G Model

RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22

Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Organizational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/riob

Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work

Ashleigh Shelby Rosettea,* , Rebecca Ponce de Leona , Christy Zhou Kovalb ,
David A. Harrisonc
a
Duke University, United States
b
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Business School, Hong Kong
c
University of Texas at Austin, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In recent years, research from various disciplines, including social psychology, sociology, economics,
Available online xxx gender studies, and organizational behavior, has illuminated the importance of considering the various
ways in which multiple social categories intersect to shape outcomes for women in the workplace.
However, these findings are scattered across disciplines, making it difficult for organizational scholars to
Keywords: leverage this knowledge in the advancement of gender research. The purpose of this review is to
Intersectionality
assemble these findings to capture how gender and race, when considered in tandem, can generate new
Gender
understandings about women of different racial groups and their experiences in the workplace. We first
Race
Stereotypes
provide a review of both historic and contemporary interpretations of the intersectionality concept. Next,
Job roles using an intersectional framework, we review key findings on the distinct stereotypes ascribed to Black,
Sexual harassment Asian, and White women, and compare and contrast the differential impact of these stereotypes on hiring
and leadership for these subgroups of women. Building from these stereotypes, we further review
research that explores the different job roles that Black, Asian, and White women occupy, specifically
focusing on the impact of occupational segregation, organizational support, and the motherhood penalty.
Finally, we examine how the frequency, emotional toll, and legal implications of sexual harassment can
vary for women of differing races. Through this review, we bring attention to the pitfalls of studying
women as a monolithic category and call for organizational scholars to consider the role of
intersectionality in shaping workplace outcomes.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
What is intersectionality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Definition, history and contemporary meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Origins of intersectionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Contemporary views of intersectionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Gender stereotypes and backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Stereotypes of women in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Stereotypes of Black women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Stereotypes of Asian women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Hiring of women in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Hiring of Black women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Hiring of Asian women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Leadership perceptions of women in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Leadership perceptions of Black women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Leadership perceptions of Asian women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Summary: intersectionality, stereotypes, and backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

* Corresponding author at: Fuqua School of Business, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC 27705.
E-mail address: arosette@duke.edu (A.S. Rosette).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
0191-3085/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22

2 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Gender bias and job roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

Occupational segregation for women in general . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Occupational segregation for Black women . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Occupational segregation for Asian women . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Organizational support for women in general . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Organizational support for Black women . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Organizational support for Asian women . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
The motherhood penalty for women in general . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
The motherhood penalty for Black women . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
The motherhood penalty for Asian women . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Summary: intersectionality, bias, and job roles . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Workplace sexual harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Frequency of occurrence for women in general . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Frequency of occurrence for non-White women . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Emotional toll on women in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Emotional toll on non-White women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Legal implications for women in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Legal implications for non-White women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Summary: intersectionality and sexual harassment . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Broad themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Additional variants of intersectionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
The intersection of gender and race for Latinas . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
The intersection of gender and social class . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
The intersection of gender and sexual orientation . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Intersectionality in non-U.S. contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Intersectionality: changing the way we conduct OB research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

Introduction can affect perceptions and experiences in the workplace. Following existing
theory and evidence on intersectional topics in organizational research, we first
focus on gender and then assess how race, the social category that is most
Race and gender are two distinct social categories – but not two independent
frequently tethered to gender in social science research, combines uniquely with
experiences – at work (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Yet, studies of the two categories,
it to influence organizational life – primarily in the United States. We focus on
particularly as fundamental diversity variables, in organizational research continue
gender because it represents one of the most salient social categorizations
to emphasize and investigate them one at a time, as membership in isolated
(Brewer, 1988; Fiske, 1998; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992). In her recent
demographic groups (Shore et al., 2011). The way individuals see themselves and
review, Ellemers (2018) noted that gender is a primary feature in person
see others in the workplace is much more complex (Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, &
perception, as categorization based on gender is immediately detectable,
Nkomo, 2010). Such social categories at work are experienced as ‘and,' not ‘or.' They
chronically salient, and relatively permanent. It is a way we immediately sort
are conjunctive, not disjunctive. They are intersectional.
others at work (e.g., Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998).
Perhaps the first intersectional theorist was Sojourner Truth. In her 1851
We focus on women’s experiences rather than men’s in this article because
speech at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, she juxtaposed her
women are underrepresented in positions of power and influence in the workplace;
experience as a Black woman with the benevolence directed toward White
thus, an intersectional perspective allows us to compare and contrast the
women and the expectations of physicality and strength of Black men (Brah &
perceptions and experiences of different subgroups of women to better understand
Phoenix, 2004; hooks, 1981). Truth concluded that differential treatment
their subordinate status. Further, our review focuses on comparing the experiences
based on gender or race did not adequately capture the struggles she encountered
of White, Black, and Asian women. This decision is not intended to imply that these
as a result of her gender and race throughout her life. The ideas in her seminal
social groups are more worthy of consideration than women of other racial/ethnic
narrative represent the basis of the conceptualization of the intersectional
groups. It is a practical decision, as gender-based organizational research has
perspective that emerged in feminist studies and critical race theory in the 1970s
predominantly focused on these social groups, thus providing us with a sufficient
and 1980s. The concept of interlocking characteristics as unique and inimitable
body of research to review.
from their components was proposed to identify the distinct oppression
Although it is not ideal to limit our review of intersectionality—a perspective
experienced by Black women that simultaneously diverged and converged with
steeped in variation from multiple differences—to a blend of just two social
the disparagement of Black men and the oppression of White women (e.g., Beal,
categories, we recognize that it may be impossible to capture all the varying
1970; Crenshaw, 1989; hooks, 1984). Drawing from this framework, researchers
possibilities when considering the influence that social categories can have on each
recently have begun to examine the juncture of gender and race in the workplace,
other. For example, some of the early perspectives on intersectionality included
focusing particularly on the conflicting expectations and experiences of Black and
social class (e.g., Beal, 1970; hooks, 1984), and the broader study of intersectionality
White women (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012;
has extended to incorporate other markers, such as sexual orientation (e.g., Bowleg,
Sesko & Biernat, 2010).
2008, 2013; Swank & Fahs, 2013), religion (e.g., Archer, 2003; Rodriguez, Lytle, &
Scholars from various disciplines, such as sociology (Acker, 2006, 2012; Browne
Vaughan, 2013; Wadsworth, 2010), and physical ability (e.g., Baril, 2015; Mereish,
& Misra, 2003; Choo & Ferree 2010; Collins, 2015; Reskin & Padavic, 2006), social
2012; Yoshida, Hanass-Hancock, Nixon, & Bond, 2014), just to name a few. An
psychology (Bowleg, 2008; Cole, 2009; Nicolas, la Fuente, & Fiske, 2017; Purdie-
exhaustive discussion of the nearly countless potential overlapping social
Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Settles, 2006; Shields, 2008), economics (Kim, 2002, 2009;
categories is beyond the scope of this review. Instead, we limit our examination
Kim & Zhao, 2014; Neal, 2004), and gender studies (Castro & Holvino, 2016; Davis,
to reflect these specified boundaries while attempting to capture a significant
2008; McCall, 2005; Verloo, 2006) have highlighted the importance of considering
portion of extant intersectionality research, much of which examines racial
the joint effects of different social categorizations, revealing the ways in which an
differences within the superordinate gender category of women (Davis, 2008;
intersectional perspective can influence organizations and the experiences of
McCall, 2005; Shields, 2008). Also, the overwhelming majority of organizational
organizational members. These complementary perspectives from different
research on intersectionality investigates U.S. contexts. Thus, despite the generality
disciplines—with macro considerations of intersectionality focusing mostly on
of the intersectionality concept, our review generally covers issues facing White,
changes in the social system and micro perspectives on identity—collectively
Black, and Asian women in the United States.
inform us about the unique experiences of individuals shaped jointly by their
Finally, our goal in this review is not to take sides in the ongoing debates that
racialized and gendered social categories.
often arise in intersectionality research. Discussions of measurement instruments
The purpose of this review is to bring together these organizationally relevant
(McCall, 2005; Shields, 2008; Winker & Degele, 2011), mathematical representa-
ideas, which are currently housed in disparate disciplines, to generate new
tions (e.g., Hancock, 2007; Kim, 2002), and differential weighting of social category
understanding about how simultaneous membership in multiple social categories

Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22

A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 3

markers as more or less oppressive than others (e.g., Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas, & 140). With a critical race theory lens, she argued that the laws and
Taylor, 2002; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) are available elsewhere. Our focus is instead
policies in place at the time addressed racism or sexism, but failed
on juxtaposing experiences of women subgroups – Black and Asian women – to
their superordinate gender category (which in existing research is mostly based on to account for the experiences of plaintiffs who were subject to
White, middle-class women’s experience; Cole, 2009) and showing crucial both racism and sexism, thus leaving Black women without
distinctions across those groups. adequate legal remedy. The DeGraffenreid v. General Motors case of
We begin by providing a definition of intersectionality in the context of both 1976, in which five Black women sued the General Motors
historical and contemporary interpretations. Next, we compare and contrast organiza-
tionally relevant perceptions and experiences attributed to the superordinate category of
Corporation for discriminatory termination practices specifically
women to those attributed to women of different racial groups. In the section titled targeting Black women, illustrates this dilemma. Refusing to allow
“Gender Stereotypes and Backlash,” we discuss differences in stereotypes, particularly the plaintiffs to combine gender- and race-based discrimination
gender-based expectations of communality and dominance and the negative into a single category, the court required the lawsuit filing to be
consequences for violating them. Traditionally, gender backlash research has focused
based solely on race discrimination or gender discrimination
on hiring and leadership; hence, we highlight those organizational topics in this review.
In the next section called “Gender Bias and Job Roles,” we shift to an examination of how (Crenshaw, 1989). The plaintiffs could not prove gender discrimi-
experiences vary across subgroups of women occupying various job positions. nation because not all women at the company were discriminated
Specifically, we focus on occupational segregation, organizational support, and the against, and they could not prove race discrimination because not
motherhood penalty. We chose these experiences because they represent some of the all Blacks at the company were discriminated against. Even if all
most important aspects of organizational life and they can vary in meaningful ways for
individuals of different racial and gender groups. Then, in the section “Race and Sexual
Black women had been terminated, Black men and White women
Harassment,” we review research on the role of race in shaping women’s experiences of still would have been retained, suggesting that no systemic racial
sexual harassment, focusing on frequency of occurrence, emotional tollonwellbeing, and or gender discrimination persisted. Hence, Black women could not
legal considerations, each of which can have direct implications for the career outcomes legally protect themselves against such a prejudicial practice, as
and well-being of organizational members.1 We close with a discussion of general
noted by Crenshaw (1989).
themes in current findings and a call for next steps.
Although the term “intersectionality” is attributed to Crenshaw,
its theoretical framework emerged years earlier in work by Black
What is intersectionality?
feminists such as Frances Beal (1970), bell hooks (1984), and Toni
Cade Bambara (1970), along with the Combahee River Collective, a
Definition, history and contemporary meaning
Black feminist lesbian organization (1995). Reminiscent of the
ideas in Anna Julia Cooper’s A Voice from the South (1892), these
What does it mean for one social category (e.g., gender) to
writings highlighted the lived experiences of Black women almost
“intersect” with another (e.g., race)? In its most abstract form,
a century later. And although Black women are credited with initial
intersection implies two dimensions passing through a common
conceptualizations of intersectionality, Asian women were also
point simultaneously or two categories sharing a common
addressing these considerations (Asian Women United of Cal-
element. In organizational scholarship on social categories, we
ifornia, 1989; Chow, 1987; Houston, 1982; Lim, Tsutakawa, &
regard that common point as qualitatively different from a simple
Donelly, 1989; Yamada, 1981).2 Much of the early writing on Asian
addition or overlap. It is an emergent property that is often
American women examined themes of family bonds and conflicts
represented in data analytics as a multiplicative feature. Being both
stemming from the obligation Asian immigrant women with
female and Black is more than the sum of being a member of either
strong cultural roots felt to serve other family members and the
category. This intertwining of social categories changes social
general devaluation of these women due to gender (Lim, 1993). As
identities and social perceptions, and it is associated with different
we discuss later, these factors continue to interact and constrain
stereotypes, relationships, and circumstances for individuals
women’s opportunities and outcomes in the contemporary
embedded in organizations. Those features are inimitable, distinct,
workplace.
and emergent. They are intersectional. Hence, we define inter-
These early accounts of the experiences of Black and Asian
sectionality as overlapping social categories, such as race and gender,
women were steeped mainly in identity-based processes. People
that are relevant to a specified individual or group’s identity and
derive their identity and sense of belonging through social groups
create a unique experience that is separate and apart from its
and are motivated to see their social category of membership in a
originating categories.
positive light (Kunda, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Black and Asian
Our definition encompasses traditional considerations of
feminists expressed feeling as though they could not wholly
intersectionality that have focused on specified identity-based
identify with either the gender or racial social movements of their
processes of subordinated groups and contemporary renditions
time, because these separate efforts did not account for aspects of
that experience intersectionality as inclusive of multifaceted social
their social identity. Emphasizing the heightened importance of
categories that occupy various ranks along differing social
considering gender and race simultaneously helped to partition
hierarchies. In this section, we consider the foundation upon
their experiences from those of White men, White women, and
which our definition is based by first examining the historical
racial minority men. Through their use of intersectionality in
background of the concept of intersectionality. We then briefly
discussing their experiences as non-White women, these writers
examine how ideas about it have evolved over time.
illuminated the critical importance of considering multiple levels
of social categorization and the corresponding social identity to
Origins of intersectionality
better understand the diversity of experiences within and across
racial and gender groups.
Crenshaw (1989) coined the term intersectionality in her
formative essay: “Because the intersectional experience is greater
than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take
intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the
particular manner in which Black women are subordinated” (p. 2
Although research on Latinas is not prevalent in contemporary organizational
research and thus, not emphasized in this review, they also explored facets of
intersectionality in the 1970s. The Chicana feminist movement noted that, like
1
Although we focus the majority of our review on comparing and contrasting the other non-White women in the United States, Chicanas were oppressed by the
organizational experiences of Asian, Black, and White women, we structure our forces of racism, imperialism, and sexism that were not adequately addressed by
discussion of workplace sexual harassment around comparisons of White and non- feminists, who were primarily White and middle class (Cortera, 1977; Gonzalez,
White women reflecting how much of the extant research is organized. 1977; Nieto-Gomez, 1974).

Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
4 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Contemporary views of intersectionality
Contemporary definitions of intersectionality have broadened
beyond subordination to explicitly incorporate the experiences of
dominant and privileged social categories. Recently, Collins and
Bilge (2016) defined intersectionality as a tool that provides people
with “better access to the complexity of the world and themselves”
(p. 2). Consistent with many current views of intersectionality, this
broadening definition represents a framework of mutually
reinforcing systems that are not limited to any nationality or
place, but are potentially global in nature and relevant to a
multitude of social classifications. Along the same lines, Acker
(2012) suggests that intersectionality provides a “way to concep-
tualize the complex interweaving of analytically separated
processes” (p. 219). She uses inequality regimes, interrelated
practices and policies that perpetuate social inequalities, as a way
to understand how the varying forms of intersectionality (e.g.,
specific patterns of gendered and racial differences) can be
reproduced or extinguished in organizations. Similarly, by posing
and subsequently answering the question “Who is included in this
category?” Cole (2009) concludes that “intersectionality is not only
a tool to understand the experiences of minority group members”
(p. 173) because social systems are propagated via historical,
political, and materially derived hierarchies. Hence in present day,
intersectionality is described as a means of adding nuance to our
understanding of experience and perception by considering
multiple social categories at once (also see Choo & Ferree, 2010;
Nicolas et al., 2017; Reskin & Padavic, 2006; Rodriguez, Holvino,
Fletcher, & Nkomo, 2016).
Although these current views of intersectionality are broader
than the original tenets of Crenshaw and others, most still
highlight conjunctions of social categories as sources of social
identity (e.g., Shields, 2008). For example, McCall (2005) described
three distinct conceptualizations and analyses of intersectionality:
anticategorical, intracategorical, and intercategorical. Anticategor-
ical analysis, used often in personal narratives and case studies,
questions the process of social categorization itself and instead
attends to participants’ own points of intersections. Intracategor-
ical analysis chooses a particular social group with marginalized
intersectional identities—such as Black or Asian—and focuses on
understanding the complexity of lived experience within it, but
does not make comparisons outside the group. Unlike anticate-
gorical analysis, it does not reject the notion of categorization but
does point out the inadequacy of it. Finally, intercategorical
analysis—the focus of our review—examines the inequality
between existing social (sub-)categories. This approach entails
using combinations of preexisting categories to explore differences
in treatment and experience.
Gender stereotypes and backlash
To fully understand intersectional experiences, it is first critical
to explore the way women tend to be viewed in organizations.
Stereotypes describing essential differences between men and
women have been discussed in psychological research since before
Bakan (1966) proposed the concepts of agency and communion as
the two fundamental dimensions of human nature. He described
agency as the trait governing individuation, self-focus, and
achievement, and described communion as the human quality
that allows for connection, congregation, and relation. Although
Bakan alluded to a gendered aspect of these constructs in his
writings, Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) made the gendered
nature of this distinction explicit in their stereotype content
model, which gives a central role to competence and warmth
attributions in group stereotypes. Their model of mixed stereotype
content provides empirical support for Bakan’s framework,
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
illustrating that women are associated with high levels of warmth,
a communal quality, but low levels of competence, an agentic one.
Agency and communion have come to be understood as the
defining differentiators of masculine versus feminine stereotypes.
These perceptions have remained stable over the last 30 years
(Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016) and continue to affect women’s
experiences in their occupations (Heilman, 2012).3
Stereotypes of women in general
Grounded in the early psychological work on gender stereo-
types, organizational scholars began to relate these conceptions
of feminine communion and masculine agency to various
workplace phenomena. Noting the low ratio of women to men
in managerial roles, Schein’s (1973, 1975) “think manager – think
male” paradigm was one of the first to explore the conflicting
nature of the communal stereotypes ascribed to women with the
agentic stereotypes attributed to managers. Since this seminal
study, research on the lack-of-fit model (Heilman, 1983, 2001),
role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), and the status
incongruity hypothesis (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts,
2012) have offered complementary accounts of the barriers
women face at virtually every stage of their careers (e.g., Jeong &
Harrison, 2017). Aspects of all these theories point to negative
evaluations, social penalties, and diminished status for women
who violate prescriptions to be communal, as well as proscrip-
tions from engaging in a specific type of agency: dominance.
Consequences for counter-stereotypical behavior have been
labeled as backlash (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 1999,
2001). Research on backlash posits that the opposing dominance
prescriptions for leaders and communal prescriptions for women
create a double bind. Women seeking advancement in organiza-
tions must disconfirm their gender stereotypes in order to be
viewed as sufficiently dominant and competent, while facing
reprisals for behavior deemed too counter-stereotypical based on
communal prescriptions (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Women
exhibiting dominance (e.g., aggressive or controlling behavior)—
perceived as necessary for continued advancement and success in
high-status roles—are penalized throughout organizational life, in
hiring (Phelan, Moss-Racusin, & Rudman, 2008; Tyler & McCul-
lough, 2009), salary negotiation (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010;
Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007), job promotion (Fiske, Bersoff,
Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1991; Heilman, 2001), and even
everyday interactions (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004;
Koch, 2005).
Agentic displays clearly conflict with prescriptions for the
superordinate category of women (Gill, 2004; Prentice & Carranza,
2002), leading to perceptions of women who defy gender norms as
deviant and unlikeable (Kobrynowicz & Biernat, 1998; Rudman &
Fairchild, 2004). However, because the United States is predomi-
nantly White, the extensive research on gender stereotypes and
backlash mostly amounts to an explanation of how these
phenomena apply to White women without an explicit consider-
ation of how intersectionality might change treatment, experi-
ences, or outcomes for other groups. Although communality is the
preeminent stereotype attributed to the superordinate category of
women, the stereotypes attributed to subgroups such as Black
women and Asian women are distinct. In contrast to White
women, research shows that Black women are additionally
expected to be dominant and strong, and Asian women are
expected to be competent and submissive, the latter of which is
3
Over time, a binary consideration of gender has dominated empirical
investigations of stereotyping; as a result, we also adopt this practice and focus
only on men and women in our discussions of gender stereotypes.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
antithetical to dominance (Rosette, Koval, Ma, & Livingston, 2016).
If stereotypes are different, backlash is likely to be different as well.
Stereotypes of Black women
By far, the most prevalent stereotype attributed to Black women
is dominance, which is distinct from the typical communal
qualities ascribed to the superordinate category of women. Despite
the communal nature of the general female stereotype, stereotypes
of Black women as overbearing and domineering have persisted for
decades in the United States (Pratt, 2012). Popular portrayals of the
“angry Black woman” (Childs, 2005) or “strong Black woman”
(Collins, 2005; Radford-Hill, 2002) define broad cultural stereo-
types. Perceptions of Black women as angry, hostile, and rude have
persisted due largely in part to the Sapphire subtype,4 named
because of a character on network television in the 1950s
(Townsend, Neilands, Thomas, & Jackson, 2010). The Sapphire
subtype of an “angry Black woman” characterizes this intersection
of gender and race as threatening, confrontational, domineering,
and angry (Walley-Jean, 2009; West, 2008; White, 1999).
The Strong Black Woman stereotype, on the other hand,
originates from the Matriarch subtype, which describes a woman
who is the strong, self-reliant head of household (Fleming, 1983;
Sewell, 2013; Wingfield, 2007). Although the subtype incorporates
some relational undertones because motherhood is sometimes
inferred, this potential depiction of the subtype is usually
superseded by perceptions of strength and control. The Matriarch
subtype derived from the experiences of Black women who led
households due to adverse situations that frequently prevented
Black men from entering the labor force (Moynihan, 1965; Sewell,
2013). Given the frequent demands placed on Matriarchs, when
this subtype is activated, Black women are viewed as hard working
and motivated, but still intimidating and antagonistic because of
their perceived responsibilities (Wingfield, 2007). These depic-
tions of Black women as dominant and strong stand in contrast to
depictions of women in general and of White women, specifically,
as communal (Eagly & Steffen, 1984).
Emerging empirical research converges with widespread
representations of Black women. While White women face
expectations of warmth, Black women face stereotypes of strength,
assertiveness, and aggression, in addition to perceptions of
incompetence (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Niemann, Jennings,
Rozelle, Baxter, & Sullivan, 1994; Rosette et al., 2016). Donovan
(2011) found that Black women were perceived as possessing more
traits associated with these racial personas, such as tough, strong,
dominating, and argumentative, than were White women, and that
characteristics related to dominance were used most to describe
Black women. Further, the most prominent traits ascribed to Black
women included both communal and agentic qualities, and thus
were both similar to and distinct from traits attributed to White
women. Both Ghavami and Peplau (2013) and Rosette et al. (2016)
also found that while stereotypes of all women contained aspects
of communality, Black women’s personality traits were most often
described in agentic terms that signaled dominance, such as angry,
4
Consistent with previous research, we make distinctions between stereotypes,
subgroups, and subtypes. Stereotypes simply describe perceptions and knowledge
structures about specific social groups (Hamilton, 1979). Subgroups categorize
members of a superordinate group who may be grouped together based on shared
characteristics (e.g., Black women are a subgroup of the superordinate group of
women; Richards & Hewstone, 2001). Members of subgroups share characteristics
with the superordinate group to which they belong, but they can also collectively be
distinguished from superordinate group members based on some shared trait
(Maurer, Park, & Rothbart, 1995). Subtypes, on the other hand, function as a means
of perpetuating broader group stereotypes—they represent a group of stereotype-
disconfirming group members who are considered to deviate from a larger group
(Richards & Hewstone, 2001).
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
5
strong, and aggressive. Given that women who behave in a
dominant manner face backlash (due to incongruity with prevailing
communal stereotypes), the dominance ascribed to Black women
suggests that they might experience a suspension of backlash – a
result only observable through investigations that attend to
intersectionality.
Stereotypes of Asian women
In contrast to Black women, Asian women are stereotyped as
submissive but highly competent. These stereotypes also have
their roots in books, ads, and television (which are typically
described and studied in relation to Asian women of East Asian
descent). Two of the most widely depicted subtypes of Asian
women are the innocent, submissive Lotus Blossom or China Doll
(Hofstede, 1996; Prasso, 2005), and the intelligent, hardworking
Model Minority (Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 1997; Kao, 1995;
Lee, 1996). The former subtype describes Asian women as passive,
obedient, fragile, and meek (Li, 2014; Prasso, 2005). Portrayals of
Asian women as coquettish, flirtatious, and submissive became
widespread during the mid-20th century, when American troops
stationed throughout Eastern Asia treated Asian women as sexual
objects (Espiritu, 2000; Villapando, 1989). This subtype empha-
sizes extreme femininity in Asian women and characterizes them
in terms of their delicateness and subservience, especially relative
to White men (Tajima, 1989).
In contrast, the Model Minority stereotype was introduced in
the media largely as a means of discrediting Black people’s
concerns over economic inequality (Peterson, 1966; Wong, Lai,
Nagasawa, & Lin, 1998). Casting Asians as the most diligent and
economically successful minority group, the Model Minority
stereotype suggests that all other minorities should work to
emulate the career and academic commitment exemplified in
Asian Americans (Zia, 2000). Such stereotypes depict Asians as
high achievers who are hardworking and intelligent (Lee &
Rotheram-Borus, 2009; Miller, 2013; Shih, Young, & Bucher,
2013). Given that women rather than men are perceived as more
typical of Asians in general, the Model Minority stereotype is likely
to be particularly relevant to perceptions of Asian women
(Galinsky, Hall, & Cuddy, 2013; Schug, Alt, & Klauer, 2015).
As with Black women, Asian women are ascribed an intersec-
tion of both agentic and communal traits. However, unlike Black
women, their agentic stereotypes convey ability and skillfulness,
while their communal traits suggest passivity and submissiveness
(Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Rosette et al., 2016). Due to the obvious
importance of competence assessments at work, the presumed
capability of Asian women may convey certain advantages in
organizations that are inaccessible to Black or White women.
However, due to the stereotype of Asian women as docile, these
benefits may not extend to roles that require assertive or
controlling behavior. Thus, while Black women may evade a
backlash for dominant behavior as a result of their distinct
stereotypes, Asian women may be especially susceptible to
backlash when they enact dominance due to the incongruity
between such behavior and their presumed meekness.
Hiring of women in general
Gender backlash research traditionally has focused on the role
of communal stereotypes in producing reprisals against dominant
or high-achieving women in the hiring and promotion context.
Although dominance is a fundamental attribute associated with
numerous organizational experiences (Kruse & Wintermantel,
1986; Martin, 1992; Nieva & Gutek, 1980), proscriptions against
dominant behavior can hinder women’s career advancement,
particularly during hiring considerations. According to a meta-
analysis of 71 studies, dominant women tend to be rated as less
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
6 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
likeable than dominant men in organizational settings and,
consequently, are also viewed as less hireable – evidence of a
backlash effect (Williams & Tiedens, 2016). These results align with
findings from another meta-analysis showing that in male-
dominated industries, women are significantly disadvantaged in
the hiring process, likely due to perceptions of incongruence when
they seek roles necessitating dominance or general agentic
behavior (Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015).
Backlash intensifies when women express dominance explicitly
(e.g. Brescoll, Okimoto, & Vial, 2018). When they manipulated the
gender and agentic behavior of job candidates in two studies,
Rudman and Glick (1999, 2001) found that women applicants who
expressed dominance were rated as less likeable than dominant
men and as less hirable for a more stereotypically feminine job
role. More recently, Rudman et al. (2012) similarly demonstrated
hiring discrimination, as well as diminished perceptions of
likeability, against women enacting dominance. They argued that
dominance is a high status characteristic that is incongruent with
women’s low status ranking on the social hierarchy. In line with
this argument, a recent study of U.S. military personnel found that
relative to women whose pay grades were lower than those of their
commanding officer, women subordinates whose pay grades were
closer to those of their commanding officers (signaling high status)
received more negative performance evaluations that hindered
their upward movement (Inesi & Cable, 2015).
Hiring of Black women
Although perceptions of role incongruity have been shown to
inhibit women in general from being hired into stereotype-
incongruent industries that require dominance, perceptions of
Black women as more masculine and agentic have been shown to
facilitate their entry into positions requiring masculine qualities,
such as assertiveness or forcefulness (Hall, Galinsky, & Phillips,
2015). Providing further support for dominance prescriptions
conferred to Black women, Richardson, Phillips, Rudman, and Glick
(2011) demonstrate that participants rated a Black career woman
behaving assertively as equally likeable and hireable as an
identically described White man, while a White woman and Black
man portrayed in the same way suffered backlash. Thus,
intersectional stereotype content can insulate Black women from
repercussions during hiring that women in general, or perhaps
White women specifically, often face.
Although intersectional stereotypes of Black women may
convey certain advantages during the hiring process, Black women
may also face unique challenges and repercussions resulting from
these stereotypes in different contexts. While dominance may be
positively construed in certain organizational settings, the trait is
often perceived as interpersonally negative (Rubin & Badea, 2007).
Thus, Black women with natural Afrocentric hairstyles, a hair
choice that has been associated with dominance and militancy, are
evaluated as less professional than Black women with Eurocentric
hairstyles (Opie & Phillips, 2015). Further, Black women with
natural hairstyles also are viewed as less competent and are less
likely to receive an interview recommendation than White women
or Black women with straightened hair (Koval & Rosette, 2018).
Because natural hair is a major signal of Black identity (Maddox,
2014; Mercer, 1996), it may increase the activation of stereotypes
ascribed to Black women as lacking competence, thus limiting
their perceived hireability.
Hiring of Asian women
Asian women are perceived quite differently from Black women
during the hiring process as a result of both their presumed
competence and perceived passivity. Emerging evidence from
Ponce de Leon and Rosette (2018) suggests that competence
perceptions have a highly influential and positive effect on Asian
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
women’s hiring experiences. When participants assumed the role
of a manager hiring for a leadership position described as requiring
problem solving, analytical thinking, and computational prowess,
they hired Asian women significantly more than either Black or
White women job candidates. However, as Asian women are
proscribed dominance (Berdahl & Min, 2012), they also are likely to
experience backlash in hiring and promotions when they exhibit
traits such as assertiveness or aggression. Therefore, Asian women
are likely perceived as most suitable for roles that necessitate a
high level of skill but not assertiveness or dominance.
Leadership perceptions of women in general
Many of the perceptions and mechanisms reviewed thus far
also translate to perceptions of the same subgroups of women at
leadership levels. Based on the tenets of role congruity theory
(Eagly & Karau, 2002), prescriptive gender stereotypes contribute
to backlash against dominant, stereotype-disconfirming women,
which disadvantage them as they seek and occupy leadership roles
(e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2007; Jeong & Harrison, 2017; Kalev, Dobbin, &
Kelly, 2006; Wright, Baxter, & Birkelund, 1995). Even holding all
other variables constant, women are evaluated less positively than
men in leadership positions, and the bias against them increases
when the leader’s task is perceived to require dominance or
assertiveness (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Indeed, women
who exert leader-like dominance garner less favorable impressions
and performance evaluations (Lyness & Heilman, 2006). For
example, women CEOs described as talking more than other
CEOs, a signal of interpersonal dominance, were rated as less
suitable for leadership than women described as talking less
(Brescoll, 2011).
Testing whether an angry woman can get ahead, Brescoll and
Uhlmann (2008) manipulated the gender and emotional reactions
of a high-ranking CEO participating in an interview. They found
that when the woman CEO expressed anger, an emotion shown to
be related to dominance (Tiedens, 2001), in response to losing an
important account, they were conferred lower status, rated as less
competent, and offered a lower salary than women who did not
express emotion. Men who expressed anger were not subjected to
the same penalties. These backlash processes influence not only
how others perceive women leaders, but also how women perceive
themselves (von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa & McFarlane, 2015;
Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014). Overall, gender
and leadership research tends to suggest that dominant women
leaders face hostile responses, which limit their access to high-
powered roles and diminish perceptions of their effectiveness in
such roles.
Leadership perceptions of Black women
Although Black women face heightened perceptions of
incompetence relative to White women, the behavioral freedom
resulting from their dominance prescriptions can benefit them in
leadership positions. Black women are more likely than women
from other racial groups to be selected for leadership roles
necessitating fierceness and competitiveness (Galinsky et al.,
2013), a finding that signals that the perceptions of agentic
deficiency that typically preclude women from attaining leader-
ship roles may not serve as a barrier in the same way for Black
women. One of the first studies to examine the organizational
implications of Black women’s unique stereotypes found that
while dominant White women were rated as less effective leaders
and as lower in status than communal White women, Black
women were evaluated equally positively whether they expressed
communality or dominance (Livingston et al., 2012). Thus, when
the findings of Brescoll and Uhlmann (2008; see the results
detailed in the previous section) are considered alongside the
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
findings of Livingston et al. (2012), it appears that angry White
women may be left behind in terms of leadership attainment, but
angry Black women perhaps can get ahead as a result of their
unique dominance prescriptions.
The concept of intersectional invisibility offers an alternative
explanation for why Black women may sometime be spared from
negative evaluations. It suggests that people with multiple
subordinate identities are rendered non-prototypical members
of their constituent identity groups and, therefore, literally go
unnoticed under some circumstances (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach,
2008). Arguing that Black women may evade the backlash typically
leveraged against White women due to this invisibility, Biernat and
Sesko (2013) explored competence and salary judgments for
employees participating in a work-related task. Participants read
that a mixed-sex team of employees (either composed of a Black
woman and a Black man; a Black woman and a White man; a White
woman and a Black man; or a White woman and White man) had
engaged in a stereotypically masculine task: designing and
developing a software system. Regardless of whether the employ-
ees successfully accomplished the task, participants exhibited pro-
male bias only when both interacting employees were White. Black
women, on the other hand, were rated the same as White and Black
male partners in terms of both competence and deserved salary,
including on items assessing their displays of leadership behaviors.
Despite these benefits, the stereotypes ascribed to Black
women can also hinder their leadership attainment. Although
dominance can be attractive for leadership, the incompetence
often associated with Black women is not. While most studies
examining this presumed incompetence have specifically used
Black male targets, a range of findings support the notion that Black
women suffer from perceptions of incompetence that disadvan-
tage them in organizational settings (Bertrand & Mullainathan,
2004; Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992; Settles, 2006). In the
leadership realm, Rosette and Livingston (2012) demonstrated that
when Black women were described as running companies with
declining profits, they received the lowest ratings of leader
effectiveness as compared to White women, Black men, and
White men. Perceptions of Black women as the least typical of
leaders explained this relationship, suggesting that Black women
must work harder than other groups to demonstrate their
competence and appropriateness for high-status job roles. This
result contrasts with findings from research on the “glass cliff,”
which suggests that women in general are more likely to be asked
to lead organizations in financially precarious positions because
they are perceived to possess the attributes that are suitable for
managing these situations (Haslam & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Haslam,
2007; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2011; Ryan, Haslam,
Hersby, Kulich, & Atkins, 2007). Therefore, although Black women
may experience benefits once they access leadership roles because
of dominance stereotypes, their presumed incompetence likely
impedes their attainment of top roles and at least partially explains
their immense underrepresentation in leadership roles.
Leadership perceptions of Asian women
Broad stereotypes of Asian women as intelligent and competent
(Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Rosette et al., 2016) may privilege them
during the leader recognition phase. Because assessments of
leadership potential are often formed through evaluations of the
competence, intelligence, and capability of candidates, perceptions
of the superordinate category of women as lacking the task-related
skills for successful leadership that prevent their categorization as
leaders (Heilman, 1983; Lyness & Heilman, 2006; Vial, Napier, &
Brescoll, 2016) may not generalize to Asian women (Rosette et al.,
2016). Nonetheless, they are also seen as passive and aloof and
these perceptions may loom large when assessing their attempts to
ascend up the corporate ladder.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
7
The intersectional identity of Asian women leads them to
contend with a “bamboo ceiling” (Hyun, 2005) that also stifles
their access to upper-echelon positions rather than the glass
ceiling experienced by White women. For example, Asian women
may fail to attain leadership roles due to differences between their
submissive communication styles and more assertive styles
expected of typical leaders, emphasizing the stereotype incongru-
ence between Asian women and leaders. Across three studies, Lee
and Williams (2018), found that the speech patterns of Asian
women aspiring to be leaders was judged as less self-expressive,
confident, and optimistic than that of White women. These less
dominant speech patterns resulted in evaluations of Asian women
as less promotable and desirable for leadership positions than
White women. This perception of Asian women as docile and meek
likely affects perceptions of their ability to occupy top leadership
roles, which often embody stereotypically masculine traits such as
assertiveness and dominance (Galinsky et al., 2013; Festekjian,
Tram, Murray, Sy & Huynh, 2014).
Summary: intersectionality, stereotypes, and backlash
Although research has attempted to find nuances and
contextual moderators of some gender and backlash findings,
most scholarship still attributes those findings to all women (e.g.,
Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014). Drawing on a
growing pattern of more nuanced results, we show that
intersectionality matters in consistently impactful ways when
considering backlash effects against different subgroups of
women. For years, researchers explored the communal stereotypes
ascribed to women and demonstrated that perceptions of women
as kind, warm, and gentle – but not dominant (and competent) –
interfered with their entry into organizations and senior leader-
ship positions. However, upon closer inspection, what becomes
apparent is that much of the existing literature on gender
stereotypes and backlash is tantamount to the study of White
women’s organizational experiences.
Black women are uniquely cast as dominant but lacking
competence, whereas Asian women are viewed as highly compe-
tent but inadequately dominant. The distinct stereotypes applied
to Black and Asian women can shield them from some of the
negative organizational experiences that White women face but
may exacerbate others, when hiring and leadership opportunities
are considered. Black women may avoid negative hiring and
leadership repercussions associated with dominant behavior but
may confront other barriers due to perceptions of their incompe-
tence. Asian women may be viewed as more hireable than other
women, but presumptions of their meekness and passivity may
impede their organizational advancement. The repercussions of
gender backlash are distinct for Black and Asian women because
perceptions of counterstereotypical behavior – the basis of gender
backlash – are distinct from those ascribed to the superordinate
category of women, in general, and to White women, specifically.
Gender bias and job roles
Gender stereotypes, among other factors, influence the
positions that women are allowed to occupy in organizations
and the resources they receive. Job roles, type of occupation, and
one’s position within an organization have a direct impact on one’s
earnings, access to power, decision making, resources, and
networks (Heilman, 2001; Kossek, Su, & Wu, 2017). Although
women in general tend to be relatively disadvantaged in the labor
market, occupying lower-paying jobs and positions with less
advancement potential than men, the interplay of gender and race
create particular constraints and opportunities for women from
different racial groups. In this section, we review three factors that
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
8 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
have been shown to affect the types of job roles that women tend
to occupy: occupational segregation, insufficient organizational
support, and the motherhood penalty. We show that while most
women experience disadvantage related to their job roles, women
of different racial groups face unique obstacles as a result of their
gender and race.
Occupational segregation for women in general
Women make up more than half of the U.S. labor force, but they
continue to be overrepresented in clerical, human resources, and
administrative service occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2017a) and underrepresented in high-paying fields ranging from
manual work such as mining and construction to the prestigious,
fast-growing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics) fields (International Labour Organization, 2016). Although
many factors contribute to occupational gender segregation, the
gender bias and stereotype perspective posits that beliefs about
prototypical tasks for men and women limit women’s opportu-
nities in the labor market (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012).
Gender stereotypes based on traditional social roles of men as
breadwinners and women as household caretakers shape expect-
ations for the types of jobs that men and women ought to occupy
(Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Although women’s
labor force participation has increased dramatically over the last
half-century, assumptions about the gendered nature of occupa-
tional roles persist. When they asked people about the most typical
jobs held by men and women, Koenig and Eagly (2014) found that
people thought that the most common occupations held by White
men were high-status jobs such as business professional,
corporative executive, lawyer, and doctor; conversely, people
believed the most common occupations held by White women
were relatively lower-status jobs, such as teacher, nurse, secretary,
or office worker. Similarly, comparing data collected in the early
1980s to data collected in 2014, Haines et al. (2016) found that
participants in both time periods were significantly more likely to
associate men with male-typed occupations (e.g., politician) and
women with female-typed occupations (e.g., administrative
assistant).
A job is gender-typed when it is disproportionally represented
by workers of one gender or when the job responsibilities are
perceived to be gender-linked (Lyness & Heilman, 2006). According
to the lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983, 1995, 2001), women are
most likely to experience occupational sex bias in masculine-typed
jobs, for which they are viewed as lacking the attributes and skills
required to succeed. Judd and Oswald (1997) found that female
applicants applying to be firefighters—a strongly male-typed
occupation—received significantly lower recommendation ratings
than male applicants. More recently, Pinto, Patanakul, and Pinto
(2017) found evidence of occupational sex bias for job applicants in
a similarly male-dominated industry: project management.
Beyond restricting women’s access to male-typed jobs at points
of entry, bias can also subtly funnel men and women into different
paths before they even enter the labor market (Milkman, Akinola,
& Chugh, 2012,2015). This pro-male bias has been shown, for
example, in academic programs in STEM fields (Moss-Racusin,
Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012). Unequal
treatment of male and female students can eventually lead to
different labor market outcomes.
Because different jobs and occupations have differing wage
structures, with masculine-typed jobs typically having higher
status and paying more, the underrepresentation of women in
male-dominated jobs can directly contribute to a gender pay gap
(Blau & Kahn, 2000, 2006; Cha & Weeden, 2014; Joshi, Son, & Roh,
2015; for exceptions, where researchers found either no gender
gap or a reversal of the gender gap, see Gupta, Mortal, & Guo, 2018;
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
Hill, Upadhyay, & Beekun, 2015; and Leslie, Manchester, & Dahm,
2017). One of the largest gender wage gaps is in the masculine-
typed finance and insurance industry, where women earn only 60
cents for every dollar men earn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017b).
Furthermore, extant research has found a wage devaluation in
female-typed occupations, whereby an increase in the proportion
of female workers in an occupation is negatively related to the
salaries and other monetary rewards received by workers in that
occupation (Bellas, 1994; Doucet, Smith, & Durand, 2012). That is,
as more women enter a profession, monetary rewards for workers
in that field diminish, likely due to an institutionalization effect.
When an occupation is seen as “women’s work,” it is viewed as less
valuable or important, which in turn negatively affects the
monetary rewards associated with it (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1987).
