Abstract
Current scholarship lacks an integrated analysis of multi-level governance in stigma management within the public sector, notably in law enforcement. Using China’s chengguan as a case study, this research develops a framework integrating individual, managerial, and organizational levels, with particular attention to strategic convergence and divergence. Grounded in the conventional categories of disengagement (e.g. avoidance) and engagement (e.g. confrontation) approaches, semi-structured interviews reveal that disengagement strategies dominate at the individual level. Engagement strategies, particularly reframing, boundary management, and emotion regulation, are applied across multiple levels, with distinct adaptations aligned to each level’s specific roles. Key divergences emerge in information management, whereas refocusing and cooptation remain confined to the managerial and organizational levels, respectively. More significantly, the study identifies previously unexplored adjustment approaches (e.g. behavioral adjustments) to address stigma at its source. The study contributes a multi-level perspective to stigma management theory and offers practical implications for law enforcement agencies globally.
Introduction
Research on occupational stigma management has garnered sustained scholarly attention over the past several decades (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014; Ashforth et al., 2007; Kreiner et al., 2006, 2022; R. Zhang et al., 2021). Given that positive social evaluation is critical for both individuals and organizations (Kreiner et al., 2022), actors actively seek strategies to mitigate or prevent the effects of occupational stigma—defined as the negative societal perception of certain professions (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Hughes, 1958, 1962; Kreiner et al., 2006). The extant literature has identified multiple approaches to stigma management (see Ashforth et al., 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014; Meisenbach, 2010; R. Zhang et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, research on occupational stigma in public service contexts remains underdeveloped (Mastracci, 2022), and systematic analysis of multi-level governance strategies is notably lacking (Goodrick et al., 2022; Hudson et al., 2022). Unlike private enterprises, the public sector is characterized by a unique focus on public welfare and the enhancement of social value (Y. Zhang et al., 2025), underscoring the urgency and necessity of investigating occupational stigma and its management in public service. Moreover, existing studies often adopt a fragmented perspective, examining either frontline workers (e.g. Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999) or managerial roles (e.g. Ashforth et al., 2007) in isolation. As a result, our understanding of how different organizational levels respond to the same stigma and how their strategies differ remains limited.
In recent years, scholars have increasingly called for integrative frameworks that connect stigma management across levels (Hudson et al., 2022; R. Zhang et al., 2021). In response, this study adopts a systemic perspective to analyze strategies across different analytical levels—individual, managerial, and organizational—within the public service domain. We pose the following core research questions: What strategies do different levels employ to manage occupational stigma? To what extent do these strategies converge or diverge?
To address these questions, this study centers on law enforcement agencies—specifically “chengguan” (an abbreviation for Urban Management and Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement)—a group subjected to profound occupational stigma, and systematically examines their current stigma management strategies through semi-structured interviews with frontline officers and managers. This selection is theoretically grounded in two key considerations. First, the deeply entrenched stigmatization of chengguan, coupled with recent institutional initiatives aimed at stigma mitigation, presents a critical empirical setting for examining organizational responses to occupational stigma. Second, the professional networks cultivated through the first author’s prior governmental engagement afford distinctive methodological access, enabling rich qualitative data collection and capturing otherwise inaccessible insider perspectives.
This research offers potential theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it addresses the noted scarcity of research on occupational stigma within public service domains (Mastracci, 2022). More significantly, extending the work by R. Zhang et al. (2021) and Hudson et al. (2022), it innovates by integrating a multi-level analytical framework, which facilitates both a holistic understanding of collective stigma management and a detailed comparison of strategic variations across different levels. In practice, this study aims to produce actionable insights for formulating effective collaborative strategies and enhancing stigma management mechanisms within law enforcement agencies, both in China and internationally.
Subsequent sections will elaborate on the existing literature guiding this investigation, detail the qualitative methodology employed, present key empirical findings, and discuss their implications, ultimately culminating in evidence-based conclusions.
Literature Review
Occupational Stigma
Goffman’s (1963) seminal work laid the cornerstone for our conceptual understanding of stigma. In his book Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, he first defined stigma as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” (p. 3), characterizing it as a profoundly discrediting attribute within social interactions. This conceptualization continues to serve as a vital theoretical foundation for understanding occupational stigma in contemporary workplaces (Hudson, 2008).
As a significant branch of stigma studies, occupational stigma refers specifically to the social devaluation of individuals based on work-related characteristics (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). More concretely, it stems from the convergence of subjectively biased perceptions regarding an occupation’s inherent nature and the negative stereotypes society assigns to it, which collectively distort public understanding (Pinel & Paulin, 2005), ultimately precipitating social inequities for those in stigmatized professions (Miao & Guo, 2024).
Research on occupational stigma has long been intertwined with the concept of “dirty work.” As early as 1951, Hughes proposed that certain occupations are regarded as shameful, degrading, or repugnant, primarily because they involve tasks considered tainted in “physical, social, or moral” respects. Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) further categorized occupational stigma into three dimensions, each associated with two primary sources: physical stigma stems from direct contact with death or waste, or from working in hazardous environments; social stigma arises from frequent interaction with stigmatized groups or from occupying subordinate service roles; and moral stigma results from being perceived as ethically compromised or from using deceptive or aggressive methods in professional practice.
As a form of social identity stereotype, stigmatized employees readily perceive the negative evaluations associated with their profession (Miao & Guo, 2024). Consistent evidence indicates that occupational stigma inflicts multiple harms on workers, including: an identity crisis manifested through reduced occupational identification (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, 2014), experiences of social exclusion (Bentein et al., 2017), and self-isolation (O’Donnell et al., 2011); psychological depletion marked by negative emotions, increased job stress, and diminished job satisfaction (Baran et al., 2012; Benoit et al., 2015); and behavioral disengagement reflected in withdrawal behaviors and higher turnover intentions (Lai et al., 2013; Lopina et al., 2012).
The Occupational Stigma in Law Enforcement
Over recent decades, law enforcement practitioners—including but not limited to police officers, correctional staff, and investigators, traditionally regarded as societal guardians who maintain order through criminal and administrative law (Conser et al., 2011)—have found themselves increasingly mired in occupational stigma (Callanan & Rosenberger, 2011). Although these professions function as visible protectors of communities (Schouten & Brennan, 2016), they face severe social disparagement (Browning et al., 2021; Chermak et al., 2006; De Camargo & Whiley, 2022), manifesting as eroded institutional legitimacy (Intravia et al., 2020; Nix & Wolfe, 2017), diminished public trust (Hoffman et al., 2023), and heightened tensions in community interactions (Levan & Stevenson, 2019). More alarmingly, such stigmatized perceptions frequently escalate into public protests (Christián et al., 2022), violence targeting law enforcement officers (Schouten & Brennan, 2016), and even fatal assaults (Morrow, 2019).
