Photo: iStock | Charday Penn
Are Loyal Retail Workers Being Exploited?
A university study finds that while research has shown loyal workers offer numerous benefits to employers, they tend to be exploited by being asked to do unpaid work and additional job tasks where less committed colleagues are not.
In the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, nearly 1,400 managers were presented with various scenarios around a fictional 29-year-old employee named John. They were told John’s employer was looking to reduce expenses and asked to rate their willingness to assign John extra hours and duties without additional pay.
In all scenarios, the managers consistently gave John more work if he had a reputation for loyalty over those with reputations for other positive traits, like honesty or fairness. Furthermore, when managers read descriptions of John as open to extra hours and duties, they rated him as more loyal than alternate Johns with reputations for declining optional extra work.
“It’s a vicious cycle,” Matthew Stanley, a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, said in a statement. “Loyal workers tend to get picked out for exploitation. And then when they do something that’s exploitative, they end up getting a boost in their reputation as a loyal worker, making them more likely to get picked out in the future.”
Nonetheless, researchers concluded that the exploitation is likely not due to malicious intent but ignorance, or what psychologists call “ethical blindness.” Prof. Stanley likened it to how people known for other aspirational traits, like generosity, often get taken advantage of.
“Most people want to be good,” he said. “Yet, they transgress with surprising frequency in their everyday lives. A lot of it is due to ethical blindness, where people don’t see how their actions are inconsistent with whatever principles or values they profess.”
The study didn’t call on employees to abandon work commitments or outright refuse uncompensated overtime. Still, it said managers should be aware of the potential for exploitation.
“We value people who are loyal,” said Prof. Stanley. “We think about them in positive terms. They get awarded often. It’s not just the negative side. It’s really tricky and complex.”
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Does it make sense that retail associates or managers with loyal reputations are often tasked with extra unpaid work? Are such sacrifices simply the path to career development or is it problematic?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
DeAnn Campbell
Head of Retail Insights, AAG Consulting Group
Gene Detroyer
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
I suppose it’s just human nature to do that. To toss work to a person you trust. I had a boss once who used to say “If you need something done, give it to a busy person.” He wasn’t wrong.
But presuming it’s a “sacrifice on the path to career development” is not right at all. It would be great if we could treat associates and managers as humans. The old Golden Rule matters here. “Do unto others…”
I know this isn’t a very tech-oriented answer, but it’s all about human nature — on both sides of the equation.
Capable associates are naturally tasked with more than others and are not immediately compensated for it. If the associate works for an upstanding employer, the extra work and ability will be recognized and s/he will be rewarded eventually. If one doesn’t get the recognition and the reward, one is working for the wrong employer.
It’s not tricky or complex. Managers that can’t behave fairly and consistently shouldn’t be managers. Sure, give the loyal employee first shot at extra work, and then be damned sure they get paid. Reinforce loyalty, not indifference.
This isn’t new behavior, both inside and outside of the work world, but I’m glad it’s finally being discussed in the light of day. Companies should have an obligation to ensure that, even if workers are willing to allow themselves to be exploited, they are compensated fairly and not expected to work for free. But it’s too easy to see gray areas when a company is downsizing and a good worker volunteers to take on extra duties.
This is not something unique to retail by any means. Managers get conditioned through experience to ask things of employees who are more likely to say yes. Especially if those things are over and above or, I’ll say it, under the table. It is always illegal to ask hourly employees to do work “off the clock.” At best, some managers will take advantage of those trying to make a good impression. At worst, the company culture becomes one where off-the-clock is the norm and team members who can not work extra hours for free get bypassed due to their circumstances. Loyalty should not be measured by an employee’s willingness to violate company policy and, in many cases, break the law.
I don’t find this to be new news. Historically, associates who deliver on their commitments have always been tasked with additional projects. This is the essence of meritocracy. I do think managers ought to task all employees with “stretch” actions to test them–see how they perform under pressure, outside their comfort zone. This is a great way to evaluate and begin to assess low, medium and high performers. Am I missing something here?
Retail brands value employees who are loyal and management think about them in positive terms, and loyal employees get rewarded often. However company loyalty is a double-edged sword as managers exploit loyal workers over less committed colleagues. in many cases, it leads to career development and progression.
Maybe I am missing something. Does the manager tell the employee to clock out, then do the extra work? This strikes me as personally egregious and even illegal.
This seems to be a theoretical study rather than one drawn from real life. As such, it is very limited and I strongly question how accurate it is in being able to claim that retail workers are exploited. I’d also like to see what the fictitious John character thinks of the situation and evaluate his long term career prospects, earnings potential and ability to get bonuses and other perks. I am not saying that “exploitation” doesn’t happen, but it isn’t as black and white as a scenario study.
If unicorns were giving you cash, would you take it? I hate hypotheticals. How about reality? No one is trying to “exploit” any one person. Do managers ask their best to do more? Of course. That’s not exploiting them as if they were some third-world factory worker. Please can we have actual stats of actual people doing actual work instead of hypotheticals treated as news?
With this POV, why will 74% of retail workers look for a new job in ’23? (Per an article in this very magazine). An inspired team will go above and beyond when the need arises, but when repeatedly told it’s expected to, those same people will jump ship for $0.25/hour more somewhere else.
Oh please. People will always ask the most loyal and common employees to do more. And this silly survey of people with hypotheticals has no validity.
This is a problem for everyone. The work contract for retail is (mostly) an hour paid for an hour worked. The “loyal” associate (might that be another word for promotable?) should be compensated for the ability to pick up where others will not, and the manager that falls back on asking for work with no pay associated in order to hit a goal of some kind should get some serious coaching–this is a lazy response to the management challenge.
“Loyal” seems to be defined in this scenario as, “willing to do extra tasks if asked.” But loyal employees aren’t suckers, and they should expect to be compensated for extra hours worked — if they are hourly employees.
Salaried managers are another question. If one of those managers is not on the clock, the chances of being exploited are greater. This is an unfortunate reality and it extends beyond the retail business; it’s the exact opposite of how to engender real loyalty among your salaried employees.
We call it the “curse of competence” – or, “no good deed goes unpunished.” Managers try to keep headcount steady because the cost and effort of recruiting and training is higher than keeping a marginal (but not anti-productive) person on staff – so the ones who can get things done, get assigned more work.
In many cases, as borne out in numerous lawsuits, it’s misclassified managers who are being exploited today at retail. Workers without supervisory duties who hold manager titles have been forced to work on breaks and put in overtime hours without additional compensation.
Downgrading positions is absolutely one way workers take on more without commensurate title, pay and benefits.
Loyal workers in all industries are regularly exploited by managers under pressure for productivity and/or costs. Employees shouldn’t be asked to do off-the-clock work, even if it’s implied that it will possibly help them advance their career at some time in the future.
Ethical blindness? I love these sugar-coated descriptors for what is essentially flawed, evil, cruel behavior. This article reminds me of a saying: If you are a giver, remember to learn your limits. Because the takers don’t have any.
As sometimes happens, I think we have a semantics problem: we’re confusing loyal with “being a sucker”. Yes, of course, people will occasionally be asked to go “above and beyond” (just as they will occasionally ask for a favor). Often, tho, isn’t occasionally. This isn’t some investment bank where newbies are given opportunities to prove themselves; overwhelmingly these are dead end jobs where the “reward” for sacrifice will be being asked for more of the same.
Clearly hourly retail associates should never be asked to do extra work without compensation.
For salaried employees, there’s always been growth opportunities for those who are willing to take on more, or show such eagerness. But such loyalty and interest requires a mutual understanding between boss and employee. Bosses must remember to thank, and reward them in some form or fashion as time goes on. It won’t take long for employees know if their loyalty and contributions are being taken advantage of.
Managers naturally tend to funnel tasks to employees who are most competent (the “busy person” as Paula reminds us).
For the hourly worker who gets to add an extra shift at overtime pay, this can be most welcome. For bottom-rung “managers” it is too often exploitative.
None of this has anything to do with “loyalty” as I understand the term. Unless a manager regards a staffer who is afraid to say “no” as loyal.
Allow me to repeat the axiom here: Loyalty flows downhill.
In my world view, a loyal manager is one who does not dump on their team.