Slights, snubs, and slurs: leader equity and microaggressions

Abstract

Purpose -The present study aims to apply the construct of microaggressions to organizational contexts by examining perceptions of discrimination in ambiguous interactions between White supervisors and Black subordinates and their impact on work outcomes under varying conditions of leader fairness. Design/methodology/approach -US participants (N ¼ 387) responded to scenarios describing supervisor-subordinate interactions involving subtle to blatant discrimination, after being told either that the supervisor had a history of fair, equitable treatment of subordinates or that the supervisor had a history of unfairness and inequity. Findings -Leader equity impacted discrimination perceptions, affording leaders greater benefit of the doubt in ambiguous interracial interactions. For all levels of microaggression severity, microaggressions were perceived less when the supervisor had a reputation for equity and fairness; expected work outcomes were also better when the supervisor had a reputation for equity and fairness at all levels of microaggression severity. Research limitations/implications -As blatant discrimination grows more and more unacceptable, examining the subtle and sometimes unintended aspects of workplace discrimination is increasingly important. The authors' results suggest that a leader's reputation for equity and fairness may mitigate the effects of racial slights. Originality/value -To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of leader equity on microaggressions and the first to empirically explore the impact of microaggressions on work outcomes. Their results suggest the importance of establishing leader reputations of fairness and training staff to recognize even subtle forms of discrimination and exclusion.

Do You See What I See? Perceptions of Gender Microaggressions in the Workplace

“…Sample items include “The manager’s actions were discriminatory,” “The supervisor meant to behave in a gender-insensitive manner,” “The actions of the manager were based on the manager’s prejudice,” and “The manager’s actions were just” (reverse coded). The perceived racial microaggression scale showed consistently strong reliability (α = .79–.91; Offermann et al, 2013); our gender microaggression measure demonstrated adequate reliability (α = .68–.89 depending on the vignette used), with the lowest reliability reported for a no-microaggression/control vignette where respondents may have found it more difficult to assess supervisor microaggression intent.…”

“…Items were originally developed to assess the degree to which observers perceive supervisors to be intentionally discriminatory and aware of the racial undertones of their actions, reflecting the construct definition of racial microaggressions (Sue et al, 2007). Prior research using the perceived racial microaggressions scale in an undergraduate student sample indicates that it relates to projected work outcomes as expected (Offermann et al, 2013). For the purposes of the present study, items in the racial microaggressions scale that referred to race were adapted to pertain to gender (e.g., “racially insensitive manner” was modified to “gender-insensitive manner”).…”

“…Negative work outcomes were projected using a 7-item scale measuring the degree to which observers perceived that the victim would experience lower levels of positive work outcomes as a result of the interaction (Offermann et al, 2013). Participants responded on the same 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).…”

“…Supporting this logic, prior research has shown that experiences of gender discrimination negatively impact work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to leave (Foley et al, 2005). Further, perceptions of racial microaggressions have been found to affect projected work outcomes, with higher perceptions of racial microaggressions associated with poorer projected work outcomes (Offermann, Basford, De Graaf, Graebner, & Jaffer, 2013). Although one might argue that more subtle forms of microaggression may actually be harder for victims to deal with because they involve guesswork and uncertainty (Sue et al, 2008), we do not believe that most observers consider ambiguity to be as detrimental as blatant hostility when forming judgments about the effects of observed microaggressions.…”

The Psychology of Leadership Destabilization: An Analysis of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

“…Leaders who do this tend to be viewed by followers as more legitimate and effective (Augoustinos & de Garis, 2012; Hogg & Giles, 2012; Steffens & Haslam, 2013). Moreover, leaders who are seen to behave in inclusive ways—for example, by treating group members from diverse backgrounds as valued equals—have been observed to stimulate increased helping behaviors on the part of followers, as well as increased group cohesion, improved group performance, and reduced conflict between group members (Mitchell et al, 2015; Offermann, Basford, Graebner, DeGraaf, & Jaffer, 2013; Randel, Dean, Ehrhart, Chung, & Shore, 2016). On this basis, one might expect that a given leader's influence would be destabilized to the extent that followers come to see them as disruptive of the shared identity and sense of belonging within the group.…”