Occupational Prestige

Occupational prestige can be viewed as a hierarchical social structure of an aggregate of jobs or as a form of social closure practiced by individuals who hold prestigious positions. Most of the general public can easily identify which occupations hold the most prestige. The North-Hatt prestige study and Duncan's Socioeconomic Index are the foundational studies for occupational prestige. However, these studies neglected to consider the intersection of gender in their prestige studies; concentrating only on the occupational prestige of white males. This article also discusses the benefits conferred via occupational prestige and the impact of familial status on the future occupational prestige of children.

Keywords Census; Continuous Scale; Culture; Elite; Job Attributes; Organizational Hierarchy; Occupational Prestige; Occupational Status; Quantify; Social Capital; Socioeconomic Status; Socioeconomic Index

Occupational Prestige

Overview

What do you do for a living? How much prestige does your job have? Occupational prestige is seldom discussed in school or in the society at large. Everyone seems to know which jobs have high, and which have low, prestige but may have difficulty describing it. Occupational prestige varies greatly even within a position (e.g. Who has more prestige: the Dean of Harvard University or the Dean of Kansas University?), making it very difficult to quantify. What is it? Where does it come from? Does it really even matter? What factors affect it?

What is Occupational Prestige?

Prestige. You know what it is when you see it. It isn't just who makes the most money. Occupations may be similar but sometimes the actual underlying job will determine whether prestige is conferred (or not conferred) on the position. For example, you meet two managers; one is a bank manager and the other is a sewage company manager. You would most likely view the banker as holding the most prestigious position. Yet, it is probably the sewer company manager who makes the most money. Occupational prestige is usually determined by factoring a variety of job attributes and socioeconomic variables. The variables include:

• The income the position generates;

• The power and resources available to the position holder;

• The value placed on activities of the position;

• The respect commanded by the position;

• The amount of formal and scientific knowledge required by the position;

• The physical work environment; and

• How insulated the position is compared to other jobs within the organization (Burgard & Stewart, 2000; Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964; Scott, 1973; Treiman, 1977; Zhou, 2005).

These factors work together to maintain the stability of the hierarchy and to preserve organizational perceptions regarding prestige.

Highly prestigious positions are difficult, if not impossible, for most people to attain. A person in a prestigious position can usually be identified by: 1) expensive clothing and shoes; 2) lofty educational achievements or wealthy ancestors; 3) an aloof (and sometimes unapproachable) demeanor; and 4) whether other people treat that person with respect (Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964). Although prestige is related to how much money and power a position wields, it is something more - it is a social honor. It is a social distinction based on persistent differences in social positions. And it is sometimes a way for people to keep others out of their tight-knit circles: an activity best known as social closure (Weber, 1947; Zhou, 2005). People in prestigious positions generally earn more money than rank and file employees. This means they can afford the physical trappings of prestige more than other company employees and will often have come from wealthier families who help provide access to better educations at prestigious colleges and universities. They hold a lot of power and influence in the workplace (and often within the community). This means they can usually make things happen when other people cannot (Burgard & Stewart, 2000).

People holding prestigious positions typically have the power to work on what interests them rather than being assigned work by a higher entity. These are the people who are hired to do what is mainly interesting to them without apparent regard for the current daily needs of the organization (Scott, 1973). They typically work Monday through Friday on a regular daytime schedule (i.e., 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and can most usually take half a day off to play golf or pursue other interests without having to ask permission or use personal leave. Those holding prestigious positions are treated respectfully by others based on their position in the organization (rather than on whether or not other employees respect the person). They are usually viewed as the people who are protecting and maintaining the organizational values and culture. Rank and file employees may revere them or aspire to personally secure a similar prestigious position (Bethune, 2008; Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964). This respect is granted by the position itself and is tied to the notion of Social Capital (meaning, the person in the position is believed to have the power and resources to help or hurt others in the organization). People in prestigious positions are seldom required to interact with other employees and rarely interact with organizational customers.

Where Does it Come From?

