Stigmatized Work and Stigmatized Workers

Stigmas pervade organizational life. A stigma is a discrediting social evaluation that devalues an individual or group. We review research on stigmatized work and stigmatized workers, with a particular emphasis on how people become stigmatized and what they (and others) do about it. To do so, we connect stigma to other concepts in its nomological net and compare multiple models of stigma dynamics. We consider the intertwining nature of stigma and identity/image, how context affects stigma, and how stigma is managed by both the stigmatized and the nonstigmatized. We also offer critiques of key blind spots in workplace stigma research and point toward future research in this area that is more interconnected with other literatures and more inclusive of overlooked populations. Our vantage point is that workplace stigma continues to be an exciting domain of research with a high potential for theoretical discoveries and practical applications. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Stigma Related to COVID-19 Positive Patients in Jeddah – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during 2020 Pandemic

Background: COVID-19 has contributed to the development of stigma in the community of Jeddah, thus causing negative attitudes and beliefs toward individuals linked to the disease. Objective: To describe stigma related to COVID-19 positive patients and find out factors associated with stigma subscales. Subjects and Methods: Analytical cross-sectional study conducted on COVID-19 positive patients (lab confirmed) in Jeddah. The sample size was 420 patients, and the data was collected using a validated questionnaire adapted from HIV/AIDS stigma instrument (HASI-P). The data were analysed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS, version 27.0). Results: Total number of responses was (419). The median age was 32 (IQR, 25-43). Both genders, Saudi and non-Saudi, were included. The tool used to measure the COVID-19 related stigma of different six subscales. The verbal abuse had a median of (0, IQR=0-0.25), negative self-perception (median=0, IQR=0.02), health care neglect (median=0, IQR=0-0), social isolation (median=0.2, IQR=0-0.6), fear of contagion (median=0.33, IQR=0-0.83) and workplace stigma (median=0, IQR=0-0). Male gender was significantly associated with social isolation and fear of contagion, while working in the health care field was associated with workplace-related stigma. Conclusion: COVID-19-related social stigma was reported by a considerable number of Jeddah healthcare providers, specifically workplace-related stigma. Unexpectedly, males need more attention as regard to social isolation and fear of contagion. The results of this study can be of used to guide supportive social interventions to suppress the COVID-19 related stigma.

Primary care professionals’ experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece: a qualitative study

Background The coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) tested health care systems worldwide. This qualitative study aimed to explore and understand the experiences, beliefs and concerns of Primary Care Professionals (PCPs) regarding the preparedness and response of primary care to the first wave of the pandemic in Greece, a country where a public structured primary care system has been developing. Methods We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 33 PCPs (General Practitioners, community General Internal Medicine Specialists, community Paediatricians and nurses) recruited from all regions of Greece after the first wave of the pandemic (June 2020). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, data were anonymised and analysed. Thematic analysis was applied developing a conceptual framework. Results Four main themes were identified: a) Primary care unit adaptation and issues faced during the pandemic; b) Management of suspected COVID-19 cases; c) Management of non-suspected cases; d) Consequences of the pandemic. In the first phase of the pandemic, remote management of suspected cases and their referral to the hospital were preferred as a result of a shortage of personal protective equipment and inaccessibility to coronavirus testing in primary care. Due to the discontinuation of regular medical services and the limited in-person contact between doctors and patients, chronic disease management and prevention programmes were left behind. Social and emotional consequences of the pandemic, such as workplace stigma, isolation and social seclusion, deriving from fear of viral transmission, as well as burnout symptoms and exhaustion were commonly experienced among PCPs. Positive consequences of the pandemic were considered to be the recognition of the importance of an empowered public healthcare system by citizens and the valuable insight, knowledge and experience professionals gained in times of crisis. Conclusions Primary care has a key role to play during and after the pandemic by using its information infrastructure to identify at-risk groups, detect new cases of COVID-19, provide care according to needs, and carry out vaccination programmes. Central coordination and empowerment of primary care will increase its effectiveness, via public awareness, holistic patient management, and unburdening of hospitals.

