Okhuysen, and Smitha Radhakrishnan for their feedback. This article also benefited from the

reactions of participants at Stanford University, the University of Michigan, Wharton’s People &

Organization conference, and the ASA annual meeting. In addition, we thank Paula Pereda-Perez

and Trish Ward for help in, respectively, collecting and coding data, as well as Ann Goodsell for

editorial suggestions. Finally, we acknowledge the seasoned ghostwriter of a best-selling author

for inspiring this project and wish we could thank him by name.

* Both authors contributed equally to this project.

today’s neoliberal economy: the rise in self-branding, the growth in outsourcing of the self, and

mounting income inequality. This article explores the experience of stand-in workers and its

implication on the economy of self. Relying on 72 interviews with ghostwriters and publishing

industry insiders, we show that ghostwriters face recognition estrangement because they are

often asked to stay out of public view for the crafted selves to prove “authentic.” As creative

workers with a high degree of investment in their work, ghostwriters are quite sensitive to this

form of estrangement. They manage this tension in a unique way: they claim a professional need

to disappear in order to properly put forth a subject’s “true” voice, yet emphasize their active

contribution to the crafting of a subject’s public self that differs from the subject’s “true” self. In

doing so, ghostwriters alter the subjects they impersonate by creating a distance between the

In a hyper-mediated society, dominated by a culture of consumption and celebrity, people’s

constant attempts to purposely produce and project “authentic” selves have gained new urgency.

Whether in college application processes (e.g., the essay requirement), on social media platforms

(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.), or in professional settings (e.g., LinkedIn

profiles, resumes, etc.), the crafting and presentation of social selves is integral to today’s

economy (Callero 2003; Harvey 2005; Hall and Lamont 2013). Scholars have described this

phenomenon as "personal" or "self" branding (Hearn 2008; Wee and Brooks 2010; Vallas and

Cummins 2015; Vallas and Christin 2018), and have linked it to the neoliberal imperative for

individuals to both produce and sell social selves (Burchell 1993; Du Gay 1996; Foucault 2008;

income inequality, luxury spending by high-income individuals, particularly geared toward

serving their personal needs, is increasing (Fisher et al. 2013; Henry 2014; Cynamon and Fazzari

2015;) and can readily fund such outsourcing. Consequently, there is a growing number of

workers whose job it is to help others produce their social selves. We define the labor performed

by these workers—ranging from school-admissions and social-media consultants to professional

résumé writers and love coaches—as “stand-in labor,” or work that is aimed at producing

someone else’s self. This form of labor proves quite unique. Due to expectations for the

presentation of a (solo-authored) “authentic self” (Williams 2006; Fleming and Sturdy 2011;

Mirchandani 2012; Sheinheit and Bogard 2016; Demetry 2018), stand-in workers are often

required to remain invisible. Because the implications for workers of this growing form of labor

published memoirs. In the United States, sales of books in the category of personal memoir

increased by more than 600% between 2004 and 2016 (from nearly 1.2 million books sold in

2004 to more than 8 million in 2016).

knowledge and experience of the writer, and yet many memoirs are not written by the person

whose personal experiences are being relayed. In fact, nearly 50% of memoirs that have

appeared on the New York Times list of non-fiction best sellers in the past 5 years were written,

at least in part, by someone else (i.e., a ghostwriter was listed).

created a vibrant market for stand-in workers who help those whom publishers refer to as

invisibility by claiming a professional need to disappear in order to properly present a subject’s

“true” voice. Second, we show that they regain agency through their contribution to production

of a subject’s self that differs from the subject’s “actual” self. In this way, we argue, stand-in

labor rests on a paradoxical dynamic: workers invoke their invisibility as a point of pride, and

even as a trademark of their profession, yet also alter the subjects they are hired to impersonate,

thus regaining agency (and, sometimes, recognition) while performing the work. (By altering

subjects, we mean the crafting of subjects’ selves that differ from their “actual” selves.) Our

study therefore also highlights how employers’ selves become adulterated in the context of

stand-in labor, and how such a process might prove central in the rising economy of self. More

broadly, we posit that many workers engaged in this economy of self might alter the subjects

decades now (Cooley 1902; Mead 1934; Goffman 1959; Yeung and Martin 2003), but

contemporary societal shifts and dynamics have amplified them. As Peter Callero (2003) notes,

“this [recent] eruption of attention [on selfhood and identity] was spurred by burgeoning

developments in post-structuralism, cultural studies, feminism and queer theory” and by forces

outside the academy, most notably “an increasing individualization of social life” in which

“personal meaning and social location become a matter of effort and conscious ‘choice’” (115).

