Introduction
Dehumanization is a well-established concept in social psychology. Recent research has focused on the relationships between employees and organizations, leading to increased attention on organizational dehumanization. Organizational dehumanization (ODH) describes the negative aspects of interactions between employees and their organizations. It occurs when employees perceive that their thoughts and feelings are disregarded, that they are objectified, and viewed as easily replaceable. ODH reflects an employee’s perception of being mistreated by the organization, thereby undermining their intrinsic social value. Haslam proposed that ODH typically arises from a process in which individuals feel deprived of their human attributes, leading them to be perceived as animals or machines, with their nature human attributes denied. He proposed a dual model of ODH, identifying two primary forms: “animalistic” and “mechanistic”. Animalistic dehumanization involves denying characteristics that distinguish humans from animals and is often associated with issues such as migration, war, and genocide.
 In contrast, mechanistic dehumanization refers to denying human nature attributes to others and representing them as objects. Christoph suggests that mechanistic dehumanization is more prevalent than animalistic dehumanization in organizational settings. Factors influencing ODH include social factors (e.g., national culture), organizational characteristics (e.g., organizational rules), environmental factors (e.g., air pollution or excessive noise), job characteristics (e.g., lack of job autonomy), interpersonal factors (e.g., aggressive or disrespectful managers), and individual factors (e.g., low self-efficacy). ODH has adverse consequences for both employees and organizations. It disrupts employee well-being and fosters negative attitudes towards the organization. Reported negative effects include low job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, psychological stress, reduced organizational commitment, and increased turnover intention. This study aims to review studies on ODH among nurses. It seeks to answer the question of how nurses perceive the related factors and the consequences of ODH.

Methods
This is a comprehensive systematic review that involved searching relevant articles published in Persian or English from 2012 to 2024 using keywords such as Dehumanization, Nursing management, Nurse, and Organization and Boolean operators (OR and AND) in national and international databases including Magiran, IranMedex, Scientific Information Database (SID), Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. The titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened, duplicate studies were removed, and ultimately eligible studies were selected. 

Results
The initial search yielded 73 articles. After carefully screening titles and abstracts, ensuring access to full texts, and removing duplicates, 6 articles in English were selected for review. No relevant articles in Persian were identified. Five articles used quantitative methodologies, while one article was a review study. Based on the reviewed studies, several factors contribute to ODH among Iranian nurses, including organizational characteristics, interpersonal factors, organization’s perceived dehumanization, social factors, environmental factors, job characteristics, and individual factors. 
Recent studies revealed that even inefficient regulations can increase perceived ODH. Employees who feel dehumanized are more susceptible to engaging in deviant work behaviors, including thoughts of revenge against the organization, which can be detrimental to organizational success. Furthermore, ODH can lead to early turnover, knowledge hiding/hoarding, promoting counterproductive work behaviors, increased absenteeism, and intentions to leave. ODH can trickle down the hospital’s hierarchical ladder, where healthcare workers use it as a defensive coping strategy to shield themselves from the emotional burden caused by interacting with patients. 

Conclusion
Organizational dehumanization leads to low job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, psychological stress, reduced organizational commitment, and increased intention to leave among nurses. The dehumanization of nurses can have detrimental effects on care quality and nurses’ well-being. Nurse managers should pay attention to the contributing and protective factors related to ODH among nursing staff and promptly develop relevant treatment and prevention policies. They can play a vital role in mitigating the adverse effects of ODH by fostering a supportive work environment, reducing workload and providing opportunities for professional development. By allowing nurses to express their feelings and opinions, hospital managers can cultivate a more positive work climate and reduce stress levels. Additionally, empowering nurses through delegated decision-making and recognizing their skills and roles can contribute to a more positive workplace. By acknowledging the importance of human connection, empathy, and compassion in nursing, hospitals can implement preventive measures to emphasize the human aspect of care. This includes addressing contemporary healthcare needs at the national level, such as appropriate hiring practices, effective nurse distribution, and proper planning for shift rotation.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
All ethical principles were considered. This is a review study with no human or animal samples. Therefore, the need for an ethical code was waived

Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for profit sectors.

