Intersectionality is a concept that is mainly applied in critical theories to explain how different forms of discrimination or oppression interact. The concept was coined for the first time by a female scholar known as Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. In simple terms, the concept suggests that the kind of oppression or discrimination faced by individuals is not the same for all people in a given social group. For instance, women in the US do not face the same kind of discrimination. While a white woman may face discrimination based on gender, a black woman may face discrimination based on both gender and race (Acker, 2012, p. 215). In short, different women in a given society face different forms of discrimination based on variables such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, social status and sexual orientation. The aforementioned variables are called intersecting characteristics. In many western societies, discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion and ethnicity is prohibited by law (Haq, 2013, p. 171). To prevent discrimination based on such social variables organizations usually implement policies that help to promote diversity. Diversity at the workplace refers to the recognition and acceptance of the differences of individuals based on factors such as race, age, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social status and perceptions, and offering equal opportunities to all individuals irrespective of the differences. Despite the efforts by organizations to implement diversity policies that would eliminate cases of discrimination and ensure that all people have equal opportunities, the implementation process often faces challenges that reduce the probability of attaining the objectives of diversity (Daft & Lane, 2009, p. 57). Consequently, discrimination or oppression based on social variables still exists in varying degrees in some organizations. The paper examines uses the concept of intersectionality to explain the challenges that organizational managers face in the process of implementing diversity policies.

Discussion

Implementing diversity policies within organizations is one of the strategies that enhance organizational performance. The concept of diversity implies that there is no favoritism in giving opportunities or rewarding individuals in an organization. As such, any opportunity or reward is given with consideration to factors such as, unit affiliation, job classification, performance, knowledge, experience and skills, rather than on the basis of social variables such as sex, gender, age and race. In addition, implementing diversity policies opens opportunities for the most suited persons to rise to leadership (Barak, 2010, p. 75). As such, implementing diversity policies enables an organization to give an opportunity to all hardworking and gifted individuals, who play an important role in enhancing the overall performance of an organization. As Barak (2010, p. 75) explains, diversity policies should guide the activities and behaviors of both the workers and the leaders in an organization. All human resource activities carried out by managers, including recruiting, training, rewarding, compensating and laying off the workers should be guided by diversity policies. Also, diversity policies should be designed in a way that they guide the behaviors of employees. Specifically, the policies should discourage any form of discrimination of some workers based on social variables. Effective implementation of the diversity policies requires the support of both the leaders and the workers. However, in some cases, the workers, the leaders or both do not adhere to the laid policies on diversity in their activities.

The main challenge facing the implementation of diversity policies in organizations is resistance. Resistance is caused by different fundamental factors, most of which are grounded on the beliefs held by the employees, the leaders, or both. In organizations where the workers resist the implementation of diversity policies, they propagate a culture that supports discrimination based on one or more social characteristics (Acker, 2006, p. 442). One of the most common forms of oppression is the discrimination based on race. As described in the concept of intersectionality, employees of different races working in the same organization have different experiences, especially in cases where there are no effective diversity policies or where adherence to the policies is low. Irrespective of the fact that discrimination of individuals based on race is prohibited in the US and UK, for instance, existing studies indicate that cases of racism in organizations are still rampant (Barron & Hebl, 2013, p. 195). With regard to discrimination based on race, the white employees have different experiences from the black employees.

Prior studies show that people of different races have different experiences at work place in multicultural societies. Avery, MCKay, and Wilson (2008, as cited in Perry 2012, p. 97) conducted a study in the US to determine the experiences of the white, black and Hispanic employees at workplace. The researchers recruited 763 respondents. The findings derived from the study indicated that the blacks and the Hispanics experienced discrimination based on race more than the whites. The blacks and the whites who were supervised by persons of the same races indicated lower rates of discrimination based on race than those who were working under the supervision of people of different races. Another study conducted by Harrison and Thomas (2009, as cited in Perry 2012, p. 97) produced similar results. However, their study focused on the treatment of the blacks during recruitment. Specifically, the study examined the level of preferential treatment by the organizational leaders when recruiting employees. The results provided a clear distinction in the treatment of the applicants based on skin color. The findings derived from the study found that individuals with light skins were more likely to the than the individuals with dark skins. The black applicants with light skins and lower qualifications were more likely to be hired than the blacks with higher qualifications and darker skins.

