ResourcesArticles and Media
Intersection of Race and Gender: Women of Color Leading Groups Sheela Reddy.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Sheela Reddy - info@risemindworks.com
Most organizational studies literature on women of color (WoC) discusses the “double jeopardy” of gender and race, but it is mostly centered on quantitative representation within an organization. According to Krivkovich et al. (2018), WoC comprise 17% entry-level positions as compared to 31% of white women. They occupy 12% and 8% manager and senior manager/director roles respectively (compared to their white cohort at 27% and 26%). At the vice president and higher ranks, WoC hover at about 5% whereas this figure is over 20% for white women. Despite an impetus to increase representation of WoC in corporate America, they are still underrepresented with dismal percentages.
Beyond representation, discussions on hiring WoC do not account for retention, development, and promotion, not only at entry-level positions but also in top positions of leadership. Black, Hispanic, and Asian American women’s participation in the workforce is projected to increase rapidly by 2024 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). Regardless of the steady increase in the number of WoC in the workforce, the literature hardly focuses on the intersections of race and gender in terms of advancement, leadership, and working styles. Within the available research, majority is focused on African American women, and other categories of WoC—based on race and ethnicity, national origin and citizenship, class, sexuality and sexual orientation, disability status—take the backseat. The focus on African American women is predictable because they make up the largest racial segment of working women in the U.S., but the resulting discussion leaves behind other racial-ethnic categories of women that are projected to increase rapidly in the next five years. Hence, it is imperative that institutional and public discourses on “women of color” are not limited to one or two racial categories, but include all. Also, such conversations should merely not be a lip service, checking of a box, or tokenism toward diversity, but a serious and pragmatic deliberation on empowering WoC in leading in organizations, and promoting true gendered diversity in the workplace.
In this chapter, we examine WoC’s barriers to leadership, social identities, organizational group dynamics, and recommendations for advancement. The scope of this chapter allows for a discussion on race and ethnicity—how racial, ethnic, cultural identities of African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and Native American women interact with the dominant American organizational dynamic. Additionally, we elaborate on the heterogeneity and nuances of the term “women of color” and what implications it has for leadership and working styles in organizations.
WoC encounter barriers of self and other’s perceptions, misconceptions, objectification, stereotypes, and discrimination at the workplace. Pervasive are assumptions about their language, accents, appearance (skin color/tone, hair), personality, values, and leadership skills. This pigeonholing perpetuates the myth that women of color are a monolith, that they all have same experiences, and ignores the complexities among women within each racial-ethnic group. A recent study found salient career barriers for women of color in higher education, than white women, due to racism (Kim & O’Brien, 2018). These educational barriers were sexism and racism for African American women, lack of confidence/skills for Asian American women, and lack of financial resources for Latinas. With significant roadblocks in attaining undergraduate degrees, women of color likely have fewer opportunities entering the labor force and achieving high-ranking positions in the business world. Fairfax’s (2005) reflection on the representation of minoritized women in high-ranking executive positions leading up to corporate board appointment is bleak as well. Since most board appointments transition from high-level leadership positions, and there are very few women of color in such positions, only 5.8% of WoC occupied board seats in Fortune 100 companies in 2018 (DeHaas, Akutagawa, & Spriggs, 2009). This demonstrates that there are significant barriers for WoC in higher education and reaching entry-level and managerial positions, high-level executive ranks and board directorships.
Due to historic black women’s reaction to (white) feminism, they have been synonymous with the term WoC for the last few decades in the U.S. Going beyond this black-and-white binary recognizes that WoC include several large segments of non-white women. This lack of awareness and understanding is the greatest barrier for two of the fastest growing female demographic in the workforce, which in itself is a form of gendered racism. Since the discourse on leadership is also androcentric and Euro-centric (Souto-Manning & Ray, 2007), it is important to consider how women of color cope with isolation and alienation in a harshly-competitive and sexist environment of corporate America.
For African American women, colorism has serious effects on their own perception of themselves as well as how others perceive them—white people as well as African Americans. Professionally, lighter skin color determines availability of more favorable opportunities, advantages and social mobility, as well as psychological benefits such as self-worth, self-esteem, and social outcomes (Hall 2017). The darker the skin of an African American woman, the more severe are the stereotypes—less intelligent, loud, suspicious, untrustworthy, less educated, “ghetto,” and “militant.” Consequently, this means lighter-skinned black women enjoy positive perceptions by others and more privileges compared to dark-skinned women. This further indicates that nuances pertaining to WoC go beyond race and ethnicity, but discrimination and inclusion is linked to the color of women’s skin (Nassar-McMillan, McFall-Roberts, Flowers, & Garrett, 2006). Hall (2017) and Nassar-McMillan, McFall-Roberts, Flowers, and Garrett (2006) also associate colorism to racial identity and self-perception; since darker black women feel their self-worth is associated with their skin tone, there is likely to be a decrement in self-esteem and efficacy in organizations. In addition to colorism, black women encounter everyday racism challenges such as having to prove themselves, lower expectations from others, credibility concerns, and preconceived notions prior to interactions (Spence, 2006). Regarding variations in skin tones, mixed race, self-identified African American women have to prove their blackness to people every day.
It is not surprising that race and ethnicity further complicates perceptions of gender among Asian American and Native American women. Like Arab or Muslim Americans, Asian Americans are treated like a homogeneous group by the dominant American society—whites and other races alike. The “racial lumping” of all Asians as one group ignores cultural values of pan-Asian people from Southeast Asia, Far East, and the Indian subcontinent. Ignoring, isolating, and othering of Asian and Asian American women puts them in the “forever foreigner” category (Liang & Peter-Hawkins, 2017), making it more crucial to reveal the differences of attitudes, values, and behavior among Asian American women. The term foreign-born (commonly used for Asian American immigrants) is problematic because it insinuates that those born outside the U.S. have no place in mainstream American institutions (Bui, 2013-2014). What keeps Asian Americans at the margins of invisibility and exclusion from racial inequality and justice discourses, according to Liang and Peter-Hawkins (2017), is the model minority thesis—educated, hardworking, and self-reliant immigrant group that does not chip away the welfare system of the country. Since it is the most invisible of all the minoritized groups, it is least studied by social scientists. The double jeopardy of being an Asian American is that it is not considered an underrepresented group by federal and state agencies because of its educational backgrounds, career aspirations, and economic standing. Since they tend to make a great example of overcoming racial prejudice and discrimination and climbing the social ladder, they can be easily used to depict that there is a no systemic racism in the country; that all other minority groups should follow in the footsteps of Asian Americans (Liang & Peter-Hawkins, 2017; Sy, Tram-Quon, & Leung 2017).
Apart from the “good” model minority stereotype of Asian American women, the most prominent are their hyper-sexualized images emanating from post-Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, when Asian women were trafficked to the U.S. for the enjoyment of wealthy white men (Leung, 2017). On the other hand, there is the “war bride” image, resulting from American men bringing them back to the U.S. from Asian countries, which leads to other pervasive stereotypes—nurturing, docile, submissive, family-oriented, and people-pleasing. Some other assumptions and stereotypes of Asian American women are that they lack charisma, assertiveness, politically savviness, authority, leadership, self-promotion skills, and self-efficacy (Bui, 2013-2014; Liang & Peter-Hawkins, 2017; Spence, 2005). Their language and accents further lead to Asian women’s Orientalization and exoticization. Often, their female and Asian American identity takes precedence over their leadership roles. In reality, that’s true for all WoC; their ethnic and racial identities come before their organizational ones. Structurally, instead of placing each of their social identities in separate silos, WoC and their multiple identities should be viewed as a composite whole.
