Summary This review focuses on the disclosure decisions faced by employees with concealable stigmatized identities—one of the most challenging decisions these individuals must make on a day‐to‐day basis. Indeed, multiple theoretical frameworks have provided a foundation for understanding the antecedents and outcomes associated with the decision to disclose or not to disclose a stigmatized identity. What is less clear, however, is the extent to which these frameworks have been empirically supported. This systematic review serves to unify the extant literature and prompt continued research related to employees with concealable stigmatized identities. Specifically, we draw upon multiple fields of study, including applied psychology, management, social psychology, and occupational health as a means to systematically synthesize the existing empirical research related to disclosure of stigmatized identities at work. In addition to advancing the scholarly knowledge of disclosure, this review also provides practical utility to organizations as they continue to create work environments that foster inclusion of all stigmatized and nonstigmatized employees.

We agree with Landers and Behrend's (2015) proposition that Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) may provide great opportunities for organizational research samples. However, some groups are characteristically difficult to recruit because they are stigmatized or socially disenfranchised (Birman, 2005; Miller, Forte, Wilson, & Greene, 2006; Sullivan & Cain, 2004; see Campbell, Adams, & Patterson, 2008, for a review). These groups may include individuals who have not previously been the focus of much organizational research, such as those of low socioeconomic status; individuals with disabilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals; or victims of workplace harassment. As Landers and Behrend (2015) point out, there is an overrepresentation of research using “Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic” participants. It is important to extend research beyond these samples to examine workplace phenomena that are specific to special populations. We contribute to this argument by noting the particular usefulness that MTurk can provide for sampling from hard-to-reach populations, which we characterize as groups that are in the numerical minority in terms of nationwide representation. To clarify, we focus our discussion on populations that are traditionally hard to reach in the context of contemporary organizational research within the United States.

The "leaky pipeline" entails the progressive loss of competent women faculty members in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). These leaks have been identified at various career stages, including selection, promotion, and retention. Efforts to increase female representation in STEM academia have had mixed results: Although the overall percentage of STEM women faculty has increased in recent decades, the percentage of women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM has decreased. These differential effects may stem from the fact that most existing interventions for increasing female representation in STEM academia have not been intersectional in nature. However, when the intersectionality of raceϪethnicity and gender are accounted for, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. In this article, intersectionality theory is employed to identify the specific barriers in selection, promotion, and retention faced by WOCF within the scope of academic STEM careers and to identify the types of interventions that are likely to be particularly effective at fixing these leaks. In doing so, this article provides a framework for future research in the area of improving diversity and inclusion of WOCF in STEM.

SummaryRacism, sexism, and ageism persist in modern day organizations and may translate into workplace discrimination, which can undermine organizational effectiveness. We provide the first meta‐analysis comparing the relationships between these three types of prejudice (racism, sexism, and ageism) and three types of workplace discrimination (selection, performance evaluation, and opposition to diversity‐supportive policies). Across outcomes, racism was associated with workplace discrimination, whereas sexism was not. Ageism was associated with discriminatory selection and opposition to organizational policies supporting older workers; however, ageism was not related to discriminatory performance evaluation. Consistent with prior research and theory, Implicit Association Test measures were related to subtle discrimination (opposition to diversity‐supportive policies) but not deliberate discrimination (selection and performance evaluation). Finally, prejudice was more strongly associated with discrimination against real as compared with hypothetical targets. Implications for organizational researchers and practitioners are discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract