Slights, snubs, and slurs: leader equity and microaggressions

In: Equality, diversity and inclusion: an international journal, Band 32, Heft 4, S. 374-393

Abstract

PurposeThe 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/approachUS participants (N=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.FindingsLeader 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/implicationsAs 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/valueTo 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.