Deborah Cameron (2000) points out that such a preoccupation with self is “characteristic

generally of late modern cultures, where the individual’s biography and identity are not

determined by tradition or social role but must be reflexively constructed” (p. 153). This explains

in part why recent studies have documented a rise in “personal” or “self” branding (Hearn 2008;

must view themselves as a “company of one” (Lane 2011, 13) and as an “entrepreneur of the

self” (Du Gay 1996, 182). They are now expected to embody the economic imperative by

adopting techniques of the self that are aligned with the broader economic structure (Foucault

1980; Burchell 1993). As Steven Vallas and Angèle Christin (2018, 9–10) remark, “Rather than

the mere ‘partner of exchange’ central to classical liberal economics, neoliberalism expects the

worker to become an ‘entrepreneur of himself, being for himself his own capital, being for

himself his own producer, being for himself the source of his earnings’ (Foucault, 2008, p. 226).”

Put otherwise, workers’ capacity to act and exert agency now becomes an obligation geared

[social networking sites] architectures redesign the ways in which workers are categorized,

compared, filtered, and excluded” (5). Thus, presenting oneself online inappropriately can easily

decrease one’s job prospects (Turco 2016, 90-96). In the personal arena, the online sphere is now

saturated with exposure of supposedly private selves (Illouz 2007; Zhao et al. 2008). In this way,

contemporary societal dynamics call for even greater attention to selfhood than in the past.

referred to this exchange as “outsourcing of self” (Hochschild 2012). For example, individuals

can now hire people to inscribe greeting cards to plausibly appear to come from them (Lair

2017), ask personal concierges to choose for them gifts for their loved ones (Sherman 2010), and

not all social selves are valued in contemporary society; instead, it is the presentation of

“authentic” selves that has become the goal (Erickson 1995, 122). Indeed, as scholars have

noted, the search for authenticity has become a distinctive marker of contemporary life (Peterson

1997, 2005; Fine 2003; Grazian 2003; Wherry 2006; Hahl et al. 2017; Demetry 2018; Hahl,

Kim, and Zuckerman 2018). As the management consultants James Gilmore and Joseph Pine

(2007) assert, managing authenticity—“whether concerning people, places, or things”—has

become critical in today’s economy “because people increasingly make purchasing decisions

based on how real or fake they perceive various offerings” to be (xii). This assumption explains

why aspiring leaders are advised to be “authentic” and “be yourself” (George 2003, 11). In this

labor done by stand-in workers is apt to create a tension that these workers must navigate—

namely, the inability of workers to be recognized for their work. How workers navigate various

forms of estrangement in their work has been the focus of scholarship on the labor process that

the next section will discuss.

A long line of sociological research has centered on workers’ estrangement and their reactions to

such estrangement. From Marx’ early writing on the commodification of labor (Marx 2007

even scholars working in other traditions (e.g., the Human Relations school) have assumed some

sort of workplace estrangement (Du Gay 1996, 10). Consequently, many studies have focused on

how workers either consent to or resist various forms of workplace estrangement (e.g., Roy

1959; Mars 1974; Burawoy 1979; Sherman 2007; Anteby 2008; Sallaz 2009; Ong 2010).

Yet, over and above the classic notions of commodification of labor and traditional

product estrangement, we suspect that stand-in workers may experience a heightened form of

estrangement, leading to possibly novel workplace behavior. Because of the premium on

authenticity in the marketplace, stand-in workers are typically asked to remain hidden from

public view (sometimes under threat of legal action), and required to refrain from openly

asserting their contributions to the product of their work. Unlike Ford factory workers, for

creative workers (whom we would expect to be highly involved in their work). As members of

the creative class, paid to use their “mind” (rather than their physical labor) (Florida 2002, 9),

stand-in workers might prove particularly sensitive to not being able to showcase their

contributions to others. Moreover, as contract workers, their future labor-market prospects could

be restricted by lack of public recognition. Indeed, the product of their labor might need to seen

by others to generate more work and to secure a steady stream of income.

level service workers, it remains unclear how workers respond to recognition estrangement. The

labor-process literature does suggest, however, that we might encounter unique ways by which

workers exert agency in differently challenging labor contexts (e.g., Burawoy 1979; Roscigno

SETTING, DATA, AND METHODS

Ghostwriting is not a new form of work. As the ghostwriter Jennie Erdal (2009) suggests in her

memoir, “it might almost qualify as the oldest profession if prostitution had not laid prior claim”

(xii). What seems new, however, is the growth in demand for ghostwriting services. From brief

articles, blog posts, and other “content marketing” work for businesses and public relations

agencies (James-Enger 2014, 33-49) to such longer pieces as novels (Murphey 2017), celebrity

cookbooks (Moskin 2012), memoirs (Dody 1980; McDonald 2003; Erdal 2009; Childress 2017,

since they sell their intellectual ability and skills to meet someone else’s needs. Generally

speaking, ghostwriters sell for compensation a product to individuals for whom “written

communication isn't their forte” or who “don't have time” to write (Shaw 2003, 16). Moreover,

like many others working today, ghostwriters work as independent contractors (Kalleberg 2000,

2011). As contractors, ghostwriters generally sign a collaboration agreement with their subjects

(Crofts 2004), even though publishers can make the introduction. This agreement names the

parties and outlines matters of confidentiality, responsibilities and due dates, compensation,

copyright, and recognition (i.e., how the work will be credited).

In terms of compensation, ghostwriters typically work either for a “flat fee” or for

royalties derived from the finished product (Shaw 2003). Under the former arrangement (often

makes money, working strictly for royalties can be quite an economic gamble for a ghostwriter.

Regardless of compensation system, ghostwriters’ work remains economically precarious

since it is generally uncertain, unpredictable, and risky (Kalleberg 2011; Vallas and Prener

2012). That is, because they rarely work more than once with a subject (most projects are one-

time collaborations), ghostwriters are often unsure when and from where the next gig will come

their way. As a result, they often feel internal pressure to receive public recognition for their

work, or to build strong relationships in the industry (i.e., with editors and publishers), to help

mitigate their economic uncertainty.

Interview Sample

ghostwriters by naming them on the cover. From these 116 books, we derived an initial sample

of 101 ghostwriters.

for this population of cover-credited ghostwriters. Of those who refused participation, the most

common reason offered was concern about confidentiality. Several mentioned contractual

prohibitions on participation (e.g., non-disclosure agreements).

we looked for words like “collaborator” and “collaboration,” and phrases like “worked with me

to tell this story,” “helped me to realize the book,” or “turned my rambling into writing.”

thus found that 39 of the remaining memoirs recognized the contribution of the ghostwriter in the

acknowledgments section. From these books, we derived a second sample of 34 ghostwriters

(five were already in our initial sample, of whom we interviewed 3). We contacted each one and

interviewed 8, yielding a response rate of 23.5% for this population of acknowledged

ghostwriters.

Because we drew our sample from the New York Times Best Seller list, we were

inherently oversampling successful collaborations. For this reason, we also sought out writers

who had not appeared on this list over the previous 5 years. To do so, we identified ghostwriters

reached out to all of them and interviewed 2, yielding an 18.2% response rate from this last

population. In total, we were therefore able to interview 62 ghostwriters whose ghostwriting

experiences varied. Separately, we also reached out to industry insiders (i.e., agents, editors, and

publishers) whom ghostwriters had mentioned in their interviews and encouraged us to contact.

We included these insiders in part because of their centrality to the publishing world (Coser et al.

1982). This snowball sample of insiders yielded a list of 17 contacts. We emailed each and

interviewed 10, yielding a 58.8% response rate. Overall, we interviewed a total of 72 people.

potential for bias introduced by interviewers’ positions.

Each interview lasted about an hour, and was digitally recorded and transcribed with the

interviewee’s consent. (In the case of one interviewee who did not consent to be recorded,

We began our analysis by reading the interview transcripts and drafting analytical notes for each

interview as well as broader analytical memos. As we compared accounts across interviews

(Glaser and Strauss 1967; Miles and Huberman 1994), individual ghostwriters’ varying degree of

public recognition and skill at finding a subject’s voice emerged, for example, as recurring

themes. We developed coding categories inductively to capture the dynamics of disappearing

and of rendering a voice, as well as other salient themes, and refined them in tandem with our

data analysis. In the process, we also adjusted our interview questions to probe emerging themes.

Once our codes were defined, and after we had coded a majority of the interviews, a second

research assistant (who had not taken part in the interviews) re-coded all our interview data to

memoir. These types of acknowledgment form a spectrum of recognition ranging from most to

least visible to the public. As one editor explained, “A co-writer is someone who is

acknowledged…. A ghostwriter is someone who writes a book whose name is not on anything,

who never gets acknowledged even though they were the writer” (Editor_3). But even for

ghostwriters who are acknowledged, the form of acknowledgment can vary considerably.