Although 5.8% of the current U.S. population is Asian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), they make up 12% of the professional work force. However, only 2.4% of Asian women held management position in 2018 (Catalyst, 2018). A San Francisco Bay Area technology company survey found that between 2007 and 2015, Asian Americans were the largest cohort of professionals in the technology. Nevertheless, they were least likely to become managers and executives (Gee & Peck, 2017), and specifically Asian women were least likely to become executives. In contrast, the number of black executives increased by 43% and Hispanic by 24%. According to them, race was a significant factor in maintaining the glass ceiling. Leaders in the U.S. are typically expected to be assertive, dynamic, inspirational, expressive, and leading teams to meet time-bound deliverables. Asian Americans most likely prefer to train in more technical professions that require skills that guarantee a certain income because it is a cultural norm versus focusing on management or leadership skills (Sy, Tram-Quon, & Leung, 2017). Asian Americans who immigrated to the U.S. or who were raised in families that maintain certain cultural values such as humility, respect for elders, and maintaining harmony may behave in ways that seem submissive, not engaging in conflict, deferring to leaders, and not expressing divergent ideas. This article states that submissive behavior is not perceived as leader-like, and that behaviors of some Asian Americans may create barriers to success. However, it may be a double-edged sword—at the other end of the spectrum, Asian Americans who are agentic might be perceived as aggressive and reifying a counter stereotype.
For Hispanic women, one of the biggest organizational barriers is the assumption that, regardless of national origin and racial and cultural identity, all Hispanic women are treated alike (Holvino, 2010; Spence, 2006). Unfortunately, most research on Hispanic and Native American women focuses on political participation and efficacy, and very little from organizational leadership standpoint. This gap in literature creates the vicious cycle of fewer women from these two racial-ethnic categories rising to positions of leadership in organizations—the fewer Hispanic and Native American women leaders in academia and industry, the less research and literature there is. Historically, Hispanic women have worked as immigrant laborers with or without appropriate legal status, their role in the American workforce has been limited to serving in the secondary labor market, characterized by low pay, part-time/temporary positions, and high turnover. Hence, although Hispanic women make up a large part of the labor force—18% of all women in 2015, according to BLS—their presence in lower- and upper-management positions is miniscule. Little published research on Hispanic women’s experiences in institutional climate points toward biases and discrimination emanating from their language, accents, country of origin, familial commitments, etc. (Hite, 2007).
Institutional discrimination is a well-known reality experienced by all WoC at several stages of their organizational lives. While discrimination can prevent certain racial and ethnic minorities from being hired or treated equally at a job, ethnic harassment is direct verbal, non-verbal, and exclusionary behaviors that target the ethnicity of an individual (Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000). These behaviors can be subtle, indirect, or direct, such as racial slurs, ethnic comments and jokes, and stories that highlight stereotyped beliefs among others. Consequently, these behaviors are associated with varying levels of psychological stress in ethnic employees. Higher levels of ethnic harassment is linked to lower levels of well-being. Exclusion, which is a form of ethnic harassment as well as a microaggression, is related to lower life satisfaction and health problems. Other forms of racial microaggressions in the workplace are exclusion from representation; diversity absent from a company’s strategic plan; “ghettoization” or using black people for less-desirable markets; tokenism; assumptions of criminal status; ascription of intelligence; assumed aggressive disposition; and “mammy” expectations from black women (Holder, Jackson, & Ponterotto, 2015). These microaggressions manifest themselves through verbal messages and nonverbal gestures. In order to overcome the systemic and institutional barriers and cope with the masculine and dominant cultural value system, WoC need tremendous support in order to advance to top leadership positions. Most recommended strategies for women in general are providing them with opportunities of mentoring, training, sponsorship, and other professional development. These professional advancement platforms do not address the complexities of disparate cultural identities of WoC or how WoC can leverage these identities in becoming effective leaders.. The following section is an analysis of social identity and group leadership dynamics and how it specifically relates to developing leadership skills of WoC.
Psychological literature has begun to examine the intersection of race and gender pertaining to WoC’s organizational participation and leadership. Specifically, implications of how women’s intersectional identities may manifest in a group setting as well as how they can leverage their diverse worldview to develop into more competent leader has not been discussed. Women are socialized into developing relational leadership style, which is a trait embraced in contemporary executive leadership landscape. To elaborate further, we will explain theories of WoC’s group identity—social identity theories and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX).
Leadership is individual, social, and a group process. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is a cognitive theory which posits that “individuals tend to classify themselves and others into social categories, and that these classifications have a significant effect on human interactions” (Nikomo & Cox, 1996, p. 339). Individuals further decide which social category, out of one’s gender, race, class, sexual orientation, skills, and ability, is more salient to their identity at any given time. Salience of social identities is also dynamic and dependent on interactions in a group (Sanchez-Hules & Davis, 2010). Alderfer and Smith’s (1982) embedded intergroup relations theory elucidates two type of groups within an organization—identity group and organizational group. The identity group is based on shared genetics, socio-political experiences, and the organizational group is based on factors such as task, work experience, and status within an organization. Each group shares similar worldviews as the other members of the group. An individual’s perception and functioning in the team is based on a combination of these two group memberships, but identity group worldviews precede that of the organizational group membership.
The individual in any identity group may also have differing worldviews within that identity group based on their individualized historical, familial, and organizational interactive experiences (e.g. Native American woman-A might have different worldviews than Native American woman-B). Stages of racial identity development models explain how worldviews can change based on the development stage at which an individual is (for more on racial identities, see Carter, 1995). Atkinson, Morten, and Sue’s (1979) Minority Identity Development (MID) Model of racial identity states that individuals belonging to race or ethnicities different from the majority culture, will go through several stages of incorporating racial attitudes and preferences into their social identity. In the initial stage of the MID model—conformity—there is a preference for the majority group’s values and presence of negative attitudes toward one’s own racial-ethnic group. This stage is followed by dissonance, which is characterized by confusion, resistance, and immersion wherein the individual rejects the majority culture and has positive views about their culture of origin. Next stage is introspection, wherein the individual examines benefits of the dominant as well as ethnic culture. The final stage is awareness—an integration of values and beliefs of both cultures. In this stage confusion decreases and the individual feels self-fulfilled.
People in the earlier stages of MID (conformity) relate more to the majority culture and are less likely to identify with their own racial group’s identity. They also have negative attitudes toward those individuals who are similar to them ethnically, and may be at a different level of racial identity development. An individual in the dissonance and/or immersion stage may be more likely to identify with their own social group and have positive interactions with group members who look similar to them. Individuals at higher stages of racial development (introspection and awareness) identify with their ethnic group as well as the majority culture, developing a composite multicultural identity. This is linked to more flexibility in thinking and positive attitudes toward their culture of origin, the majority culture, and other cultures (Carter, 1995).
In a study examining qualities that contributed to the success of Asian Americans, all respondents found that cultural acumen contributes to successful leadership. Cultural acumen includes being aware of similarities and differences between self and dominant (western) cultures, and knowing how one’s cultural beliefs impact leadership behaviors (Sy, Tram-Quon, & Leung, 2017). Developing cultural acumen, integrating one’s ethnic and dominant beliefs, and incorporating expected leadership traits of the dominant culture not only contribute to success in leadership (individual) but also help meet the goals of the group (collective). An example of this would be an Asian American woman engaging in a productive conflict with her supervisor by dismissing her cultural values of deferring to elders for the benefit of the team and the organization. Being aware of one’s complex social identities and achieving higher levels of racial identity development makes for an effective group leader.
The aggregate identity of a woman of color would, therefore, be the intersection of multiple social group identities, organizational group identity, racial identity, and individualized experiences which affect her perceptions and interactions in a group. The beliefs and attitudes associated with these multiple identities will be projected onto a group, and will influence how a woman of color leads. On the other hand, beliefs and attitudes of group members affect how a woman of color perceives herself and behaves in an organizational group (Kivilighan, Marsh-Angelone, & Angelone, 1994). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) and related research provides an additional framework for WoC to leverage their complex identities and increase their efficacy as leaders.
