Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work

Abstract

In recent years, research from various disciplines, including social psychology, sociology, economics, gender studies, and organizational behavior, has illuminated the importance of considering the various ways in which multiple social categories intersect to shape outcomes for women in the workplace. However, these findings are scattered across disciplines, making it difficult for organizational scholars to leverage this knowledge in the advancement of gender research. The purpose of this review is to assemble these findings to capture how gender and race, when considered in tandem, can generate new understandings about women of different racial groups and their experiences in the workplace. We first provide a review of both historic and contemporary interpretations of the intersectionality concept. Next, using an intersectional framework, we review key findings on the distinct stereotypes ascribed to Black, Asian, and White women, and compare and contrast the differential impact of these stereotypes on hiring and leadership for these subgroups of women. Building from these stereotypes, we further review research that explores the different job roles that Black, Asian, and White women occupy, specifically focusing on the impact of occupational segregation, organizational support, and the motherhood penalty. Finally, we examine how the frequency, emotional toll, and legal implications of sexual harassment can vary for women of differing races. Through this review, we bring attention to the pitfalls of studying women as a monolithic category and call for organizational scholars to consider the role of intersectionality in shaping workplace outcomes.

Introduction

Race and gender are two distinct social categories – but not two independent experiences – at work (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Yet, studies of the two categories, particularly as fundamental diversity variables, in organizational research continue to emphasize and investigate them one at a time, as membership in isolated demographic groups (Shore et al., 2011). The way individuals see themselves and see others in the workplace is much more complex (Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010). Such social categories at work are experienced as ‘and,' not ‘or.' They are conjunctive, not disjunctive. They are intersectional.

Perhaps the first intersectional theorist was Sojourner Truth. In her 1851 speech at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, she juxtaposed her experience as a Black woman with the benevolence directed toward White women and the expectations of physicality and strength of Black men (Brah and Phoenix, 2004, hooks, 1981). Truth concluded that differential treatment based on gender or race did not adequately capture the struggles she encountered as a result of her gender and race throughout her life. The ideas in her seminal narrative represent the basis of the conceptualization of the intersectional perspective that emerged in feminist studies and critical race theory in the 1970s and 1980s. The concept of interlocking characteristics as unique and inimitable from their components was proposed to identify the distinct oppression experienced by Black women that simultaneously diverged and converged with the disparagement of Black men and the oppression of White women (e.g., Beal, 1970, Crenshaw, 1989, hooks, 1984). Drawing from this framework, researchers recently have begun to examine the juncture of gender and race in the workplace, focusing particularly on the conflicting expectations and experiences of Black and White women (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012; Sesko & Biernat, 2010).

Scholars from various disciplines, such as sociology (Acker, 2006, Acker, 2012, Browne and Misra, 2003, Choo and Ferree, 2010, Collins, 2015, Reskin and Padavic, 2006), social psychology (Bowleg, 2008, Cole, 2009; Nicolas, la Fuente, & Fiske, 2017; Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach, 2008, Settles, 2006, Shields, 2008), economics (Kim, 2002, Kim, 2009, Kim and Zhao, 2014, Neal, 2004), and gender studies (Castro and Holvino, 2016, Davis, 2008, McCall, 2005, Verloo, 2006) have highlighted the importance of considering the joint effects of different social categorizations, revealing the ways in which an intersectional perspective can influence organizations and the experiences of organizational members. These complementary perspectives from different disciplines—with macro considerations of intersectionality focusing mostly on changes in the social system and micro perspectives on identity—collectively inform us about the unique experiences of individuals shaped jointly by their racialized and gendered social categories.