The emergence of occupational stigma in law enforcement is the product of multiple overlapping factors. First, the profession inherently carries physical, social, and moral taint characteristics that readily provoke public aversion (Tracy & Scott, 2006, 2007). Extending the concept of “dirty work,” law enforcement is situated within what can be termed “tainted industries,” with officers serving as archetypal representatives (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). For example, correctional officers perform duties perceived as unclean—such as overseeing inmate cleaning and conducting strip searches—often in challenging and unsafe environments. Socially, they regularly interact with stigmatized populations, including individuals marginalized by society. Morally, their roles are subject to scrutiny, as their responsibilities may conflict with prevailing social norms and personal ethics (Tracy & Scott, 2007).
Second, law enforcement constitutes a form of street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 2010), vested with discretionary power that can lead to misconduct. When such incidents receive media coverage, a ripple effect often ensues, triggering public condemnation (Miao & Guo, 2024). In recent years, recurring episodes of law enforcement violence have sparked widespread censure and resistance globally (Nix & Wolfe, 2017). In the United States, for instance, high-profile cases involving unarmed people of color—such as those of Michael Brown and George Floyd—have contributed to a sustained decline in public confidence in policing (Workman-Stark, 2023).
Multiple Organizational Levels
In the field of organizational behavior, the individual, managerial, and organizational levels are regarded as three fundamental and interrelated units of analysis. These levels are delineated based on the distinct roles and resources controlled by actors within the organizational structure.
Individual-level analysis takes the single person as the basic unit of study. As the foundational element of the organization (Hameed & Waheed, 2011), the individual relies primarily on human capital—such as knowledge, skills, and abilities—to facilitate career development (Harris et al., 2022). Research at this level predominantly focuses on cognitive processes, psychological states, and observable behaviors (Fong & Snape, 2015; Parker et al., 2003).
Managerial-level analysis centers on individuals or teams vested with formal authority to direct, coordinate, and supervise the activities of others. By virtue of their managerial roles, these actors allocate and integrate human, financial, and other resources (Hieu & Nwachukwu, 2020), thereby executing core functions such as planning, organizing, leading, and controlling to advance organizational objectives (Mintzberg, 1975). Throughout this process, managers play a decisive role in shaping organizational outcomes (Tovmasyan, 2017).
Organizational-level analysis treats the organization as a complete social entity with defined goals. In broad terms, a formal organization constitutes “a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons” (Selznick, 1948, p. 5). While Staw (1991) proposes that micro and macro perspectives of organizations could be fruitfully integrated by extending the concept of behavioral dispositions to the organizational level. This conceptualization frames organizations as “living, breathing entities with predictable behavioral tendencies” (Staw, 1991, p. 814). Elaborating on this framework, Whetten et al. (2009) characterize organizations as social agents endowed with distinct motivations, drives, and purposeful orientations. Organizations—including, but not limited to, governmental bodies and corporations—are essentially rational instruments designed to achieve collective aims, relying on established formal mechanisms for coordination and control (Selznick, 1948).
In summary, these three levels form a continuum from micro to macro: individuals serve as the basic building blocks of organizations, relying on human capital; managers function as the neural network, exercising authority to enable coordination; and the organization constitutes the holistic organism, sustained and developed through systemic structural capital. Understanding the distinctions and interconnections among these levels is a prerequisite for conducting an in-depth analysis of multi-level occupational stigma management.
Stigma Management Strategies
In organizational studies, the management of occupational stigma has long been a central concern for scholars (R. Zhang et al., 2021). Foundational work in this field was established by Ashforth and Kreiner, who systematically conceptualized stigma management strategies at two key levels, thereby profoundly shaping the academic discourse.
They first identified a set of individual-level cognitive strategies (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). These include reframing (e.g. emphasizing job meaningfulness), as seen among garbage collectors (P. Hamilton et al., 2019) and zookeepers (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), recalibrating (e.g. downplaying tainted aspects) as practiced by firefighters (Tracy & Scott, 2006) and private security workers (Johnston & Hodge, 2014), and refocusing (e.g. highlighting non-stigmatized rewards like flexibility and income), exemplified by exotic dancers (Mavin & Grandy, 2013). Additional complementary approaches involved the use of social weighting by selectively focusing on points of reference that provide more positive perspectives and comparisons (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 424).
Recognizing the heightened complexity and broader influence of managerial roles, Ashforth et al. (2007) extended to the managerial level. Managers employ parallel ideological strategies (reframing, recalibrating, refocusing) to normalize occupational stigma. Beyond these, they also enact social buffering (forming supportive groups) and deploy a distinct repertoire of confrontational (e.g. using humor, counter-stereotypical behavior, or quiet resistance) and defensive tactics (e.g. avoidance, acceptance, social comparison, condemning condemners, and distancing from clients or roles; Ashforth et al., 2007).
Based on existing research, R. Zhang et al. (2021) summarizes and provides an overarching framework of stigma management that comprises six strategies: boundary management (strengthening group cohesion by delineating “in-group-out-group” boundaries), dilution (weakening associations with stigmatizing elements), information management (controlling the dissemination of stigmatizing information through concealment or selective disclosure), reconstruction (redefining the social meaning of stigmatized attributes), cooptation (transforming stigmatized traits into differentiated advantages), and emotion work (consciously managing both internal and external emotional expressions).
Such strategies demonstrate synergistic application across multiple hierarchical levels: boundary management manifests in individuals’ narratives of moral superiority (Moon, 2012), managers’ formation of protective groups (Ashforth et al., 2007), and organizational institutional separation (R. Zhang et al., 2021); dilution guides both individual avoidance of stigmatized tasks and organizational structural isolation (R. Zhang et al., 2021); information management encompasses employee identity concealment (Meyer, 2003) and organizational information withholding (Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009); reconstruction emphasizes positive role aspects at the individual level while underscoring social value at the organizational level (R. Zhang et al., 2021); cooptation capitalizes on the distinctive value of stigmatized traits to garner support (R. Zhang et al., 2021); and emotional work spans from individual emotion regulation (Hatzenbuehler, 2009) to organizational emotional image crafting (McMurray & Ward, 2014), collectively forming a multi-level response system to occupational stigma.
The Disengagement-Engagement Category
The extant literature broadly categorizes them into two types: disengagement and engagement. Disengagement strategies represent an avoidance-oriented coping approach, whereas engagement strategies reflect a proactive stance that emphasizes confrontation and meaning reconstruction to mitigate stigma’s effects (Mitchell et al., 2024).
