When Discrimination is Ambiguous
When discrimination is overt, we recognize it and call it out for what it is. But when discrimination is ambiguous, it is harder to take action against it. It can be more troubling to some than obvious discrimination, a recent study by Laura Doering, et al, found. It is also more common. In the researchers’ survey of professional women, 74 percent had experienced an ambiguous incident while 64 percent had experienced obvious discrimination.
Examples of overt gender discrimination include offering women lower pay than equally or less qualified men, sexual harassment, and holding female employees to a different standard than males in performance reviews. All of these biases impede women’s careers. They can also be identified and addressed.
In contrast, biases that are ambiguous are not uniquely attributable to discrimination. The receiver of these biases might wonder whether they were passed over for promotion, receive lesser work assignments, or are frequently interrupted in meetings owing to their gender of for some other reason. Do they need to work harder and speak louder? Or are they being harmed by prejudice or systemic biases?
Discrimination that is ambiguous may be more harmful emotionally to those experiencing it. “[W]hen discrimination is ambiguous rather than obvious, people experience greater depletion in cognitive resources…and lower self-esteem,” Doering et al write. It can also impact their work. In one study, women were given a test by a man who presented himself as either ambiguously biased, overtly chauvinistic, or overtly egalitarian. Among women sensitized to gender bias, their performance was worse in the ambiguous situation than in either the overtly chauvinistic or the egalitarian scenario.
In addition to the emotional and performance tolls on the targets of discrimination that is ambiguous, there are societal impacts. Explicit discrimination can be called out and addressed. When there is uncertainty as to whether a bias was owing to gender or something else, women are far less likely to discuss or report it. It therefore goes unaddressed. Doering et al found, “When faced with ambiguous incidents, interviewees tended to adjust their own work habits and self-presentation rather than taking actions that might encourage organizational change.”
Women have good reasons for not reporting ambiguous incidents. These include the fears of retaliation or backlash, reputational harm, feeding into stereotypes of women as too emotional, or not being believed, Doering et al write. Organizations need to take steps to build trust, encourage reporting, and eliminate all forms of discrimination.
One means to do this is to remove the ambiguity by establishing transparent personnel processes and procedures, Doering et al suggest, and to clearly communicate the reasons behind specific hiring, promotion, and other personnel decisions. Firms can also encourage employees to report ambiguous incidents so they can assess them. One way to do this is to “create low-barrier opportunities for employees to informally discuss their concerns even if they do not have irrefutable proof of discrimination,” Doering et al write.
At the same time, “While it’s important to listen, it’s equally critical to distinguish between unintentional missteps and genuine bias,” Doering, Tilcsik, and Doering say. This can be done with a thorough investigation soliciting multiple perspectives, and by looking for recurring patterns.
Please subscribe to The Architectress.
Photo: Jose Goncalves, 2013, CC-BY-SA-3.0
