Blatant acts of sexism are no longer tolerated in most workplaces, but that doesn’t mean that sexism has disappeared. Although most employees have experienced or witnessed workplace incivility, those experiences are more frequent among women and racial minorities. 'Selective incivility' (i.e., microaggressions directed toward marginalized groups) is the new, more subtle form of prejudice that is difficult to formally censor because the behavior is often ambiguous, and it is nearly impossible to prove discriminatory intent.
New research with Professor Michelle Ryan and collaborators shows that our identity (who we are) shapes our reactions to these ambiguous situations in our workplace (how we see things). In fact, it even affects our perceptions of discrimination. Specifically, when we highly identify with our workplace—a sense of attachment that ordinarily offers benefits for employee motivation and engagement—it can also hinder our ability to recognize mistreatment when it occurs.
By: Jamie Gloor, Tyler Okimoto, and Michelle Ryan
Posted on 12 July 2023
Key findings
The research investigated how employee identities can influence their reactions to witnessing other colleagues' mistreatment at work, including disrespect and incivility (aka "microaggressions") targeting women. Specifically, we examined the impact of: (1) identifying as a woman, (2) identifying as a feminist, or (3) identifying as a member of the organisation.
The research analysed longitudinal field data over the span of a year, and supplemented these findings with experimental studies, together capturing the reactions of 1,250 employees from Switzerland and the United States. Analyses revealed that a strong sense of belonging within an organization can paradoxically lead to a lower likelihood of recognising and addressing discrimination against female colleagues.
Put simply, good employees may be wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to seeing discrimination within their own workplace.
Fortunately, those same employees (men in particular) were also more likely to intervene once they recognised mistreatment. In other words, despite being generally blind to the bias, once highly identified male employees became aware of discrimination, they were more likely to censor it. However, highly identified female employees were no more likely to act once they saw discrimination (likely due to the social costs women face for complaining).
Contact
You may also like
Addressing work-related gendered violence against Victorian healthcare workers
Work-related gendered violence is pervasive in the Victorian healthcare sector and harms employees’ physical and mental wellbeing, financial and work outcomes, the quality of care provided, and the healthcare sector as a whole. We are working with The Health and Community Services Union (HACSU) as research partners on their project, to understand the current state of work-related gendered violence in the sector, bring together the available evidence and offer evidence-based solutions to this systemic issue.
Why we need to stop trying to "fix" women
To address the persistence of gender inequalities, many workplace gender equality interventions have been designed and implemented by governments, gender equality practitioners, professional bodies, and organisations. In this review article we provide a critical appraisal of the literature to establish an evidence base for why "fixing" women is unlikely to be a successful approach to achieving gender equality in career trajectories.
Gender expectations, socioeconomic inequalities and definitions of career success
Higher Education is generally regarded as a pathway to career opportunities, and research shows that students' expectations of their career success while they are studying are an important predictor of their motivation and educational success. But, there is a lack of understanding about how students define career success, and identities and how personal characteristics, like race, gender and sexuality, intersect with these ideas of what success looks like