Sincere solidarity or performative pretense? Evaluations of organizational allyship

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2023-12-03 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104296
Rebecca Ponce de Leon , James T. Carter , Ashleigh Shelby Rosette
{"title":"Sincere solidarity or performative pretense? Evaluations of organizational allyship","authors":"Rebecca Ponce de Leon ,&nbsp;James T. Carter ,&nbsp;Ashleigh Shelby Rosette","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although organizations increasingly seek to communicate allyship with the Black community, their ally statements can receive vastly different responses from Black observers. We develop and test a theoretical model outlining key drivers of allyship evaluations among these perceivers. Drawing from signaling theory and integrating insights from the literature on identity safety, we reveal the costliness and consistency of ally statements as critical determinants of Black perceivers’ evaluations of organizations as allies. Two studies—the first leveraging statements released by Fortune 500 companies and the second a more controlled follow-up experiment—demonstrate the interactive effects of cost and consistency on these assessments. Specifically, the most positive allyship evaluations emerged for organizations whose statements conveyed <em>both</em> high cost <em>and</em> high consistency. Our findings have implications for organizations and business leaders who aim to communicate allyship. To be recognized as allies, devoting resources and incurring costs is not enough; organizations must also signal a consistent commitment to supporting marginalized communities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000729","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although organizations increasingly seek to communicate allyship with the Black community, their ally statements can receive vastly different responses from Black observers. We develop and test a theoretical model outlining key drivers of allyship evaluations among these perceivers. Drawing from signaling theory and integrating insights from the literature on identity safety, we reveal the costliness and consistency of ally statements as critical determinants of Black perceivers’ evaluations of organizations as allies. Two studies—the first leveraging statements released by Fortune 500 companies and the second a more controlled follow-up experiment—demonstrate the interactive effects of cost and consistency on these assessments. Specifically, the most positive allyship evaluations emerged for organizations whose statements conveyed both high cost and high consistency. Our findings have implications for organizations and business leaders who aim to communicate allyship. To be recognized as allies, devoting resources and incurring costs is not enough; organizations must also signal a consistent commitment to supporting marginalized communities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
真诚的团结还是矫揉造作?组织同盟关系的评估
尽管各组织越来越多地寻求与黑人社区建立盟友关系,但他们的盟友声明可能会从黑人观察员那里得到截然不同的反应。我们开发并测试了一个理论模型,概述了这些感知者之间盟友关系评估的关键驱动因素。根据信号理论并整合身份安全文献的见解,我们揭示了盟友声明的成本和一致性是黑人感知者评估组织作为盟友的关键决定因素。两项研究——第一项是财富500强公司发布的杠杆声明,第二项是一个更受控制的后续实验——证明了成本和一致性对这些评估的相互影响。具体来说,最积极的盟友关系评价出现在那些声明既传达高成本又传达高一致性的组织中。我们的研究结果对旨在沟通盟友关系的组织和商业领袖具有启示意义。要被视为盟友,投入资源和承担成本是不够的;各组织还必须表明对支持边缘化社区的一贯承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
期刊最新文献
Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences On time or on thin ice: How deadline violations negatively affect perceived work quality and worker evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1