Not all allies are created equal: An intersectional examination of relational allyship for women of color at work

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104331
Barnini Bhattacharyya , Samantha E. Erskine , Courtney McCluney
{"title":"Not all allies are created equal: An intersectional examination of relational allyship for women of color at work","authors":"Barnini Bhattacharyya ,&nbsp;Samantha E. Erskine ,&nbsp;Courtney McCluney","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Allyship is typically considered a positive relationship between marginalized individuals and their relatively more privileged allies. Yet, this flattened, unidirectional, and single-identity view of allyship prohibits us from capturing the nuances and inherent power struggles embedded in the allied relationship. Our study aims to expand our understanding of how and whether allyship across multiple levels of difference helps dismantle oppressive structures or maintains power inequalities in organizations. Integrating current allyship research with intersectionality theory, we conduct an inductive qualitative study of allied relationships between professional women of color in Canada (n = 30) and their nominated allies (n = 30). We find that power schemata, or cognitive and emotional framing of systems of power in allied relationships affect allyship behaviors, such that power cognizance is key for effective allyship to occur. We identify three dimensions of allyship behaviors that emerge from these power considerations —(de)centering, (dis)respecting, and (in)action – which vary in terms of expected allyship by women of color and enacted allyship by their allies. Integrating power schemata and allyship dimensions, we identify three types of allied relationships for women of color at work, varying in effectiveness. We identify ongoing learning as a mechanism to move towards power-cognizance and therefore more effective allyship. Women of color emerge as the most effective allies in our study, highlighting that marginalized individuals can not only be allies, but that they play a crucial role in their own liberation. Based on these findings, we develop our intersectional theory of relational allyship for women of color at work.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 104331"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000232/pdfft?md5=b17d6c2847a4fe1344c5c2546f6bbfa0&pid=1-s2.0-S0749597824000232-main.pdf","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/S0749597824000232","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

Allyship is typically considered a positive relationship between marginalized individuals and their relatively more privileged allies. Yet, this flattened, unidirectional, and single-identity view of allyship prohibits us from capturing the nuances and inherent power struggles embedded in the allied relationship. Our study aims to expand our understanding of how and whether allyship across multiple levels of difference helps dismantle oppressive structures or maintains power inequalities in organizations. Integrating current allyship research with intersectionality theory, we conduct an inductive qualitative study of allied relationships between professional women of color in Canada (n = 30) and their nominated allies (n = 30). We find that power schemata, or cognitive and emotional framing of systems of power in allied relationships affect allyship behaviors, such that power cognizance is key for effective allyship to occur. We identify three dimensions of allyship behaviors that emerge from these power considerations —(de)centering, (dis)respecting, and (in)action – which vary in terms of expected allyship by women of color and enacted allyship by their allies. Integrating power schemata and allyship dimensions, we identify three types of allied relationships for women of color at work, varying in effectiveness. We identify ongoing learning as a mechanism to move towards power-cognizance and therefore more effective allyship. Women of color emerge as the most effective allies in our study, highlighting that marginalized individuals can not only be allies, but that they play a crucial role in their own liberation. Based on these findings, we develop our intersectional theory of relational allyship for women of color at work.

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
并非所有盟友都是平等的:对有色人种女性在工作中的同盟关系进行交叉研究
盟友关系通常被认为是边缘化个人与其相对更有特权的盟友之间的一种积极关系。然而,这种扁平化、单向性和单一身份的盟友关系观点使我们无法捕捉到盟友关系中的细微差别和内在权力斗争。我们的研究旨在拓展我们的认识,了解跨越多层次差异的盟友关系如何以及是否有助于瓦解压迫性结构或维持组织中的权力不平等。我们将当前的盟友关系研究与交叉性理论相结合,对加拿大有色人种职业女性(n = 30)与她们提名的盟友(n = 30)之间的盟友关系进行了归纳性定性研究。我们发现,盟友关系中的权力图式或权力系统的认知和情感框架会影响盟友关系行为,因此,权力认知是有效盟友关系发生的关键。我们从这些权力考虑因素中发现了盟友关系行为的三个维度--(去)中心化、(不)尊重和(不)行动--这三个维度在有色人种女性预期的盟友关系和盟友实施的盟友关系方面各不相同。综合权力图式和盟友关系维度,我们为有色人种女性确定了三种不同效力的职场盟友关系。我们发现,持续学习是实现权力认知的一种机制,因此也是更有效的盟友关系的一种机制。在我们的研究中,有色人种女性成为最有效的盟友,这凸显了边缘化个体不仅可以成为盟友,而且她们在自身解放的过程中发挥着至关重要的作用。基于这些发现,我们提出了有色人种女性在工作中结盟的交叉理论。
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