This disengagement-engagement duality is most prominent at the individual level (Mitchell et al., 2024). Some individuals employ disengagement approaches by actively distancing themselves from or exiting situations that may trigger stigma (Link & Phelan, 2014). A core practice of this approach is information management (R. Zhang et al., 2021). In law enforcement contexts, this may involve reducing proactive interventions (Gau et al., 2022) or exiting the profession entirely (Piening et al., 2020). Such behavioral mechanisms have been conceptually attributed by scholars to the conservation of resources, wherein individuals adopt different approaches to protect their finite psychological and social resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Some individuals tend to utilize engagement approaches, primarily including boundary management and reframing (R. Zhang et al., 2021). For example, police officers may reframe their professional value by emphasizing narratives of public service and self-sacrifice (Rantatalo, 2016). While such approaches can effectively help stigmatized individuals avoid direct discrimination (Mitchell et al., 2024), scholars are exploring factors that prompt avoidant individuals to confront stigma directly, particularly emphasizing the crucial role of organizational support systems (R. Zhang et al., 2021).
At the managerial and organizational levels, disengagement approaches are less common. The propensity of managers and organizations to adopt more proactive strategies can be explained through the lens of institutional entrepreneurship (Garud et al., 2007; Hardy & Maguire, 2008). By virtue of their advantageous structural positions and resource endowments, managers and organizations possess a distinctive capacity to transform institutional pressures into strategic opportunities.
To specify, managers demonstrate a broader repertoire of proactive responses to stigma to mold public attitudes through managerial intervention (Ashforth et al., 2007). In law enforcement contexts, managers are observed providing psychological support to mitigate the psychological toll of occupational stigma (Baker et al., 2023). Such support encompasses formal mechanisms such as mindfulness-based stress reduction programs (Grossman et al., 2004; Hoeve et al., 2021) and specialized mental health services for high-stress situations (Ramchand et al., 2019) as well as informal supports like peer initiatives (Ramchand et al., 2019) and familial resources (Hämmig, 2017; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Beyond addressing the effects of stigma, managers also take measures to mitigate the stigmatized image itself. For instance, in response to public criticism over misconduct, they propose implementing role-specific training covering patrol, investigation, and firearm use policies (Hassell, 2016) alongside ethics training (Ayechew Ayenalem et al., 2023).
Similar to the managerial level, organizational responses also favor proactive measures. Organizations often adopt impression management strategies, promoting positive organizational traits to counter criticism (Ali et al., 2017), which involves shaping communication to project a desired image (Mitchell et al., 2024). In policing, this includes using social media platforms to share operational updates such as patrol activities and case progress (Crump, 2011) and conducting community outreach and charitable programs to build long-term relationships (Walby & Gumieny, 2020). Recent research indicates that police Twitter accounts regularly disclosing work information and incorporating community interaction (e.g. event invitations and soliciting feedback) can significantly improve public images and social cohesion (O’Connor, 2015). Additionally, organizations engage in measures aimed at correcting and improving their public image. Examples include implementing incremental reforms, such as establishing standardized procedures to enhance transparency and accountability, thereby countering stereotypes of violence (Maskaly et al., 2017).
The Research Context: Chengguan
This study selects chengguan as its empirical case. Chengguan represents an institutional entity established to address urban governance challenges arising from China’s rapid urbanization (Hanser, 2016). Since the first chengguan unit was established in Beijing in 1997, the force has expanded to encompass approximately 3,074 departments across Chinese counties and cities by 2015, employing around 455,000 personnel (Xu & Jiang, 2019). As a quasi-police force, chengguan are distinguished from regular police primarily by their lack of arrest powers (Xu & Jiang, 2019) and their relatively independent yet constrained law enforcement authority (Wang, 2015).
Through successive institutional reforms and functional expansions since 1985, chengguan’s jurisdiction has progressively incorporated responsibilities from urban planning, construction, and traffic management authorities, evolving from an initial set of seven urban development and greening tasks to over 300 distinct functions (Zang, 2017). As chengguan inherited undesirable duties from other agencies—including urban planning enforcement (e.g. handling illegal constructions), traffic management (e.g. penalizing illegal road occupation), and commercial regulation (e.g. controlling unlicensed street vending)—they have become a focal point for social tension and conflict (Zang, 2017, p. 221). Their involvement in what Hughes (1958) termed “dirty work”—such as demolishing unauthorized structures and dispersing street vendors (Zang, 2017, p. 221)—frequently triggers violent confrontations (Zhou, 2009) and can even exacerbate social instability (Hanser, 2016; Xue & Huang, 2015). Over the years, chengguan officers have faced severe occupational stigma, with their department consistently ranked among the lowest-rated agencies within the governmental system (People.cn, 2014). A 2013 survey indicated that less than 30% of citizens approved of chengguan enforcement practices (Guangzhou Public Opinion Research Center, 2013).
Widespread media coverage of controversial incidents—particularly high-profile cases of chengguan assaulting citizens that went viral online (Carothers, 2010)—has further intensified public backlash (Hanser, 2016). According to The Wall Street Journal, the most frequent phrase associated with chengguan in Google searches was “chengguan beating people” (Carothers, 2010). By 2016, searches for chengguan violence yielded over a million results on both Google and Baidu (Xu & Jiang, 2019). In contemporary public perception, chengguan are often stereotypically linked with labels such as barbaric, violent, and bandits.
While existing research on occupational stigma management is relatively well-developed—particularly the dichotomous framework of disengagement and engagement strategies, which provides a foundational analytical lens—it still lacks systematic attention to the strategic variations arising from organizational hierarchy, role positioning, and resource disparities within public service contexts. To address this gap, this study empirically examines chengguan, a typical quasi-police group in China that has long faced occupational stigma, aiming to investigate the following core questions: (1) How do the individual, managerial, and organizational levels within a multi-level organizational structure respond to occupational stigma? (2) To what extent do the strategies across these levels demonstrate convergence or divergence?
Methods
Following ethical approval from the City University of Hong Kong’s Ethics Committee, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with participants.
Data Sampling
Despite the established advantages of random sampling methods (De Vaus, 2002; Moser & Kalton, 2017), their implementation proved unfeasible for studying the chengguan system due to its institutional opacity and the recognized challenges of conducting fieldwork within China’s administrative apparatus. In response to these methodological constraints, this study adopted a hybrid sampling strategy integrating both convenience and snowball sampling techniques, specifically tailored to the sensitive nature of research involving stigmatized groups. The methodological selection was guided by two critical considerations: (1) Access feasibility: the closed nature of the chengguan system presents substantial procedural barriers to participant recruitment. This challenge was mitigated through the researcher’s pre-existing networks within local governance structures, which facilitated institutional entry; (2) Data reliability: given the sensitive nature of stigma research, conventional sampling approaches risk insufficient participation and perfunctory responses. The chain-referral mechanism (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981) employed in this study enhanced response quality through trusted peer networks. Additionally, quota sampling controls were implemented to minimize selection bias and maintain demographic representativeness.
A preliminary field study was initiated in December 2024, leveraging the researcher’s prior institutional connections to establish initial contact with chengguan officers across municipal, district, and street-level bureaus. All interactions were facilitated through an anonymous contact, pseudonymously referred to as “Mr. A,” who assisted in verifying the identities of participants by confirming their names and official positions. A preliminary group of four officers participated in pilot interviews, which subsequently facilitated snowball recruitment.