Despite this wealth of evidence, we contend that findings from
the gender-stereotyping perspective have been based on views of
White women, yet have been treated as representative of all
women. Given that distinct intersectional stereotypes apply to
women of different races, the specific ways in which gender
stereotyping theories can be applied to understand occupational
segregation may differ for non-White women. In the following
sections, we discuss how this intersection affects job roles most
frequently occupied by Black and Asian women.5
Occupational segregation for Black women
As compared to White women, Black women are more likely to
be segregated into less desirable, lower-paying jobs, such as
domestic helpers, agricultural employees, and factory workers
(Amott & Matthaei, 1991; Cox, 1994; Nkomo & Cox, 1996). For
example, after World War II, Black women took on some of the
worst-paid industrial jobs, some of them so dangerous and
monotonous that White women refused to take them (Amott &
Matthaei, 1991). Today, Black women continue to be overrepre-
sented in the lower strata of occupational position and job
authority, and work in low-wage jobs such as home health aides,
child care, maids, and cashiers (National Women’s Law Center,
2014). Many of these occupations require manual or intensive
labor, unlike the less labor-intensive administrative jobs that
White women are more likely to hold. For example, Koenig and
Eagly (2014) found that whereas both Black and White women are
associated with job roles such as teachers, secretaries, office
workers, and nurses, Black women are uniquely associated with
being cleaning and food service workers and unemployment.
When taking specific stereotypes of Black women into
consideration, the lack-of-fit model (Heilman, 1983, 1995, 2001)
provides a useful framework for understanding the differences in
job roles between Black and White women. Communal gender
stereotypes render White women to be perceived unfit for male-
dominated jobs, but negative stereotypes of Black women can
result in the biased perception that they are only suited for the
lowest-status jobs. For example, the Welfare Queen subtype paints
Black women as lazy and living on governmental assistance
provided to themselves and their children (Collins, 1991). They are
viewed as making poor choices that result in their own poverty or
low social status (Carpenter, 2012). This social perception can have
far-reaching implications for the types of jobs Black women can
get. For instance, when primed with the Welfare Queen subtype,
raters were more inclined to view Black applicants as appropriate
for low-status, rather than high-status, jobs (Monahan, Shtrulis &
Givens, 2005).
5
Although social class plays an important role in shaping racial minority
women’s job roles, the effect of racialized gender stereotypes can often be felt by
women working in both blue- and white-collar jobs. As such, we do not consider
social class as a separate section of our review and analysis here.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
In further contrast to White women, Black women are perceived to
be a poor fit for traditionally female-typed jobs (Galinsky et al.,
2013; Hall et al., 2015). As a result of hyper-masculine
perceptions (Childs, 2005; Walley-Jean, 2009), Black women are
perceived to be more dominant as compared to other racial
subgroups of women (Galinsky et al., 2013). In a series of lab
studies, Hall et al. (2015) found that Black women were perceived
to be more suited to job positions with masculine characteristics
than White or Asian women, but were perceived to be less hireable
for job positions with traditional feminine characteristics. Such
perceptions can lead to a distinctive disadvantage to Black women
if they are perceived to be unfit for feminized jobs such as nurse or
administrative assistant (Kilbourne, England, & Beron, 1994;
Ridgeway & Kricheli-Katz, 2013). Corroborating these findings,
Kilbourne, England, and Beron (1994) and found that Black women
working in a female-dominated occupation received a wage
penalty that was twice as large as that faced by White women.
The association between physical strength and masculinity also
leads to different expectations for Black as compared to White
women while on the job. For example, implicit in the Strong Black
Woman stereotype is a presumption of physical might, which leads
to differential treatment of Black women in occupations seen to
require masculine characteristics. Yoder and Aniakudo (1997), for
instance, found that Black female firefighters were stereotypically
seen as more suited for tasks requiring physical strength and
manual work than White female firefighters, who were perceived
as frail and needing protection. Hence, Black women relative to
White women were expected to shoulder more of the physical
workload.
Intersectional stereotypes can also differentially affect wom-
en’s pay. Black women working full-time in the United States earn
$0.63 for every dollar earned by White men, significantly less than
the $0.79 that White women make for every dollar earned by
White men (Catalyst, 2017). Furthermore, the pay disparity
between Black and White women holds after controlling for
qualifications and other human capital characteristics (e.g., Alon
& Haberfeld, 2007; Kim, 2002; Neal, 2004). Importantly, the
relative disadvantage in pay experienced by Black women cannot
be explained solely by separate effects of sexism and racism. For
example, Kim (2002) found that the sum of the race- and gender-
based earnings penalty was less than the total amount of the
earnings penalty that Black women experienced, suggesting again
that the intersection of gender and race contributed to additional
penalties. The wage gap between Black and White women is at
least partially explained by differences in the types of jobs to
which they have access (Anderson & Shapiro, 1996; Cunningham
& Zalokar, 1992; Gill, 1994).
Occupational segregation for Asian women
Asian women are more likely than White and Black women in
the United States to occupy high-prestige occupations. In fact,
50% of employed Asian women occupy professional and
managerial roles, compared to 45% of White women, 36% of
Black women, and 28% of Hispanic women (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2018). However, they still lag behind White men and
Asian men. In a study of occupational segregation by gender and
race, Xu and Leffler (1992) found that to match the distribution
and representation of White men across the 52 occupations
studied, “70% of the Asian-American women would need
different jobs” (p. 382).
The apparent success of Asian women in attaining high-status
roles relative to White and Black women does not account for the
fact that Asian Americans typically have more years of education
than their White counterparts and thus greater accumulated
human capital (Greenman, 2011). After controlling for human
capital characteristics, Xu and Leffler (1992) found that Asian
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
9
women held significantly less prestigious job positions and only
earned a portion of what their comparable Asian male counter-
parts did. This within-race gender gap was the largest, relative to
other within-race comparisons (i.e. White men versus White
women, Black men versus Black women, and Hispanic men versus
Hispanic women). In academia, Asian female faculty members
generally occupy the most junior ranks and have one of the lowest
tenure rates as compared to all other racial and gender groups;
they are also the least likely among all race groups to hold full
professor positions (National Science Foundation, 2008; Wu & Jing,
2011). Furthermore, while there is very little difference between
the percentage of Asian male and female college graduates who
attend graduate school, Asian men’s representation in faculty
positions in STEM fields significantly increases with further
education, while Asian women’s representation rate drops (Wu
& Jing, 2011). Thus, the rate of return on human capital is
significantly lower for Asian women as compared to Asian men and
White women.
One factor that contributes to the occupational patterns of
Asian women may be the hyper-feminine Lotus Blossom subtype
with which they are associated. Across five studies, Hall et al.
(2015) found that Asian women were stereotyped as highly
feminine and thus rated as unsuitable and less hirable for
masculine-typed job positions. In an analysis of Asian female
scientists, Williams and Dempsey (2014) found that Asian
American women reported a wide range of problems associated
with being perceived as “too feminine”; for example, they were
expected to subserviently perform administrative work, which was
associated with little potential for advancement. Compounded by
the Model Minority stereotype, which views Asians as particularly
reliable, these expectations lead Asian women faculty members to
report being treated like “perennial lab assistants or as postdocs”
(Williams & Dempsey, 2014, p. 249). Thus, not only are Asian
women often perceived as unsuitable for leadership positions, but
they are also expected to perform routine, menial tasks with quiet
accommodation.
Organizational support for women in general
As compared to men, women are more likely to report
insufficient organizational support, especially in managerial
positions and male-dominated occupations (Cheryan, Ziegler,
Montoya, & Jiang, 2017; Ely, 1995; Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012;
Kossek et al., 2017; Taylor, 2010). McDonald and Westphal (2013)
found that women who were first-time board of director members
received less mentoring about important behavioral norms in the
boardroom, which resulted in fewer appointments to other
boards—an important signal of status—as compared to their male
counterparts. In another study, McDonald, Keeves, and Westphal
(2018) found that following the appointment of a woman CEO at
their firm, White male managers experienced less organizational
identification and subsequently were less likely to extend help to
women executives at the firm. In a study of aircraft pilots, Germain,
Herzog, and Hamilton (2012) found that women aircraft pilots
reported receiving inadequate training and feelings of social
isolation and lack of acceptance, which negatively affected their
levels of confidence and self-efficacy, all of which contributed to a
higher turnover rate. Venkatesh, Windeler, Bartol, and Williamson
(2017) also found that female IT employees are more sensitive to
the social support available in the firm than their male colleagues
and use it to evaluate person-job and person-organization fit; thus,
the issue of support may be particularly salient to women in male-
typed industries.
Insufficient support in leadership positions and male-dominat-
ed industries reduces women’s sense of belonging and has
important implications for their participation rate in these jobs.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
10 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
In the context of male-dominated industries, Good et al. (2012)
found that women rated a lack of support and a sense of belonging
as key reasons for their decision not to work in STEM jobs.
Similarly, Murphy, Steele, and Gross (2007) found that environ-
mental cues highlighting a gender imbalance at a STEM conference
decreased female students’ sense of belonging and desire to
participate in the conference. To the extent that a lack of
organizational support reduces women’s sense of belonging, they
are less likely to stay in, apply for, or re-apply for male-dominated
jobs and male-typed positions, such as senior executive roles
(Brands & Fernandez-Mateo, 2016), which further contributes to
the perpetuation of women’s lower status and occupation of
lower-paying job roles.
Organizational support for Black women
There are even fewer Black women than White women
represented in senior positions in organizations relative to their
proportions in the broader U.S. population (Catalyst, 2018).
Consequently, adequate organizational support is arguably harder
to come by for Black women. Bell and Nkomo’s (2003) study of
female executives found that while both Black and White women
reported a sense of isolation from their male-dominated corporate
environment, Black women had fewer role models and network
contacts on which they could rely. Further, because Black women
face the negative stereotype that they are unintelligent and
incompetent, they often felt greater pressure to achieve in order to
be perceived as legitimate as compared to their White counter-
parts (Bell & Nkomo, 2003; Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001; Williams
& Dempsey, 2014). In an attempt to gain organizational support,
Black women also felt a greater need to engage in impression
management strategies by maintaining a professional image at
work and concealing their non-work identities (Hewlin, 2003,
2009; Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009). For example, Black
women were less likely to discuss sensitive topics (e.g., racial bias)
with their managers than White women. This lack of informational
disclosure and sharing came at a cost, as it negatively predicted
Black women’s satisfaction with their career advancement
opportunities and organization engagement (Catalyst, 2004).
Whereas White women report inadequate organizational
support in masculine-typed occupations, this negative experience
is amplified for Black women. In a series of studies on firefighters,
Yoder and Aniakudo (1997) and Yoder and Berendsen (2001) found
that Black women experienced social isolation that was distinc-
tively different from that of other minority groups, namely White
women and Black men. White female firefighters were able, at
least to some extent, to become accepted by members of the in-
group by using their racial identification with White male
firefighters, and Black male firefighters were able to leverage
their gender identification; however, Black women were not able
to leverage either their gender or racial identities to forge
relationships with their White male coworkers. Furthermore,
while White women experienced the silent treatment from male
coworkers, it decreased significantly over the years after they had
sufficiently proven themselves. No such tempering occurred for
Black women. These findings illustrate the crux of the intersec-
tionality argument: rather than being treated similarly to each of
their superordinate gender or racial groups, Black women are
instead treated as a distinct category, as secluded and marginalized
from the other groups.
Because of these additional layers of insufficient organizational
support, Black women’s sense of belonging may be further reduced
in organizations. As a result, they may be more sensitive than White
women to support-related issues. For example, Apfelbaum, Ste-
phens, and Reagans (2016) found that Black women have more
representation-based concerns—concerns that they would be
treated differently because of their race and gender—than either
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
Black men or White women. Furthermore, because their gender and
racial identities (i.e., being female and Black) do not fit with the
prototypes of their respective superordinate identity groups (i.e.,
being male and White), they are also often rendered invisible
(Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). As such, Black women find
themselves engaging in identity shifting by adopting dual personas
that appease both White and Black communities (Bell, 1990; Jones &
Shorter-Gooden, 2004; Parker, 2002). In a survey of Black women,
Jones and Shorter-Gooden (2004) found that 58% of 333 respondents
reported engaging in identity shifting in order to be accepted by
Whites. Identity shifting has been documented by both Black women
occupying senior organizational positions and those at early stages of
their careers. At senior levels, Parker (2002) found that Black women
executives deliberately engaged in indirect and unassertive com-
munication, and avoided conflicts in order to negate the Angry Black
Woman subtype. Dickens and Chavez (2018) found similar identity
shifting behaviors among Black women early in their careers. The
respondents in their study described feeling pressure to speak in an
articulate and tame manner to avoid being seen as overly aggressive.
While these strategies could potentially help Black women gain
approval and support, particularly from their White counterparts,
the engagement in identity shifting can be exhausting and
stressful, and is associated with a feeling of inauthenticity (Dickens
& Chavez, 2018).
Organizational support for Asian women
Much less organizational behavior research has examined Asian
women’s experiences in the workplace. However, results from
educational leadership suggests that Asian women who are school
administrators often report insufficient organizational support,
such as a lack of role models and lack of access to networks (Liang &
Peters-Hawkins, 2017). Moreover, as with Black women, Asian
women report a sense of isolation, invisibility, and a constant
pressure to have to work hard to prove themselves (Hune, 1998;
Turner, 2002).
Despite these similar experiences, Asian women face unique
challenges as a result of their gender and racial intersectionality.
The Model Minority stereotype creates the expectation that Asian
women should accomplish their work and navigate the organiza-
tional landscape on their own, without seeking mentoring from
others. The attention Asian women receive via the Model Minority
stereotype means that their performance is also more closely
scrutinized than that of White women, and asking for help can
elicit the perception that they are incompetent and underqualified
(Paludi & Coates, 2011). In a study of public school administration,
Liang and Peters-Hawkins (2017) found that Asian women rarely
sought out mentorship, as they were uncomfortable approaching
others to ask for guidance. As a result, they took on additional work
without supportive social resources. Asian women leaders lacked
guidance on specific strategies to help them advance their careers
and tended to “accept a given position rather than seek for one,
were reluctant to showcase their own work and achievement, and
tended to view self-promotion as distasteful and arrogant” (Liang &
Peters-Hawkins, 2017, p. 53–54).
Asian women also report being the target of micro-aggressions
and discrimination based on their intersectional identity (Liang &
Peters-Hawkins, 2017; Sotello & Turner, 2002; Wei, 1996; Williams
& Dempsey, 2014). Over time, these negative experiences erode
self-confidence and psychological well-being, and engender feel-
ings of self-doubt and frustration (Jay, 2009; Paludi & Coates, 2011).
Asian women have been shown to engage in self-blame to cope
with these negative experiences. Liang and Peters-Hawkins (2017)
found that a common coping strategy for Asian women who were
public school administrators was to personalize the problems they
encountered at work. Specifically, they attributed struggles and
challenges at work to internal flaws, including “personality,
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
upbringing, competency, or some other personal aspects” (Liang &
Peters-Hawkins, 2017, p. 58). For example, one participant believed
her “soft” personality explained why her male colleagues did not
take her opinions seriously. Asian women may be more likely to
engage in such internal attribution strategies in an attempt to
navigate the organizational landscape as racial and gender
minorities, but they come at a substantial cost, negatively affecting
their authenticity and sense of well-being.
The motherhood penalty for women in general
Another widely recognized factor that hinders women’s job
experience is the motherhood penalty, wherein working mothers
are negatively evaluated due to their parental status. For working
women, motherhood is linked to worse labor market outcomes,
such as lower pay, reduced likelihood of getting hired and
promoted, less training, and more on-the-job mistreatment as
compared to non-mothers (Budig & England, 2001; Cuddy, Fiske, &
Glick, 2004; England, Bearak, Budig, & Hodges, 2016; Gloor, Li, Lim,
& Feierabend, 2018; Hideg, Krstic, Trau, & Zarina, 2018; Miner,
Pesonen, Smittick, Seigel, & Clark, 2014; Morgenroth & Heilman,
2017). The motherhood penalty is at least partially attributable to
stereotypes associated with being a mother. Motherhood triggers
the Housewife subtype, which paints working mothers as highly
warm but not competent (Cuddy et al., 2004; Bear & Glick, 2017;
Heilman & Okimoto, 2008).
In addition to suffering negative inferences about their
competence, working mothers are also perceived to have a lower
level of job commitment than non-mothers, which further
contributes to the obstacles they face (Cuddy et al., 2004; Morgan,
Walker, Hebl, & King, 2013). In a field experiment, Morgan et al.
(2013) found that retail store managers were less likely to offer a
pregnant applicant a job application form than a non-pregnant
applicant, even after the pregnant applicant emphasized her
competence at the job. Morgenroth and Heilman (2017) found that
women who chose to take maternity leave were seen as less
competent employees and less deserving of organizational
rewards than women who chose to not take maternity leave,
while the latter were seen as worse parents and less desirable
partners. Thus, negative stereotypes about working mothers put
them in a double bind as they try to balance their career and
parenting. This wide-ranging penalty leads many working mothers
to either transfer to part-time work or drop out of the workforce
entirely, moves that further shape the job roles that women occupy
(Williams, 2010).
Gendered expectations about working mothers affect not only
how mothers are evaluated in the workplace but also the division
of labor at home. Working women generally spend more hours per
day on household responsibilities than men. In households where
both partners work full-time in professional jobs, 41% of women
report doing more childcare and 30% report doing more household
chores than their male partners (McKinsey and Company & Lean In,
2015). The additional family responsibility makes it difficult for
women to spend prolonged hours at work, with far-reaching
implications for their careers (Cha & Weeden, 2014; Reskin &
Padavic, 2006). For example, England et al. (2016) found that,
among White women, the most highly skilled and well paid
experienced the largest loss of income due to motherhood, which
was largely attributable to taking even small amounts of time off
for childrearing. These perceptions and expectations for mothers
about work and home collectively contribute to a motherhood
penalty that holds women back in the labor market.
The motherhood penalty for Black women
Although most working mothers experience the motherhood
penalty to some extent, the particular intersectional ways in which
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
11
Black women experience it can be quite different from how it is
experienced by White women. The Housewife subtype is based on
the traditional family roles for White middle-class families, in
which women are expected to stay at home to take care of their
children. The historical experiences of Black women differ
substantially. Dating back to the slavery era in the United States,
Black women have been expected to work. Not working is often
perceived negatively for Black women. For example, the Welfare
Queen subtype casts them as lazy, unreliable, and irresponsible
(Collins, 1991). Assessing people’s expectations of Black mothers
and their employment status, Cuddy and Wolf (2013) found that
stay-at-home Black mothers were perceived to be the least
hardworking and the least deserving of rewards as compared to
working Black mothers, stay-at-home White mothers, and working
White mothers. In contrast, White mothers were rated as less
hardworking if they worked outside the home than if they stayed
home with their children. Thus, White mothers receive more
backlash if they work than if they do not, and Black mothers
experience more prejudice and bias if they do not work.
Despite the longstanding expectation that Black mothers
should participate in the labor force, they still face negative
evaluations for doing so from their employers. When White
mothers apply for jobs, their job commitment is often questioned
due to the assumption that childcare responsibilities will interfere
with their work performance. Research examining the evaluation
of Black mothers also finds that they are evaluated negatively by
potential employers, but against a distinct intersectional subtype
that makes them more likely than White women to be rejected.
Based on 78 structured interviews with White managers in Atlanta,
Kennelly (1999) identified a widely-held perception of blue-collar
Black working mothers as single mothers. Rosenthal and Lobel
(2016) replicated the Single Mother subtype in an experimental
study. Manipulating the race and pregnancy status of a target, they
found that the pregnant Black female target was perceived as more
likely to be a single mother and on welfare than the pregnant
White target. As demonstrated in Kennelly’s (1999) study, the
Single Mother subtype led employers to believe that Black women
were poorly prepared for the labor market, as they were perceived
to be the most unreliable, distracted workers and the most likely to
be late or absent because of childcare concerns across all racial
groups.
In addition to different stereotypes associated with Black versus
White mothers, gender roles at home might also differ for White
and Black women, with implications for the operation and severity
of the motherhood penalty. While White women may feel
pressured to drop out of the workforce and engage in childrearing
activities full time, Black women face an opposite expectation,
namely that they should work. Not surprisingly, then, Black
women are less likely than White women to drop out of the
workforce after becoming mothers (Blair-Loy & DeHart, 2003;
Budig & England, 2001; Glauber 2007; Waldfogel, 1997). This trend
may be due in part to the fact that Black women are more likely to
see their roles as the breadwinner and childcare provider as
complementary rather than in competition, while White women
are more likely to see these two roles as conflicting (Blair-Loy &
Dehart, 2013; Wiley, 1991). Furthermore, Black women are more
likely than White women to rely on extended family and friend
networks for assistance with childcare (Collins, 1991; Toliver,
1998). As a result, Black women are less likely to suffer a wage
penalty after becoming mothers. Indeed, in their study of 203 Black
female attorneys, Blair-Loy and DeHart (2003) did not find a wage
penalty associated with either marriage or motherhood.
The motherhood penalty for Asian women
Whereas White and Black mothers have both been shown to
suffer the motherhood penalty, nascent research on perceptions of
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
12 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Asian mothers indicates they might uniquely escape this penalty.
Denny (2014) found that while White mothers were evaluated
more negatively than a childless White applicant, Asian mothers—
especially those who demonstrated a high level of maternal
involvement—were evaluated more favorably than a childless
Asian applicant. Moreover, Asian mothers were perceived to be
more hardworking, likely to have higher performance, and
deserving of more organizational rewards than White mothers.
These findings are consistent with results from qualitative
interviews conducted by Williams and Dempsey (2014), who
found that Asian women, as compared to both White and Black
women, “face fewer negative competence and commitment
assumptions based on motherhood” (p. 257). Although empirical
research is needed to directly test the mechanisms of these
patterns, it may be that the Model Minority stereotype helps
mitigate perceptions of lower competence and job commitment
for working mothers (Cuddy et al., 2004). If this is the case, Asian
women’s intersecting racial and gender identities may enable
them to be seen as both good mothers and productive contributors
to organizations.
In terms of the effects of motherhood on actual labor
participation rate, empirical evidence suggests that Asian mothers
are less likely to drop out of the workforce than White mothers.
This pattern is at least partially attributed to Asian cultural values
and family structures. Whereas work and family are viewed as two
distinctly separate domains in individualistic societies such as the
United States, the relationship between work and family is
perceived as more interdependent in collectivist cultures, such
as those found in East Asia (Cheung & Halpern, 2010). Unlike in
individualistic cultures, where overwork is perceived as sacrificing
one’s family time in order to advance one’s career, overwork is
perceived as a means of securing financial stability for the family in
collectivist cultures (Greenman, 2011; Spector et al., 2004; Yang,
Chen, Choi, & Zou, 2000). Furthermore, Asian women are more
likely to benefit from the ability to rely on extended family
networks for childcare than White women, as many Asian cultural
traditions dictate that older adults should live with or near their
married children (Wilmoth, De Jong, & Himes, 1997). Combined
with a strong norm for grandparents to assist with childcare, this
multigenerational household structure helps shoulder some of
Asian mothers’ parental burdens (Chen, Short, & Entwisle, 2000).
As a result of these factors, Asian women are less likely to take time
off work to assume childcare responsibilities, compared to White
women.
Staying in the labor force, in turn, has important implications
for Asian women’s earnings. Greenman (2011) found in a sample of
scientists and engineers that, because Asian women were less
likely to respond to parenthood by reducing their work hours, they
accumulated greater work experience over time and had higher
earnings as compared to White women of similar ages and
qualifications. Importantly, there was no difference in earnings
between Asian men and White men, suggesting that this effect
could not be attributed to a race effect alone.
Summary: intersectionality, bias, and job roles
Collectively, occupational segregation, insufficient organiza-
tional support, and the motherhood penalty can negatively affect
the types of organizational positions that women tend to occupy. In
terms of occupational segregation, a priori gender stereotypes cue
expectations about the types of jobs suitable for women and funnel
them into different jobs than men at organizational entry. Over
time, this gendered pattern of employment contributes to the
underrepresentation of women in masculine-typed positions or
roles. As such, women are less likely to have role models or
mentors who will support their career growth. Finally, if women
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
become mothers, gender stereotypes further restrict their
employment and advancement.
Yet the pattern changes, sometimes dramatically, when gender
is considered in tandem with race. Black women are directed into
lower-level but more manual jobs because of their presumed
(physical) strength and lack of intellectual competence. They are
often shunned from mentoring relationships and group social
networks, even in these lower-level positions, with little likelihood
that they will be “adopted” by their superordinate gender or racial
groups. Although they are expected to work even when they have
children at home, perceptions of their competence and job
commitment are anticipated to drop even further. Asian women,
on the other hand, are presumed competent and occupy more
professional jobs. However, they are expected both to acquiesce to
others and to solve problems by themselves rather than to seek out
support. They also seem not to suffer the motherhood penalty to
the extent as do White women, as their support at home allows
them to continue working with the same level of commitment and
presumed proficiency.
Workplace sexual harassment
Regardless of the job roles and positions that women come to
occupy in the workplace, they still often have to contend with
sexual harassment, defined as “behavior that derogates, demeans,
or humiliates an individual based on that individual’s sex” (p. 644;
Berdahl 2007). The negative effects of such experiences on both
employees and organizations are clear: Sexual harassment has
deeply damaging, long-term consequences on women’s experi-
ences on the job. Although women are at the center of research and
discussions about sexual harassment (Cortina & Berdahl, 2008;
Berdahl, 2007) and the MeToo movement has shone light on its
underreported prevalence in the workplace (O’Neil, Sojo, Fileborn,
Scovelle, & Milner, 2018; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2018), the intersection of gender
and race are not always considered in such examinations.
For non-White women, sexual harassment occurs against a
complex backdrop of racial subordination in conjunction with
perceptions of racial and gendered stereotypes.6 For example,
subtypes of both Black and Asian women include elements of
hypersexualization and fetishism that could influence how people
view sexual harassment of them. The subtype of Jezebel casts Black
women as attractive and highly sexual temptresses who are
seductive, flirtatious, and promiscuous (Collins, 1998; Pratt, 2012;
Reynolds-Dobbs, Thomas, & Harrison, 2008; Townsend, Nielands,
Thomas, & Jackson, 2010), as well as sexually deviant and
licentious (Cho, 1997; West, 2008). Meanwhile, the Lotus Blossom
subtype casts Asian women as delicate, virginal coquettes (Kim &
Chung, 2005; Shrake, 2006). These particular subtypes underscore
that disregarding race when considering the effects of sexual
harassment on women may obscure important nuances in
women’s experiences. In this section, we discuss the frequency
of sexual harassment against women in general followed by how
these occurrences may differ for women of color. We then examine
the various consequences of sexual harassment in organizations,
including its negative impact on job attitudes and psychological
well-being, as well as its legal ramifications.
6
Although we have focused on contrasting the organizational experiences of
White, Black, and Asian women throughout this review, in this section we largely
juxtapose findings on sexual harassment against White women with that against
non-White women more generally. We structure this section in this manner both
because of the limited intersectional scholarship on sexual harassment and because
much of the existing intersectional research in this domain does not differentiate
among racial groups represented in samples of non-White women.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Frequency of occurrence for women in general
Statistics on the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment
against women indicate that the problem remains persistent
across organizations in the United States. The EEOC received 6696
claims of sexual harassment in 2017, over 80% of which were filed
by women (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018).
However, a breadth of evidence suggests that most experiences of
sexual harassment go unreported, for a variety of reasons
(Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016), complicating estimates of its frequency
in organizations. A recent nationally representative study con-
ducted by the organization Stop Street Harassment (2018) found
that 38% of women reported experiencing some form of sexual
harassment in the workplace, while the latest findings from Pew
Research Center (Graf, 2018) report that 55% of women polled said
they had experienced sexual harassment both in and outside of the
workplace. Because women often fail to formally report sexual
harassment and because admitting victimization can be stigma-
tizing, true estimates of the rates of sexual harassment remain
largely unknown. Regardless, the widespread nature of this form of
discrimination is evident.
Frequency of occurrence for non-White women
Recent studies indicate that race affects both the frequency and
intensity of sexual harassment as experienced by women.
Although research on the specific rates of sexual harassment
among subgroups of women is both limited and inconsistent,
statistics indicate that sexual harassment tends to occur most often
in low-wage industries, such as food service, retail, and
manufacturing (Frye, 2017). Because non-White women represent
almost half of low-income workers (Tucker & Patrick, 2017), their
risk of sexual harassment at work may be particularly great.
Further, the EEOC reports that claims of sexual harassment filed
among White women have declined by about 30% over the last 20
years, while complaints filed by Black women have remained
stable (Cassino, 2018).
Although discussion of the ways in which race and sex magnify
experiences of harassment for non-White women has persisted
since the 1970s (e.g. Almquist, 1975; Beal, 1970; Moraga &
Anzaldua, 1981), Berdahl and Moore (2006) conducted one of
the first quantitative studies to test the predictions offered by this
“double jeopardy hypothesis” among a random sample of union
members. Women of color in this study experienced more overall
workplace harassment than any other group as a result of
compounded racial and sexual harassment. While focused on
gender bias broadly, Williams’ (2014) interviews with women in
science revealed that Asian and Black women reported that the
harassment they faced based on their gender was difficult to
separate from the bias they experienced due to race. This
observation also emerged in a sample of Canadian women of
color (Welsh, Carr, MacQuarrie, & Huntley, 2006).
Building on such findings, a study of low-income union
members in Boston revealed that 20% of White women had
experienced sexual harassment at work as compared to up to
35% of non-White women, statistics that suggest the magnifying
effects of race and class dimensions on sexual harassment
(Krieger et al., 2006). Similarly, the results of McLaughlin,
Uggen, and Blacktone’s (2012) longitudinal study of the
antecedents of workplace sexual harassment demonstrated
that Whites experienced a lower rate of harassment than people
of color. Non-White women in non-supervisory roles were also
subjected to more sexual harassment than women in the same
roles, again indicating the multiple aspects of identity, including
gender, race, and class, that converge to shape workplace
experiences.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
13
Emotional toll on women in general
Empirical research has long demonstrated that sexual harass-
ment takes a profound emotional toll on its victims (Fitzgerald,
Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Laband & Lentz, 1998;
Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997; Terpstra & Baker, 1988). A
majority of the recent investigations of the outcomes of sexual
harassment have focused on the negative emotional and personal
consequences of such experiences (Sojo, Wood, & Genat, 2016).
Holland and Cortina (2013) uncovered findings supporting the
notion that women endorsing feminist values suffer more negative
outcomes following sexual harassment. Further, survey and
qualitative longitudinal data from McLaughlin et al. (2012) indicate
that not even organizational status protects women from the
emotional turmoil of sexual harassment. Perhaps even more
serious, other studies report that sexual harassment can result in a
variety of psychological disorders, such as post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and depression, which undoubtedly reduce
functioning in organizational settings (Avina & O’Donohue,
2002; Fitzgerald, Collinsworth, & Lawson, 2013; Gutek & Koss,
1993; Larsen & Fitzgerald, 2011; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007).
When women are subjected to sexual harassment in the
workplace, they disengage from their jobs and tend to experience
their organization, coworkers, supervisor, and work itself nega-
tively, to the detriment of both employers and employees.
Emotional toll on non-White women
Although the data overwhelmingly suggest that all employees
subjected to sexual harassment experience a range of negative
psychological outcomes, regardless of race or gender, research that
does explore the joint impact of these two identities suggests that
non-White women may experience these psychological repercus-
sions differently than White women. A study of women in the
military uncovered a high correlation between PTSD symptom
severity and sexual harassment across women, but also found that
Asian women suffered marginally more severe PTSD symptoms as
well as significantly more depression and psychological distress
than White women (Ho, Dinh, Bellefontaine, & Irving, 2012).
Therefore, while PTSD and other signals of psychological harm
commonly result from sexual harassment, their incidence and
severity may differ as a function of a woman’s race. Supporting this
observation, in a study of sexual harassment among military
personnel, Buchanan, Settles, and Woods, (2008) also uncovered
differences in psychological distress, including emotional prob-
lems that interfered with work, experienced by Black and White
women. Although White women exhibited greater psychological
distress when the frequency of gender harassment was low, a high
frequency of gender harassment produced more psychological
distress among Black women than White women. Black officers
also showed the greatest increases in psychological distress as the
frequency of sexual coercion increased. Thus, although Black
women may display increased resilience against sexual harass-
ment when its frequency is low, this resilience may not protect
them from longer-term psychological harm when they regularly
experience harassment.
Relationships between racial and sexual harassment may also
affect the reduced job satisfaction, lower organizational commit-
ment, and increased turnover intentions that are commonly
observed among sexual harassment victims. After observing the
predicted associations between these organizational attitudes and
sexual harassment, Raver and Nishii (2010) also found interaction
effects between sexual and ethnic harassment on all of these
attitudes. Indeed, in a sample of Black women who had
experienced sexual harassment, Woods, Buchanan, and Settles
(2008) found that racialized sexual harassment was common
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
14 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
among these women, particularly when their harasser was White.
In turn, harassing behaviors combining both race and gender
simultaneously resulted in greater PTSD symptomology than
sexual harassment alone. Such racialized sexual harassment may
not affect White women in the same manner, suggesting the
distinct psychological struggles non-White women may face due
to their intersectional identities and, in turn, intersectional
harassment.
Legal implications for women in general
The costs of litigation for employees alleging sexual harassment
are multifaceted and may exacerbate negative psychological
outcomes among accusers. The EEOC reports that in 2018, 56.4%
of the resolutions they handled in sexual harassment cases
resulted in a determination of “no reasonable cause,” indicating
a lack of evidence to pursue the charges filed (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2018). The process of litigation itself can
be psychologically taxing for victims, especially given the high
percentage of unsuccessful cases and the re-traumatization that
can occur when victims must face their harassers during the legal
process. In a study of judicial decisions in sexual harassment suits
in Australia, McDonald, Graham, and Martin (2010) found that
perpetrators frequently aimed to minimize outrage toward them
by covering up their actions, devaluing their victim, reinterpreting
the events, using official channels to give an appearance of justice,
and intimidating involved parties. Thus, litigation can often leave
victims once again vulnerable to the aggression of their
perpetrators.
Despite its illegality, retaliation against victims is a common
and detrimental effect of sexual harassment lawsuits (Bergman,
Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina, & Fitzgerald, 2002; Coles, 1986), which
highlights the job-related risks associated with reporting sexual
harassment. The EEOC reports that in 2017, 38.8% of claims
charging a Title VII violation included accusations of retaliation
against their employer or harasser (Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission, 2017), and a series of studies conducted in 2003
found that 75% of sexual harassment victims who spoke out
experienced retaliation from their organization (Feldblum &
Lipnic, 2016). James and Wooten (2006) found that, unique to
cases involving sexual harassment, organizations indeed engaged
in retributive behaviors against female accusers, such as publiciz-
ing damning information about their personal relationships,
behavior, and dress. These organizations also routinely threatened
employees’ job security in retaliation for filing sexual harassment
charges. Such humiliating and threatening behaviors can deter
women from pursuing litigation and aggravate negative reactions
to sexual harassment.
Legal implications for non-White women
As discussed, sexual harassment often contains a racialized
component when non-White women are its targets, and racial and
sexual harassment frequently co-occur (Bergman & Henning,
2008). Therefore, studies suggesting that compound discrimina-
tion claims are less successful than those claiming discrimination
on a single basis raise concerns for women of color (Best, Edelman,
Krieger, & Eliason, 2011; Kotkin, 2009). When Kimberlé Crenshaw
introduced the concept of intersectionality, judges regularly ruled
against women of color who alleged combined racial and gender
discrimination based on the perceived fair treatment of White
women and men of color in these organizations (e.g., DeGraffenreid
v. General Motors Assembly Division, 1976; Moore v. Hughes
Helicopters, Inc., 1983, Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc., 1981).
However, intersectional discrimination claims have become more
common over the past several decades, and courts have accepted
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
that women of color face discrimination and harassment unique to
their dual-subordinate racial and gender identities (Crenshaw,
1992; Catro & Corral, 1993, e.g. Jefferies v. Harris County Community
Action Association, 1980; Lam v. University of Hawaii, 1994). Yet,
even controlling for the likelihood of filing an intersectional claim,
women of color are only half as likely to win their discrimination
cases (Best et al., 2011). Although these findings pertain to
discrimination broadly, rather than sexual harassment specifically,
they suggest that non-White women may face a distinct
disadvantage in legal settings.
Further, for low-wage workers, race and class dimensions can
exacerbate the difficulties of pursuing a sexual harassment case. As
a high percentage of low-wage workers are women of color
(National Women’s Law Center, 2014), the legal barriers facing
workers from low-income industries reveal the combined effects
of race, gender, and class on sexual harassment litigation. The U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reported that
employees working in organizations with significant power
disparities, cultural and language differences, and norms to which
they do not conform are at far greater risk of harassment (Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016), a sign that women
of color may suffer from heightened sexual harassment and
reporting barriers. Undocumented workers, who are largely
women of color, face further disadvantages. Due to their precarious
immigration status, these women may not report harassment
because of the extreme difficulty of securing steady employment
and fear of deportation (Kristen, Banuelos, & Urban, 2015; Tamayo,
Caffarelli, & Rice, 2012). Although undocumented workers are
mostly afforded the same rights and remedies as U.S. citizens who
experience workplace harassment (Ho & Chang, 2005), their
immigration status may still deter them from pursuing legal action
against their employers. As an additional obstacle, some organiza-
tions have invoked the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman Plastic
Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB to refuse undocumented workers
compensatory wages and reinstatement following a lawsuit
(Kristen et al., 2015). Although aggregate and empirical data on
the specific legal outcomes of sexual harassment cases involving
women of color remain largely unavailable, the various obstacles to
litigation posed by issues related to race and class suggest that
women of color may face additional barriers to pursuing litigation
and fare worse when they do litigate.
Summary: intersectionality and sexual harassment
Attributing the renewed attention to workplace sexual harass-
ment to the fact that “so many of the women that were assaulted by
Harvey Weinstein are famous and White,” actress Jane Fonda
noted, “This has been going on a long time to Black women and
other women of color, and it doesn’t get out quite the same” (no
applicable page number; Hayes & Fonda, 2017). Consistent with
much of the prevailing research on sexual harassment, Fonda
acknowledges a failure to fully incorporate the heightened
susceptibility and distinct challenges for women of color into
sexual harassment discourse. Because of the potentially severe
psychological, organizational, and legal hardships that all victims
of sexual harassment can face, research and advocacy should focus
on greater inclusivity when exploring the antecedents and
consequences of sexual harassment. Considering the effects of
multiple identities on sexual harassment can elucidate the ways in
which organizations can better serve all women employees.
General discussion
How does an intersectional lens enhance our understanding of
gender issues in the workplace? In this review, we compared
organizationally relevant experiences and workplace treatment
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
of two subgroups of women, Asian and Black, to those of women
(in general) and White women (specifically). We also explored
how outcomes related to sexual harassment differ between White
and non-White women. In doing so, we challenge the longstand-
ing implicit view in organizational research of women as a
homogeneous social category. Much of the theory and evidence
we have documented reveals that the intersection of gender with
race critically shapes the experiences of women across racial
subgroups at work.
Broad themes
In comparing the distinctive experiences and treatment of
different subgroups of women, we have highlighted a series of
systemic cognitive and behavioral processes. We propose that at
least two common themes underlie those processes and therefore
comprise fundamental elements of an intersectional viewpoint in
organizational research: (a) unique stereotype content and (b)
exclusion from organizational experiences.
First, unique stereotype content is attributed to varying
categories of women, and these differences influence how
women are perceived. Although most women are perceived as
communal to some extent (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Rosette et al.,
2016), Black and Asian women’s communal attributions coexist
with presumptions that they also possess some variant of agency.
As a result, Black women are most frequently viewed as dominant
and strong, stereotypes akin to the rude, domineering Sapphire
subtype (Walley-Jean, 2009; West, 2008; White, 1999) and the
hardworking but intimidating Matriarch subtype (Fleming, 1983;
Sewell, 2013; Wingfield, 2007), respectively. Conversely, Asian
women’s high levels of presumed competence and passivity are
analogous to the Model Minority subtype (Bell, Harrison, &
McLaughlin, 1997; Kao, 1995; Lee, 1996) and the acquiescing,
docile Lotus Blossom subtype (Hofstede, 1996; Prasso, 2005),
respectively. Further, the subtypes of Jezebel and China doll can
likely influence how sexual proclivities and exploitations are
perceived of Black (e.g., Beal, 1970) and Asian women (Ling, 1999;
Shimizu, 2005), respectively. These overarching stereotypes and
their corresponding subtypes are unique to these subgroups and
elicit different attributions and expectations about Black and
Asian women in the workplace. To the extent that such
stereotypes and subtypes are as powerful or as salient for other
intersectional identities, we would expect them to also generate
distinct patterns of treatment and experience.
Second, the behavioral endpoint of subtyping and stereotyping
is exclusion. The “othering” of those with intersectional identities
puts greater psychological distance between ostensible members
of majority and (intersectional) minority groups (Trope & Liber-
man, 2010). The evidence we reviewed shows that such distance
serves to reject job applicants with intersectional identities, limit
their advancement, prevent them from receiving various forms of
support, isolate them into their own social circles or individual
struggles, and exacerbate the organizational detachment affiliated
with sexual harassment. We would expect distinct stereotype-
exclusion mechanisms to undergird other intersectional groups as
well, a consideration we turn to next.
Additional variants of intersectionality
In our review, we focused primarily on the intersectional effects
of gender and race for Black, Asian, and White women. However, as
we noted previously, the specific combinations of intersectionality
can be massive. In this section, we identify four additional social
categories that may be particularly relevant and important to
organizational research going forward: (a) the intersection of
gender and race for Latinas, (b) intersection of gender and social
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
15
class, (c) intersection of gender and sexual orientation, and (d)
intersectionality in non-U.S. contexts.
The intersection of gender and race for Latinas
Perhaps the greatest surprise, or even frustration, we encoun-
tered in reviewing evidence for this paper was the low volume of
research on Latinas, especially compared to that on Black women
and Asian women. This absence stands in stark contrast to their
presence in the U.S. population as the largest intersectional
minority group defined jointly by gender and race. This low volume
of research might be attributed to Latinas phenotypic similarity to
White women, their ostensible categorization as either Hispanic-
Black or Hispanic-White, or perhaps the lack of a specific salient
subtype persona (aside from the “fiery” Latina). The few studies
that have examined perceptions of Latinas suggest that they too
face stereotypes that are unique from the typical communal
stereotypes ascribed to the superordinate category of women.
Ghavami and Peplau (2013) found that Latinas were most often
characterized as feisty, loud, and uneducated—stereotypes that
differ greatly from those of Asian or White women but overlap
somewhat with those of Black women. Further, Latinas are
generally viewed as intellectually and academically inferior
(Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Harris, 2017; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, &
Solórrzano, 2009), and, like both Black and Asian women, are
frequently sexualized (Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito, Torres, & Talbot,
2000; Vargas, 2010). Specifically, Latinas are often characterized as
highly promiscuous and fertile “bad girls” whose identities are
relegated to that of lowlifes and child-bearers (Garcia, 2009;
Gutiérrez, 2009; López & Chesney-Lind, 2014; McCabe, 2009).
Together, these stereotypes cast Latinas as fierce, unskilled, and
sexual – characteristics that differ considerably from the typical
communal stereotypes ascribed to the superordinate category of
women (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013).