First, at the most visible end of the spectrum, a ghostwriter’s name can appear on the

book’s cover, in the same size and font as the subject’s; such full “co-authorship” recognition is

rare for ghostwriters. Second, a ghostwriter’s name can appear on the book’s cover after the

subject’s name, preceded by “and” or “with,” which suggests that the subject is the primary

author even if the ghostwriter helped along the way. In these configurations, relative font sizes

from the published work. Such a worker becomes a “ghostwriter” in the true sense of the term, in

that his or her name is fully shielded from public view and only the subject’s name appears on

the cover. As one editor put it, a ghostwriter is “literally someone who is not credited, known, or

acknowledged, [but] wrote the book” (Editor_1). Such omission from public view can even

extend beyond the published work, ensuring no public recognition at all. One ghostwriter

reported, for instance, that some of her contracts specify that she “can’t even mention the

existence of the contract” (Recommended_1). Because recognition varies from memoir to

memoir, the relevant unit of analysis is the project, not the person. Most of the ghostwriters we

publishers justify concealing writers’ names by telling them that fewer copies will be sold if their

may justify their disappearance in terms of producing an “authentic” applicant for college or a

job, while simultaneously highlighting their contribution to the social self that is being

consumed. Similarly, political speechwriters might agree to allow their contributions to remain

unacknowledged in the interests of crafting (and thus in part altering) an “authentically”

appealing political candidate.

Our research design was not meant to test the relation between stand-in workers’ degree

of recognition estrangement and the level of adulteration their work produces. We did, however,

identify a spectrum of recognition estrangement—ranging from a fully hidden ghostwriter to a

cover-acknowledged collaborator—and suspect that the most estranged workers might be those

(George 2013, 182). Hence, acknowledging efforts to shape a client’s self runs somewhat

counter to coaches’ professional ethos of a client’s individual agency. Even so, one coach notes

that she “can see the potential in people” (p. 198), thus hinting at the prospect of helping craft a

yet-unrealized side of her client’s self despite professional norms that might discourage

acknowledging her directorial efforts.

Finally, this study advances theories of the self by focusing on the collaborative work that

makes the social self possible. Although scholars have long argued that the “social self” is a

relational concept (see: Cooley 1902; Mead 1934; Goffman 1959; Yeung and Martin 2003), this

article highlights collaborative work done “backstage” in the construction of the social self.

Indeed, while the self is performed on stage, the individual and select backstage collaborators

stand-in workers’ cooperation in its production.

In an uncanny way, the demand for authenticity in today’s economy might fuel the hiring

of workers who prove particularly skillful at altering others. The rising economy of self might

therefore create a context in which the imperative to project authentic selves and the adulteration

of selves are highly intertwined. Assuming that the crafting of authentic selves rests more and

more on stand-in labor, those being impersonated will see their selves increasingly altered since

the adulteration of subjects’ selves is the signature of many stand-in workers. Put otherwise, calls

for increased authenticity are likely to yield heightened adulteration of selves.

About the Authors

Michel Anteby is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and (by courtesy)

Sociology at Boston University. His research looks at how individuals relate to their work, their

occupations, and the organizations they belong to. He examines more specifically the practices

people engage in at work that help them sustain their chosen cultures or identities. Empirical

settings for these inquiries have included aeronautic manufacturing plants, airport security teams,

elite business schools, and whole-body donation programs.

References

Anteby, Michel. 2008. Moral Gray Zones: Side Productions, Identity, and Regulation in an

Barley, Stephen R., and Gideon Kunda. 2004. Gurus, Hired Guns, and Warm Bodies: Itinerant

Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the

Bröckling, Ulrich. 2015. The Entrepreneurial Self: Fabricating a New Type of Subject. London:

Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under

Callero, Peter L. 2003. “The Sociology of the Self.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 115–33.

Cameron, Deborah. 2000. Good to Talk?: Living and Working in a Communication Culture.

Cappelli, Peter, and James R. Keller. 2013. “Classifying Work in the New Economy.” Academy

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative

Childress, Clayton. 2012. “Decision-Making, Market Logic and the Rating Mindset: Negotiating

———. 2017. Under the Cover: The Creation, Production, and Reception of a Novel. Princeton,

Crofts, Andrew. 2004. Ghostwriting. Writing Handbooks. A&C Black.