This study was designed in strict accordance with the principle of data saturation in qualitative research (Guest et al., 2006). With reference to the standards proposed by Hennink and Kaiser (2022), theoretical saturation is generally achieved within 9 to 17 interviews when the study population is homogeneous, and the research objectives are well-focused. Furthermore, drawing on established practices in public administration qualitative research (e.g. Schott et al., 2019; Vinarski Peretz, 2020), we targeted a sample size within the commonly accepted range of 15 to 28 participants. Saturation was confirmed after completing 22 interviews. The sample was structured to encompass three administrative tiers and included perspectives from both frontline officers (n = 9) and mid- to senior-level managers (n = 13), thereby ensuring diversity of organizational viewpoints within a limited sample.
Ethical rigor was maintained throughout the study. All participants provided oral informed consent after being fully briefed on the research objectives and confidentiality protocols. Given the politically sensitive roles of chengguan in urban governance, stringent anonymization procedures were implemented to protect participant identities. This approach ensured both methodological robustness and ethical compliance while addressing the practical challenges of studying this unique group. The interviewee list was provided as follows (Table 1).
Interviewee list.
Our statistical analysis of sample characteristics revealed a relatively balanced distribution between frontline officers and managers, accounting for 40.9% and 59.1% of the sample, respectively. Among frontline officers, males and females constituted 66.7% and 33.3% of this subgroup, with the majority holding bachelor’s degrees (55.6%). The primary age cohorts were 31 to 40 years (44.4%) and 41 to 50 years (33.3%), while temporary workers represented 22.2% of this group. The managerial subgroup demonstrated a pronounced gender disparity, with males comprising 92.3% compared to 7.7% females. Educational attainment is predominantly at the bachelor’s level (76.9%), with the majority aged 41 to 50 (61.5%), followed by 51 to 60 (30.8%). Notably, 53.8% of managers possessed over 20 years of professional experience. The managerial hierarchy consists of section-level (61.5%) and division-level (38.5%) positions. More details regarding our sample composition are described in Table 2.
Descriptive statistics (N = 22).
Sampling Procedure
We applied a semi-structured interview protocol that included questions regarding participants’ perceptions of occupational stigma and their experiences or observations of individual, managerial, and organizational management strategies. To better manage the flow of the interviews, introductory questions were included in the protocol, focusing on participants’ understanding of the stigma associated with chengguan and its impact on physical and mental well-being. This approach was designed to naturally guide respondents into discussing strategies and measures employed at different levels. To comprehensively assess their perceptions, practices, and experiences, neutrally framed open-ended questions were designed, allowing for in-depth exploration through follow-up inquiries.
Balancing cost-effectiveness and practical feasibility, this study employed a hybrid data collection approach combining online and offline semi-structured interviews. Formal data collection for this study was then conducted between January and April 2025, with individual interviews averaging approximately 30 minutes in duration. To enhance contextual authenticity and participant immersion, the majority of interviews were arranged in offline workplace settings. For the online component, all remote sessions required continuous camera use throughout. Additionally, measures such as observing participants’ work environments, probing for concrete examples, and reconstructing key situational contexts were implemented to enable cross-verification of responses. These procedures were systematically applied to mitigate social desirability bias and ensure data authenticity and validity.
Regarding interview documentation, an audio recording was not utilized at the participants’ request. Instead, Tencent Meeting’s real-time transcription feature was uniformly employed to generate interview texts. To further ensure data quality and ethical compliance, all transcripts were returned to respondents for review and confirmation prior to formal anonymization and coding, allowing participants to verify the accurate representation of their perspectives.
Data Analysis
This study adopted a theoretical thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Percy et al., 2015). This choice was primarily based on the demonstrated utility of this method in prior research on core stigma (Hudson et al., 2022). The specific process was as follows: (1) Open coding: line-by-line analysis of the data to identify underlying meanings and generate initial labels; (2) Axial coding: clustering labels based on logical relationships to form broader categories; (3) Selective coding: identifying a core concept that serves as the central theme of the study (Glaser & Strauss, 2017; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This core concept acts as a hub, connecting and integrating other categories to form an empirically based theoretical framework. Throughout this process, Nvivo12 was used to facilitate the three-stage coding procedure. The authors initially developed a coding framework based on existing literature (see Table 3), which was then applied to code the interview transcripts. During this process, emerging patterns and concepts within the data were identified. To ensure coding quality, cross-validation was introduced to confirm the credibility of the identified themes; (4) Saturation testing: reserved interview analysis (20% of the sample) demonstrated conceptual stability, while literature review and stakeholder interviews confirmed the findings’ explanatory capacity.
Stigma management tactics coding table.
Note. Adapted from R. Zhang et al. (2021).
During the data analysis phase, the study adhered strictly to the principle of iterative coding in qualitative research (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Preliminary coding and thematic analysis were initiated concurrently with data collection, followed by multiple rounds of internal research team discussions and peer verification. This iterative process served to minimize researcher subjectivity while enhancing coding reliability and overall interpretive validity.
Results
Based on the research findings, we have identified multi-level stigma management strategies operating at the individual, managerial, and organizational levels. Informed by the typology of strategic responses, these approaches are categorized into three distinct types: disengagement approaches (avoidance-oriented, manifested through concealment, distancing, or withdrawal); engagement approaches (confrontation-oriented, expressed through challenging, educating, or contesting stigmatizing conditions); and what we conceptualize as adjustment approaches (correction-oriented, demonstrated through adapting, modifying, or reshaping self-presentation and conduct)—a strategy that remains underexplored in existing literature yet emerged distinctly in our data.
Our analysis revealed that most participants explicitly recognized chengguan as a stigmatized profession, with interview data demonstrating acute awareness of stigma intensity. Participants’ accounts vividly illustrated this awareness, as exemplified in the following representative excerpt. Such understanding provided a contextual foundation for further exploration of stigma management.
There are still quite a lot of people who dislike chengguan. Many people, whether through word of mouth from those around them or through what they find online, seem to have an inherent bias against the profession of chengguan. Although I applied for this position, I did not really like chengguan before I joined. There are too many negative impressions. The perception of chengguan still lingers on the image from over a decade ago, characterized by smashing, looting, and bullying the vulnerable. The general values of Chinese people are such that they can see who is eating meat but not who is being beaten. Right? Even if someone is breaking the law, as long as they appear to be vulnerable, people will sympathize with them. Of course, this is also a kind of virtue. The people we often deal with in law enforcement are mobile vendors who belong to vulnerable groups. Naturally, this makes the public resent us, which is understandable.