Authors' contributions
All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study, data collection and analysis, interpretation of the results, and drafting of the manuscript. Each author approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest


References

1. Leyens JP, Rodriguez-Perez A, Rodriguez-Torres R, Gaunt R, Paladino MP, Vaes J, et al. Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2001; 31(4):395-411. [DOI:10.1002/ejsp.50]
2. Caesens G, Stinglhamber F, Demoulin S, De Wilde M. Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2017; 26(4):527-40. [DOI:10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817]
3. Adbi A, Bhaskarabhatla A, Chatterjee C. Stakeholder orientation and market impact: Evidence from India. J Bus Ethics. 2020; 161:479-96. [DOI:10.1007/s10551-018-3919-x]
4. Nguyen N, Stinglhamber F. Emotional labor and core self-evaluations as mediators between organizational dehumanization and job satisfaction. Curr Psychol. 2021; 40(2):831-9. [DOI:10.1007/s12144-018-9988-2]
5. Caesens G, Nguyen N, Stinglhamber F. Abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization. J Bus Psychol. 2019; 34:709-28. [DOI:10.1007/s10869-018-9596-z]
6. Bastian B, Haslam N. Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2011; 33(4):295-303. [DOI:10.1080/01973533.2011.614132]
7. Bell CM, Khoury C. Organizational de/humanization, deindividuation, anomie, and in/justice. In: Gilliland SW, Steiner DD, Skarlicki DP, editors. Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics. Charlotte: IAP Information Age Publishing; 2011. [Link]
8. Christoff K. Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and ethical considerations. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:748. [DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748] [PMID]
9. Haslam N, Loughnan S. Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014; 65:399-423. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045] [PMID]
10. Stinglhamber F, Caesens G. Organizational dehumanization. In: Bal PM, editor. Encyclopedia of Organizational Psychology. Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. London: Edward Elgar; 2022. [DOI:10.4337/9781803921761.00090]
11. Nguyen N, Dao QA, Nhan TLA, Stinglhamber F. Organizational dehumanization and emotional labor: A cross-cultural comparison between Vietnam and the United Kingdom. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2021 ;52(1):43-60. [DOI:10.1177/0022022120972183]
12. Lagios C, Nguyen N, Stinglhamber F, Caesens G. Dysfunctional rules in organizations: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization in the relationship between red tape and employees’ outcomes. Eur Manag J. 2023; 41(5):802-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.002]
13. Stinglhamber F, Nguyen N, Josse M, Demoulin S. The development of prison officers’ job satisfaction and its impact on depersonalization of incarcerated persons: The role of organizational dehumanization. Crim Justice Behav. 2022; 49(11):1600-17. [DOI:10.1177/00938548221087182]
14. Demoulin S, Nguyen N, Chevallereau T, Fontesse S, Bastart J, Stinglhamber F, et at al. Examining the role of fundamental psychological needs in the development of metadehumanization: A multi-population approach. Br J Soc Psychol. 2021; 60(1):196-221. [DOI:10.1111/bjso.12380] [PMID]
15. Nguyen N, Besson T, Stinglhamber F. Emotional labor: The role of organizational dehumanization. J Occup Health Psychol. 2022; 27(2):179-94. [DOI:10.1037/ocp0000289] [PMID]
16. Lagios C, Caesens G, Nguyen N, Stinglhamber F. Explaining the negative consequences of organizational dehumanization. J Pers Psychol. 2021; 21(2):1. [DOI:10.5465/AMBPP.2022.16897abstract]
17. Goussinsky R. The combined moderating effects of coworker support and occupational coping self-efficacy on the relationship between mistreatment by patients and burnout. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2020; 29(4):479-97. [DOI:10.1080/10926771.2019.1692982]
18. Sarwar A, Khan J, Muhammad L, Mubarak N, Jaafar M. Relationship between organisational dehumanization and nurses' deviant behaviours: A moderated mediation model. J Nurs Manag. 2021; 29(5):1036-45. [DOI:10.1111/jonm.13241] [PMID]
19. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In: Zukauskiene R, editor. Interpersonal development. London: Routledge; 2017. [DOI:10.4324/9781351153683-3]
20. Kouchaki M, Smith IH, Savani K. Does deciding among morally relevant options feel like making a choice? How morality constrains people's sense of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018; 115(5):788-804. [DOI:10.1037/pspa0000128] [PMID]
21. Väyrynen T, Laari-Salmela S. Men, mammals, or machines? Dehumanization embedded in organizational practices. J Bus Ethics. 2018; 147:95-113. [DOI:10.1007/s10551-015-2947-z]
22. El-Sayed Aly RI, Wahba NM, Abdel-Aleem MM. Nurses’ passion for work: Its’ relation to organizational dehumanization, exploitative leadership, and deviant behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assiut Sci Nurs J. 2023; 11(34):65-77. [DOI:10.21608/asnj.2023.180482.1470]
23. Zito M, Emanuel F, Bertola L, Russo V, Colombo L. Passion and flow at work for the reduction of exhaustion at work in nursing staff. SAGE Open. 2022; 12(2):21582440221095009. [DOI:10.1177/21582440221095009]
24. Ada HM, Dehom S, D'Errico E, Boyd K, Taylor EJ. Sanctification of work and hospital nurse employment outcomes: An observational study. J Nurs Manag. 2021; 29(3):442-50. [DOI:10.1111/jonm.13162] [PMID]
25. Trépanier SG, Fernet C, Austin S, Forest J, Vallerand RJ. Linking job demands and resources to burnout and work engagement: Does passion underlie these differential relationships? Motivation and Emotion. 2014; 38:353-66. [DOI:10.1007/s11031-013-9384-z]
26. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J of Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 134:103-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003]
27. Baldissarri C, Fourie MM. Dehumanizing organizations: Insidious effects of having one’s human integrity denied at work. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2023; 49:101244. [DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101244]
28. Basile MJ, Rubin E, Wilson ME, Polo J, Jacome SN, Brown SM, et al Humanizing the ICU patient: A qualitative exploration of behaviors experienced by patients, caregivers, and ICU staff. Crit Care Explor. 2021; 3(6):e0463. [DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000463] [PMID]
29. Lekka D, Richardson C, Madoglou A, Orlandou K, Karamanoli VI, Roubi A, et al. Dehumanization of hospitalized patients and self-dehumanization by health professionals and the general population in Greece. Cureus. 2021; 13(12):e20182. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.20182]
30. Adams SM, Case TI, Fitness J, Stevenson RJ. Dehumanizing but competent: The impact of gender, illness type, and emotional expressiveness on patient perceptions of doctors. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2017; 47(5):247-55. [DOI:10.1111/jasp.12433]
31. Hoogendoorn CJ, Rodríguez ND. Rethinking dehumanization, empathy, and burnout in healthcare context. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2023; 52:101285. [DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101285] [PMID]
32. Lebowitz MS, Ahn WK. Effects of biological explanations for mental disorders on clinicians' empathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(50):17786-90. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1414058111] [PMID]
33. Trifiletti E, Di Bernardo GA, Falvo R, Capozza D. Patients are not fully human: A nurse’s coping response to stress. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2014; 44(12):768-77. [DOI:10.1111/jasp.12267]
34. Bandura A. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1999; 3(3):193-209. [DOI:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3] [PMID]
35. Khalid M, Bashir S, Khan AK, Abbas N. When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2018; 39(6):794-806. [DOI:10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0140]
36. Muhammad L, Sarwar A. When and why organizational dehumanization leads to deviant work behaviors in hospitality industry. Int Jf Hosp Manag. 2021; 99:103044. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103044]
37. Rubbab UE, Khattak SA, Shahab H, Akhter N. Impact of organizational dehumanization on employee knowledge hiding. Front Psychol. 2022; 13:803905. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.803905] [PMID]
38. Gallegos I, Guàrdia-Olmos J, Berger R.  Abusive Supervision: A systematic review and new research approaches. Front Commun. 2022; 6:640908. [DOI:10.3389/fcomm.2021.640908] 
39. Caesens G, Stinglhamber F. The relationship between organizational dehumanization and outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. J Occup Environ Med. 2019; 61(9):699-703. [DOI:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001638] [PMID]
40. Taskin L, Parmentier M, Stinglhamber F. The dark side of office designs: Towards de-humanization. N Technol Work Employ. 2019; 34(3):262-84. [DOI:10.1111/ntwe.12150]
41. Bell CM, Khoury C. Dehumanization, deindividuation, anomie and organizational justice. In: Gilliland S, Steiner D, Skarlicki D, editors. Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics, research in social issues in management. Greenwich: : Information Age Publishing; 2011. [Link]
42. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Rajagiri Manag J. 2021; 15(1):88-90. [Link]
43. Schroeder K, Norful AA, Travers J, Aliyu S. Nursing perspectives on care delivery during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2020; 2:100006. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2020.100006] [PMID]
44. Jia Y, Chen O, Xiao Z, Xiao J, Bian J, Jia H. Nurses' ethical challenges caring for people with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Nurs Ethics. 2021; 28(1):33-45. [DOI:10.1177/0969733020944453] [PMID]
45. Cimon L, Gauthier M,  Beaulieu M. Organizational Dehumanization of Nurses in Healthcare Systems: A scoping review. The Ann Fam Medic. 2024; 22(Supplement 1):6460. [Link]
46. Jeon YA, Koh HE, Ahn J, Coleman R. Stigma activation through dis-identification: Cognitive bias triggered by mass media photos of people with obesity. J Appl Commun Res. 2019; 47(5):485-504. [DOI:10.1080/00909882.2019.1682181]
47. Starc J. Stress factors among nurses at the primary and secondary level of public sector health care: The case of slovenia. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6(2):416-22. [DOI:10.3889/oamjms.2018.100] [PMID]
48. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002; 6(4):307-24. [DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307]
49. Fontesse S, Rimez X, Maurage P. Stigmatization and dehumanization perceptions towards psychiatric patients among nurses: A path-analysis approach. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2021; 35(2):153-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.apnu.2020.12.005] [PMID]
50. Mawritz MB, Mayer DM, Hoobler JM, Wayne SJ, Marinova SV. A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Pers Psychol. 2012; 65(2):325-57. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x]
51. Vaes J, Muratore M. Defensive dehumanization in the medical practice: A cross-sectional study from a health care worker's perspective. Br J Soc Psychol. 2013; 52(1):180-90. [DOI:10.1111/bjso.12008] [PMID]
52. Shore LM, Coyle-Shapiro JA, Tetrick LE. The employee-organization relationship: Applications for the 21st century. Milton Park: Routledge; 2012. [DOI:10.1037/e518332013-170]
53. Baldissarri C, Andrighetto L, Volpato C. When work does not ennoble man: Psychological consequences of working objectification. TPM. 2014; 21(3):327-39. [Link]
54. Abou Zeid MG, Khedr MA, Rayan HN, Mostafa B, El-Ashry AM. The relationship between organizational dehumanization and work engagement: The mediating effect of nurses' work stress. BMC Nurs. 2024; 23(1):193. [DOI:10.1186/s12912-024-01841-z] [PMID]

55. Roupa A, Patelarou A, Fradelos EC, Fousiani K, Miliaraki M, Giakoumidakis K, et al. Validation of Two Instruments for the Measurement of Dehumanization and Self-Dehumanization in Healthcare Settings. Nurs Rep. 2024; 14(3):2246-65. [DOI:10.3390/nursrep14030167] [PMID]