While commendable, an employee’s allegiance can paradoxically transform into a significant liability.
It appears that supervisors, although inclined to appreciate staff they perceive as devoted, are also prone to leveraging these dedicated individuals when distributing uncompensated duties or supplementary assignments, as indicated by recent scholarly findings.
The investigators posit that these managerial behaviors are not necessarily indicative of malicious intent; some leaders may simply lack awareness, failing to apprehend the ethical ramifications of their decisions.
Nevertheless, this provides scant solace for diligent employees who find themselves burdened with overwhelming workloads, seemingly as a consequence of their unwavering commitment.
“Organizations actively seek committed personnel, and a substantial body of research demonstrates that such employees confer numerous advantages upon their companies,” observes lead author Matthew Stanley, a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business in the US.
“However, it seems supervisors are predisposed to single them out for exploitative treatment,” he asserts.
Stanley and his research associates enlisted nearly 1,400 managers from the internet to participate in the investigation. Within this study, participants were presented with a series of hypothetical situations involving a fictional 29-year-old employee named John.
Participants were informed that John was employed by a firm endeavoring to reduce expenditures. Consequently, the managers were asked to evaluate their inclination to assign John additional hours and responsibilities without commensurate compensation.
The investigation revealed that managers consistently allocated more work to John if he possessed a reputation for loyalty, irrespective of other contextual elements introduced by the researchers.
The research team discovered that upon reviewing recommendation letters pertaining to John, those that emphasized his steadfastness notably amplified managers’ willingness to assign him unpaid tasks.
Conversely, different letters commending John for alternative positive attributes, such as integrity or impartiality, did not elicit the same response, suggesting that it was specifically his perceived loyalty that made managers more comfortable delegating work to him.
Furthermore, the study indicated that John’s acceptance of such assignments could further solidify managers’ perception of him. When managers encountered descriptions portraying John as amenable to extended hours and extra duties, they assessed him as more loyal than other hypothetical Johns who were depicted as declining optional additional work.
“This creates a self-perpetuating cycle,” explains Stanley. “Devoted employees tend to be targeted for exploitation. Subsequently, when they comply with such requests, their reputation as a loyal worker is enhanced, making them more likely targets in the future.”
The researchers acknowledge that instances of exploitation vary in their obviousness, and it could be argued that voluntary assignments do not constitute exploitation if supervisors simply solicit them rather than mandate them.
However, considering the inherent power imbalance between subordinates and supervisors, who often control access to crucial resources such as remuneration or health benefits, prior research suggests that employees frequently feel unable to safely refuse requests for unpaid additional work.
The study’s findings suggest that managers tend to view this dynamic as standard practice, with extra tasks naturally gravitating towards their most loyal employees as a direct consequence of their devotion.
Some of these behaviors, the researchers point out, may stem from less sinister motives. While not excusing mistreatment, the inclination of managers to capitalize on the loyalty of their staff might, at least partially, be attributed to “ethical blindness,” or a failure to recognize the inequity of their actions.
“The majority of individuals aspire to ethical conduct,” states Stanley. “Yet, they frequently deviate from these principles in their daily lives. Much of this stems from ethical blindness, where individuals fail to perceive the inconsistency between their actions and the principles or values they claim to uphold.”
In such scenarios, the researchers propose that augmenting managers’ awareness of this phenomenon could serve as a method to mitigate exploitation, assisting them in anticipating their ethical oversights.
The research scholars also emphasize that loyalty is not inherently detrimental, and employees should not invariably refrain from exceeding standard expectations.
“I do not intend to imply that the central takeaway of this paper is to discourage loyalty, as that would lead to negative outcomes,” advances Stanley.
“We hold individuals who demonstrate loyalty in high regard. They are perceived favorably and often receive recognition. It is not solely a negative dynamic; the situation is genuinely intricate and multifaceted.”
The findings of this study have been published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