Individual Level
At this level, a comprehensive application of disengagement, engagement, and adjustment approaches is observed. Regarding disengagement strategies, individuals predominantly employ information management and dilution tactics to mitigate the personal impact of stigmatized identities. A significant proportion of participants reported actively concealing their professional identity in social contexts—particularly with strangers or in informal gatherings—to circumvent negative social evaluations and preempt potential interpersonal hostility.
When we go out, to be honest, we seldom introduce ourselves as chengguan. I usually say that I work in sanitation and that I sweep the streets or pick up trash. I would rather identify myself as a sanitation worker than as a chengguan. This should give you a clear understanding of how chengguan is perceived by the public in reality—unlike the police, traffic officers, or land supervision teams; they do not enjoy the same level of respect or prestige. Personally, when others ask me where I work, I am not very willing to disclose that I work at the Chengguan Bureau. Even friends around me would jokingly say, ‘Oh, you guys are the ones who catch small vendors, huh?’ Every time the topic of the workplace comes up, there is always a feeling of being looked down upon. So, I usually do not actively mention my workplace. If you work in other units, you might feel proud and honored. However, the chengguan unit always seems to be negatively treated by everyone, and we also feel somewhat shadowed.
In some cases, even when facing family members, certain participants remained reticent and unwilling to disclose their identity.
Actually, what I want to say is, in the past, we would not even tell our children what we do, which actually represents a very obvious social and personal non-recognition of this job. Many chengguan families also face this issue, where children might not openly say what their parents do.
Some participants also adopted a dilution strategy, which involves reducing their association with stigmatized tasks or contexts to mitigate the impact of stigma. They placed greater emphasis on self-protection and avoided contact with law enforcement targets.
For example, when it comes to street vending, especially in cases where they occupy the road, sometimes in obvious places like near traffic lights or areas with heavy foot traffic—places where the public strongly complains—we promptly step in to stop and coordinate to clear the area. But sometimes, like when we are off duty or walking to work, we see someone setting up a stall by the roadside. Especially in winter, we sometimes think, if no one has reported this issue and it is not really affecting traffic, then as law enforcement officers, we might just pretend not to see it.
Alternatively, some participants chose to completely disassociate from the stigmatized identity by permanently exiting the profession as a definitive resolution.
For instance, such third-party hires may have a broader scope of coverage, primarily focused on patrols, and are more likely to extend their efforts to the grassroots level. Additionally, many of them may also find themselves in situations where, due to frustration or anger, they might think, ‘After all, I do not have much to lose; I do not earn much money in a month anyway,’ and decide to quit on the spot. Faced with mistreatment or disciplinary action, they might simply walk away in a fit of anger. Many team members—I do not know about other regions—but here, very few have formal enforcement credentials. Many temporary staff eventually resign due to the pressure.
Consistent with existing literature, individuals demonstrate considerable heterogeneity in their responses to occupational stigma (Mitchell et al., 2024). While some interviewees exhibited avoidance-oriented tendencies through disengagement strategies, a substantial number adopted the engagement approaches by employing reconstruction, boundary management, and emotion regulation to actively manage stigmatization.
Interview data revealed participants employed reconstruction strategies, redefining their professional identity to counter stigma. By emphasizing their critical roles in maintaining urban order, environmental hygiene, and citizen welfare, they reframed their image from law enforcers to city guardians.
At the same time, I communicate more with people around me. For example, my friends and family now understand the importance and significance of our work and have come to appreciate what we do. I believe these are all efforts made by law enforcement officers in their work. Even in casual conversations with friends, they often discuss positive, objective, and excellent measures that serve the public. Through their words, actions, and professional conduct, they aim to change the perceptions of the public, influence those around them, and challenge the negative stereotypes associated with chengguan.
A few participants opted for boundary management by constructing a demarcation, clearly distinguishing between “us” and “them,” thereby differentiating those who work within the chengguan (the stigmatized group) from outsiders (those who hold stigmatizing views toward chengguan) to counteract external stigma threats. One shared the experience: As an example, a few days ago, I came across a video depicting a conflict between market management and vendors. However, the comments directly targeted chengguan, which left me feeling quite helpless. Therefore, in many situations, I engage in psychological self-reinforcement, reminding myself that they are merely engaging in sensationalized, oppositional propaganda for the sake of generating buzz, traffic, and profit, which is fundamentally different from reality.
Several participants reported employing emotional regulation—regulating both personal and public emotions to mitigate stigma. They reported utilizing emotion-focused strategies—including peer venting, exercise-induced stress relief, and comfort eating—as compensatory mechanisms to alleviate distress.
As for law enforcement officers, I feel that most of them are trying to self-regulate. They mainly rely on physical exercise or venting to friends to relieve work-related stress. I have my own stress-relief methods. As a food lover, whenever we encounter negative news or colleagues face similar situations, we make plans to eat good food together or cook a hearty meal at someone’s home. It is our way of boosting morale.
Meanwhile, some participants employed the manipulation of others’ emotions, such as satisfying the needs of vulnerable groups (such as elderly or disabled street vendors) and demonstrating care and assistance, thereby altering the public’s emotional perceptions.
On the other hand, they provide conveniences to the parties involved as much as they can, even on the road or during patrols; if they see someone in need of help, they actively help them. These are all efforts to change the professional image and the society’s inherent negative perception of the chengguan industry through their actions.
Contrary to conventional expectations, this study revealed a more proactive dimension in how individuals navigate occupational stigma. A notable segment of interviewees adopted adjustment-oriented approaches, demonstrating reflexive awareness that public stigma often stems from perceptions of misconduct. These participants engaged in conscious behavioral modification such as enhancing legal literacy and aligning conduct with normative professional expectations to preemptively mitigate stigmatization.
I make an effort to study more laws and regulations because I understand that, at all times, they serve as both the tools of my work and the means of my protection. By conducting my law enforcement duties strictly within the framework of these laws and regulations, I ensure that, no matter what happens, I am always justified in my actions. This gives me the confidence to articulate my position clearly in any situation. Since deepening my knowledge of legal provisions, I have felt more composed in my enforcement duties. In many instances, I am now able to respond effectively rather than being left speechless when challenged. I can confidently rely on the law to defend and uphold my work. Frontline officers, on a personal level, should focus on standardizing law enforcement procedures. This includes ensuring the entire process is recorded with body cameras, presenting their law enforcement credentials, humanely enforcing laws, and paying attention to their appearance and demeanor. They should maintain a calm attitude, manage their emotions, and strive to avoid conflicts with the individuals involved. When dealing with members of the public who may not understand the regulations, they should patiently explain the relevant policies and, if possible, assist by coordinating and directing them to more suitable and convenient market areas where they can set up their stalls.
Managerial Level
At the managerial level, our analysis examined stigma management strategies implemented by middle and senior managers, with particular attention to role-specific interventions shaped by their organizational positions. In contrast to the individual level, managerial responses were predominantly characterized by engagement and adjustment approaches, with a notable absence of disengagement strategies.