Studies conducted in the UK have also found varying levels of discrimination based on race in organizations. Kenny and Briner (2010, p. 348) conducted a study to examine the extent to which ethnicity and racism are relevant in influencing business practices and experiences of workers in the UK. The researchers used data collected from thirty black graduates from different public and private organizations. The findings indicated that the black employees experienced discrimination based on race perpetrated by their whites counterparts. Although the findings indicated that the blacks had varying experiences of discrimination based on race, all of them indicated that they had experiences of instances where they were treated as minority groups. Despite many studies showing the presence of discrimination based on race at workplace in multicultural societies, some studies have shown that discrimination based on race is not present in some organizations in the same societies. Also, discrimination based on race is not present in organizations where all people come from the same race (Tatli, & Özbilgin, 2012, p. 251).

Another common form of oppression is discrimination based on gender. Previous studies are numerous that have explored the prevalence of cases of discrimination based on gender at workplace in different countries. Haq (2013, p. 171) explored the level of discrimination at workplace based on gender in India. The results derived from the study found a high level of discrimination of women at workplace in Indian organizations. The findings indicated that in most organizations, men believed that women have lower value than men. Consequently, women are underemployed in most organizations. Also, those who are already employed are, in some cases, under-rewarded as compared to men doing comparable work. Also, women are underrepresented in organizational leadership and have minimal opportunities for career growth. Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011) also found that women experience workplace discrimination in the US. The researcher analyzed tales of 219 women who had reported about discrimination at workplace to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The study found that gender stereotyping was mainly used by male workers to discriminate female workers. The researcher revealed that there are cases where women are denied opportunities to rise to leadership positions due to the belief of the male leaders that women cannot be good leaders. However, the study indicated that some organizations presented equal opportunities to men and women. Another study conducted by Hameed & Waheed (2011) found that discrimination based on gender is prevalent in Pakistan. The data that the researchers used was gathered from 200 supervisors in different organizations in the country. Although the study focused mainly on investigating the impact of discrimination on performance, the findings showed that women face more discrimination based on gender stereotyping than the men. Just as in the case of discrimination based on race, discrimination based on gender is not present in all organizations.

A third example is discrimination based on religious background. The previous studies have shown that discrimination at workplace based on religious background is also a prevalent phenomenon in some societies. Messarra (2014, p. 55) carried out study to investigate the whether discrimination based on religious background was present in the US. The study was conducted in organizations that recruit people from different religious backgrounds. Despite the fact that the study aimed mainly to determine the impact of discrimination perpetrated on religious grounds on performance, the study gave a hint to the extent of discrimination in organizations based on religious grounds. In organizations where workers with different religious background were recruited, results indicated that there were numerous cases of discrimination based on religious background. For instance, organizations dominated by Christians, Pagans, Muslims and atheists reported cases of discrimination based on their religious backgrounds. A study conducted by Wallace, Wright and Hyte (2014, p. 189) discrimination in South American countries on religious grounds was rampant during the hiring process. The researchers sent resumes in response to job advertisements that had been posted by different organizations. The researchers used one category of resumes that indicated religious affiliations and another category in which religious affiliations were not indicated. In the resumes that included religious affiliations, the researchers included seven religions. The findings derived from the study indicated that the applicants who expressed their religious affiliations were 26 percent less likely to be hired as compared to the applicants who did not indicate their religious affiliations. Father, the results showed that atheists, pagans and Muslims faced the highest level of discrimination. Catholics and fictitious religious groups experienced moderate discrimination. Evangelical Christians experienced little discrimination, whereas Jews did not experience discrimination at all. In fact, the study showed that the Jews received preferential treatment to other religious groups in some cases. In short, the results derived from the study provide evidence of the presence of discrimination based on religious background.

