 2022, p. 85). Although reification and dehumanization are often used together, it is important to note that dehumanization is a broader concept that encompasses not only objectification but also other forms of denying humanity, such as a mechanistic or animalistic perception of the human being. In the literature, objectification is often understood as a mechanistic form of dehumanization (Baldissarri et al., 2022; Caesens et al., 2019), but although mechanistic dehumanization denies some features of human nature (warmth and extraversion), unlike in the case of objectification, a person is still treated as autonomous and capable of making decisions (Baldissarri et al., 2022).

The objectification of employees can be promoted by the organization’s internal environment. Several important factors related to the changed attitude towards the person can be distinguished. These are the work structure, the status of the employee in the organizational hierarchy, the prevailing organizational culture, and the uncertainty of the environment (

Table 1. Factors promoting objectification in the work environment.

Factor	Features	Mechanism	Sources
Work Structure	Work distinguishing itself by repetition of activities, fragmentary nature, and dependence on technological systems, where the employee performs strictly defined tasks without personal control	Such structure directs the observer’s attention to actions rather than to the person as a whole, which is why the employee is perceived as a means.	Andrighetto et al. (2017)
Status	Employees occupying lower-status positions are more often perceived through the instrumental prism, as persons performing mechanical tasks requiring obedience.	Low social or organizational status activates stereotypical expectations, due to which the person is considered less competent, with low agency, and less deserving individual attention.	Valtorta and Monaci (2023); Loughnan et al. (2017)
Organizational culture	The emphasis is placed on productivity, profit, and seeking goals at the expense of employees. In such organizations, workers are more likely to be viewed as resources rather than as people.	Goal orientation encourages to assess employees according to their instrumental value, perception of unique human traits, features or intentions is weakening, and attention is focused only on their functions.	Belmi and Schroeder (2021)
Uncertainty	Uncertainty arising from both environmental instability, change, and loss of control.	Acts as a defensive reaction that encourages ignoring human qualities.	Baldissarri et al. (2022); McKinley (2011)

).

Thus, these factors activate cognitive mechanisms due to which the employee is perceived not as a fully fledged person who has feelings and intentions but as a functional object or a tool for achieving the goals of the organization or individuals associated with it. The main feature of such mechanisms is directing attention to roles assigned to the employee, or to functions or expectations related to the employee, which seem to define the value of the person.

However, it is not easy to determine when this denial of humanness takes place. It is safe to say that personal humanness has been denied when it has been harmed in some way, but it is more complicated in cases where the harm is not so obvious (Papadaki, 2010). Despite the fact that the signs of objectification manifest themselves in various spheres of human life, Belmi and Schroeder’s (2021) study shows that people look at others in a more utilitarian and objectifying way when they are in the work context. The objectifying attitude of other individuals, especially organizations, also leads to self-objectifying trends. That is, when the ‘self’ is perceived not as a person, but as an object, which leads to the perception of the self without mental states (dementalization), or as an instrument (instrumentalization) and as a ‘nonperson’ (loss of humanness) (Auzoult, 2021).

In the scientific literature, objectification is examined as an organizational policy that treats the employee as an instrument to achieve goals, and the employee is depersonalized in the organizational strategy using the metaphor ‘human resources’ (Belmi & Schroeder, 2021; Mardosas et al., 2021; Shields & Grant, 2010; Vveinhardt, 2022). Other concepts related to ‘human resource’ management, such as employee engagement, employee ‘psychological contract’, and organizational justice, as well as the fields and practices of applied psychology and psychometrics, seek to objectify the employee’s person in the most intimate way possible (Shields & Grant, 2010). All this expresses the utilitarian approach to employees, which Latemore et al. (2020) propose should be replaced by a personalistic one. According to the authors, the personalist attitude acknowledges the dignity of the individuals working in organizations. They are valued as persons and are viewed as ends in themselves, not just as means. Such an approach allows protection against encroachments on the individual’s personal and social integrity, and against its violation (Vveinhardt & Deikus, 2023, 2025).

The academic literature defines dignity ambiguously, and several perspectives can be distinguished. The first perspective emphasizes that dignity of every person living in the world is innate and is usually based on the Judeo-Christian view of the person as created in the image of God (imago Dei) (Vveinhardt, 2022). Such an understanding of dignity means that the person’s value does not depend on their ethnic origin, religion, financial and social position in society, or other variables. Dignity as innate is also understood from a Kantian perspective, but, in this case, it is based on the individual’s uniqueness and autonomy. Therefore, the person can be treated only as an end in themself and not as a means (Kant, 2020).

From a Neo-Marxist perspective, “dignity refers to the mutual recognition of each other’s capacities to participate in the rules to which each is subjected” (Fischer-Daly, 2022, p. 242). Workplace dignity is also defined as an acknowledgment of the value acquired by one’s own and by other working persons through interactions with other people (Teixeira et al., 2021). Other perspectives link dignity to a subjectively experienced sense of value, which may depend on either group-defined standards or self-created personal value. Therefore, the latter is also called meritocratic because it exists, is created (earned) independently, and depends on the abilities and efforts made by the individual person (Lucas, 2015).

3. Methodology

Scoping reviews are helpful when the body of literature is complex or heterogeneous, and does not allow a more precise systematic review to be performed (M. D. J. Peters et al., 2015). This method enables the covering of a wide range of different studies. In addition, it is particularly relevant when the topic is still nascent, fragmentary, or has not yet been thoroughly researched (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Pham et al., 2014). In such cases, the goal is not to prepare a comprehensive synthesis of existing research but rather to establish conceptual boundaries, revise definitions, and explore the scope of existing knowledge. This type of review aims to identify available evidence, characteristics, or factors; therefore, it does not employ more complex methods of analysis or data presentation (Pollock et al., 2023).

As emphasized in the methodological literature, scoping reviews are particularly useful when the amount of evidence is unclear or when existing studies are methodologically diverse and scattered across different disciplines (Levac et al., 2010; M. D. Peters et al., 2021). Therefore, the strength of this method lies not in the amount of obtained data but in its possibilities to provide structured insights into under-researched or conceptually dispersed topics. However, although scoping reviews are conducted for different purposes than systematic reviews, credible results still require transparency (Munn et al., 2018).

Since scoping reviews are not aimed at providing a critically appraised and synthesized result or an unambiguous answer to a specific question, as noted by Munn et al. (2018), methodological limitations or the risk of the bias of evidence is not usually assessed.

Research design and procedure: This study employed a modified PRISMA methodology, based on PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018), adapting it to the structure and aims of the scoping review (Figure 1). PRISMA-ScR allows for more flexibility in presenting the processes of the search, selection, and synthesis of data, while at the same time ensuring the quality and traceability of the report. According to Tricco et al. (2018), traditional PRISMA does not correspond to the structure of scoping reviews, since these reviews often do not include rigorous quality analysis and use a broader mapping-oriented approach.

This study applied a scoping review design, chosen due to the nature of the research question and the fragmentary nature of the literature. The design allowed for the identification of general theoretical accents and trends in the use of concepts across different sources (Munn et al., 2018). Therefore, the main principles that guided the research are presented below.

The study was conducted between April and September 2024. Based on recommendations (e.g., M. D. Peters et al., 2021; Westphaln et al., 2021), the study procedure included formulating the research question, searching and selecting publications, extracting and analyzing data, and interpreting the results.

The review was conducted in the following several consecutive stages: the formulation of the research question, the literature search, the selection of publications according to established criteria, data extraction, and the interpretation of results. Although the study was not registered on a public platform, all stages of the study were documented in the internal research plan that described each step, from the search strategy to the presentation of results.

Research question: Objectification is studied in numerous scientific fields (philosophy, ethics, psychology, etc.). That is, it covers lots of topics and different aspects and, therefore, runs the risk of diverging from the purpose of the research. Since the focus was on the field of management, the review question was as follows: how is personal objectification associated with personal dignity in management literature? Although the focus is on a specific area, the question is broad enough to encompass as many studies as possible.

Search strategy: Publications were searched in the Scopus and Web of Sciences electronic databases. Articles published between 1 January 2009 and 10 April 2024 were selected. The search was performed using the keywords ‘workplace objectification’ and ‘employee objectification’.

The search included only those sources that met the criteria of peer-reviewed scientific articles and that were published in the context of management science. The databases Scopus and Web of Science were chosen for their scope, strict quality standards, and recognition in the field of management research. These databases index a wide range of peer-reviewed scientific journals, ensure data reliability, and are particularly suitable for researching interdisciplinary and theoretical management topics (Chapman & Ellinger, 2019). Search results were filtered according to thematic category to ensure correspondence to the field of management.

Eligibility criteria: The criteria for included articles were as follows: articles corresponding to the themes of employee objectification and personal dignity in the workplace; articles published in peer reviewed journals; full text; and articles published before 10 April 2024. Book chapters (1) and proceedings papers (2) were not included. Articles that did not fall into the management category (used as a filter) were also rejected (3) (Figure 1).

The selection criteria were based on both thematic relevance and methodological reliability. Included articles had to directly examine aspects of employee objectification and/or dignity in the work environment. Articles that did not fall into the field management science or did not meet peer review requirements were excluded. The publication window of 15 years was chosen to include both recent and significant earlier insights.

The selection was carried out in two stages. First, titles and abstracts, and then full texts, were assessed. The same set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied in both stages. The selection was carried out by the researcher, and in unclear cases, decisions were made in consultation with a scientist experienced in the field of management research.

Data extraction, analysis, synthesis, and presentation: Data extraction was performed in a consistent and structured manner, using a standardized data summary form, as recommended in methodological guidelines (e.g., Campbell et al., 2023; Pollock et al., 2023). Data were extracted, including the publications’ authors, year of publication of the study, type of study, population studied, findings, and quotability of the article. The results are presented in the table and summarized using the explanatory text.

Because this method does not require predefined categories, it facilitates the extraction of a descriptive dataset that allows for the examination and refinement of key concepts in the literature (Campbell et al., 2023). The data were extracted using a uniform structure that allowed for the comparison of the type of the study, target population, concepts studied, conclusions, and management recommendations. Data analysis was oriented toward the identification of common thematic patterns and conceptual accents, as suggested in the context of scoping reviews (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022).

The principle was followed that the entire research process should be repeatable: a researcher using the same strategy, keywords and selection criteria, should reach the same set of articles. All included articles satisfied the standards of academic ethics and publication, and the research results are presented in accordance with the requirements of transparency and reliability.

4. Results

Using keywords, 189 studies were found (Web of Sciences N = 133, Scopus N = 56). After discarding duplicate entries and removing articles not belonging to the management category after screening, 12 studies were finally included. The majority of studies (N = 9) were published in the last three years (2021–2024), and more than half of all articles presented empirical research results (N = 8), two of which were ethnographic (Jackson, 2023; Liu, 2016). The number of citations shows not only the recognition of specific authors but also the dissemination of their ideas and influence on other papers. The summary of the performed scoping review is given in Figure 2.

The results presented in

Table 2. Scoping review results.

Author	Aim	Findings	Recommendations
(Bohns & Flynn, 2013)	To answer the question whether people are aware of the influence they have over others in the workplace	People who tend to objectify others, undervalue their intentionality, and overestimate their own influence.	Encourage managers and employees to consider the perspectives of individuals within their sphere of influence and seek ways to reduce anxiety.
(Xu et al., 2021)	To explore the double sides of performance pressure.	Pressure for results can activate the sense of self-objectification and encourage one to become more involved in one’s roles.	To ensure the constructive interpretation, communication, and feedback of employees, managers must weaken their employees’ tendencies to avoid challenges and reduce their anxiousness.
(Newman et al., 2021)	To identify the nature, contributors, dynamics, and consequences of sexual harassment in public health sector workplaces and assess these in relation to available theories.	Unwanted sexual attention, including non-consensual touching, bullying and objectification, was related to greater anxiety and distress.	Leaders should seek solutions to end gender-based harassment and make gender equality a human resources priority in health policy.
(Lemmon et al., 2022)	To describe the process by which intraculturally determined body size preferences impact how observers think about and react to larger-bodied colleagues, and how these larger-bodied colleagues internalize and cope with these judgements.	The motivation for the objectification of people with large builds stems from broader Western cultural approaches to occupational health.	Educational programming and teaching to talk about many ways of implementing ‘health’.
(Liu, 2016)	To illuminate the importance of a local socio-cultural context in shaping the contour of sexualized control and resistance.	Women are controlled through the process of objectification, which reinforces vertical gender segregation.
(Choi et al., 2023)	To examine the impacts of a leader’s use of positive emojis on members’ creativity.	The use of positive emotions reduces employees’ perception that the manager is objectifying them.	To encourage creativity, managers can actively provide positive attention and support to employees by incorporating positive emoticons into computer-mediated communication with them.
(Granulo et al., 2024)	To investigate how deploying algorithms in management tasks affects prosocial motivation, a crucial dimension of workplace productivity and social interactions.	Management using artificial intelligence algorithms leads to greater objectification of others.	To treat employees not only as passive recipients but also as active participants in corporate decision-making processes related to algorithmic management practices.
(Jackson, 2023)	To examine how a technology firm, ShopCo (a pseudonym), considered 13 different recruitment platforms to attract racial minority engineering candidates.	Hiring that is oriented to transactions (effectiveness, quantity, and reward), unlike hiring oriented to development (communality, opportunities, and ethics), is associated with employee objectification.
(Zhang et al., 2023)	To examine whether subordinate power distance orientation, as an individual level construct, moderates the extent to which supervisor objectification is justified, and, furthermore, the extent to which objectifying supervisors are afforded power.	In high power distance organizations, subordinates give more power to the manager who objectifies them, because such behaviour is perceived as appropriate.	It is proposed to create a culture of low power distance, to respect individual life.
(Harder et al., 2023)	To provide an overview of the available body of knowledge on organizational humanness and its relation to leadership behaviour.	There is a lack of clarity regarding to what extent dehumanization and objectification are different concepts and how they pertain to a broader conception of dehumanization and humaneness, including uniquely human qualities.
(Sainz et al., 2023)	To study how perceptions of economic inequality and unfairness in the distribution of resources can influence individuals’ perceptions of dehumanization and self-objectification and trigger detrimental consequences in the workplace.	Inequality and unfairness increase perceived organizational dehumanization, which is related to greater self-objectification and reducing dignity.
(Shields & Grant, 2010)	To examine how, under contemporary ‘human resource management’ (HRM), labour management theory and practice have developed into a sophisticated project designed to psychologize the employee subject into a resource object.	Management seeks to make human abilities, attitudes, and emotions—the basis of the status of the employee as a social and organizational entity—classifiable, measurable, and, therefore, easier to manage.

Source: author work.

cover a wide range of perspectives in which the problem of objectification falls.

In most cases (with the exception of Sainz et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023), objectification is revealed only as a phenomenon that exists in a certain context and explains employee behaviour. That is, based on what is provided in the research aims, it can be seen that examining this phenomenon directly has not been sought. At the same time, it emerges as an important factor (or one of the factors) determining certain consequences in the organization, which appears in different themes.

Several themes dealing with employee objectification can be distinguished. Although most of the studies have delved into different areas, some of the themes analyzed in the papers converge. Examples include the attitudes of members of the organization, related to the body and sexuality (Lemmon et al., 2022; Liu, 2016; Newman et al., 2021), conditions affecting the acquisition and use of power at the workplace (Bohns & Flynn, 2013; Liu, 2016; Shields & Grant, 2010; Zhang et al., 2023), management–employee relations (Choi et al., 2023; Granulo et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023), and links between dehumanization and objectification (Harder et al., 2023; Sainz et al., 2023). These themes cover two categories: cultural (of the organization and society) and relational (vertical and horizontal relations, including the use of technologies).

However, it must be noted that the studies that fell into the sample of this study only fragmentarily reflect different cultures (that is, are limited to specific countries or the culture of specific organizations). For example, Belmi and Schroeder’s (2021) study demonstrated that objectification in the workplace culture was also related to other problematic behaviours at the workplace, such as bullying and hostility, but cultural contexts may differ from country to country. The relation of this to a broader cultural context could be revealed in cross-cultural studies, which were not available in this study sample.

Perhaps one of the most comprehensive lists of indicators of objectification, based on the philosophical and psychological literature, is provided by Belmi and Schroeder (2021). They distinguished seven features of treating other persons (which also occur in non-work contexts), which include instrumentality (using others to achieve a goal), lacking agency (inability to act independently), lacking experience (not feeling pain and emotions), lacking autonomy (limited freedom of choice), property (commodifying a person), being fungible (can be replaced), and being violable (ignoring physical wellbeing). Although many of the studies that have fallen into the sample for this review provided narrow or broad definitions of objectification, the conception of objectification itself is still the subject of considerable debate (e.g., Harder et al., 2023).

The differences in the indicators of objectification are illustrated in several studies focusing on the body and sexuality. For example, Newman et al. (2021) use the term objectification in the context of female sexualization, but do not define it in a greater detail. Lemmon et al. (2022) use Fredrickson and Roberts’s (1997) objectification theory, which defines sexual objectification as the experience of being treated as a body (or a collection of body parts), which is valued mainly because it is used (consumed) by others. Meanwhile, Liu (2016) builds on Nussbaum (1995) and Langton (2009) and presents a concept that is somewhat broader than that of Belmi and Schroeder (2021). That is, it additionally includes reduction to the body (identifying the person with the body or a part of it), reduction to appearance (behaving according to the way the person looks), and silencing (behaving as if the person is unable to speak).

Other authors’ definitions emphasize downgrading humanness in another person and employee instrumentalization (e.g., Choi et al., 2023; Granulo et al., 2024; Sainz et al., 2023). Not all studies make it clear what is the basis for linking such objectification and dehumanization. Especially since there is a tendency to separate them. For example, Zhang et al. (2023) consider objectification, which emphasizes instrumentality, and dehumanization to be different concepts. A similar approach is taken by Harder et al. (2023). According to them, these concepts can overlap, but definitions of organizational dehumanization pay more attention to the employee’s perception and sometimes elements such as the ‘rejection of human integrity’ or ‘denied personal subjectivity’ are added. Meanwhile, the definitions used to describe objectification include both mechanistic and animalistic dehumanization, making this concept of dehumanization broader than organizational dehumanization.

In the philosophical perspective, the person’s subjectivity is inseparable from dignity, which is lost when the person is turned into an object (Venter, 2004). Nevertheless, dignity was not included in the concept of objectification by most authors. Only one study that examined dignity in the context of (self-)objectification and dehumanization was found (Sainz et al., 2023). In this case, the authors refer to Lucas et al. (2017) and define employee dignity as “the self- or other recognition of inherent human worth that everyone has or lacks after performing a work activity”. That is, although reference is made to the inherent dignity of the individual, the latter is understood as a variable linked to the work environment and work activity.

This study also sought to find out what recommendations are proposed to the managers of organizations, based on the research results. Only seven studies made narrower or more detailed recommendations. Most of them lacked specificity, for example, they proposed to “find ways”, “encourage”, “weaken trends”, and the like. That is, concrete steps and actions that could help to solve one or another problem were missing.

5. Discussion

Although objectification as a phenomenon has existed in different eras and contexts, and attempts have been made to broaden the conception to include the work environment, this topic has only recently received attention (Baldissarri et al., 2022). Therefore, this study sought to review how the management literature revealed employee objectification and in what ways it was linked to the conception of personal dignity. In this context, the study examined conceptions used in the scientific literature as well as how researchers understand the possibility of putting their insights into practice.

Summarizing the results of this review, it should be noted that the phenomenon of employee objectification in the work environment lacks a conceptual definition and consistent links to personal dignity. When objectification is defined only taking an instrumental approach or through individual aspects of dehumanization, without clear theoretical or empirical operationalization boundaries, this can hinder the development of consistent research methodologies and the comparison of results. The diversity of terms used (e.g., objectification, dehumanization, instrumentalization, or reification) may be related to epistemological differences between science and everyday cognition. As Marková (2012) notes, the variety of conceptualisations of objectification in the scientific discourse and everyday practice stems from different paradigms of cognition. This distinction often leads to terminological confusion, which poses challenges not only at the theoretical but also at the practical level. That is, objectification manifests itself not as an abstract concept but as a specific pattern of organizational behaviour, which pertains to relationships, ethical decisions, or leadership culture.

Although not all authors discuss a clear connection between objectification and dehumanization, both phenomena are closely related and sometimes are even used as synonyms. Some researchers propose that objectification should be considered a form of dehumanization, especially when the focus is on employees’ mechanical functionality rather than on the person’s humanity or subjectivity. Such interpretation allows objectification to be seen as a structural element of a broader phenomenon and one of the ways to violate human dignity.

However, the conception of dignity in research on management is even more fragmented. It can be implied through such concepts as respect, inclusion, psychological wellbeing, or employee empowerment. Only several studies (e.g., Bolton, 2010; Lucas, 2015; Pirson, 2017) treat dignity as a normative theoretical construct related to management practices, organizational culture, and leadership. This shows that dignity should be treated not only as a moral or ethical value but also as a practical guideline in shaping more humane systems of labour relations.

An individual’s objectification in the work environment is not only a reduction to a function or resource but also a cognitive process of denying the dimension of the individual’s uniqueness, agency, or human experience. Looking at it from a social psychology perspective, Baldissarri et al. (2022) note that objectification is determined by both motivational and cognitive factors. For example, people in leadership positions, pursuing effectiveness or profit, are more likely to treat employees instrumentally, as means to achieve goals. At the same time, certain work activities themselves (especially fragmented, repetitive, and automated) can provoke an objectifying attitude, even regardless of the hierarchy of relationships or intentions. In this case, the person begins to be perceived as an object without consciousness, performing only mechanical actions.

Meanwhile, dignity means the recognition that every person is conscious, free, and has intrinsic value, regardless of the roles the individual plays, or their usefulness. Thus, by denying humanity as an unchanging value, objectification directly violates the principle of dignity. All this allows the conceptualization of objectification not only as a psychological or cultural phenomenon but also as a managerial issue related to the respect for the individual, organizational ethics, and human relations management. Such a perspective accentuates the need for management not only to identify the risks of objectification but also to critically evaluate work structures that unconsciously promote employees’ dehumanization. In this context, the importance of practical recommendations emerges.

Although a share of authors provide management recommendations oriented to creating a more humane model of labour relations, they are limited to general considerations. Recommendations are usually associated with the aspects of leadership culture, human resource management, or organizational ethics, but are rarely grounded in evidence-based strategies. This is consistent with the trends observed by Kieser et al. (2015) in the management literature. According to the authors, academic papers often seek theoretical validity, while practical guidelines are considered secondary and therefore receive little attention or are formulated cautiously. Such a situation reveals a more general problem in management science—the paradox of striving for theoretical validity but lacking mechanisms for applying insights into the daily activities of organizations.