Although the way in which these stereotypes affect Latinas in
the U.S. workplace remains largely underexplored in organiza-
tional research, the studies that do explore Latina identities in
organizations suggest that their organizational experiences both
diverge from and converge with those of other women subgroups.
With regard to perceptions of agency, Cruz and Molina (2010)
showed that Latina attorneys not only contended with presump-
tions of incompetence and a lack of confidence, but also feared
backlash for agentic workplace behaviors at the expense of being
labeled “fiery Latinas.” When considering organizational support,
Flores (2011) found that Latina teachers working with predomi-
nantly White colleagues felt that a racial hierarchy governed much
of the activities at the school and that they felt tokenized, resulting
in both social exclusion and self-segregation. Research on the
motherhood penalty generally has found that Latina mothers
experience greater wage loss than non-Latina White mothers
(Budig & England 2001; Glauber 2007; Keil & Christie-Mizell
2008). Moreover, popular stereotypes and the media cast Latinas as
perpetual immigrants who struggle with English (Browne & Misra,
2003; Roman, 2000), depictions that contribute to their occupa-
tional segregation into lower-status jobs as compared to White
women. The study of Latinas’ unique experiences in organizational
settings is ripe for intersectional exploration.
The intersection of gender and social class
To further understand women’s experiences at work, inter-
sectionality research would benefit greatly from examining how
gender intersects with social categories other than race. One of the
most obvious categories is social class. A considerable amount of
research has focused on the effect of social class on organizational
members’ cognition, behaviors, and experiences (Côté, 2011;
Martin, Côté, & Woodruff, 2016), but few studies have taken an
intersectional perspective (McGinn & Oh, 2017). Indeed, the
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
16 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
majority of the work we reviewed on leadership, organizational
support, and the motherhood penalty comes from samples of
professionals, who are mostly middle- to upper-class. Yet, social
class has long been singled out as one of the most essential features
of intersectional experiences and has been fastened to racial and
gender considerations since the onset of intersectional study (Beal,
1970; hooks, 1984).
The experiences of women from lower class strata may be vastly
different from that of the middle and upper class. For example,
unpredictable, non-standard work schedules are largely concen-
trated in low-wage jobs (Gerstel & Clawson, 2015), a fact that has
important implications for the employment opportunities and
other labor market outcomes of women from lower classes (Kossek
& Lautsch, 2018; Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013). Browne and
Misra (2003) found that Black women living in poor urban areas
were less likely than Black men to leave their community to seek
out better, higher-paying jobs because they relied on their existing
local social networks for childcare. Furthermore, evidence from
sociological research suggests that motherhood may inflict the
largest penalty on low-wage women (Budig & Hodges, 2010). As
the wealth gap in the United States reaches levels not seen since
the Great Depression (Congressional Budget Office, 2013), under-
standing how social class differentially contributes to women’s
experiences in organizations is an important area of inquiry for
organizational scholars.
The intersection of gender and sexual orientation
Another vastly understudied topic in organizational research
is the intersection of sexual orientation and gender. Due to
heteronormative societal standards (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach,
2008) and masculine stereotypes attributed to lesbians (Blashill
& Powlishta, 2009; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Taylor, 1983), organiza-
tional outcomes may differ substantially for lesbian and
heterosexual women. In the domain of hiring, lesbians, unlike
heterosexual women, may benefit from the presumption that
they possess masculine traits associated with career success
(Horvath & Ryan 2003). When they choose to become mothers,
lesbians may also avoid the motherhood penalty, and, like Asian
women, may even receive benefits as a result of motherhood
(Baumle, 2009; Waite & Denier, 2015). Although the reasons
behind these advantages remain unclear, this pattern may be
observed due to more equitable divisions of labor within lesbian
households that allow both partners to maintain higher levels of
work intensity than heterosexual women (Klawitter, 2015).
Consequently, lesbians may be able to amass greater human
capital and work experience, which could explain their higher
wages relative to heterosexual women (Daneshvary, Wadoups, &
Wimmer, 2008; Klawitter, 2015). Additionally, employers may
assume that lesbians will not have children and, resultantly,
offer them more opportunities and promotions than heterosex-
ual women (Klawitter, 2015).
However, lesbians’ sexual minority identity presents its own set
of disadvantages. Employment discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation remains legal in 28 states in the U.S. (Human
Rights Campaign, 2018), leaving lesbians especially vulnerable to
job role constraints (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Tilcsik, Anteby, &
Knight, 2015) and low organizational support (Griffith & Hebl,
2002). Thus, while the experiences of lesbian employees remain
underexplored, findings suggest that considering gender and
sexual orientation in tandem would further enrich our under-
standing of women’s organizational outcomes.
Intersectionality in non-U.S. contexts
Finally, much of the evidence referenced in this review comes
from U.S. samples (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). Of course,
intersectionality is not limited by context or geographical region; it
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
is comprehensive in nature and can persist in organizational and
societal contexts around the globe. We strongly encourage the
development of research programs in other countries to study
combinations of social categories with differing social identities. It
would be especially interesting to see if a pattern of cultural
stereotyping exists for particular intersections (e.g., Muslim men in
Indonesia; indigenous Australian women), which likely would feed
intersectional experiences, such as exclusion (as previously
described), in organizational settings specifically and in society
more generally. The more homogeneous a culture or nation is, the
more likely a dissimilar subgroup is to stand out. Hence, we would
expect intersectionality effects at work for subgroup combinations
within tight cultures to be even stronger than within loose ones
(Gelfand et al., 2011). Comparisons across national and cultural
boundaries of gender intersectionalities might thus be a feasible
set of first steps.
Intersectionality: changing the way we conduct OB research
When attempting to adopt a more intersectional perspective in
organization studies, scholars must (a) consider more systemic
changes in paradigms and (b) address the problem of small
numbers. First, gender and racial differences, both inside and
outside of organizations, have long been studied in social science
research. The replicability of those differences legitimized and
reinforced respective paradigms in cultural anthropology, sociolo-
gy, and psychology (e.g., Tajfel, 1982), all of which serve as
generative disciplines for organizational behavior (OB). Currently,
gender and race variables are conventionally used as controls in OB
research (Spector & Brannick, 2011). Occasionally, when these
demographics are of focal interest, they are crossed with other OB
constructs (e.g., work-family conflict, prosocial behaviors, etc.),
often to show how a mechanism differs across these social
categories.
Yet, the theories and evidence we have reviewed here make it
clear that even well-established differences do not often manifest
or operate in the same way for different combinations of gender
and race. At the very least, we encourage OB researchers to not only
routinely measure multiple features of social categorizations and
social identity, but also to create cross-products of these variables
and check mean differences resulting from intersectionality (e.g.,
Hancock, 2007). For research questions that involve gender or race
as focal theoretical mechanisms, it would be useful to examine
how these mechanisms might be altered or even reversed when
Black women are compared to Latinas, when Asian men are
compared to White men, and so forth. Of course, this process
would require more nuanced theorizing, as noted above, as well as
either deeper or wider data collection, as discussed next.
A second consideration that represents one of the clearest and
strongest challenges to a new, intersectional paradigm is the
unavoidable problem of finding systematic patterns for identity
groups at the crossroads of multiple social categories. The greater
the number of intersecting categories, the greater the limits on
sample size. For example, research on discrimination against
LGBTQ employees rarely appeared in the OB literature before the
year 2000 (e.g., Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Even then, differences in
the treatment and experiences of those who are lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgendered, or queer are likely to be enormous. In
terms of sample size, studying, say, transgendered versus
cisgendered workers in organizational contexts will be difficult
(Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl, & Akers, 2011). Studying differences
between Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian female transgendered
workers might seem almost impossible. It might be best, then, to
begin with richly descriptive histories and comparative case
designs (Eisenhardt, 1989). Other options would engage in very
broad but shallow data collection (to increase category sample
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
sizes), or to create large and collaborative research teams that span
multiple locations. In addition, rich social media platforms might
allow studies to be conducted in which both within- and between-
group identity differences are presented in a somewhat subtle
fashion (e.g., religious symbols on clothing; same-sex couples with
their wedding photos), and participants sampled from working
and professional populations can evaluate these targets based on
the dimensions of interest.
Conclusion
In 1851, Sojourner Truth dared to ask, “Ain’t I a woman?” With
this simple question, she brought attention to Black women’s
differential treatment from both White women and Black men.
More than one hundred years later, the intersectional framework
emerged as a means of effectively exploring how overlapping
marginalized identities interact and shape the distinct experiences
and outcomes of non-White women. In this review, we summa-
rized data using this intersectional framework to better under-
stand how gender and race operate in tandem within
organizations. Throughout our review, we have noted that almost
anywhere researchers have looked for intersectional effects on
organizational phenomena, they have found them. Therefore, we
end our review by observing that social identity is not multiple
categories operating in isolation; rather, it is a unique confluence of
these social categories. To the extent that OB scholars recognize the
distinctiveness of intersectional identities, the better, more
accurate, and more helpful organizational scholarship will be.
References
Acker, J. (2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31, 214–224.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class and race in organizations. Gender
& Society, 20, 441–464.
Almquist, E. M. (1975). Untangling the effects of race and sex: The disadvantaged
status of Black women. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 129–142.
Alon, S., & Haberfeld, Y. (2007). Labor force attachment and the evolving wage gap
between white, black, and Hispanic young women. Work and Occupations, 34,
369–398.
Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender
differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash
and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 256–267.
Amott, T., & Matthaei, J. (1991). Race, class, gender, and women’s works: A
conceptual framework. In D. Dunn (Ed.), Workplace/women’s place (pp. 11–30).
Los Angeles: Ruxbury.
Anderson, D., & Shapiro, D. (1996). Racial differences in access to high-paying jobs
and the wage gap between black and white women. ILR Review, 49, 273–286.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all:
Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 547–566.
Archer, L. (2003). Race, masculinity and schooling: Muslim boys and education.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Asian Women United of California (Ed.), (1989). Making waves: An anthology of
writings by and about Asian American women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Avina, C., & O’Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual harassment and PTSD: Is sexual
harassment diagnosable trauma? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 69–75.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
Bambara, T. C. (Ed.), (1970). The black woman: An anthology. New York: New
American Library.
Baril, A. (2015). Transness as debility: Rethinking intersections between trans and
disabled embodiments. Feminist Review, 111, 59–74.
Baumle, A. K. (2009). The cost of parenthood: Unraveling the effects of sexual
orientation and gender on income. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 983–1002.
Beal (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T. C. Bambara (Ed.), The
Black woman: An anthology, New York: New American Library.
Bear, J. B., & Glick, P. (2017). Breadwinner bonus and caregiver penalty in workplace
rewards for men and women. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 780–
788.
Bell, E. L. (1990). The bicultural life experience of career-oriented Black women.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 459–477.
Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1997). Asian-American attitudes
toward affirmative action in employment: Implications for the model minority
myth. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 356–377.
Bell, E. L. J., & Nkomo, S. M. (2003). Our separate ways: Black and White women and the
struggle for professional identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
17
Bellas, M. L. (1994). Comparable worth in academia: The effects on faculty salaries of
the sex composition and labor-market conditions of academic disciplines.
American Sociological Review, 59, 807–821.
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the
context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641–658.
Berdahl, J. L., & Min, J.-A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace
consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 18, 141–152.
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for
minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436.
Bergman, M. E., & Henning, J. B. (2008). Sex and ethnicity as moderators in the
sexual harassment phenomenon: A revision and test of Fitzgerald et al. (1994).
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 152–167.
Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F.
(2002). The (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of
reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 230–242.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than
Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The
American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.
Best, R. K., Edelman, L. B., Krieger, L. H., & Eliason, S. R. (2011). Multiple
disadvantages: An empirical test of intersectionality theory in EEO litigation.
Law & Society Review, 45, 991–1025.
Biernat, M., & Sesko, A. K. (2013). Evaluating the contributions of members of
mixed-sex work teams: Race and gender matter. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 471–476.
Blair-Loy, M., & DeHart, G. (2003). Family and career trajectories among African
American female attorneys. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 908–933.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual
orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783–793.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2000). Gender differences in pay. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 14, 75–99.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2006). The U.S. gender pay gap in the 1990: Slowing
convergence. ILR Review, 60, 45–66.
Bowleg, L. (2013). “Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts back to the
main ingredients”: Black gay and bisexual men’s descriptions and experiences
of intersectionality. Sex Roles, 68, 754–767.
Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman do not equal Black lesbian
woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative
intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–325.
Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in
the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 84–103.
Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal
of International Women’s Studies, 5, 75–86.
Brands, R. A., & Fernandez-Mateo, I. (2016). Leaning out: How negative recruitment
experiences shape women’s decisions to compete for executive roles.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 405–442.
Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 622–641.
Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status
conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological
Science, 19, 268–275.
Brescoll, V. L., Okimoto, T. G., & Vial, A. C. (2018). You've come a long way . . . maybe:
How moral emotions trigger backlash against women leaders. Journal of Social
Issues, 74, 144–164.
Brewer, M. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull, & R.
S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition: (Vol. 1. pp. Advances in social
cognition, Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor
market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.
Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., & Woods, K. C. (2008). Comparing sexual harassment subtypes
among Black and Whitewomen bymilitary rank: Double jeopardy, the jezebel, and the
cult of true womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 347–361.
Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American
Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.
Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2010). Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the
motherhood penalty across white women’s earnings distribution. American
Sociological Review, 75, 705–728.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017a). Table 11. “Employed persons by detailed
occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.” Retrieved from https://
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017b). Table 19. “Median usual weekly earnings of full-
time wage and salary workers, by industry and gender, 2016 annual averages.”
Women in the labor force: A databook.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2017. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/
2017/home.htm.
Carpenter, T. R. (2012). Construction of the crack mother icon. Western Journal of
Black Studies, 36, 264–275.
Cassino, D. (2018). Sexual harassment claims have fallen among young White
women, but not older women or Black women. Harvard Business Revie-
wRetrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/02/sexual-harassment-claims-have-fall-
en-among-young-white-women-but-not-older-women-or-black-women.
Castro, M., & Holvino, E. (2016). Applying intersectionality in organizations:
Inequality markers, cultural scripts and advancement practices in a professional
service firm. Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 328–347.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
18 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Catalyst. (2004). Advancing African-American women in the workplace: What
managers need to know. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/system/files/
Advancing_African_American_Women_in_the_Workplace_What_Manager-
s_Need_to_Know.pdf.
Catalyst. (2017). No, Black women still don’t earn the same as their White peers.
