This qualitative study aims to explore the processes underlying subtle discrimination in the workplace. Based on 26 in-depth interviews with minority professionals of Turkish or Maghrebi descent in Flanders, we argue that subtle discrimination in the workplace is characterized by three important elements. First, subtle discrimination is ambiguous, and often involves disempowerment through apparent empowering behavior. Second, subtle discrimination is based on processes of power — normalization, legitimization of only the individual, legitimization as the Other and naturalization — which subtly, through everyday incidents, disempower minority individuals. Third, subtle discrimination in the workplace is linked to societal structures and discourses, which permeate the workplace through, and are reproduced by, workplace encounters.

Going beyond recent studies emphasizing the ‘successful’ nature of ethnic minorities’ agency, this qualitative study offers an in-depth analysis of the tensions and contradictions inherent to ethnic minority employees’ agency. To conceptualize agency, we draw on the resistance literature and adopt the notion of struggle, which stresses the dynamic and often contradictory interplay between power and resistance in everyday experiences and actions. Based on 26 in-depth interviews with ethnic minority professionals, our study highlights three main agentic strategies individuals use in relation to discourses of ethnicity: rejecting, redefining and adopting discursively available subject positions. Yet, these strategies are characterized by inherent tensions and contradictions, as all three involve both resistance and compliance, simultaneously challenging and reproducing discourses of ethnicity and relations of power. Our study further suggests that the tensions and contradictions inherent to ethnic minority employees’ agency can be linked to individuals’ involvement in struggles on three interconnected plateaux: the plateaux of identity, career and social change. Tensions arise as struggles on these plateaux come into conflict, forcing individuals to make important trade-offs. Finally, our study contributes to the resistance literature, reinterpreting the current debate on the prevalence of ‘banal’ forms of resistance as linked to its tendency to study (ethnic) majority individuals who have the privilege of focusing their agentic strategies on the plateau of identity.

Adopting a Lefebvrian perspective that draws attention to the connection between space and power, this study aims to contribute to the organizational literature by offering an in-depth understanding of the processes through which organizational spaces can disable employees with impairments and contribute to the unequal power relations between disabled and non-disabled employees. Based on 65 interviews, it shows how organizational spaces can disable employees with impairments through disabling productivity, social inclusion, independence, and physical comfort and safety. A first contribution this allows this study to make is identifying the different aspects involved in the production of ableist organizational spaces and the way they are connected to the relations of power between disabled and non-disabled employees. It shows how ableist organizational spaces are conceived in an ableist way, become dominated by ableist spatial practice and infuse lived experiences with ableism. Second, this study extends debates on disability in organizations by offering a spatial understanding of ableist notions of the ‘ideal employee’, the reproduction of ableist discourses, and embodied experiences of ableism in organizations. A third contribution this article makes is providing an understanding of the strategies employers and disabled employees use to (attempt to) manage ableist organizational spaces. It argues that as these strategies mainly aim to secure productive participation, they do not address, or can even contribute to, other disabling processes. In this way, they not only reproduce relations of power between employers and disabled employees but also do not fundamentally challenge those between disabled and non-disabled employees.

No abstract