The identity paradox: organisational identification amplifies emotional labour’s depersonalisation costs

Purpose Organisational identification has traditionally been conceptualised as a personal resource that protects employees from workplace strain. Drawing on social identity theory, emotional labour theory and the job demands-resources model, this study aims to examine whether organisational identification instead amplifies the relationships between surface acting, deep acting and depersonalisation. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from 314 US employees across a broad range of industries in July and August 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the four-factor measurement model. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical moderated regression with simple slopes analysis. Findings Organisational identification significantly strengthened the positive relationships between surface acting and depersonalisation (b = 0.093, p < 0.001) and between deep acting and depersonalisation (b = 0.225, p < 0.001). Deep acting was psychologically costly only for highly identified employees. Results were robust to industry controls, sample restrictions and an alternative burnout outcome. Practical implications Organisations that invest in building identification should pair those efforts with emotional regulation training and targeted well-being support for highly identified employees, who are not necessarily the most resilient. Originality/value This study identifies an identity paradox: the employees most psychologically invested in their organisations are most vulnerable to depersonalisation when emotional labour demands intensify, challenging the assumption that organisational identification is uniformly beneficial.