Managers implemented restruction strategies, which included reframing and refocusing. The former strategy was more frequently applied, involving the enhancement of ideological education for frontline officers, reinforcing the mission of serving the people, thereby elevating role identification. One participant noted: Our leaders often organize gatherings for us, and during these gatherings, they share positive messages about our work. For instance, they say that our work truly serves the people, allowing them to enjoy tangible benefits. As long as we keep at it, we will eventually gain recognition and understanding.
The latter strategy, less frequently utilized compared to the former, primarily guided frontline officers to refocus on relatively acceptable compensation and benefits, helping to alleviate the grievances associated with stigma. One manager responded: So, sometimes, this job can be quite frustrating. But we just have to tell our colleagues, ‘Hey, it is all for the job, right? It is all about making a living, about the salary, and the family. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride.’
A significant number of managers adopted boundary management strategies, aiming to strengthen the occupational identity of “us” and enhance cohesion in coping with stigma. During interviews, many managers reported organizing team-building activities, including formal training sessions, commendations, competitions, as well as informal gatherings. These activities served as social buffering through supportive in-groups to counteract external stigma. As participants said: Our unit does not have any specific policies in place, but they do often organize basketball games, sports meet, and stuff like that. It is just a way for everyone to have fun and enjoy themselves together. Does it count that our team leader often treats us to meals? He frequently takes us out to eat, and sometimes, he even organizes outings where we bring our families or girlfriends to go hiking or have a barbecue. It is kind of like team building. I am a social person. I often organize team dinners. In summer, I host outdoor BBQs to boost camaraderie.
Many managers recognized the importance of emotion regulation in managing frontline officers’ emotions to alleviate psychological stress. A common approach was to conduct individual heart-to-heart talks, using emotional empathy to support and dissolve psychological burdens. A few officers shared their managers’ measures: Our section chief was promoted from a chengguan officer. Whenever he sees such news, he says nonchalantly, ‘This is nothing compared to how things used to be. . .’ and then shares stories from the past. I really enjoy listening to him. His perspective makes current issues seem trivial. Leaders will talk with us. As leaders, they know that to make subordinates feel cared for, employees will work hard. But this is caused by the whole environment, even if they want to change it. Still, it is not easy to make a difference. Once such an incident occurs, they do not have the resources or the ability to fix it—all they can do is comfort you and show they care.
Other managers arranged psychological counseling services to strengthen the emotional management capabilities of frontline officers. They said: Previously, we provided psychological counseling and the like, mainly focusing on strengthening education and prevention. The effect is quite good. We also need psychological support, so we often invite experts to provide counseling for us. This is both an affirmation of our work and a supplement to it. It helps us release some of the pressure. Now, with more experience, we have better methods to avoid such situations.
Drawing on interview data, we found that managers demonstrated more extensive experimentation within the domain of adjustment approaches. Compared to frontline individuals, managerial strategies were more firmly grounded in formal authority and organizational responsibilities, primarily manifesting through work planning redesign, team reconfiguration, and normative enforcement behavior training. These interventions aimed to reconstruct professional identity and systematically decouple the organization from historically stigmatized practices.
To specify, one manager mobilized leadership resources to form management teams, scientifically plan work, and avoid potential conflicts and contradictions that may provoke the public’s stigma.
Sometimes, in the demolition of illegal constructions, we deal with the parties involved who might not agree. Our leader then organizes a team to work with these parties, explaining the legal provisions and gradually proceeding with the demolition. The enforcement team leader takes charge, holds meetings, divides into groups for maintaining order, logistics, etc., and coordinates the efforts.
Others focused on human resources, optimizing personnel allocation based on employees’ personalities.
First of all, as the team leader, I can say that out of 10 people, there are 10 different personalities. Everyone’s personality is different. Some people are naturally suited to handle neighborhood disputes or interact with the public as we do. For example, some are naturally talkative, quick to respond, and have agile thinking. We try to assign these individuals to frontline work where they genuinely interact with the public. However, some people are more introverted, speak less, or sometimes have a more volatile temper and are more impatient. For these individuals, we adjust their roles, accordingly, assigning them to more specific tasks.
Additionally, some managers organized on-the-job training initiatives to help frontline officers master standardized enforcement methods.
Our team has strengthened training for enforcement officers when dealing with emotionally charged negotiations. Every Friday afternoon throughout the year, we conduct training on laws and regulations, including communication skills, legal training, and professional ethics. We simulate enforcement scenarios to teach officers how to resolve conflicts with the parties involved. For example, when chengguan officers face negotiations, they use the communication skills learned in training—listening patiently, expressing understanding, and then explaining the relevant rules. This has been successful. They voluntarily cooperate with enforcement and leave on their own. I believe this civilized and humanized approach has gained public recognition. Especially since last year, after a year of training and practice, our enforcement complaint rate has almost dropped to zero. Moreover, public satisfaction with chengguan enforcement has significantly improved. I think these measures have improved the relationship between our chengguan department and the public, as well as enhanced the image of our chengguan team.
One manager recognized personal demonstrations in instructing frontline officers to perform their duties in enforcing tasks.
As the leader, I had to take the lead. I had to step up and resolve issues. After solving the problem, I would let them observe and learn. If they did not know how to do something, they could just watch. In many cases, I had to lead by example so they could gradually learn and improve their work methods, abilities, and stress tolerance.
Organizational Level
At the organizational level, strategic responses spanned disengagement, engagement, and adjustment approaches. However, within the disengagement domain, the chengguan departments did not adopt overt avoidance tactics. Instead, they considered implementing dilution strategies through task reallocation—specifically, transferring controversial or stigma-laden responsibilities to other governmental units or third-party agencies. This approach aimed to mitigate direct public criticism by structurally distancing the organization from high-stigma functions.
Also, we are gradually clarifying the division of responsibilities under the ‘Big chengguan’ management system, which involves a lot of collaboration and coordination with departments like transportation and housing construction. For example, in the case of illegal parking, we need to assist the traffic police, but the specific responsibilities need to be further defined. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where many tasks that no unit wants to manage are assigned to chengguan—what we should manage, how to manage, and how to manage well indeed require thought and exploration.
According to our data, engagement approaches primarily encompassed reconstruction manifested chiefly through reframing alongside boundary management, information management, and cooptation strategies.
The chengguan agencies unanimously adopted the reconstruction strategy. On the one hand, they enhanced self-promotion through promotional videos, public service advertisements, and other means to showcase the significance of their work in maintaining urban order, environmental sanitation, and the quality of life for citizens.