Workers' Decisions to Disclose a Mental Health Issue to Managers and the Consequences

Background: Stigma can be a barrier to accessing effective interventions and work accommodations for mental illnesses. Fear of stigma's concomitant prejudice and discrimination can inhibit workers from asking for help. Thus, it may be important to develop effective interventions addressing workplace stigma. To identify important targets for these interventions, this study addresses three questions: (1) what proportion of workers experiencing mental health issues disclosed their mental health issue to their managers, (2) what factors did they identify as contributing to their disclosure decisions, and (3) what were the consequences of their decisions?Methods: The dataset is comprised of responses from respondents who were randomly drawn from a nationally representative sample of working Dutch adults who completed a web-based survey in February 2018. Respondents indicating they either had or have mental health issues were asked three sets of questions focusing on: (1) Did you disclose your mental health issue to you manager? (2) For what reasons did you disclose/not disclose the issue? (3) What were the consequences of your disclosure decision?Results: About 73% of respondents with lived experience with mental health issues told their managers about their mental health issue. The structure of the survey questions identified four groups of workers who either: (1) disclosed and had a positive experience (64.2%), (2) disclosed and had a negative experience (9.0%), (3) did not disclose and had a positive experience (22.6%), or (4) did not disclose and had a negative experience (4.2%).Conclusion: Our results reflect workers' diverse preferences for disclosing their mental health issues to their managers. Understanding both the factors that contributed to the decision to disclose and the consequences of disclosure decisions could help to better target workplace educational programs and interventions to address workplace stigma. Our findings suggest that addressing workplace stigma may not be as straightforward as requiring all employees to receive anti-stigma education. Rather, education should support workers to make the appropriate disclosure decision based on their workplace contexts. Future research is needed to understand the optimal ways for workers struggling with mental health issues to ask and receive help if they need it.

Line managers’ hiring intentions regarding people with mental health problems: a cross-sectional study on workplace stigma

ObjectivesStigma may negatively affect line managers’ intention to hire people with mental health problems (MHP). This study aims to evaluate line managers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning job applicants with MHP, and to assess which factors are associated with the intention (not) to hire an applicant with MHP.MethodsA sample of Dutch line managers (N=670) filled out a questionnaire on their knowledge, attitudes and experiences concerning applicants/employees with MHP. Descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses were used.ResultsThe majority (64%) was reluctant to hire a job applicant with MHP, despite the fact that only 7% had negative and 52% had positive personal experiences with such employees. Thirty per cent were reluctant to hire an applicant if they knew the applicant had past MHP. Associated with higher reluctance to hire an applicant with MHP were the concerns that it will lead to long-term sickness absence (β (95% CI)=0.39 (0.23 to 0.55)), that the employee cannot handle the work (β (95% CI)=0.16 (0.00 to 0.33)) that one cannot count on the employee (β (95% CI)=0.41 (0.23 to 0.58)) and higher manager education level (β (95% CI)=0.25 (0.05 to 0.44)). Conversely, associated with positive hiring intentions was being in favour of diversity and/or inclusive enterprise (β(95% CI)=−0.64 (−0.87 to −0.41)).ConclusionsAs the majority of managers were reluctant to hire applicants with MHP, and even 30% were reluctant to hire applicants who had past MHP, these findings have major implications for social inclusion in the Netherlands, where about 75% of employees would disclose MHP at work.

What Could Influence Workers' Decisions to Disclose a Mental Illness at Work?