This study has several limitations, which are primarily related to the method and selected databases. Therefore, in the future, a broader search (including other databases and interdisciplinary studies) would help to identify more articles and allow studies to better detail the thematic field. In addition, publications that met or did not meet the inclusion or exclusion criteria could have been overlooked. Although the chosen method does not allow for the provision of a comprehensive picture of the situation and the results should be interpreted with caution within the framework of this sample, they can provide valuable guidelines for future research. Furthermore, only articles published in English were included, which may limit the inclusion of some studies in the review. The selection was carried out by one researcher; therefore, despite consultation, the risk of subjectivity was not entirely eliminated. Since no qualitative assessment of studies was performed, the presented insights are more oriented towards conceptual trends than towards solid empirical conclusions.

Additionally, it should be noted that the Scopus and Web of Science databases, although distinguishing themselves by high academic standards, do not include all possible interdisciplinary or practical sources; therefore, some relevant studies may have been overlooked. Moreover, due to a quite narrow range of management-related search terms, the study does not reflect all possible conceptions of objectification that exist outside the field of management.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This review has revealed how the issue of personal dignity is examined in employee commodification studies published in management journals. Although the philosophical and psychological literature present valuable views on personal dignity, management research on organizations examines employee objectification separately from these conceptualisations. In addition, when using the term objectification in research, its definitions may vary considerably, depending on the context of the study or the researchers’ perspective. This shows that the conception of employee objectification is not well-established, and its development by including personal dignity would contribute not only to a better understanding of employee objectification but also to the acknowledgment of the employee as a person. In this context, incorporating personal dignity into the agenda of management research on employee objectification could be a beneficial direction for future studies.

Although objectification is recognized as a significant phenomenon in management research, its definitions, measurement criteria, and consequences often remain fragmented. This indicates the need to refine the concept so that it can be consistently applied across various management contexts, where objectification would be understood as a reduction or disregard of the employee‘s human qualities, when workers‘ emotions, intentions, and unique experiences become secondary to organizational or personal goals. In this case, the employee is seen not as a person who has intrinsic value but as a means to achieve these goals, while empathy for and recognition of the individual‘s unique value are consciously or unconsciously treated as obstacles to effectiveness. This link between objectification and dignity allows one to understand the phenomenon not only as a psychological or philosophical one but also as a managerial issue that directly affects leadership culture and the practices of managing employees and their interrelationships.

The main conditions hindering the acknowledgement of the value of the employee as an individual and not as an instrument are related to cultural trends existing at the levels of the society and organizations. However, most studies are limited to specific countries or to the culture of individual organizations, and neglect to consider the broader cross-cultural context. This suggests a need for developing international research in order to gain deeper understanding of the phenomenon of employee objectification and the relations between its manifestation and the cultural context.

The results of this review also revealed other systemic shortcomings limiting theoretical and empirical knowledge in this area. First, there is no unified view on what factors in organizations determine employee objectification, with views ranging from differences in work structure and status to organizational culture or technological management forms. Second, research is mostly limited to narrow empirical contexts, while cross-cultural and comparative aspects remain underdeveloped. Third, the relationship between objectification and dignity is rarely investigated empirically, although it could become a significant foundation for research on management ethics and employee wellbeing.

Management recommendations, or more precisely, the lack thereof, represent another aspect of employee objectification research that needs improvement. Since the results of organizational research are intended not solely for the scientific community, the lack of description regarding the specific steps that managers should take reduces their practical value. Managerial research conducted in these directions could not only broaden scientific knowledge but also serve to improve organizational management practices.

In future research, it would be useful to adhere not only to conceptual clarity but also to practical value. That is, to develop evidence-based models and management guidelines that help organizations recognize and mitigate the risks of employee objectification, strengthen ethical management culture, and promote respect for human dignity. This way, employee objectification could be conceptualized as a manifold phenomenon combining psychological, cultural, and managerial dimensions, and its investigation would emerge as an important direction in the management science agenda, helping to shape more humane and sustainable organizations.