Cynamon, Barry Z., and Steven M. Fazzari. 2015. “Inequality, the Great Recession and Slow

Demetry, Daphne. 2018. “How Organizations Claim Authenticity: The Co-Production of

Dody, Sandford. 1980. Giving up the Ghost: A Writer’s Life among the Stars. New York: M.

Du Gay, Paul. 1996. Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.

Erdal, Jennie. 2009. Ghosting: A Double Life. New York: Anchor.

Erickson, Rebecca J. 1995. “The Importance of Authenticity for Self and Society.” Symbolic

Foucault, Michel. 1980. “Body/Power and Truth and Power.” In Michel Foucault:

———. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979.

George, Bill. 2003. Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value.

George, Molly. 2013. “Seeking Legitimacy: The Professionalization of Life Coaching.”

Gilmore, James H., and B. Joseph Pine. 2007. Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want.

Hahl, Oliver, Zuckerman, Ezra. W., & Kim, Minjae. 2017. Why Authenticity is In Demand:

Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hearn, Alison. 2008. “Meat, Mask, Burden: Probing the Contours of the Brandedself.” Journal

Hirsch, Paul M. 1972. “Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling.

———. 2012. The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times. New York: Metropolitan

Kalleberg, Arne L. 2000. “Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-Time, Temporary and

———. 2011. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems

Katz, Lawrence F., and Alan B. Krueger. 2016. “The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work

Lair, Craig D. 2017. “When You Care Enough to Pay Someone to Send the Very Best: The

Lane, Carrie M. 2011. A Company of One: Insecurity, Independence, and the New World of

Marx, Karl. 2007. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Translated by Martin

Mazza, Ed. 2017. “‘Art Of The Deal’ Co-Author Tony Schwartz Predicts Trump’s About To

McDonald, John. 2003. A Ghost’s Memoir: The Making of Alfred P. Sloan’s My Years with

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social

Miles, Matthew B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand

Miller, Laura J. 2008. Reluctant Capitalists: Bookselling and the Culture of Consumption.

Moskin, Julia. 2012. “I Was a Cookbook Ghostwriter.” New York Times, March 14, 2012.

Ong, Aihwa. 2010. Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malaysia.

Pagis, Michal, and Galit Ailon. 2017. “The Paradoxes of Self-Branding: An Analysis of

Roscigno, Vincent J., and Randy Hodson. 2004. “The Organizational and Social Foundations of

Ross, Joseph S, Kevin P Hill, David S Egilman, and Harlan M Krumholz. 2008. “Guest

Roy, Donald F. 1959. “‘Banana Time’: Job Satisfaction and Informal Interaction.” Human

Sallaz, Jeffrey J. 2009. The Labor of Luck: Casino Capitalism in the United States and South

———. 2013. Labor, Economy, and Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Sharone, Ofer. 2017. “LinkedIn or LinkedOut? How Social Networking Sites Are Reshaping the

Shaw, Eva. 2003. Ghostwriting: For Fun & Profit. Carlsbad, CA: Writeriffic Publishing Group.

Sheinheit, Ian, and Cynthia J. Bogard. 2016. “Authenticity and Carrier Agents: The Social

Sherman, Rachel. 2007. Class Acts: Service and Inequality in Luxury Hotels. Berkeley:

———. 2010. “‘Time Is Our Commodity’: Gender and the Struggle for Occupational

Turco, Catherine. 2016. The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social

Vallas, Steven P., and Angèle Christin. 2018. “Work and Identity in an Era of Precarious

Vallas, Steven P., and Andrea L. Hill. 2018. “Reconfiguring Worker Subjectivity: Career Advice

Wherry, Frederick F. 2006. The Social Sources of Authenticity in Global Handicraft Markets:

Yeung, King-To, and John Levi Martin. 2003. “The Looking Glass Self: An Empirical Test and

Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin. 2008. “Identity Construction on Facebook:

Endnotes

at bookstore cash registers. Nielsen BookScan captures an estimated 75% of all U.S. book sales

including those whose names appear on book covers.

sales reported on a confidential basis by vendors of all sizes and demographics across the United

ghostwriter.

appears in a string of names unaccompanied by such identifying words or phrases. Second, some

of the 182 memoirs in our sample lack an acknowledgments section.

298 memoirs). Such a high degree of visibility probably indicates an initial oversampling on our

part of the most prestigious ghostwriters and is thus not reflective of the entire industry.