No Cover Image

Staff Thesis 1721 views

Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula

Bibi Zhang Orcid Logo

Swansea University Author: Bibi Zhang Orcid Logo

Abstract

Objectification—treating human beings as instrumental tools that are deprived of agency and experience—is a common element in many management theories and practices. Objectification seems to cater to the needs of employers attempting to maximize profits by objectifying employees. However, objectific...

Full description

Published: Durham University 2022
Online Access: https://etheses.durham.ac.uk/id/eprint/14519/
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa64275
first_indexed 2023-08-31T18:13:26Z
last_indexed 2026-06-17T04:11:42Z
id cronfa64275
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2026-06-16T16:15:54.4282472</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>64275</id><entry>2023-08-31</entry><title>Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the &#x201C;humans-as-resources&#x201D; formula</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>75093b56ba50da0f779b01e67847b821</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-5715-4500</ORCID><firstname>Bibi</firstname><surname>Zhang</surname><name>Bibi Zhang</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2023-08-31</date><deptcode>CBAE</deptcode><abstract>Objectification&#x2014;treating human beings as instrumental tools that are deprived of agency and experience&#x2014;is a common element in many management theories and practices. Objectification seems to cater to the needs of employers attempting to maximize profits by objectifying employees. However, objectification undermines target employees&#x2019; needs, interests, and well-being. This thesis seeks to address this dilemma by looking into relevant theories and empirical evidence with regard to workplace objectification. I first examine the prevailing logic of objectification in many of labor economics and management theories. Second, I report a systematic review of objectification research that summarizes and integrates what is known about the antecedents and consequences of objectification from three different perspectives: Objectifying others, self-objectification, and experiencing objectification. This review sheds light on the dilemma of objectification, by showing that people often objectify others in order to achieve their extrinsic goals, such as money and power, or to reduce subjectivity uncertainty, while thwarting the objectified targets&#x2019; fundamental control, belonging, and self-esteem needs. Third, I present an empirical paper. Despite the negative impacts of objectification on the victims, I argue that objectification may have positive ancillary implications for the perpetrators. Drawing from system justification theory, I posit that especially in an organization characterized by higher power distance, objectifying supervisors would be afforded more power by their subordinates because they would deem such behavior as more typical (i.e., descriptive justification) and more desirable (i.e., prescriptive justification). Two experiments and one field study with supervisor-subordinate dyads were conducted to test the hypotheses. The results showed that when power distance was higher, subordinates afforded more power to an objectifying supervisor through prescriptive (but not descriptive) justification. This thesis contributes to the objectification literature by offering a unifying framework of objectification and by demonstrating when and how supervisor objectification can be rationalized and perpetuated.</abstract><type>Thesis</type><journal/><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication>Durham University</placeOfPublication><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>12</publishedDay><publishedMonth>7</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2022</publishedYear><publishedDate>2022-07-12</publishedDate><doi/><url>https://etheses.durham.ac.uk/id/eprint/14519/</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Management School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>CBAE</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2026-06-16T16:15:54.4282472</lastEdited><Created>2023-08-31T19:08:35.8548484</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Management - Business Management</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Bibi</firstname><surname>Zhang</surname><orcid>0000-0001-5715-4500</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2026-06-16T16:15:54.4282472 v2 64275 2023-08-31 Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula 75093b56ba50da0f779b01e67847b821 0000-0001-5715-4500 Bibi Zhang Bibi Zhang true false 2023-08-31 CBAE Objectification—treating human beings as instrumental tools that are deprived of agency and experience—is a common element in many management theories and practices. Objectification seems to cater to the needs of employers attempting to maximize profits by objectifying employees. However, objectification undermines target employees’ needs, interests, and well-being. This thesis seeks to address this dilemma by looking into relevant theories and empirical evidence with regard to workplace objectification. I first examine the prevailing logic of objectification in many of labor economics and management theories. Second, I report a systematic review of objectification research that summarizes and integrates what is known about the antecedents and consequences of objectification from three different perspectives: Objectifying others, self-objectification, and experiencing objectification. This review sheds light on the dilemma of objectification, by showing that people often objectify others in order to achieve their extrinsic goals, such as money and power, or to reduce subjectivity uncertainty, while thwarting the objectified targets’ fundamental control, belonging, and self-esteem needs. Third, I present an empirical paper. Despite the negative impacts of objectification on the victims, I argue that objectification may have positive ancillary implications for the perpetrators. Drawing from system justification theory, I posit that especially in an organization characterized by higher power distance, objectifying supervisors would be afforded more power by their subordinates because they would deem such behavior as more typical (i.e., descriptive justification) and more desirable (i.e., prescriptive justification). Two experiments and one field study with supervisor-subordinate dyads were conducted to test the hypotheses. The results showed that when power distance was higher, subordinates afforded more power to an objectifying supervisor through prescriptive (but not descriptive) justification. This thesis contributes to the objectification literature by offering a unifying framework of objectification and by demonstrating when and how supervisor objectification can be rationalized and perpetuated. Thesis Durham University 12 7 2022 2022-07-12 https://etheses.durham.ac.uk/id/eprint/14519/ COLLEGE NANME Management School COLLEGE CODE CBAE Swansea University 2026-06-16T16:15:54.4282472 2023-08-31T19:08:35.8548484 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Management - Business Management Bibi Zhang 0000-0001-5715-4500 1
title Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
spellingShingle Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
Bibi Zhang
title_short Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
title_full Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
title_fullStr Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
title_full_unstemmed Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
title_sort Objectification at work: A systematic review, empirical tests, and a rethink of the “humans-as-resources” formula
author_id_str_mv 75093b56ba50da0f779b01e67847b821
author_id_fullname_str_mv 75093b56ba50da0f779b01e67847b821_***_Bibi Zhang
author Bibi Zhang
author2 Bibi Zhang
format Staff Thesis
publishDate 2022
institution Swansea University
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Management - Business Management{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Management - Business Management
url https://etheses.durham.ac.uk/id/eprint/14519/
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description Objectification—treating human beings as instrumental tools that are deprived of agency and experience—is a common element in many management theories and practices. Objectification seems to cater to the needs of employers attempting to maximize profits by objectifying employees. However, objectification undermines target employees’ needs, interests, and well-being. This thesis seeks to address this dilemma by looking into relevant theories and empirical evidence with regard to workplace objectification. I first examine the prevailing logic of objectification in many of labor economics and management theories. Second, I report a systematic review of objectification research that summarizes and integrates what is known about the antecedents and consequences of objectification from three different perspectives: Objectifying others, self-objectification, and experiencing objectification. This review sheds light on the dilemma of objectification, by showing that people often objectify others in order to achieve their extrinsic goals, such as money and power, or to reduce subjectivity uncertainty, while thwarting the objectified targets’ fundamental control, belonging, and self-esteem needs. Third, I present an empirical paper. Despite the negative impacts of objectification on the victims, I argue that objectification may have positive ancillary implications for the perpetrators. Drawing from system justification theory, I posit that especially in an organization characterized by higher power distance, objectifying supervisors would be afforded more power by their subordinates because they would deem such behavior as more typical (i.e., descriptive justification) and more desirable (i.e., prescriptive justification). Two experiments and one field study with supervisor-subordinate dyads were conducted to test the hypotheses. The results showed that when power distance was higher, subordinates afforded more power to an objectifying supervisor through prescriptive (but not descriptive) justification. This thesis contributes to the objectification literature by offering a unifying framework of objectification and by demonstrating when and how supervisor objectification can be rationalized and perpetuated.
published_date 2022-07-12T05:38:18Z
_version_ 1868489344532086784
score 11.109323

Similar Items