1

Cross Cultural Management; Literature Review Essay

Name of the Student

Name of the Instructor
Course
Due Date
 2

ORGANIZATIONAL DEHUMANIZATION AND EMOTIONAL LABOUR; A

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE UNITED
KINGDOM
INTRODUCTION
Organisational dehumanisation is directly linked to emotional labour. Organisational
dehumanisation refers to the psychological process by which individuals dehumanise others
and treat them as subhuman (Bastian, and Haslam, 2011, p. 295). Organisational
dehumanisation is also the experience in which employees feel objectified by the
organisation, denying individual subjectivity and feeling like a tool and means to achieve the
organisation's goals. Employees perceive that organisations use them as tools, (Bell &
Khoury, 2011). The perceptions of organisations dehumanisation are indirectly linked to
lower job security and satisfaction and increased willingness to quit employment, regardless
of country. In Vietnam, a country with high power distance, organisational dehumanisation
has not only adverse but more negative effects that include superficial exposure to job-related
consequences that are low than in the countries with low power distance, such as the UK.
Organisational dehumanisation can reduce job satisfaction and increase quitting intentions,
(Caesens et al., 2017, p. 527; 2019, p. 729; Demoulin et al., 2021, p. 196). Previous research
on the effects of organisational dehumanisation has focused on emotionally affecting
wellbeing, attitudes and behaviours.
THESIS STATEMENT
This literature review examines the cross-cultural variations in the relationship
between organisational dehumanisation and emotional components of labour and
employment, like job satisfaction and quitting intentions. In particular, organisational
dehumanisation and its superficial impact on job happiness and intention to quit employment
are moderated by a distance of power, a significant value frequently discussed in terms of
national culture to manage expectations.

IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE BOTH FOR AND AGAINST

TOPIC SENTENCE
While emotional work is a work-specific role that requires dealing with emotions
during interactions with people outside the organisation, organisational dehumanisation is an
employee perception of mistreatment linked to job security, satisfaction and increased
willingness to quit.
 3

ORGANISATIONAL DEHUMANISATION AND EMOTIONAL LABOUR

POSITIVE ARGUMENTATIVE
This article states that organisational dehumanisation is directly linked to emotional
labour. It also states that the emotional labour is aimed at achieving professional goals and
meeting the demands of job roles. Compared to the Western and European countries, the
work-specific emotional labour and perspectives regarding this relationship are weaker in
Asians. There are fewer correlations between organisational dehumanisation and outcomes in
nations with higher power distances than in nations with lower power distances. Overall,
these findings are consistent with the idea that surface effects are less harmful in high-power
nations. The inhuman face of an organisation can only be seen in countries with considerable
power distance if employees are aware of the organisation's rules of representation since
power distance implies submission and a display of deference to authoritative people. Only
when employees are aware of accountability norms make other cultural distinctions in
organisational connections between dehumanising and superficial behaviour develop.
Additionally, this article states that organisational dehumanisation has a superficial
impact on job happiness and affects the employees’ intention to quit employment. In regards
to this, the article states that the organisational dehumanisation, job satisfaction and retentions
levels are moderated by a distance of power, a significant value frequently discussed in terms
of national culture to manage expectations. Grandey & Gabriel, (2015) stated that the cultural
aspects are fundamental when studying emotional labour (p. 323). According to emerging
literature on the subject, culture may not be a significant factor in organisational
dehumanisation study because it has not yet been considered, (Ngoc-Tran, 2007, p. 430);
Lian et al., 2012, p. 107). It is now more incorrect than ever to ignore cultural influences.
This review of literature considers power distance, which is more accurately defined as the
value of power and authority because both organisational dehumanisation and superficial
behaviour include power interactions between firms and their employees. It appears to be the
most reasonable cultural value to possess. In doing so, it adds to writing close to home-work
that centres principally around collectivist social qualities to make sense of contrasts in
profound work encounters (Allen et al., 2014, p. 35; Grandy & Gabriel, 2015, p. 323).

ORGANISATIONAL DEHUMANISATION AND OUTCOMES

Organizational dehumanization is based on two forms of animal dehumanization,
which refers to the denial of traits that distinguish humans from animals, such as maturity and
 4

logic. The animal dehumanization form is most often mentioned in relation to ethnicity,
immigration, and warfare. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) proposes that organisational
dehumanisation treatment interferes with individual psychological needs related to autonomy
and connectedness (Christoff, 2014, p.748). Therefore, an organisation's impression of being
dehumanised should create more reasons for employees to quit. However, according to the
SDT, fulfilment of psychological needs creates happiness for individuals, and fulfilment of
psychological needs promotes well-being for individuals. Therefore, employees whom the
organisation dehumanises should show signs of mental illness that lead to poor job
satisfaction.