The purpose of this review is to bring together these organizationally relevant ideas, which are currently housed in disparate disciplines, to generate new understanding about how simultaneous membership in multiple social categories can affect perceptions and experiences in the workplace. Following existing theory and evidence on intersectional topics in organizational research, we first focus on gender and then assess how race, the social category that is most frequently tethered to gender in social science research, combines uniquely with it to influence organizational life – primarily in the United States. We focus on gender because it represents one of the most salient social categorizations (Brewer, 1988, Fiske, 1998; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992). In her recent review, Ellemers (2018) noted that gender is a primary feature in person perception, as categorization based on gender is immediately detectable, chronically salient, and relatively permanent. It is a way we immediately sort others at work (e.g., Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998).

We focus on women’s experiences rather than men’s in this article because women are underrepresented in positions of power and influence in the workplace; thus, an intersectional perspective allows us to compare and contrast the perceptions and experiences of different subgroups of women to better understand their subordinate status. Further, our review focuses on comparing the experiences of White, Black, and Asian women. This decision is not intended to imply that these social groups are more worthy of consideration than women of other racial/ethnic groups. It is a practical decision, as gender-based organizational research has predominantly focused on these social groups, thus providing us with a sufficient body of research to review.

Although it is not ideal to limit our review of intersectionality—a perspective steeped in variation from multiple differences—to a blend of just two social categories, we recognize that it may be impossible to capture all the varying possibilities when considering the influence that social categories can have on each other. For example, some of the early perspectives on intersectionality included social class (e.g., Beal, 1970, hooks, 1984), and the broader study of intersectionality has extended to incorporate other markers, such as sexual orientation (e.g., Bowleg, 2008, Bowleg, 2013, Swank and Fahs, 2013), religion (e.g., Archer, 2003; Rodriguez, Lytle, & Vaughan, 2013; Wadsworth, 2010), and physical ability (e.g., Baril, 2015, Mereish, 2012; Yoshida, Hanass-Hancock, Nixon, & Bond, 2014), just to name a few. An exhaustive discussion of the nearly countless potential overlapping social categories is beyond the scope of this review. Instead, we limit our examination to reflect these specified boundaries while attempting to capture a significant portion of extant intersectionality research, much of which examines racial differences within the superordinate gender category of women (Davis, 2008, McCall, 2005, Shields, 2008). Also, the overwhelming majority of organizational research on intersectionality investigates U.S. contexts. Thus, despite the generality of the intersectionality concept, our review generally covers issues facing White, Black, and Asian women in the United States.

Finally, our goal in this review is not to take sides in the ongoing debates that often arise in intersectionality research. Discussions of measurement instruments (McCall, 2005, Shields, 2008, Winker and Degele, 2011), mathematical representations (e.g., Hancock, 2007, Kim, 2002), and differential weighting of social category markers as more or less oppressive than others (e.g., Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas, & Taylor, 2002; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) are available elsewhere. Our focus is instead on juxtaposing experiences of women subgroups – Black and Asian women – to their superordinate gender category (which in existing research is mostly based on White, middle-class women’s experience; Cole, 2009) and showing crucial distinctions across those groups.

We begin by providing a definition of intersectionality in the context of both historical and contemporary interpretations. Next, we compare and contrast organizationally relevant perceptions and experiences attributed to the superordinate category of women to those attributed to women of different racial groups. In the section titled “Gender Stereotypes and Backlash,” we discuss differences in stereotypes, particularly gender-based expectations of communality and dominance and the negative consequences for violating them. Traditionally, gender backlash research has focused on hiring and leadership; hence, we highlight those organizational topics in this review. In the next section called “Gender Bias and Job Roles,” we shift to an examination of how experiences vary across subgroups of women occupying various job positions. Specifically, we focus on occupational segregation, organizational support, and the motherhood penalty. We chose these experiences because they represent some of the most important aspects of organizational life and they can vary in meaningful ways for individuals of different racial and gender groups. Then, in the section “Race and Sexual Harassment,” we review research on the role of race in shaping women’s experiences of sexual harassment, focusing on frequency of occurrence, emotional toll on wellbeing, and legal considerations, each of which can have direct implications for the career outcomes and well-being of organizational members.¹ We close with a discussion of general themes in current findings and a call for next steps.