Investigating occupational disidentification: a resource loss perspective

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of occupational disidentification through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998). Occupational disidentification is conceptualized as a coping strategy, or an investment of resources to cope with poor perceived prestige of the occupation, which represents a threat to an individual’s resource: one’s self-esteem. However, occupational disidentification, as an avoidance coping strategy, generates a loss of cognitive and emotional resources leading to emotional exhaustion and, in turn, departure from the organization.

Design/methodology/approach

The research hypotheses are tested among two samples of employees working in health and social services (Study 1, N=544), and in home care services (Study 2, N=113). Measures of employees’ attitudes were collected at the same time, and turnover was collected 18 months (Study 1) and 12 months (Study 2) later.

Findings

Research hypotheses are all supported. Occupational disidentification partially mediates the occupational prestige-emotional exhaustion relationship, and emotional exhaustion partially mediates the occupational disidentification-turnover intention relationship. Perceived organizational support moderates the negative relationship between perceived occupational prestige and occupational disidentification.

Originality/value

The main contribution of this study is the conceptualization of occupational disidentification within the theoretical framework of COR. In that vein, the study provides: a deeper understanding of the mechanisms explaining and buffering occupational disidentification, and empirical evidence of the key role of emotional exhaustion to explain the consequences of occupational disidentification.

Citation

Bentein, K., Guerrero, S., Jourdain, G. and Chênevert, D. (2017), "Investigating occupational disidentification: a resource loss perspective", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 530-546. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2016-0015