Another example is the discrimination based on sexual orientation. In particular, bisexuals, gays, lesbians and transgender persons usually experience discrimination at work place. Despite the existence of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in countries such as the US, UK and Canada, there is a tendency for preferential treatment of heterosexuals to people with other sexual orientations at work places. In fact, discrimination based on sexual orientation at work places is one of the most common forms of oppression faced by such persons across the globe.

A study conducted by Barron and Hebl (2013, p. 191) indicated that persons of other sexual orientation other than heterosexuality face discrimination at workplace in the US, irrespective of the presence of antidiscrimination laws on sexual orientation ground. The researchers conducted three studies on organizational leaders and homosexuals. The results derived from the study indicated that many organizational leaders and employers do not have clear understanding of the legislation that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation grounds. Further, the study revealed that people who disclose their sexual orientation as gays, lesbians or bisexuals during the job application have much lower chances of being hired as compared to those who indicate that they are heterosexuals. Ozturk (2011, p. 1099) explored the prevalence of discrimination based on sexual orientation ground in Turkey. The researcher collected information using interview method from a group of twenty respondents that comprised of gays, bisexuals and lesbians. The results derived from the study indicated that gays, bisexuals and lesbians, in Turkey experienced discrimination at workplaces due to their sexual orientation. The respondents indicated that they had lower chances of getting employment than heterosexuals especially when their sexual orientations are disclosed to the employers. Further, the respondents indicated that they experienced discrimination in the form of insults and use of negative language by their workmates. The respondents also stated that they were held unfit for leadership positions in many cases due to their unique sexual orientation.

Another study by Carpenter 2007 (as cited in Healy, Bradley & Forson, 2011, p. 467) found that lesbians, bisexuals and gays experience discrimination in compensation. The findings derived from the study indicated that gays in the US earn 32 percent less than men who are heterosexuals. Another study conducted by Badgett et al. 2007 (as cited in Mickkelsen, 2012, p. 929) found similar results.

Overall, different people have different experiences of discrimination at workplaces. People who perpetrate such discrimination acts in organizations usually resist efforts meant to enhance diversity and to end discrimination within organizations. For instance, in organizations dominated by the whites, such as most organizations in the UK, the whites are likely to resist any form of change that would grant the blacks equal opportunities at work places. Similarly, organizations dominated by Jewish workers and leaders are likely to give preferential treatment to Jews and to resist change that would lead to equal treatment of the followers of other religions. The same applies to organizations dominated by Heterosexuals. They are likely to resist change that would lead to equal treatment with lesbians, bisexuals and gays. In societies dominated by patriarchal structures, women are usually undervalued (Boogaard & Roggeband, 2010, p. 54). Men in organizations that embrace such cultural values are likely to resist any change that would lead women to be treated equally with men or to have equal opportunities with men. Such kinds of resistance limit the ability for the managers to implement diversification policies in organizations. The problem is higher in organizations where the some all or all organizational leaders are resistive to diversity.

However, as explained by the concept of intersectionality, it is essential to note that the oppression experiences of individuals differ within and between social groups. For instance, not all women suffer from gender discrimination at work places. The same case applies to the other forms of discrimination. At the same time, not all workers face similar discrimination experiences (Boogaard & Roggeband, 2010, p. 54). As noted earlier, a black woman may face both racial and gender discrimination at workplace in the UK, whereas a white woman may not experience racial discrimination. As such, assuming that it is possible to duplicate the experiences of workers is wrong. The extent to which workers, leaders, or both resist the implementation of diversity policies depends on the kind of discrimination that is rampant in an organization. As noted earlier, workers in organizations where racial discrimination against the blacks is rampant, resistance to diversity policies that would lead to equal opportunities for both the whites and the blacks is usually high.

