This article contributes new theoretical perspectives and empirical findings to the conceptualization of occupational liminality. Here, we posit ‘occupational limbo’ as a state distinct from both transitional and permanent liminality; an important analytic distinction in better understanding occupational experiences. In its anthropological sense, liminality refers to a state of being betwixt and between; it is temporary and transitional. Permanent liminality refers to a state of being neither-this-nor-that, or both-this-and-that. We extend this framework in proposing a conceptualization of occupational limbo as always-this-and-never-that, where this is less desirable than that. Based on interviews with 51 teaching-only staff at 20 research-intensive ‘Russell Group’ universities in the United Kingdom, the findings highlight some challenging occupational experiences. Interviewees reported feeling ‘locked-in’ to an uncomfortable state by a set of structural and social barriers often perceived as insurmountable. Teaching-only staff were found to engage in negative and often self-deprecatory identity talk that highlighted a felt inability to cross the līmen to the elevated status of ‘proper academics’. The research findings and the new conceptual framework provide analytic insights with wider application to other occupational spheres, and can thus enhance the understanding not just of teaching-only staff and academics, but also of other workers and managers.\ud \ud Keywords academic careers, limbo, organizational theory, liminality, work environmen

No abstract

This article explores the identity challenges facing teaching-only faculty (TOF), whose occupational self-perceptions are fundamentally contradicted by the way institutional others perceive them. We show how this manifests into a set of stigmatising practices and processes across two dimensions: contact (informal messaging) and contract (formal messaging). The sense of being unjustly stigmatised is amplified because the teaching-only role is generally seen as high-status by outsiders, and the work itself is relatively free from real or metaphorical dirt. Hence, we propose the concept of within-group stigmatisation. Next, we shine light on the implications of this form of occupational stigmatisation through the lens of organisational (dis)identification. In contrast to theoretical expectations, the analysis of our extensive survey and interview data shows that TOF identify with their role but disidentify with the organisation. Finally, we reflect on the importance and broader applicability of our concept of within-group occupational stigmatisation.

This paper draws on extensive fieldwork to explore the nature, scope, and implications of management preparations for the question and answer session (Q&A) that occurs during a firm's results presentation. Prior literature has associated the value of this encounter with investor‐manager interactivity. As such, it is assumed that there are high levels of managerial authorship, ownership, and spontaneity as executives face questions from analysts. Following on, it is generally assumed that this translates into an increased risk of unintended disclosure, through verbal and nonverbal messaging. However, our data indicate that management engages in vast preparatory work to mitigate the risks associated with real (“original,” natural, spontaneous, un‐staged) interactivity. Instead, the Q&A is carefully planned, organized, scripted, and rehearsed. As such, the event is transformed into a hyperreal encounter in the Baudrillardian sense. Despite this, the value of the Q&A is not necessarily impaired. Instead, these managerial backstage preparations arguably make the encounter realer than real. We suggest that the Q&A that we observe (the “copy”) is more useful than the original might have been. Our work provides evidence and discussion of two interconnected paradoxes: perfection and self‐reference. This study not only raises important questions, challenges, and opportunities for researchers interested in the study of investor‐manager interactions but also speaks to those with an interest in workplace meetings and Q&A more broadly.

We examine the Service‐to‐Civilian career transition for Military leavers aged 50 and above (50+). The exit age of our sampled group means that it is more likely that they hold senior‐ranked positions across both Officer and Soldier career pathways. Despite both groups having access to similar transition opportunities and resources, we find that their work‐lives are underpinned with economic, social, and structural inequality. This inequality has substantive effects on their employment transition outcomes. Our focus group data suggest that Soldiers have unequal access to formal (e.g., Career Transition Partnership programmes) and informal (e.g., social networks) transition support resources compared to Officers. Employing a structural equation modelling approach to analyse 183 survey responses, we found that Soldiers are more likely to apply for, and subsequently take, civilian work that is below their skills level. In turn, Soldiers are significantly less satisfied with their civilian work than Officers.