The North-Hatt Survey

Prestige is socially constructed and is based on the perceptions and value judgments of people located within the social structure (Zhou, 2005). These measures were not fully developed until C. C. North and Paul Hatt created the first survey which could consistently measure the prestige of certain occupations. They asked a large number of study participants to rank 88 occupations on a five-point scale based on what the participants believed to be the best occupation for an "outstanding young man." It also required the participants to rank these positions according to what a "young man" should consider for employment when "choosing his life's work" (Cumming, 1997). Their survey instrument was highly successful in creating a ranking of prestige among the occupations for those times. The North-Hatt survey results and the 1950 U.S. Census data were incorporated into a Socioeconomic Index scale create by Otis Dudley Duncan. His seminal work was the first to present levels of occupational prestige on a continuous scale, making occupational prestige a topic more easily used in social research. The prestige scores are derived from the indices of education and income levels which have been weighted to refine the outcomes. Statistical analyses showed education and income were strong predictors of the occupational prestige for the jobs used in the North-Hatt studies.

Duncan's Socioeconomic Index

Duncan's resulting Socioeconomic Index has also become known as the most comprehensive indicator of socioeconomic status (SES) for Americans and is used in most studies of occupational prestige and job mobility (Burgard & Stewart, 2000; Nakao, 1992). During the 1960s, a second set of occupational prestige surveys were conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. These surveys served as the foundation for SES Indices for the next two decades. In 1989, Hodge, Treas, and Nakao replicated the earlier study and extended the model to include 740 rated occupations (Cumming, 1997; Occupational Prestige Studies/Summary). However, it is important to remember these highly successful instruments do not consider the inherent differences that occur when the original questions are altered in order to ask what the best occupation for an outstanding young woman is, and what a young woman should consider for employment when choosing her life's work. The bias in these studies went unrecognized at the time because there were very few women in the workforce during the 1950-60s. However, the current workforce is composed of both men and women, thus invalidating the prestige scales for half of the workforce (Nesbit, 2006).

Nevertheless, occupational prestige structures appear to be stable across countries and subgroups and are very slow to change. (The questions have still not changed to include women in the structural equation). In fact, measures of occupational prestige remained fairly intact in the structure of American occupations back when America experienced sea changes during and after the industrialization period (Nakao, 1992). Although the actual prestige hierarchy did not experience any appreciable change during industrialization; the disparity between white collar and blue collar workers grew. White collar workers (i.e., professionals) gained in amounts of prestige while blue collar workers (i.e., working class workers) were viewed as holding lower levels of prestige. White collar workers continue to preserve the prestige of their positions by using achievement, career, seniority, and occupational mobility (Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964; Wegener, 1992).

Further Insights

How is Occupational Prestige Maintained?

The social system continues to uphold the occupational prestige hierarchy from both ends of the structure. People in non-prestigious positions ascribe honor to those with high prestige, and view their activities as valuable and legitimate functions in the workforce. In fact, many people view the functions of prestigious positions to be superior to other functions in their workplace. They tend to see prestige as the top of an organizational hierarchy and hope to one day attain a similar social honor (Scott, 1973; Wegener, 1992; Zhou, 2005). The people employed in prestigious positions also participate in maintaining the status quo by using their learning, influence, and position to remain protected from social conflicts and controversies as they pursue additional knowledge and maintain social closure as they preserve the extant hierarchy. Prestigious positions are filled with skilled and talented people who are proficient in managing interpersonal relationships and profess a commitment to the ideals of the organization. They have vital personal interests in keeping themselves in the prestigious positions while practicing social closure (Scott, 1973; Weber, 1947; Wegener, 1992; Zhou, 2005).

Although the work of people holding prestigious positions sometimes appears to be meaningless to society, it is most usually deemed valuable and intellectually challenging. When a crisis arises, the people in these positions become the stars and further elevate their prestigious positions by presenting their already crafted solutions which can be used to effectively resolve the crisis (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Scott, 1973; Zhou, 2005).

Which Occupations are Prestigious?

Plumber

Shoeshine

Judge

Law Enforcement Officer

Farm Hand

Psychologist

Farm owner/ Operator

Restaurant Cook

Diplomat

Symphony Musician

(Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964)

Take a minute to number the occupations listed above by level of prestige. Number the most prestigious job as 1 and the least as 10. Several studies have been conducted to show that people from all walks of life are excellent judges of occupational prestige (Tannenbaum, 1979; Treiman, 1977; Zhou, 2005). In the above list, levels of prestige were as follows: 1) Diplomat; 2) Judge; 3) Psychologist; 4) Symphony Musician; 5) Farm Owner/Operator; 6) Law Enforcement Officer; 7) Plumber; 8) Restaurant Cook; 9) Farm Hand; and 10) Shoeshine (Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964). Were your results similar to the study results? Chances are they are very similar and any variance would have occurred in the middle of the list (but those occupations would still be in the middle).

Although prestige is hard to quantify, it is present in all areas of our lives. Prestigious people often have a great influence on other people's lives. However, occupational prestige can be confusing because it can take many forms. As mentioned before, it can be viewed as:

• A hierarchical social structure of an aggregate of jobs; or as

• A form of social closure practiced by individuals who hold prestigious positions (Wegener, 1992).

Some of the traditionally prestigious positions include corporate presidents, university professors, scientists, administrators, and politicians.

Celebrity Prestige

There is another group of people holding slightly dubious positions of prestige (e.g., movie stars, musical artists, and athletes) who are often reported to be at the forefront of social causes such as poverty, international issues, and health issues. For example, the rock singer Sting has used his music, money, and influence to address world hunger via his Feed the World and Live Aid concerts and Amnesty International via his Human Rights Now! Tour. The actor Angelina Jolie is a long-time volunteer as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The basketball star Magic Johnson created the Magic Johnson Foundation to combat HIV and has served as a United Nations Messenger of Peace on behalf of people with AIDS. It could be argued that this group of people uses their money and social recognition to gain access to prestige via their volunteer efforts (Udy, 1980).

Administrative Elites

Lastly, there exists a quieter group of prestigious people who are not publicly well known and are rarely thought of as leaders. They are the brains behind the scenes; the people who craft policies and make decisions that are passed up the ranks to the apparent leaders. These people are the administrative elite. They are well educated, technologically savvy, politically astute, and socialized within the organization in which they are embedded. The general public rarely detects their presence and would seldom recognize their names. Yet the administrative elites continue to dwell behind the public scenes and influence the directions and decisions that shape and define our countries and societies. They are often the unidentified catalysts for change (Scott, 1973).

Viewpoints

Why Does Occupational Prestige Matter?

People holding prestigious positions are assumed to hold important jobs. They control much of the power and authority in the workplace, as well as in the larger societal structure (Burgard & Stewart, 2000). The organizational myths will often include the stories that deemed them powerful or important movers within the organization (Nader & Glitzstein, 1987). The holders of prestigious positions may be viewed as demi-gods who have access to many types of privilege typically denied to the general public. Usually people honor them, aspire to be them, believe them to be the protectors and transmitters of cultural values, legitimate their actions, and view their functions to be superior to all other functions in a given organization (Scott, 1973). Some of the organizational myths will be enhanced or retooled as time passes, rendering them more false than true.

However, one myth bears out - those holding positions of prestige are wealthier and live longer than the general public. Economic growth, be it personal or societal, leads to better health and higher life expectancy - but it isn't only the money that makes a difference. Monetary wealth tends to increase health because higher status jobs meet a person's fundamental needs for autonomy, personal empowerment, and human freedom as well as decreasing stress related to trying to make ends meet each month (Marmot, 2000). Prestigious positions are typically insulated from hazardous working conditions and the people in these positions have access to top quality medical care, healthy foods, and exercise facilities (Burgard & Stewart, 2000). In fact, some studies have shown that lower prestige jobs lack decision latitude because the employees are held to stringent job demands. These two factors may increase stress and frustration which, in turn, will increase stress-related episodes of mental and physical illness (Burgard & Stewart, 2000; Karasek, Baker, Marxer, Ahlbom, & Theorell, 1990).

Does Gender Affect Perceptions of Occupational Prestige?

