Search results

The present study aims to apply the construct of microaggressions to organizational contexts by examining perceptions of discrimination in ambiguous interactions between White supervisors and Black subordinates and their impact on work outcomes under varying conditions of leader fairness.

US participants (N=387) responded to scenarios describing supervisor‐subordinate interactions involving subtle to blatant discrimination, after being told either that the supervisor had a history of fair, equitable treatment of subordinates or that the supervisor had a history of unfairness and inequity.

Leader equity impacted discrimination perceptions, affording leaders greater benefit of the doubt in ambiguous interracial interactions. For all levels of microaggression severity, microaggressions were perceived less when the supervisor had a reputation for equity and fairness; expected work outcomes were also better when the supervisor had a reputation for equity and fairness at all levels of microaggression severity.

As blatant discrimination grows more and more unacceptable, examining the subtle and sometimes unintended aspects of workplace discrimination is increasingly important. The authors’ results suggest that a leader's reputation for equity and fairness may mitigate the effects of racial slights.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of leader equity on microaggressions and the first to empirically explore the impact of microaggressions on work outcomes. Their results suggest the importance of establishing leader reputations of fairness and training staff to recognize even subtle forms of discrimination and exclusion.

Despite the harmful impact of supervisor transgressions, they have received little empirical attention. The purpose of this paper is to addresses this important gap, examining the nature of transgressions committed at work by supervisors against subordinates.

A critical incident technique was employed in which employees described a transgression committed by their supervisor. Qualitative responses were then analyzed, resulting in the emergence of supervisor transgression themes.

In total, 11 themes emerged, including: performance criticisms, demeaning insults, false accusations, undue demands, unfair employment decisions, inconsiderate treatment, inequitable behavior, inappropriate contextual selections, disregard of opinions, undersupplied resources, and underprovided recognition.

While this approach is not without limitations, including the potential for participant memory error and researcher analytical bias, it offers a necessary initial exploration into the content of supervisor transgressions. Findings open new areas for continued research exploration into the nature and functioning of supervisor transgressions.

Practitioners also stand to benefit from this work, as this identification of supervisor transgression themes affords organizations knowledge about how to best target supervisory interventions.

Though researchers have just begun to examine the nature of leader transgressions, they have yet to analyze the content of supervisor transgressions. This study offers an original investigation into how supervisors transgress against subordinates at work.