Office Dogs, Lab Rats, and Pigeons on the Roof: Multispecies Relations in the Workplace

After this post, Mindwise will be on summer break until September. Happy summer!

From law enforcement, veterinary care, and therapy facilities to zoos, farms, slaughterhouses, and wildlife conservation, animals play critical roles in many types of organization around the globe. The presence of animals also makes these organizations places of multispecies encounters for millions of humans who work there (Hannah & Robertson, 2017). For instance, in the European Union, the livestock farming industry employs approximately 4 million people (European Commission, 2020), more than 455,000 people are employed in the veterinary services industry in the United States (IBIS World, 2023). In China, over 300,000 people work in the laboratory animal industry (McLaughlin, 2016).

Differences in the treatment of animals, based on how society sees them, often arise in discussions about animal welfare. In a recent paper, we took a broader perspective and explored the distinct roles animals can have in the workplace and how these roles affect the way people treat them. Actually, our focus was on five roles that animals may take on in human workplaces: those of commodity, client, coworker, companion, and acquaintance (Kandel et al., 2023). We show how each animal role shapes both the perceptions and treatment of animals in organizations and what this means for animals and humans. Understanding animals’ roles not only helps us to acknowledge their crucial involvement in human workplaces but also challenges us to think critically about our relations with and ethical obligations toward animals in the workplace.

Five animal roles at work

In many organizations, animals are viewed primarily as commodities, valued and used for their (economic) utility.This is the way people typically think about animals in human enterprises, and is most evident in sectors such as livestock farming, zoos, and laboratories, where animals are treated as means to an end, a perspective that reduces them to objects. This is also reflected in the language employed in these settings. For example, in the meatpacking industry, chickens are counted by “piece” or by pound, rather than as individual beings. However, even when animals are treated as commodities, most workers still recognize them as living creatures who are capable of feeling, suffering, thinking, and acting intentionally (McLoughlin, 2019; Sage et al., 2016). Recognizing animals as sentient beings while also having to treat them as objects can have devastating consequences for workers. It is linked to poor mental and physical health, as well as behavioral issues such as substance abuse and increased aggression, even outside of work, for example, toward family members (Baran et al., 2016; McLoughlin et al., 2019).

In other settings, animals may take on the role of clients, such as in veterinary clinics and pet daycare centers, which generally aim to enhance an animal’s well-being. Animal clients are recognized for their individual needs, although these are usually defined by humans or human caretakers. Workers in these contexts often experience a strong emotional bond with their animal clients. Sometimes, as in the case of veterinarians, this can create tension when caretakers face dilemmas of potentially harming the animals in their care (e.g., euthanasia).

While these two roles may be quite familiar, it might be more surprising that humans also interact with animals as co-workers, for instance, in therapy facilities and policing. Animals in these settings are taught to perform explicit tasks, as requested by their human “manager.” They are trained and valued for their skills and actively contribute to organizational objectives. For example, police dogs are trained to sniff out bombs or drugs, and they sometimes patrol with officers. Dogs and other animals, like horses and alpacas, help out in clinical settings or schools, giving comfort and support through animal-assisted therapy (e.g., Barker, 2005). This level of collaboration typically requires a high degree of human–animal interaction. Humans and animals train and work closely together, which fosters strong bonds that often transcend mere companionship. Even though they are recognized as “co-workers,” these animals do not have the same status as their human colleagues do, who often closely control the animals’ actions (Dashper, 2020).

 

Some animals serve as acquaintances, interacting with organizations and humans in ways that almost seem incidental

Animals as companions are most often studied with regard to office dogs. The trend of allowing owners to bring their dogs to work is growing, with organizations increasingly adopting “pet-friendly” workplace policies and practices (Wilkin et al., 2016). As companions, animals are appreciated for the emotional and social support they provide, rather than for performing specific tasks. This function emphasizes the social and emotional bonds between humans and animals, yet the animals remain subject to human preferences and regulations. While certain animal behaviors are deemed acceptable or even favorable—for example, friendliness toward humans—other behaviors, such as barking, are not accepted and even punished, for instance through exclusion (Charles & Wolkowitz, 2019; Dashper, 2020).

Finally, some animals serve as acquaintances, interacting with organizations and humans in ways that almost seem incidental. Examples include wildlife in and around construction sites, pigeons outside office buildings, and rats at waste disposal sites. Since humans take up more and more space and are expanding into previously untouched habitats, animals are increasingly forced to adapt to spaces occupied by humans (Haraway, 2013), interact with them, and sometimes even form relationships with humans in these spaces. These interactions pose complex questions of multispecies relations and cohabiting in organizations, such as questions of inclusion (e.g., setting up bird houses and beehives on company premises) and expulsion (e.g., distributing rat poison).

These five roles are typically associated with particular animal species, whereby societal norms and beliefs affect the likelihood of animals holding specific organizational roles. For instance, employees would quite likely be surprised if their colleague brought a companion pig, rather than a dog, to work; however, animal species are not tied to specific roles. Dogs may be assigned the role of laboratory, therapy, sled, police, rescue, or office dogs. In addition, a dog could start life as a commodity in a research laboratory, be trained as a coworker in a rescue organization, visit a veterinary clinic as a client, and eventually “retire” as a companion animal who occasionally accompanies their human companion to work.

