Subordinating Humanism: How Colliding Beliefs about a Living Wage Shape Personal Fulfillment and “Professional-Class” Identities in Working-Class Jobs

In a society dominated by market-based ideology and management practices that prioritize financial considerations, some organizations are shifting toward humanistic ideology and practices that emphasize human welfare. To examine this transformation in pay-setting, we studied a U.S. company that introduced a living wage for its low-wage workers. Interviews with 64 participants across two sites revealed both intended and unintended effects. Motivated by humanistic aims, the living wage was designed to reduce financial insecurity; indeed, workers felt more financially secure and fulfilled in their personal lives. However, its humanistic intent conflicted with the dominant market-based ideology linking wages to performance, raising concerns about whether these workers deserved higher pay. To resolve this tension, managers and workers altered expectations for workers to reflect two aspects of professional-class roles: autonomy and overwork. As workers internalized these expectations, they adopted elements of professional-class identities while remaining in working-class jobs. Simultaneously, managers reaffirmed their own role identities as shapers of performance despite their weakened control over wages. These findings inform a multilevel model conceptualizing how a transformative humanistic practice can be subordinated to market-based ideology through identity work. We contribute to research on humanistic management and the interconnections between wage, class, work roles, and identity.