Conclusion

Overall, enhancing diversity in organizations is one of the most important strategies that helps to reduce case of discrimination, support organizational performance and enhance adherence of organizations to the established legislation against discrimination and oppression. Diversity in organizations is usually enhanced through formulating and implementing diversity policies. To make sure that full implementation is achieved and that the policies achieve the intended results, they must gain the support of both the workers and organizational leaders. The policies prohibit discrimination at workplace based on intersecting characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation and religion. The law in many countries provides protection against discrimination on such grounds. Despite this, the implementation process for the policies faces a major challenge of resistance from workers and even leaders in some organizations. In most cases, resistance occurs where discrimination is rampant, and the people who are perpetrating it want the status quo to remain. However, the experiences of discrimination vary from one social group to another and from one worker to another, depending on the variables that are used as basis of discrimination. The concept of intersectionality explains the fact that discrimination exists in societies in varying degrees and in different forms. The same case applies to discrimination at workplace. People who perpetrate discrimination resist the change that would eliminate discrimination that is rampant in a given organization. The concept explains the fact that diversity policies accepted in one organization may face resistance in another organization.

References

Acker, J. (2006). “Inequality regimes: gender, class and race in organizations.” Gender and

Society, Vol. 20, pp. 441–464

Acker, J. (2012) “Gendered organizations and intersectionality: problems and possibilities”,

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 214 – 22

Barak, M. E. M. (2010). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace.

California: Sage publications

Barron, L. G. & Hebl, M. (2013). “The force of law: The effects of sexual orientation

antidiscrimination legislation on interpersonal discrimination in employment.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 19, No. 2, pp. 191-205

Beauregard, T.A. (2009). Sex differences in coping withwork–home interference. In Ozbilgin,

M.F. (ed.), Equal-ity, Diversity and Inclusion at Work: A Research Compan-ion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011). “Gender Discrimination at Work. Connecting Gender Stereotypes,

Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace.” Gender & Society, vol. 25 no. 6, pp. 764-786

Boogaard, B. & Roggeband, C. (2010). “Paradoxes of Intersectionality: Theorizing Inequality in

the Dutch Police Force through Structure and Agency.” Organization January, vol. 17 no. 1, pp. 53-75

Daft, R. L. & Lane, P. (2009). Management. New York, NY: Cengage Learning

Cole, E. R. (2009). “Intersectionality and research in psychology.” American Psychologist, Vol.

64, pp. 170– 180.

Hameed, A. & Waheed, A. (2011). “Gender Discrimination & Its Effect on Employee

Performance/Productivity.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 1 No. 15, pp. 170-176

Haq, R. (2013) “Intersectionality of gender and other forms of identity: Dilemmas and challenges

facing women in India”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No: 3, pp.171 – 184

Healy, G., Bradley, H. & Forson, C. (2011). “Intersectional Sensibilities in Analysing Inequality

Regimes in Public Sector Organizations.” Gender, Work & Organization. Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 467–487

Kenny, E. J. & Briner, R. B. (2010) “Exploring ethnicity in organizations”, Equality, Diversity

and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 348 – 363

Messarra, L. C. (2014). “Religious Diversity at Work: The Perceptual Effects of Religious

Discrimination on Employee Engagement and Commitment.” Contemporary Management Research, Vol.10, No.1, pp. 59-80

Mickkelsen, E. (2012). “An analysis of the social meanings of conflict in nonprofit

organizations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 923-941

Ozturk, M. B. (2011). “Sexual orientation discrimination: Exploring the experiences of lesbian,

gay and bisexual employees in Turkey.” Human Relations, vol. 64 no. 8, pp. 1099-1118

Perry, S. (2012). “Racial habitus, moral conflict, and white moral hegemony within interracial

evangelical organizations.” Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 35, pp. 89-108.

Tatli, A. & Özbilgin, M. (2012) “Surprising intersectionalities of inequality and privilege: the

case of the arts and cultural sector”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 249 – 265

Wallace, M., Wright, B. R. E. & Hyte, A. (2014). “Religious Affiliation and Hiring

Discrimination in the American South: A Field Experiment.” Social Currents, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 189-207

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW