Daniels, Shanna R

Jordan, Samantha

Li, Yingge

Paik, Michael

English

Purdue E-Pubs

Dismantling Bias Conference Series Understanding allyship at work: An investigation of the antecedents of allyship behavior toward marginalized employees Samantha Jordan University of North Texas, Samantha.Jordan@unt.edu Yingge Li Florida State University, y119n@fsu.edu Michael Paik Florida State University, mpaik@fsu.edu Shanna R. Daniels Florida State University, srdaniels@business.fsu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgg Recommended Citation Jordan, Samantha; Li, Yingge; Paik, Michael; and Daniels, Shanna R. () "Understanding allyship at work: An investigation of the antecedents of allyship behavior toward marginalized employees," Dismantling Bias Conference Series: Vol. 3 : Iss. 8, Article 4. Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgg/vol3/iss8/4 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.                                                                           Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations ConferenceUnderstanding allyship at work:An investigation of the antecedents of allyship behavior toward marginalized employeesAllies play an integral role in the reduction of microaggressions, prejudices, and discrimination (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019; Sue et al., 2019). However, the workplace arena presents situations that make it difficult for allies to act authentically on their desire to amplifyegalitarian ideals. For this reason, it is important to better understand what constitutes allyshipbehavior, and why some individuals are more (or less) likely to become an ally for marginalizedemployees. To begin answering these important and timely questions, we began the process ofconducting a series of three empirical studies.Study 1: Development and Validation of the ABME ScaleDespite acknowledged variance across samples and contexts (Salter & Migliaccio, 2019),scholars have historically measured allyship behaviors using unidimensional scales (e.g., Gateset al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2019). Without a comprehensive multidimensional measure, empirical research on allyship at work is limited. As such, we propose a new measure of allyship behavior toward marginalized employees (ABME), which we conceptualize as behaviors aimedat confronting and rectifying injustice and providing advocacy, recognition and acknowledgment, learning and growth, support, voice, and mentorship to marginalizedemployees. In conceptualizing, measuring, and validating the ABME scale, we address severalgaps in the literature (e.g., Cheng et al., 2019; Madsen et al., 2020).We rely on our conceptualization of ABME and existing measures (e.g., allyship, voice/participation, collective action, identity courage; Ashburn-Nardo, 2018; Cheng et al., 2019;Koerner, 2014; Liang et al., 2012; Madsen et al., 2020; Sherf et al., 2017; Subašić et al., 2018;Thoroughgood et al., 2021) to generate an initial pool of 122 items. Four authors independently                                                          Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations Conferencedeveloped items reflecting each proposed subdimension (see Table 1 for a list of all dimensionsand a subsample of scale items). All items were screened for simplicity, conceptual convergence,double-barreled phrasing, and redundancy, resulting in 84 unique and relevant items.In Study 1a, the 84 items will undergo a Q-sort process (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991)using a sample of 100 adult employees working full-time. Employees will be recruited viaProlific (e.g., Carnevale et al., 2021; Gladstone et al., 2021). We will show participantsdefinitions for each of the eight allyship dimensions, and participants will match items with theirmost appropriate definition by dragging the item into the corresponding definitional box. Itemsof poor fit can be dragged to a “Item does not fit any category” box. We will use the proportion of substantive agreement (psa) and substantive-validity coefficient (csv) to establish substantivevalidity. Items not meeting our psa (psa < 1.00 – 0.11 = .89) and csv (csv < .55; Howard & Melloy, 2016) cutoff values will be omitted. In Study 1b, we will evaluate the factor structure of theretained ABME items to determine if additional reductions are warranted. Finally, in Study 1c, we will re-examine the psychometric properties of the AMBE scale and assess its overlap with(convergent validity) and distinctiveness from (discriminant validity) nomologically-relatedconstructs (e.g., allyship, voice/participation, equity, collective action, identity courage).Study 2 and Study 3: Antecedents of ABMEIn response to calls for research that examine “what prompts allyship behavior” (Patton & Bondi, 2015; Radke et al., 2020), the final set of studies seeks to examine antecedents ofABME. Prior scholarship positions allyship behavior as the outcome of ‘white guilt’ (Case,2012; Grzanka et al., 2015; Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). However, allyship behavior extendsbeyond privilege and guilt and, instead, is likely the result of the complex interplay of multiplemoving elements, including the ally’s demographics (i.e., gender, race, status in organizations),                                                        Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations Conferenceindividual differences (e.g., personality, generalized self-esteem, locus of control), and personalcompetencies (i.e., generalized self-efficacy, emotional regulation), as well as group-specific (i.e., group (dis)similarity and composition, status dynamics) and event-level contingencies (i.e.,novelty, disruptiveness, criticality, origin, spatial dynamics, timing, and duration of the eventinitiating possible allyship). As such, using an event-oriented approach (i.e., events systemtheory; Morgeson et al., 2015), Study 2 will consider demographic, individual difference, and competency-based instigators of allyship behavior using time-separate data from full-timeemployees. Study 3 extends the previous study by also focusing on the group- and event-specific characteristics that shape daily allyship behaviors at work using an experience samplingmethodology on 150 full-time employees. As part of Study 3, we will request short-answerqualitative responses aimed at capturing employees’ perceived reasons for daily ABME (or lackthereof). Although scholars have examined allyship qualitatively and in laboratory settings (e.g., Brooks & Edwards, 2009; Johnson et al., 2019; Sumerau et al., 2021), our mixed-methods, multi-study approach will add clarity to the nuances of ABME.                                       Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations ConferenceReferencesAnderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732-740.Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2018). What can allies do? In A. Colella & E. King (Eds.), The handbook ofworkplace discrimination (pp. 373-386). Oxford University Press.Brooks, A. K., & Edwards, K. (2009). Allies in the workplace: Including LGBT in HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 136-149.Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Vincent, L. C., Farmer, S., & Wang, L. (2021). Better to give than to receive (or seek) help? The interpersonal dynamics of maintaining a reputation forcreativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 167, 144-156.Case, K. A. (2012). Discovering the privilege of whiteness: White women’s reflections on anti-racist identity and ally behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78-96.Cheng, S. K., Ng, L. C., Traylor, A. M., & King, E. B. (2019). Helping or hurting?:Understanding women’s perceptions of male allies. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5(2), 44-54.Gates, T. G., Achia, T., & Petch, J. (2021). Allyship, social justice values, and commitment at anAustralian social service organization. Journal of Social Service Research, 47(6), 796-807.Gladstone, J. J., Jachimowicz, J. M., Greenberg, A. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2021). Financialshame spirals: How shame intensifies financial hardship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 167, 42-56.                                         Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations ConferenceGrzanka, P. R., Adler, J., & Blazer, J. (2015). Making up allies: The identity choreography ofstraight LGBT activism. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12(3), 165-181.Howard, M. C., & Melloy, R. C. (2016). Evaluating item-sort task methods: The presentation ofa new statistical significance formula and methodological best practices. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 31(1), 173-186.Johnson, I. R., Pietri, E. S., Fullilove, F., & Mowrer, S. (2019). Exploring identity-safety cuesand allyship among black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43, (2), 131-150.Koerner, M. M. (2014). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage. Academy ofManagement Journal, 57(1), 63-93.Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92.Madsen, S. R., Townsend, A., & Scribner, R. T. (2020). Strategies that male allies use to advance women in the workplace. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 28(3), 239-259.Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515-537.Patton, L. D., & Bondi, S. (2015). Nice white men or social justice allies?: Using critical racetheory to examine how white male faculty and administrators engage in ally work. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(4), 488-514.                                                  Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations ConferenceRadke, H. R., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond allyship:Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291-315.Salter, N. P., & Migliaccio, L. (2019). Allyship as a diversity and inclusion tool in theworkplace. Diversity within Diversity Management (Advanced Series in Management), (Vol. 22, pp. 131-152). Emerald Publishing Limited.Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Weber, K. C. (2017). It is not my place! Psychological standingand men’s voice and participation in gender-parity initiatives. OrganizationScience, 28(2), 193-210.Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial costs of racism to whites scale(PCRW): construction and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2),249–262.Subašić, E., Hardacre, S., Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K., & Reynolds, K. J. (2018). “We for She”: Mobilizing men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 707-724.Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle, C. Z., & Mendez, N. (2019). Disarmingracial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, andbystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128-142.Sumerau, J. E., Forbes, T. D., Grollman, E. A., & Mathers, L. A. (2021). Constructing allyship and the persistence of inequality. Social Problems, 68(2), 358-373.Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., & Webster, J. R. (2021). Because you’re worth the risks:Acts of oppositional courage as symbolic messages of relational value to transgenderemployees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 399-421.                                                                                                                                          Proposal for the 3rd Dismantling Bias in Organizations ConferenceTable 1ABME Dimensional Definitions and Sample ItemsScale ItemsConfrontation – publicly confronting instances of unfairness toward marginalized employees1. opposes policies and practices that disadvantage marginalized employees2. confronts situations of unfairness and disrespect toward marginalized employees3. calls out bullying and harassing behaviors toward marginalized employeesRectification – redressing and correcting inappropriate and errored actions againstmarginalized employees1. tries to rectify work practices that are discriminatory towards marginalized employees2. correct others when they make inaccurate or prejudicial comments towardsmarginalized employees3. takes on significant risk (e.g., adverse career consequences, reputational harm, retaliation) to correct unfairness toward marginalized employeesAdvocacy – outwardly displaying support for and recommendation of marginalized employees1. openly supports equal employment policies and practices2. advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the organization’s business strategy3. recommends marginalized employees for promotion to higher positionsRecognition and acknowledgment – recognizing and acknowledging the accomplishments, skills, and efforts of marginalized employees1. acknowledges the contributions of marginalized employees2. recognizes that marginalized employees offer unique and valuable perspectives3. recognizes the strengths and efforts of marginalized employeesLearning and growth – encouraging knowledge acquisition, personal growth, and training and development for self and others on marginalized employee issues1. educates oneself on marginalized employee issues2. teaches others how to discern and respond to remarks that put marginalized employeesin disadvantage3. proactively educates oneself about diversity, equity, and inclusion issues at workSocio-emotional support – providing social and emotional support for marginalized employeesin the workplace1. is a person who marginalized employees trust when they experience unfairness at work2. provides empathy and compassion for marginalized employees3. provides a ‘listening ear’ to marginalized employeesVoice – encouraging marginalized employees’ voice and involvement in decision making atwork1. invites marginalized employees to share their stories/experiences2. makes sure marginalized employees have opportunities to share ideas and opinions3. actively supports the voices of marginalized employeesMentorship – providing guidance, assistance, direction, and visibility to marginalizedemployees in the workplace1. encourages formal education and learning for marginalized employees2. helps marginalized employees with career planning3. provides feedback and guidance to marginalized employeesNote. This table only provides a subsample of each dimension’s items. The full 84 items, which will undergo scale validation, are available from the first author upon request.

Understanding allyship at work:  An investigation of the antecedents of allyship behavior toward marginalized employees

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=cgg

Understanding allyship at work: An investigation of the antecedents of allyship behavior toward marginalized employees

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Purdue E-Pubs