EMOTIONAL LABOUR AS A MEDIATOR

According to emotional work models, the effectiveness of workplace relationships,
particularly interpersonal abuse, is a significant factor in determining emotional work
(Grandey, 2000, p. 95). Therefore, by avoiding confrontations involving social resource loss,
abusive employees aim to protect and limit social resource loss. It may be made evident
saving societal resources. Even though there is a growing body of research on impact (Adams
& Webster, 2013, p. 710), institutionalised abuse is still primarily unstudied. According to
Hochschild (1983), emotional labour happens when workers must actively regulate their
emotions to convey the proper emotions because they lack the precise emotions needed for
the job. Employers maintain a good working environment and avoid conflicts with employees
by acting superficially because the organisation is perceived as impersonal. Past researches
have shown that employees often engage in superficial behaviours that make them feel
dehumanised by their organisations (Nguyen & Stinglhamber, 2020, p. 474).

THE ORGANIZATIONAL DEHUMANIZATION-OUTCOMES RELATIONSHIP ACROSS

COUNTRIES
Countries with high-power distance are aware of the existence of hierarchies, and
respect and respect for authority figures are accepted as social norms (Farh et al., 2007, p.
729). The power distance indicates a country's preference for power and power distance in
the workplace (Hofstede (1980). Garnefski et al. (2001, p. 1327) suggest that regulation of
cognitive influence may further explain this assumption. They found that it provides a
framework for what appears appropriate, which is related to the extent to which a person
accepts adverse events, Carver et al. (1989, p. 283. Accepting negative situations is mal-
adaptation associated with mal-adaptive consequences. This is because acceptance can imply
 5

thoughts of resignation, making the situation less damaging than not accepting (Carver et al.,
1989, p. 283). 
Farh et al., (2007, p. 729) stated that the countries with high power distances are more
prone to perceive hierarchies, display subservience, and tolerate abuse from authorities. As a
result, systematically dehumanised individuals are more likely to achieve adaptive work-
related outcomes in countries with high power distance than in countries with low power
distance. As expected, countries with greater power distances show weaker links between
organisational dehumanisation and outcomes than countries with low power distances
(Hofstede et al., 2010). This is because Vietnam has greater power distances than the UK as
the associations between organisational dehumanisation and job satisfaction, job retention,
and intention to leave the country are stronger in the UK than in Vietnam

THE SURFACE ACTING-OUTCOMES RELATIONSHIP ACROSS COUNTRIES

The Asian and Western countries treat emotions differently in human relationships,
(Matsumoto, 1990, p. 214). This is because of the differences in culture and in power
distance. In countries with a high-power distance, such as in Asian countries, people try to
live in peace, cohesion and harmony, and it is maintained in the social circle of a group of
people, so it feels like superficial behaviour when dealing with others. Emotional dissonance
due to emotional repression reduces effort and stress. By contrast, countries with low power
distances, such as those in the West, are more likely to encourage honest representation. This
is because these countries tend to encourage assertiveness and prohibit self-regulation when
dealing with high-status individuals (Matsumoto, 1990, p. 214). Emotional repression is,
therefore, less natural and uses up mental resources and this relationship is weaker in Asian
countries than in European countries.

ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH

The additional external academic research in support of the author’s hypothesis in the
article. On Organisational Dehumanisation and Emotional Labour, Nguyen et al., 2021, p. 60
stated that even in countries with high power disparities like Vietnam, the impact of
organisational dehumanisation on job perception, well-being and satisfaction and willingness
to quit is less pronounced than in countries with low power distance like the UK. Craighead
et al.., 2011, p. 578, stated that the organisational dehumanisation and superficial behaviours
are inherently individual perceptions and interventions based on self-report; they have
 6

implications for organisational dehumanisation and participant emotional work strategy

development.
Gosserand & Diefendorff, 2005, p. 1264 stated that the relationship between
organizational dehumanization and superficial behaviour does not appear to vary across
cultures. Most models of emotional work suggest that using effective expressions is
important in developing emotional work strategies. However, the researchers note that
although employees are aware of the labelling requirements, they still have the choice of
whether to comply with their requirements. Because power distance implies submission and
manifestation of respect for authority figures, countries with high power distance see the
inhuman face of an organization only if employees are aware of the organization's rules of
representation, (Gosserand & Diefendorff (2005, p. 1264). The other cultural differences in
organizational relationships between dehumanizing and superficial behaviour only occur
when employees know accountability rules, (Nguyen et al., 2021, p. 60).
ORGANISATIONAL DEHUMANISATION AND EMOTIONAL LABOUR
The current literature examines how the employees' views of organisational
dehumanisation affect the employees and perceptions about their wellbeing, employment-
retention levels, and job satisfaction. Previous literature from past research clarifies the
attitudes and cultural aspects that filter retirement intentions based on job satisfaction and
superficial behaviour. The research into the cross-cultural aspects of these relationships has
provided many theoretical and practical contributions that are essential and valuable to the
concepts of both emotional labour and organisational dehumanisation, (Bell & Khoury, 2016;
Caesens et al., 2017, p. 527; 2019, p. 729).
The adverse impacts of surface effects on job satisfaction and willingness to quit,
collectively known as employee turnover, are weaker in Vietnam due to the power distance
that exists therein than in the UK, which has a low power distance, (Nguyen et al., 2021, p.
60). The main reason for this is because the Vietnamese culture has high power distance as
the people who are not in power have a high level of acceptance that while they do not hold
power, it is spread unequally. This is compared to the UK, which has a low power distance.
Hofstede et al., 2010) stated that people in countries with more significant power distance are
more likely to engage in superficial behaviour or emotional repression is higher and this
reduces costs and reduces stress. While previous studies have recognised the critical role of
cultural differences in the relationship between superficial behaviour and work-related
outcomes, this study suggests that distance in power reduces the negative effects of work. By
suggesting that it may be a cultural way of explaining employee wellbeing and perceptions
 7

towards the organisation. Therefore, an organisation should support managers, develop

management skills, and encourage training to correct abusive organisational behaviour,
(Nguyen et al., 2021, p. 60). This results in managers training on relationship management in
organisations to mitigate sensations of hierarchical dehumanisation among representatives.
However, there are lots of limitations that could be seen in this study. The application
of the cross-sectional design in which causality directions could not be determined makes it
more susceptible to common modal variance to the increment in the strength of relationships
between variables. However, the study on the strengths of organisational dehumanisation
shows that it has increased participant participation and allowed respondents to contact
researchers with questions about the topic, leading to more accurate answers.
Conversely, if the results reflect the same type of abusive behaviour, such as
organisational bias, power distance is more likely to exacerbate this relationship. It is
suggested that perceptions of organisational dehumanisation contribute to decreased
organisational well-being and attitudes, (Bell & Khoury, 2016). Organisations should
implement strategies and policies to lessen feelings of dehumanisation among their
employees. Specifically, higher levels of procedural fairness, institutional support, and less
abusive oversight were associated with staff rigour, which was shown to help reduce
perceptions of treatment (Bell & Khoury, 2016; Caesens et al., 2017, p. 527; 2019, p. 729).

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTATIVE
In contrast, there have been other views that states that organisational dehumanisation
is not directly linked to emotional labour as it is primarily concerned with wellbeing, attitudes
and behaviour, and its impact on emotional dimensions. In most cases, the emotional labour
repression is less natural and requires more mental energy. Additionally, it has been
determined that organisational dehumanisation is a lousy experience that disrespects people
and is likely to cause people to distance themselves from the company, (Bell & Khoury,
2011, p. 184). This show that employees who perceive organisational dehumanisation as an
aspect in employment have lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions (Caesens et
al., 2017, p. 527; 2019, p. 729).  This is because the high-power distance countries are
believed to be more susceptible to power inequality than countries with low power distances.
This is very much opposed to what the article states.
Additionally, as opposed to this article, there is a general notion that organisational
dehumanisation has less effects on job happiness and affects the employees’ intention to quit
employment. The negative results of each organisational dehumanisation and its effect on job
 8

satisfaction and employee turnover are weaker in remote countries. It is a double-edged