In a word, yes. It is suggested in the literature that measures of prestige for women would be different. However, this has not yet been well studied (Cumming, 1997). Using the traditional studies, income and education appear to contribute to the occupational prestige of both women and men. However, whether the occupation is traditionally viewed as male or female will impact the prestige level. The occupational classification of a job often decreases in both prestige and pay when the job becomes viewed as a traditionally female-dominated occupation (Bose & Rossi, 1983; Cumming, 1997). For example consider teaching. When teachers were primarily men it was a very prestigious job but as women began to dominate the field of teaching, both prestige and pay drastically dropped.

As mentioned before, the foundational studies regarding occupational prestige were virtually all biased because they were based exclusively on studies of white males. The researchers veritably ignored intersections which would acknowledge women (and people of color, for that matter) within the workforce (Burgard & Stewart, 2000). Current research suggests that for women, prestige is based more on work hours, complexity of work, humanitarian efforts, and educational attainment than it is on money. This is because traditionally female-dominated career tracks pay lower average salaries than those in male-dominated career tracks (Cumming, 1997; England, 1979; Nesbit, 2006).

Many experts claim that, in the overall picture, women and men appear to hold about the same amount of occupational prestige in the working world. But the data are skewed. Women hold more positions of medium prestige with few opportunities for advancement; few women hold very low or very high positions of prestige. Men hold positions of prestige that are much higher and much lower (many of the lower prestige positions are held by male people of color) than those of women. Hence, when prestige is statistically averaged it incorrectly indicates men and women occupy positions of prestige that appear to be about the same while masking the fact that opportunities to attain highly prestigious positions are still afforded primarily to white males (Bose & Rossi, 1983; Burgard & Stewart, 2000).

Impact of Familial Status

The way you were reared affects much more than just your manners. Your parents' attainment of educational and occupational success and the social capital they confer upon you (coupled with your personal intelligence, aspirations, educational success, and ability) create the parameters of your own potential for occupational prestige. Many researchers, banking on American's sense of rugged individuality, tried to create models of potential for occupational prestige based on individual ability and effort (Breen & Goldthorpe, 1999). These studies are often ignored because they do not reflect the current ideology regarding how money and education factor into the prestige equation. Most prestige studies continue to encompass the role of power and the allocation of resources and associated privileges based on the division of labor in the workplace. Power and prestige spill over into the personal lives of those who hold prestigious positions - providing them and their families with additional power, prestige, and privilege in their communities (Blasko' & Robert, 2007; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1999; Burgard & Stewart, 2000; Zhou, 2005).

Education

There is a strong correlation between parental socioeconomic status and a student's educational achievement and, subsequently, between educational achievement and attainment of occupational prestige. Education is often the sorting mechanism for class closure; further preserving and promoting the existing prestige hierarchy. In other words, children of parents higher up in the socioeconomic strata receive more and better educational and life opportunities. Once these children have completed their educations, they are more likely to be placed in more prestigious and higher paying jobs (Blasko' & Robert, 2007; Nesbit, 2006).

Terms & Concepts

Census: The official registration of the number of people, value of their estates, and other general information of a country. The general census of the United States was first taken in 1790 and a new one has been taken every ten years since.

Continuous Scale: Think of a continuous scale as a ladder wherein each rung is equally distant from the next. On each of the rungs is an occupation. The further up the ladder you go, the more prestige the occupation has.

Culture: The environment created when people in a society have ordered the social relationships between human beings. The culture provides a frame of reference through which events will be communicated. It includes the language people use to refer to someone or something, the values and philosophies shared by the majority of the society, and the unwritten rules by which everyone seems to abide.

Job Attributes: Job specific information and a description of how the job will need to be performed. The characteristics of a job.

Organizational Hierarchy: The layers of ranks of personnel within an organization. Each layer is presumed to be a lower ranking than the one above it.

Quantify: To be able to count or express "how much" of something there is.

Social Capital: The collective value of all social networks in which one participates (i.e., who people know) and the ability to get the people in these networks to do things for each other reciprocity.

Social Closure: A term used to describe the actions of people in social groups which restrict entry and exclude benefit to those outside the group in order to maximize their own privilege.

Socially Constructed: The idea that society is actively created by human beings.

Socioeconomic: Relating to or concerned with the interaction of economic and social factors.

Bibliography

Bethune, B. (2008). Quick, look idle. Maclean's, 121 , 40.

Blasko', Z., & Robert, P. (2007). Graduates in the labor market: Does socioeconomic background have an impact? The case of Hungary. Czech Sociological Review, 43 , 1149-1173. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28725432&site=ehost-live

Bose, C. E., & Rossi, P. H. (1983). Gender and jobs: Prestige standings of occupations as affected by gender. American Sociological Review , 48 , 316-330. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1483904&site=ehost-live

Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1999). Class inequality and meritocracy: A critique of Saunders and alternative analysis. British Journal of Sociology , 50, 1-27. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1819960&site=ehost-live

Burgard, S., & Stewart, J. (2000). Occupational Status. Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly , 17 , 1-25. Retrieved January 12, 2007 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4010437&site=ehost-live

Cumming, J. J. (1997). Attracting girls and women students to non-traditional areas. Queensland Journal of Educational Research , 13 , 6-16.

England, P. (1979). Women and occupational prestige: A case of vacuous sex equality. Signs , 5, 252-265.

Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925-1963. American Journal of Sociology , 70 , 286-302.

Karasek, R. A., Baker, D., Marxer, F., Ahlbom, A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Job decision latitude, job demands, and cardiovascular disease: A prospective study of Swedish men. American Journal of Public Health , 71, 694-705. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4949627&site=ehost-live

Marmot, Sir M. G. (2000). Understanding Health Disparities: The Whitehall Studies. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Institute of Health: Understanding Health Disparities in America, Baltimore, Maryland.

Min-Hsiung, H. (2013). Occupational standing and occupational stratification by cognitive ability. Comparative Social Research 30101-127. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85724535&site=ehost-live

Nader, R., & Glitzstein, E. (1987, July 18). Bork, as seen from two angles: His judicial restraint is a myth. New York Times.

Nakao, K. (1992). Occupations and stratification: Issues of measurement. Contemporary Sociology , 21 , 658-662. Retrieved April 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9412223877&site=ehost-live

Nesbit, T. (2006). What's the matter with social class? Adult Education Quarterly , 56 , 171-187. Retrieved April 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20517691&site=ehost-live

Occupational Prestige Studies/Summary. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2008, from NORC at the University of Chicago: http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/faqs/prestige.htm

Sala, E., Terraneo, M., Lucchini, M., & Knies, G. (2013). Exploring the impact of male and female facial attractiveness on occupational prestige. Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 31, 69–81. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86413078&site=ehost-live

Scott, W. G. (1973). The theory of significant people. Public Administrative Review , 33 , 308-313. Retrieved on April 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4597396&site=ehost-live

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1979). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective by D. J. Treiman [Book Review]. The American Journal of Sociology , 85 , 684-689.

Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. New York, New York: Academic Press.

Udy, S. H. (1980). The configuration of occupational structure. In Sociological theory and research, ed. H. M. Blalock, 156-165. New York, NY: Free Press.

Ueno, K., Peña-Talamantes, A. E., & Roach, T. A. (2013). Sexual orientation and occupational attainment. Work & Occupations, 40, 3–36. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84784792&site=ehost-live

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (A. M. Henderson, & T. Parsons, Trans.) New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Wegener, B. (1992). Concepts and measurement of prestige. Annual Review of Sociology , 18 , 253-280. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9301100489&site=ehost-live

Zhou, X. (2005). The institutional logic of occupational prestige ranking: Reconceptualization and reanalyses. American Journal of Sociology, 111 , 90-140. Retrieved April 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18015428&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Acker, J. (1980). Women and stratification: A review of recent literature. Contemporary Sociology, 9, 25-39.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Christ, S. L., Fleming, L. E., Lee, D. J., Muntaner, C., Muennig, P. A., & Caban-Martinez, A. J. (2012). The effects of a psychosocial dimension of socioeconomic position on survival: Occupational prestige and mortality among US working adults. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34, 1103–1117. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78323613&site=ehost-live

Conley, D. (2004). The pecking order: Which siblings succeed and why. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Featherman, D. L. & Houser, R. M. (1976). Prestige or socioeconomic scales in the study of occupational achievement? Sociological Methods & Research, 4 , 403-422.