Future Directions in Human–Animal Work in Organizational Settings

In summary, human–animal interactions in organizations are pretty complex, multifaceted, and often deeply connected. Organizations should start thinking from the animals’ point of view and make gradual changes in their policies and practices to appreciate the roles animals play. We believe that organizations that acknowledge the contributions of animals can promote respectful treatment and foster environments that enhance the well-being of both humans and animals. This paradigm shift should urge scholars and practitioners to rethink the roles of animals, so we consider not only how they can benefit us, but also our ethical and moral responsibilities toward them. We believe that there are two important ways to create organizational environments that value everyone—both human and animal: paying more attention to animal well-being in organizational contexts, and adopting a more interdisciplinary approach in research.

 

Organizations that acknowledge the contributions of animals can promote respectful treatment and foster environments that enhance the well-being of both humans and animals.

We argue that improving the living and working conditions of animals in organizations should be a leading priority, as such improvements benefit both animals and human workers. In a study of 205 individuals who work with animals across diverse occupations—including pet sitters, veterinarians, zookeepers, and animal-assisted therapists— we found that positive emotional bonds between animals and humans are positively related with worker well-being (Dlouhy et al., 2024). By contrast, perceived animal distress strongly predicted workers’ emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, when workers perceived high levels of animal distress, the positive effect of a strong emotional bond with animals on workers’ motivation and well-being was no longer evident.

A big challenge for those wishing to study animals and human–animal interactions in organizations is the inclusion of animals’ perspectives. Human scholarship relies on human research methods and interpretations (Knight & Sang, 2020), such as the observation of animals’ behaviors, but animals often “speak” languages other than those of humans or may communicate in ways unfamiliar or even unrecognized by us. For instance, fish cannot produce sounds, such as screaming, that humans can easily hear, and we need special technology to observe how bats use echolocation. In addition, we can learn much from observing behavior, but behavior does not necessarily reflect thoughts, motivations, and emotions. Therefore, it is essential to adopt an interdisciplinary approach that integrates methods and perspectives from various fields, including psychology, anthropology, philosophy, biology, and animal behaviorism. Taking such a multidisciplinary approach enables researchers to cultivate a more holistic, comprehensive understanding of animal behaviors and interactions with humans in and beyond organizational settings.

Conclusion

We discussed the various roles animals hold in organizations. Animals impact workplaces by serving as commodities in laboratories and zoos, clients in veterinary clinics, co-workers in law enforcement and therapy settings, companions in offices, and acquaintances on construction sites. Our exploration of animal roles advocates for policies that acknowledge and respect animals’ contributions and well-being. Promoting such ethical and inclusive practices would benefit animals and the people working with them. We call for research and organizational practices that consider the re-evaluation of animal roles in workplaces. This would encourage a deeper understanding of the ethical implications and relationships among different species in organizational settings.

This blog post was written by Antje Schmitt in close collaboration with India J. Kandel and Katja Dlouhy. The post is based on the following articles:

Kandel, I. J., Dlouhy, K., & Schmitt, A. (2023). Animal roles in organizations: A framework for exploring organizational human–animal relations. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231217079

Dlouhy, K., Schmitt, A., & Kandel, I. J. (2024). A job demands–resources perspective on emotional exhaustion and work engagement in human–animal work. Occupational Health Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-024-00188-w

 

Photo by BRUNO CERVERA on Unsplash.

References:

Baran, B. E., Rogelberg, S. G., & Clausen, T. (2016). Routinized killing of animals: Going beyond dirty work and prestige to understand the well-being of slaughterhouse workers. Organization, 23(3), 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416629456

Charles, N. & Wolkowitz, C. (2019). Bringing dogs onto campus: Inclusions and exclusions of animal bodies in organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12254

Dashper, K. (2020). More-than-human emotions: Multispecies emotional labour in the tourism industry. Gender, Work and Organization, 27(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12344

Hannah, D. R. & Robertson, K. (2017). Human–animal work: A massive, understudied domain of human activity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(1), 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616655076

Haraway, D. J. (2013). When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Knight, C. & Sang, K. (2020). At home, he’s a pet, at work he’s a colleague and my right arm: Police dogs and the emerging posthumanist agenda. Culture and Organization, 26(5-6), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2019.1622544

McLoughlin, E. (2019). Knowing cows: Transformative mobilizations of human and non-human bodies in an emotionography of the slaughterhouse. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12247

Sage, D., Justesen, L., Dainty, A., et al. (2016). Organizing space and time through relational human–animal boundary work: Exclusion, invitation and disturbance. Organization, 23(3), 434–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416629449

Wilkin, C., Fairlie, P., & Ezzedeen, S. (2016). Who let the dogs in? A look at pet-friendly workplaces. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(1), 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-04-2015-0021