Background: Stigma can be a barrier for workers experiencing a mental illness to access accommodations at work. However, work accommodations may be necessary to maintain a worker's ability to work. Therefore, it may be important to develop effective interventions to address workplace stigma. Objective: To determine (1) what proportion of workers would probably disclose their mental health issue to their manager, (2) what are the motivating factors for the decision of whether or not to disclose, and (3) what would potentially change the disclosure decision? Methods: A link to a Web-based questionnaire was sent to a nationally representative sample of 1671 Dutch adults over 18 years of age. The response rate was 74%. We focused on the 892 respondents who indicated they were either employed for pay or looking for employment, not in management positions, and never experienced a mental health issue. This group comprised 73% of the total sample. They were asked if they would disclose their mental health issue to their manager. For what reasons would they disclose/not disclose the issue? And, what could change their decision? Results: We found that almost 75% of workers would disclose to their managers. The perceived relationship with their managers and feelings of responsibility to their workplaces were important contributors to the decision. A large minority of workers would not tell, preferring to deal with their issues alone. In addition, a significant proportion of workers would choose not to disclose fearing negative consequences. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the majority of these Dutch workers would disclose a mental health issue to their managers. The relationship with the manager plays a central role. The advice from a trusted individual and the experiences of colleagues are also significant factors in the disclosure decision.

Impacts of stigma and discrimination in the workplace on people living with psychosis

Background. Employment holds many benefits for people living with psychosis. However, significant barriers to employment for this cohort appear to exist, notably stigma and discrimination against people living with serious mental health conditions. We asked: Would a qualitative sample including multiple stakeholder groups reveal similar results and if so, what would be the main impacts of such stigma and discrimination? Method. This analysis used data from a qualitative study that had applied focus groups and interviews to investigate the employment barriers and support needs of people living with psychosis, including views of the multiple stakeholders (such as those living with mental health conditions, health professionals, and employers). Results: The analyses confirmed the most frequently referenced barriers to employment were stigma and discrimination. The main impacts of workplace stigma and discrimination on people living with psychosis involved five areas: work avoidance, reluctance to disclose mental health conditions to employers, work-related stress, and reduced longevity of employment. Conclusions. As in earlier studies, the main barriers to employment for those living with psychosis were stigma and discrimination, and significant impacts from such stigma and discrimination were found in this study. The findings indicate a need to provide support mechanisms and to change the culture of workplaces to improve employment opportunities and outcomes for people living with psychosis.

Impacts of stigma and discrimination in the workplace on people living with psychosis

Background. Employment holds many benefits for people living with psychosis. However, significant barriers to employment for this cohort appear to exist, notably stigma and discrimination against people living with serious mental health conditions. We asked: Would a qualitative sample including multiple stakeholder groups reveal similar results and if so, what would be the main impacts of such stigma and discrimination? Method. This analysis used data from a qualitative study that had applied focus groups and interviews to investigate the employment barriers and support needs of people living with psychosis, including views of the multiple stakeholders (such as those living with mental health conditions, health professionals, and employers). Results: The analyses confirmed the most frequently referenced barriers to employment were stigma and discrimination. The main impacts of workplace stigma and discrimination on people living with psychosis involved five areas: work avoidance, reluctance to disclose mental health conditions to employers, work-related stress, and reduced longevity of employment. Conclusions. As in earlier studies, the main barriers to employment for those living with psychosis were stigma and discrimination, and significant impacts from such stigma and discrimination were found in this study. The findings indicate a need to provide support mechanisms and to change the culture of workplaces to improve employment opportunities and outcomes for people living with psychosis.

Impacts of stigma and discrimination in the workplace on people living with psychosis

Background. Employment holds many benefits for people living with psychosis. However, significant barriers to employment for this cohort appear to exist, notably stigma and discrimination against people living with serious mental health conditions. We asked: Would an Australian qualitative sample reveal similar results and if so, what would be the main impacts of such stigma and discrimination? Method. This analysis used data from a qualitative study that had investigated the employment barriers and support needs of people living with psychosis, including the views of multiple stakeholder groups (such as those living with mental health conditions, health professionals, and employers). Results. The analyses confirmed the most frequently referenced barriers to employment were stigma and discrimination. The main impacts of workplace stigma and discrimination on people living with psychosis included five areas: work avoidance, reluctance to disclose mental health conditions to employers, work-related stress, and reduced longevity of employment. Conclusions. As in overseas studies, the main barriers to employment for those living with psychosis were stigma and discrimination, and there were significant impacts from such stigma and discrimination. The findings indicate a need to change the culture of workplaces to improve employment opportunities and outcomes for people living with psychosis.