At the organizational level, we have also engaged in some promotional efforts. We have established a social mobilization and publicity department and utilized media to showcase our department’s image. I believe these positive campaigns have had a cumulative positive effect. However, as the saying goes, ‘Good news does not travel far, but bad news spreads quickly.’ People seem to pay more attention to negative reports that evoke emotional responses. I worry that some of our positive messaging might be automatically ignored by the public, failing to achieve the intended impact. At the organizational level, like the head of our unit, we have also started to pay attention to the proactive promotion of chengguan. So, this year, you can see many billboards in our city posting slogans like ‘Make the City Warmer’ from the Urban Management Bureau. As our leaders often say, our work needs to be seen more by the public and understood more so that they can better support and cooperate with our work. However effective this is, I think it still needs time to tell, as improving negative perceptions is not something that happens overnight.
On the other hand, some chengguan agencies strengthened their cooperation with the news media, utilizing media coverage to highlight positive stories about their work and aiming to alter the public’s stereotypical perception.
Actually, I think the first aspect is positive guidance and publicity. For example, recently, during snow clearing, media outlets like local newspapers and TV stations actively reported on our hardworking sanitation workers and drivers working day and night. I think positive publicity is very important.
The application of boundary management strategies at the organizational level was primarily reflected in the optimization of the office environment and law enforcement equipment, allowing frontline officers to perceive the organization’s attention and support, thereby enhancing their sense of belonging.
We have made significant improvements in hardware. For example, we have addressed office space, facility conditions, equipment allocation, and funding. By improving the working environment and conditions for law enforcement officers, they feel the organization’s care and support, giving them a sense of belonging. Additionally, in practical work, some small vendors maliciously frame or provoke chengguan. The introduction of body cameras has given many officers a sense of confidence and an added layer of protection.
At the organizational level, the application of the information management strategy demonstrates distinct characteristics compared to the individual level. In contrast to certain individuals concealing stigmatized identities, the organizational approach involves establishing a standardized identification system, which includes uniform attire and clearly marked law enforcement vehicles. These measures were implemented to enhance the professional image and credibility of officers, mitigate identity-related conflicts during operations, and ensure the efficient execution of law enforcement activities.
In the past, the office environment of each chengguan law enforcement squadron was different, [for example] lacking a visual identification system. Currently, this work [on standardization] has achieved good results.
In their operations, chengguan agencies have also adopted a strategy of cooptation, proactively leveraging certain elements associated with their stigmatized identity to secure potential support. According to our research findings, this strategy was implemented exclusively at the organizational level.
Earlier, I mentioned two initiatives: ‘Chengguan Enters the Community’ and ‘Chengguan Open Day,’ where we invite citizens to experience our frontline enforcement work firsthand. This includes community representatives and residents who can join our chengguan officers on patrols. They follow us during daily patrols and enforcement, gaining insight into our workflow and challenges. Through this, citizens accompany our chengguan squad to observe the demolition of illegal structures on-site. They see how we communicate and persuade the parties involved beforehand, truly witnessing the chengguan enforcement process, which strictly follows procedures and emphasizes civilized enforcement. After the event, they gained a deeper understanding of our work and truly recognized the difficulties we face. They often say they will better understand and support our work in the future and even help promote urban management laws.
Research indicated that within the realm of adjustment approaches, the organizational level similarly demonstrated proactive destigmatization efforts. Compared to managers’ localized adjustments, interventions at the organizational level exhibit greater systematicity and authority. The core approach involves leveraging institutional advantages and resource control to fundamentally rectify organizational behaviors that contribute to stigma through top-level design, technological application, and systematic guidance, thereby reshaping its public image.
We have formulated the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officers, Management Measures for Auxiliary Personnel, Uniform Regulations for Auxiliary Personnel, and Detailed Assessment Rules for Law Enforcement Behavior. These documents clearly outline prohibited behaviors and emphasize the ‘Nine Strict Prohibitions’: No enforcement without proper credentials; No selective enforcement; No threats, insults, or physical violence against administrative counterparts; No misappropriation, damage, or destruction of administrative counterparts’ property; No concealment, cover-up, or indulgence of illegal activities; No acceptance of meals, gifts, or favors from administrative counterparts; No alcohol consumption during work hours or reporting to work under the influence; No personal use of law enforcement vehicles; No wearing uniforms or using law enforcement vehicles for personal consumption at commercial establishments. We have also enforced the ‘Three Firsts, One Last’ procedure: first, salute; second, present law enforcement credentials; third, explain the legal basis and reasons for enforcement; and only then impose penalties.
Some chengguan agencies introduced technological methods, utilizing modern technologies such as drone inspections and intelligent monitoring systems to assist law enforcement. These tactics reduced human intervention, decreased the frequency of direct contact with the public, and thereby mitigated potential conflicts.
We have even set up aerial loudspeakers to broadcast messages at different times, helping vendors and residents understand our work. For example, we play messages on TV and loudspeakers at 10 a.m., ensuring it does not disturb residents. These messages cover road occupation and mobile vendors, among other issues. Our aerial loudspeaker system has 5,046 points across our district, with four major intersections covered. If someone is selling on a main road, our chengguan officers use the loudspeakers to remind them: ‘Selling at this intersection is illegal, disrupts traffic, and is unsafe for you.’ After hearing this, they usually leave in an orderly manner.
Some chengguan agencies provided additional legal guidance, offering legal knowledge and policy interpretation to frontline officers to ensure that law enforcement actions were lawful and compliant, reducing misunderstandings arising from insufficient legal awareness.
When we deal with illegal constructions, the bureau definitely has specialized legal professionals who come down to guide us. For example, when a case comes down and we need to impose penalties, it is quite obvious that most of our penalties are related to illegal constructions. The legal affairs department will provide targeted advice on which clauses should be applied. These details are frequently revised, so we cannot rely on laws from the 90s or early 2000s; we need to make timely adjustments.
Discussion
This study integrates insights from frontline officers and middle-to-senior managers, transcending a single-level perspective, to gain a deeper understanding of the interconnected responses to stigma across individual, managerial, and organizational levels. Based on the research data, stigma management strategies manifest at three distinct levels, as illustrated in Table 4.
Multi-level stigma management strategies.
First, existing research indicates that individuals engaged in stigmatized work frequently resort to disengagement approaches, whereas such strategies are relatively uncommon at the managerial and organizational levels. Specifically, individuals often cope with identity threats and negative emotions through information management, such as deliberately concealing work-related identities and dilution, including reduced engagement with stigmatized tasks or even eventual exit from the stigmatized work environment. These patterns align with observations in policing groups (Piening et al., 2020). In contrast, disengagement strategies are far less prevalent among managers and organizations. This divergence in the adoption of disengagement approaches across levels may stem largely from individuals’ structural disadvantage in resource access. Following the Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989), chengguan officers tend to adopt disengagement strategies as a compensatory response when confronting social devaluation, enabling them to mitigate psychological depletion in contexts of resource asymmetry. In contrast, managers and organizations are less inclined to adopt disengagement strategies, primarily due to their structural positions and resource endowments. Meanwhile, from the perspective of institutional entrepreneurship (Garud et al., 2007; Hardy & Maguire, 2008), the role expectations and resource control vested in managers and organizations predispose them toward proactive intervention, enabling them to integrate stigmatized issues into manageable frameworks. Consequently, they tend to adopt forward-looking engagement strategies, driven not only by their role-based imperative to maintain systemic stability but also by their position as dominant actors within the institutional field to safeguard organizational functioning and effectiveness.
Second, research reveals that reframing, boundary management, and emotion regulation, as core engagement strategies, are implemented across multiple levels, with each adapted to the distinct functions of that level. Individuals, managers, and organizations all employ reframing strategies to emphasize the social value of urban management work. Specifically, individuals highlight the societal contributions of their roles to gain legitimacy and recognition; managers reinforce professional identity among subordinates through ideological education; and organizations engage in institutional image-building via media communication and public relations. These findings align with previous studies on law enforcement agencies (Rantatalo, 2016; Walby & Gumieny, 2020). Another widely adopted strategy is boundary management across all three levels. Frontline officers often resort to discrediting critics, such as questioning their integrity or impartiality, to uphold their dignity. Managers and organizations, in turn, construct protective collectives through team cohesion and institutional safeguards, resonating with the social buffering mechanisms proposed by Ashforth et al. (2007). Emotion regulation also demonstrates consistent application at both individual and managerial levels. Frontline officers primarily rely on self-regulation, such as confiding in peers or engaging in physical exercise to maintain a professional demeanor. Managers, meanwhile, implement structured psychological support programs, reflecting evidence-based interventions documented in law enforcement research (Grossman et al., 2004; Ramchand et al., 2019). These findings indicate that all three levels adopt engagement approaches to confront stigma, reflecting an inherent coherence in how each tier navigates stigma within its operational constraints.
Third, certain engagement strategies exhibit divergence across different levels, with information management presenting a typical case of such binary opposition. At the individual level, frontline officers tend to conceal or selectively disclose their professional identities, particularly in contexts of perceived social stigmatization. In stark contrast, the organizational level adopts a transparency-oriented approach to information disclosure. This pattern differs markedly from the consistent concealment strategies observed by Mitchell et al. (2024) in the private sector, such as mining companies removing industry identifiers. The divergence likely stems from fundamental differences in operational logics between public and private sectors: while commercially driven entities often suppress potentially stigmatizing information to protect brand value (Mitchell et al., 2024), public service organizations like law enforcement institutions must uphold transparency to establish institutional legitimacy and safeguard social welfare. Nevertheless, the contradiction between individual concealment and institutional transparency underscores the need to reconcile this tension, calling for balanced policies that respect individual concerns while achieving appropriate public accountability.
Fourth, the study reveals that certain engagement strategies are confined to specific organizational levels. A notable example is the refocusing strategy, a tactic aimed at mitigating the psychological impact of stigma by directing frontline officers’ attention toward tangible benefits such as compensation and job security. This strategy is implemented almost exclusively at the managerial level. Its uniqueness may arise from managers’ structural position within the organization: they serve as intermediaries between higher-level directives and frontline execution, while possessing discretionary authority over resource allocation. This enables them to translate abstract organizational objectives into concrete incentives, thereby guiding frontline officers on both cognitive and emotional levels. Such leveraged management is difficult to replicate at other tiers of the organization. Another prominent case is the strategy of cooptation, which involves proactively displaying stigmatized characteristics to cultivate understanding among neutral or sympathetic audiences. This approach operates primarily at the organizational level, exemplified by initiatives such as “open house events” that publicly showcase the practical challenges of urban management work, including enforcement conflicts and role dilemmas, to foster public empathy. The dominance of cooptation at the organizational level can be attributed to two factors. First, its implementation requires systematic resource support such as personnel, materials, and time, which only the organizational level possesses the capacity to mobilize. Second, its effectiveness depends on large-scale, institutionalized dissemination, which exceeds the reach of individuals or managers.
Fifth, this study uncovers a less-explored category within existing stigma management frameworks, adjustment approaches that refer to the propensity of actors at different levels to proactively modify and optimize stigmatized conditions. Specifically, at the individual level, law enforcement officers engage in self-directed learning of legal knowledge and adopt more standardized and humane enforcement practices to rectify public misperceptions of their conduct. At the managerial level, leaders exercise influence through rational task allocation based on employee strengths and by organizing training and education programs to structurally reduce contexts that engender stigma. At the organizational level, institutions employ rule-making, policy design, technological tools, and legal guidance to systematically steer behaviors toward compliance and legitimacy. This finding extends the classical disengagement–engagement category that has long dominated stigma response research. The limited scholarly attention to adjustment approaches may be attributed to the prior focus on task-induced occupational stigma, where stigma arises from tasks that are perceived as inherently undesirable (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Hughes, 1958). In contrast, the stigma observed in this study largely stems from public skepticism triggered by specific instances of misconduct during law enforcement. As a result, actors across all levels demonstrate a shared tendency to address stigma at its source through behavioral refinement. This insight suggests that research in specific stigmatized contexts should move beyond universal coping typologies and instead systematically identify the precise sources of stigma to develop targeted interventions.
Conclusion
This study examines multi-level stigma management strategies through interviews with 22 chengguan frontline officers and managers. The study identifies stigma management strategies at the individual, managerial, and organizational levels, along with their cross-level convergences and divergences. Its key theoretical contributions are threefold: First, by investigating the stigmatized law enforcement system—an understudied public sector—this study answers Mastracci’s (2022) call for empirical work on stigmatized public service professions. Second, it develops an integrated, multi-level perspective on stigma management, identifying both convergences and divergences across levels, thereby extending the work by R. Zhang et al. (2021) and Hudson et al. (2022). Third, by analyzing strategies within China’s unique sociocultural environment, the study enables future cross-cultural comparisons in law enforcement stigma research. This study also offers practical implications for global law enforcement stigma management. First, a multi-level governance framework should be institutionalized to enhance strategic coherence across different tiers of governance. Second, leadership capacity must be strengthened through robust internal support systems and active external engagement, thereby rebuilding public trust and reshaping prevailing narratives. Third, it is essential to integrate wellness measures into operational protocols to safeguard the psychological security of frontline officers. Finally, a shift from reactive coping to behavioral adjustments should be promoted through greater transparency and service innovation, ultimately improving public perception. This study has several limitations. First, the qualitative nature of this investigation inherently constrains the sample scale. While the sample size meets methodological standards, its reduction in subgroup analyses may weaken the robustness of comparative conclusions. Future research could employ stratified sampling to enhance representativeness. Second, although multi-level stigma management strategies have been identified, the cross-level interactions among them remain underexplored. Future research could further investigate the mechanisms underlying these interactions. Third, the findings are grounded in China’s socio-political context, which may limit their generalizability. Future cross-national comparative studies could systematically examine how political systems, legal traditions, and public participation models shape responses to occupational stigma.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.