sword against abuse. Power distance softens relationships when outcomes reflect responses
such as job satisfaction and attitudes of wanting to leave the abuser, (Bell & Khoury,
2016).Therefore, against the expatiation of the article, organisational dehumanisation has less
effects on job happiness and affects the employees’ intention to quit employment.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I agree with the author’s point of view as the countries with high power
distances are more likely to submit to and accept abuse from those in power because they are
aware of the existence of hierarchies. This literature reviews examines the cultural
differences in the relationship between job satisfaction and the intention to perform emotional
tasks, such as surface acting. The organizational dehumanization and the negative impact of
external influences on job satisfaction and employee turnover are weaker in countries with
high power distances. Vietnam is also vulnerable because its culture has high power distance
than the British culture (Hofstede et al., 2010); as people in countries with more significant
power distance are less costly, less stressed, and more likely to be involved in oppression.
The recent contributions to current results of this study suggest that people in different
sociocultural contexts have different interpretations of organizational practices and emotional
regulation, leading to different outcomes.
Future researchers should consider more sophisticated approaches to generalize
findings on organizational dehumanization or emotional labor found in Western samples as
the behaviour research and therapy showed that mindfulness practices help improve worker
well-being by reducing the use of superficial behaviours.
Implications
The outcome of this study implies that the people affected by systematic
dehumanization in countries with high power distances are more vulnerable to work-related
adaptation outcomes than those with low power distances. The examination of the current
literature states that cultural differences affect organizational dehumanization and the impact
of superficial behaviour on employee well-being and attitudes toward the organization.
 9

LIST OF REFERENCES
Adams, G.A. and Webster, J.R., 2013. Emotional regulation as a mediator between
interpersonal mistreatment and distress. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(6), pp.697-710.
Allen, J.A., Diefendorff, J.M. and Ma, Y., 2014. Differences in emotional labor across
cultures: A comparison of Chinese and US service workers. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 29(1), pp.21-35.
Bastian, B. and Haslam, N., 2011. Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional
effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(4),
pp.295-303.
Bell, C.M. and Khoury, C., 2011. Organizational de/humanization, deindividuation, anomie,
and in/justice.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. 1989. Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–
283.
Caesens, G., Nguyen, N. and Stinglhamber, F., 2019. Correction to: Abusive Supervision and
Organizational Dehumanization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(5), pp.729-
729.
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin, S. and De Wilde, M., 2017. Perceived
organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of
organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 26(4), pp.527-540.
Christoff, K., 2014. Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and ethical
considerations. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, p.748.
Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., Dunn, K.S. and Hult, G.T.M., 2011. Addressing common
method variance: guidelines for survey research on information technology,
operations, and supply chain management. IEEE transactions on engineering
management, 58(3), pp.578-588.
Demoulin, S., Nguyen, N., Chevallereau, T., Fontesse, S., Bastart, J., Stinglhamber, F. and
Maurage, P., 2021. Examining the role of fundamental psychological needs in the
development of metadehumanization: A multi‐population approach. British journal of
social psychology, 60(1), pp.196-221.
Farh, J.L., Hackett, R.D. and Liang, J., 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators
of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China:
 10

Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of management

journal, 50(3), pp.715-729.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. 2001. Negative life events, cognitive emotion
regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1311–
1327.
Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. 2015. Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go
from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 2, 323–349. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400
Grandey, A.A., 2000. Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize
emotional labor. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), p.95.
Gosserand, R. H., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional labor:
the moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1256–1264.
Hochschild, A.R., 1983. The managed heart. Berkeley.
Hofstede, G. H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Sage
Lian, H., Ferris, D.L. and Brown, D.J., 2012. Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the
effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of applied
psychology, 97(1), p.107.
Matsumoto, D., 1990. Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and
emotion, 14(3), pp.195-214.
Ngoc-Tran, A., 2007. Alternatives to the “race to the bottom” in Vietnam: Minimum wage
strikes and their aftermath. Labor Studies Journal, 32(4), pp.430-451.
Nguyen, N. and Stinglhamber, F., 2020. Workplace mistreatment and emotional labor: A
latent profile analysis. Motivation and emotion, 44(3), pp.474-490.
Nguyen, N., Dao, Q.A., Nhan, T.L.A. and Stinglhamber, F., 2021. Organizational
dehumanization and emotional labor: A cross-cultural comparison between Vietnam
and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(1), pp.43-60.
 11

Appendix

Organizational Dehumanization and Emotional Labor: A CrossCultural Comparison Between

Vietnam and the United Kingdom;

Nguyen, N., Dao, Q.A., Nhan, T.L.A. and Stinglhamber, F., 2021. Organizational
dehumanization and emotional labor: A cross-cultural comparison between Vietnam and the
United Kingdom. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(1), pp.43-60.