Social integration is either realised or restricted within teams. The dramaturgical theory explains that a diverse team’s success is more dependent on how its members are presented to their coworkers than on the individual characteristics of each member. Teams are seen as a relational arena in which leaders can negotiate the intricate differences when integrating stigmatised people within a team. Here, stigmatised people refers to those with criminal records, disabilities, or a history of substance abuse.
Stigma is seen as the assessment of an audience rather than an innate trait of the individuals. Colleagues are the immediate audience in team settings, and their opinions dictate whether a member can be seen as normal and fully participate without risking social exclusion. Managers have the responsibility of negotiating in a divided team where some coworkers may be sympathetic and encouraging while others may have ingrained prejudices or stigmatising opinions. If the manager is unable to do so, it is unlikely that the stigmatised team member will be able to integrate successfully in their team.
Hence, when a team member possesses a highly visible stigma such as a noticeable physical disability or a known history of incarceration then the risk of internal sanctioning rises. In such situations, organisations may try to hide the stigmatised member as a protective strategy.
On one hand, to reduce the person’s susceptibility to get penalised socially some may hide their characteristics if it is an option. So within a team, it could take the form of organising work roles to minimize exposure by using generic language to avoid prejudices. Here, the intention is to provide protection so that the person can access necessary resources and form social relationships without being immediately burdened by the stigma.
On the other hand, managers may want to normalise a stigma when it is integrated through professional scripts or legal protections. In this way, they are able to show the stigmatised group or people as respectable, and legitimate but it might draw attention to them.
Moreover, in a team context the normalization utilizes these professional scripts like HR protocols and training manuals so that a shared vocabulary for interactions can be provided to others. As a result, the team dynamics move from passive sympathy to being an active supporter.
Hence, when a team member’s contributions are publicly celebrated then the organization signals to the rest of the team that the individual is a legitimate and deserving participant which deepens the collective acceptance from them by the team.
However, these two strategies are not mutually exclusive. So, a team might try to normalise a group through advocacy while simultaneously concealing an individual’s identity to protect them from specific biases and if these efforts are misaligned then internal tensions can increase. For example, a high-profile normalizing campaign may result in unwanted scrutiny to a team member which could potentially increase the risk to them of harm or social rejection.
All in all, fostering a healthy team dynamic is an audience-focused process. So managers could benefit from recognising that integration is not a single event but a continuous performance on the organisational stage. Hence, by strategically choosing when to protect (conceal) and when to validate (normalize), leaders have the ability to bridge the gap between marginalized individuals and the broader team to ensure that all members are empowered and can contribute to their full potential.
Food for thought: If inclusion sometimes requires selectively “concealing” aspects of identity to protect individuals, can we truly call that inclusion or is it a more polished form of exclusion? How should leaders decide when to normalize versus when to shield, and who gets to make that call: the manager, the team, or the individual themselves?
References
- Lodge, J., Helms, W. S., Roulet, T., & Tracey, P. (2026). Organizations as Stages: A dramaturgical theory of the societal integration of stigmatized groups. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063261421506