LMX theory postulates that leaders show preferential treatment toward their subordinates; some subordinates receive more benefits and are more able to influence the leader more than others. LMX is greater with subordinates who are perceived as more competent (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) and perceived as similar (Linden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Linden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) also found that demographic similarity did not predict LMX. Dose’s (1999) study explored the relationship of moral and work values to LMX and Team Member Exchange (TMX)—effectiveness of team members’ working relationship and reciprocity among them. Perceptions of work ethic similarities and environmental preferences (job security, type of surrounding, team-work orientation) predict LMX more than demographic similarities. Actual similarity of ethical beliefs and work environment preferences predict TMX (Dose, 1999). This study is valuable in that it suggests that more than demographics (visible differences), the quality of exchange between the leader and subordinates is mediated by the perception of similarities. High LMX behavior is characterized by communicative behavior (problem-solving, supportive, and coaching) and accommodating behavior (negotiating and civil disagreement), while low LMX behavior is characterized by polarizing behavior (conflict, competitiveness, power, and control). When LMX is low the group member may be more likely to communicate via the leader versus collaboratively amongst each other (Yalom, 1985). High LMX is linked to higher job satisfaction, more commitment to organizational outcomes, and higher team performance (Kivlighan & Coleman, 1999). Nishii and Mayer’s (2009) study further examined the relationship between mean LMX, LMX differentiation, diversity, and turnover. Low LMX differentiation is characterized by a leader’s behavior showing the employees that they accept their group members equally and provide a psychologically-safe environment for interpersonal sharing. They also encourage group members to accept each other as part of the in-group. High LMX differentiation is characterized by leaders who are selective, having high-quality relationships with some members and low-quality relationships with others (exclusionary behavior). This study showed that when the mean LMX is high and there is high LMX differentiation, there is more turnover in a diverse group. Then the mean LMX is high and there is low LMX differentiation, there is less turnover in diverse grouWps. Conclusively, LMX research suggests that diverse group members perform better and remain in an organizations if leaders have high-quality social exchange with team members, are equally attentive to all group members, and encourage inclusivity in the group.
A study of 25 successful female leaders in politics (Cantor & Bernay, 1992) revealed three important characteristics—competent self (feelings of self-confidence), creative aggression (ability to speak out and take initiative), and woman power (determination to make the world a better place). Their values included taking work seriously, maintaining high standards of integrity, being considerate and respectful to staff, and encouraging communication. Women’ leadership was not about their own power but empowering others—hearing others’ opinions, inspiring consensus, being of service, and promoting gender equality. These women authentically integrated stereotypical female qualities such as caring, but with assertiveness and achievement-oriented behaviors. Some of these beliefs were also expressed by several Chinese women in a study wherein they described themselves leading like mothers and grandmothers, being firm but supportive (Cheung & Halpern, 2010). They recognized that this kind of leadership integrated their communal beliefs of caring and accountability, which proved effective. In a similar vein, Faircloth (2017) also describes her journey from being unhappy in her job as a leader to being a more satisfied authentic leader when she integrated her Indigenous beliefs to the expectations of a leader in predominantly-white academia.
As suggested by the aforementioned theories and studies of successful female leaders , WoC who have who accept their multiple identities lead authentically with self-confidence and have better quality interactions with their team members. They have a better understanding of people’s multiple and complex social identities, hence they are more likely to be inclusive and effective. The theories also imply that exploring a team’s diverse belief systems, finding similarities between themselves and their team members, developing a common value system, creating a safe environment, and encouraging healthy communication are ways in which WoC could become more effective group leaders.
This chapter looked at the nuances of WoC, barriers to their advancement, and group dynamics that can help them leverage their cultural values in an organizational setting. WoC who have integrated their multiple identities have much to offer to organizational growth. Institutional culture needs to account for the nuances of WoC. Mere awareness is not key to their advancement. Tailor made specialized professional development programs that help WoC integrate multiple identities, develop confidence, and leverage their unique leadership styles will benefit both the organization and WoC. Apart from providing a healthy, diversity-friendly climate, institutional policies need to be reconsidered. In order to truly address leadership of WoC, it is important for organizations to address issues or marginality, voice, agency, and social transformation in strategic planning. More platforms need to be invented for WoC to effect coaction and coalition with not only other WoC, but also with white men and women and men of color. These avenues will give them opportunities to be heard, and we know that both representation and voice lead to greater inclusion. Individually-empowered WoC will collectively empower all women in an organization, which in turn would lead to institutional efficacy and empowerment (Gutiérrez, 1990).