Here’s why. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/blog/catalyzing/no-black-
women-still-dont-earn-same-their-white-peers-heres-why.
Catalyst. (2018). Women in management. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/
knowledge/women-management.
Catro, R., & Corral, L. (1993). Women of color and employment discrimination: Race
and gender combined in Title VII claims. La Raza Law Journal, 6, 159–173.
Cha, Y., & Weeden, K. A. (2014). Overwork and the slow convergence in the gender
gap in wages. American Sociological Review, 79, 457–484.
Chen, F., Short, S. E., & Entwisle, B. (2000). The impact of grandparental proximity on
maternal childcare in China. Population Research and Policy Review, 19, 571–590.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields
more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1–35.
Cheung, F. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2010). Women at the top: Powerful leaders define
success as work + family in a culture of gender. American Psychologist, 65, 182–
193.
Childs, E. (2005). Looking behind the stereotypes of the “angry Black woman”: An
exploration of Black women’s responses to interracial relationships. Gender and
Society, 19, 544–561.
Cho, S. K. (1997). Converging stereotypes in racialized sexual harassment: Where
the model minority meets Suzie Wong. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 1, 177–
211.
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological
research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the
study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28, 129–149.
Chow, E. N. L. (1987). The development of feminist consciousness among Asian
American women. Gender & Society, 1, 284–299.
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American
Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
Coles, F. S. (1986). Forced to quit: Sexual harassment complaints and agency
response. Sex Roles, 14, 81–95.
Collins, P. H. (1998). Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Collins, P. H. (2005). Black women and motherhood. In S. Hardy, & C. Wiedmer
(Eds.), Motherhood and space: Configurations of the maternal through politics,
home, and the body (pp. 149–159). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of
Sociology, 41, 1–20.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.
Collins, P. H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics
of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Combahee River Collective (1995). Combahee River Collective statement. In B. Guy-
Sheftall (Ed.), Words of fire: An anthology of African American feminist thought (pp.
232–240). New York: New Press. (Original work published 1977).
Congressional Budget Office. (2013). Trends in family wealth, 1989–2013. Retrieved
from https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/
reports/51846-familywealth.pdf.
Cooper, A. J. (1892). A voice from the south. Xenia, OH: Aldine Printing.
Cortera, M. (1977). The Chicana feminist. Austin: Information Systems Development.
Cortina, L., & Berdahl, J. L. (2008). Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of
research in review. In C. L. Cooper, & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
behavior, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Côté, S. (2011). How social class shapes thoughts and actions in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 43–71.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. Theory, Research and Practice. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139.
Crenshaw, K. (1992). Race, gender, and sexual harassment. Southern California Law
Review, 65, 1467–1476.
Cruz, J. L., & Molina, M. S. (2010). Hispanic national bar association national study on
the status of Latinas in the legal profession few and far between: The reality of
Latina lawyers. Pepperdine Law Review, 37, 971–1038.
Cuddy, A. J. C., & Wolf, E. B. (2013). Prescriptions and punishments for working
moms: How race and work status affect judgments of mothers. In R. J. Ely, & A. J.
C. Cuddy (Eds.), Gender and work: Challenging conventional wisdom (pp. 36–43).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers,
warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701–718.
Cunningham, J. S., & Zalokar, N. (1992). The economic progress of black women,
1940–1980: Occupational distribution and relative wages. ILR Review, 45, 540–
555.
Daneshvary, N., Waddoups, C. J., & Wimmer, B. S. (2008). Educational attainment
and the lesbian wage premium. Journal of Labor Research, 29, 365–379.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective
on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85.
DeGraffenreid v. General Motors Assembly Division. (1976). 413 F. Supp. 142, 143 (E.
D. Mo.).
Denny, K. E. (2014). Penalties and premiums: Clarifying perceptions of parents in the
professional workplace (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://drum.lib.
umd.edu/handle/1903/16167.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
Dickens, D. D., & Chavez, E. L. (2018). Navigating the workplace: The costs and
benefits of shifting identities at work among early career US Black women. Sex
Roles, 78, 760–774.
Donovan, R. A. (2011). Tough or tender: (Dis)similarities in White college students’
perceptions of Black and White women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35,
458–468.
Doucet, C., Smith, M., & Durand, C. (2012). Pay structure, female representation and
the gender pay gap among university professors. Industrial Relations, 67, 51–75.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard
Business Review, 85, 62–71.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of
women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
735–754.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of
leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532–550.
Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275–298.
Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender
identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589–634.
England, P., Bearak, J., Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2016). Do highly paid, highly
skilled women experience the largest motherhood penalty? American
Sociological Review, 81, 1161–1189.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Chart of risk factors for
harassment and responsive strategies. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/
eeoc/task_force/harassment/risk-factors.cfm.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2017). Charge statistics (charges
filed with EEOC) FY 1997 through FY 2017. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.
gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2018). Charges alleging sex-based
harassment (charges filed with EEOC) FY 2010 FY 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment_new.
cfm.
Espiritu, Y. L. (2000). Asian American women and men. Lanham, Maryland: Altamira
Press.
Feldblum, C. R., & Lipnic, V. A. (2016). Select task force on the study of harassment in
the workplace. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/upload/report.pdf.
Festekjian, A., Tram, S., Murray, C. B., Sy, T., & Huynh, H. P. (2014). I see me the way
you see me: The influence of race on interpersonal and intrapersonal leadership
perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 102–119.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & L. Gardner (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 357–411). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social
science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse
v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)
stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from
perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 878–902.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Collinsworth, L. L., & Lawson, A. K. (2013). Sexual harassment, PTSD,
and Criterion A: If it walks like a duck . . . . Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 81–
91.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997).
Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of
an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578.
Fleming, J. (1983). Black women in Black and White college environments: The
making of a matriarch. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 41–54.
Flores, G. M. (2011). Racialized tokens: Latina teachers negotiating, surviving and
thriving in a white woman’s profession. Qualitative Sociology, 34, 313–335.
Frye, J. (2017). The pervasiveness of sexual harassment across industries affects all
workers. Center for American Progress, November 20. Retrieved from https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2017/11/20/443139/not-just-
rich-famous.
Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2013). Gendered Races: Implications for
interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psycho-
logical Science, 24, 498–506.
Garcia, L. (2009). “Now why do you want to know about that?” Heteronormativity,
sexism, and racism in the sexual (mis) education of Latina youth. Gender &
Society, 23, 520–541.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., . . . Aycan, Z.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science,
332(6033), 1100–1104.
Germain, M. L., Herzog, M. J. R., & Hamilton, P. R. (2012). Women employed in male-
dominated industries: Lessons learned from female aircraft pilots, pilots-in-
training and mixed-gender flight instructors. Human Resource Development
International, 15, 435–453.
Gerstel, N., & Clawson, D. (2015). Inequality in work time: Gender and class stratify
hours and schedules, flexibility: and unpredictability in jobs and families.
Sociology Compass, 9, 1094–1105.
Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic
stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 113–
127.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Gill, A. (1994). Incorporating the causes of occupational differences in studies of
racial wage differentials. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 20–41.
Gill, M. J. (2004). When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive
stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereo-
typing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 619–632.
Glauber, R. (2007). Marriage and the motherhood wage penalty among African
Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 951–961.
Gloor, J. L., Li, X., Lim, S., & Feierabend, A. (2018). An inconvenient truth?
Interpersonal and career consequences of “maybe baby” expectations. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 104, 44–58.
Gonzalez, S. (1977). The White feminist movement: The Chicana perspective. Social
Science Journal, 4, 65–74.
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of
belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717.
Graf, N. (2018). Sexual harassment at work in the era of #MeToo. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harass-
ment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo.
Greenman, E. (2011). Asian American–White differences in the effect of mother-
hood on career outcomes. Work and Occupations, 38, 37–67.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and
lesbians: “Coming out at work”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191–1199.
Gupta, V. K., Mortal, S. C., & Guo, X. (2018). Revisiting the gender gap in CEO
compensation: Replication and extension of Hill, Upadhyay, and Beekun
(2015)’s work on CEO gender pay gap. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2036–
2050.
Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations:
Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 42, 28–48.
Gutiérrez, E. R. (2009). Fertile matters: The politics of Mexican-origin women’s
reproduction. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing . . . or are
they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 40, 353–363.
Hall, E. V., Galinsky, A. D., & Phillips, K. W. (2015). Gender profiling: A gendered race
perspective on person–position fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41,
853–868.
Hamilton, D. L. (1979). A cognitive-attributional analysis of stereotyping. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 53–84.
Hancock, A. M. (2007). When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition:
Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5,
63–79.
Harris, J. C. (2017). Multiracial college students’ experiences with multiracial
microaggressions. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20, 429–445.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time
and the effect of surface- versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.
Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the
perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding
and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 530–546.
Hayes, C. & Fonda, J. (2017). All in with Chris Hayes. MSNBC Transcripts. Contributors,
October 25. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2017-10-
25.
Heilman, M. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we
know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 3–
26.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes
prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
657–674.
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in
employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 189–198.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent?
Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 536–544.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for
success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.
Hewlin, P. F. (2003). And the award for best actor goes to . . . : Facades of conformity
in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28, 633–642.
Hewlin, P. F. (2009). Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating
facades of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 727–741.
Hideg, I., Krstic, A., Trau, R. N., & Zarina, T. (2018). The unintended consequences of
maternity leaves: How agency interventions mitigate the negative effects of
longer legislated maternity leaves. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 1155–
1164.
Hill, A. D., Upadhyay, A. D., & Beekun, R. I. (2015). Do female and ethnically diverse
executives endure inequity in the CEO position or do they benefit from their
minority status? An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 36,
1115–1134.
Ho, C., & Chang, J. C. (2005). Drawing the line after Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v.
NLRB: Strategies for protecting undocumented workers in the Title VII context
and beyond. Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 22, 473–531.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
19
Ho, I. K., Dinh, K. T., Bellefontaine, S. A., & Irving, A. L. (2012). Sexual harassment and
posttraumatic stress symptoms among Asian and White women. Journal of
Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 21, 95–113.
Hofstede, G. (1996). Gender stereotypes and partner preferences of Asian women in
masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 533–
546.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2013). When sexism and feminism collide: The sexual
harassment of feminist working women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37,
192–208.
hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman? Black women and feminism. New York: South End
Press.
hooks, b. (1984). Black women: Shaping feminist theory. In M. Mar, & L. Mullings
(Eds.), Let nobody turn us around: Voices of resistance, reform, and renewal; An
African American anthology (pp. 544–550). New York: Bowman & Littlefield
Publishers Inc.
Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the
relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. Sex Roles, 48, 115–130.
Houston, L. N. (1982). Black consciousness among female undergraduates at a
predominantly White college: 1973 and 1979. Journal of Social Psychology, 118,
289–290.
Human Rights Campaign. (2018). State maps of laws & policies. Retrieved from
https://www.hrc.org/state-maps/employment.
Hune, S. (1998). Asian Pacific American women in higher education: Claiming visibility
& voice. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Hyun, J. (2005). Breaking the bamboo ceiling: Career strategies for Asians. New York:
Harper Business.
Inesi, M. E., & Cable, D. M. (2015). When accomplishments come back to haunt you:
The negative effect of competence signals on women’s performance evalua-
tions. Personnel Psychology, 68, 615–657.
International Labour Organization (2016). Women at work: Trends 2016. Geneva:
International Labor Office.
James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage
discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1103–1118.
Jay, M. (2009). Race-ing through the school day: African American educators’
experiences with race and racism in schools. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 22, 671–685.
Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Association. (1980). 615 F.2d 1025,
1032 (5th Cir.).
Jeong, S.-H., & Harrison, D. A. (2017). Glass breaking, strategy making, and value
creating: Meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members.
Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1219–1252.
Jones, C., & Shorter-Gooden, K. (2004). Shifting: The double lives of Black women in
America. New York: Harper Perennial.
Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic
test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management
Journal, 58, 1516–1545.
Judd, P. C., & Oswald, P. A. (1997). Employment desirability: The interactive effects of
gender-typed profile, stimulus sex and gender-typed occupation. Sex Roles, 37,
467–476.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the
efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American
Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.
Kao, G. (1995). Asian Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic
performance. American Journal of Education, 103, 121–159.
Keil, J. M., & Christie-Mizell, C. A. (2008). Beliefs, fertility, and earnings of African
American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white mothers. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 30, 299–323.
Kennelly, I. (1999). That single-mother moment: How White employers typify Black
women. Gender & Society, 13, 168–192.
Kilbourne, B., England, P., & Beron, K. (1994). Effects of individual, occupational, and
industrial characteristics on earnings: Intersections of race and gender. Social
Forces, 72, 1149–1176.
Kim, M. (2002). Has the race penalty for Black women disappeared in the United
States? Feminist Economics, 8, 115–124.
Kim, M. (2009). Race and gender differences in the earnings of Black workers.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48, 466–488.
Kim, M., & Chung, A. Y. (2005). Consuming orientalism: Images of Asian/American
women in multicultural advertising. Qualitative Sociology, 28, 67–91.
Kim, C., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Are Asian American women advantaged? Labor
market performance of college educated female workers. Social Forces, 93, 623–
652.
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the
implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–096.
Klawitter, M. (2015). Meta-analysis of the effects of sexual orientation on earnings.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 54, 4–32.
Kobrynowicz, D., & Biernat, M. (1998). Considering correctness, contrast, and
categorization in stereotyping phenomena. In R. S. WyerJr. (Ed.), Advances in
social cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 109–126.
Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender
stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision
making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128–161.
Koch, S. C. (2005). Evaluative affect display toward male and female group leaders: A
replication and extension. Small Group Research, 36, 678–703.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
20 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype
content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392.
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational
status and work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy
of Management Annals, 12, 5–36.
Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating
perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interven-
tions. Journal of Management, 43, 228–254.
Kotkin, M. J. (2009). Diversity and discrimination: A look at complex bias. William &
Mary Law Review, 50, 1439–1497.
Koval, C. Z., & Rosette, A. S. (2018). The natural hair bias in job interviews. Working
paper. Duke University.
Krieger, N., Waterman, P. D., Hartman, C., Bates, L. M., Stoddard, A. M., Quinn, M. M.,
. . . Barbeau, E. M. (2006). Social hazards on the job: workplace abuse, sexual
harassment, and racial discrimination—A study of Black, Latino, and White low-
income women and men workers in the United States. International Journal of
Health Services, 36, 51–85.
Kristen, E., Banuelos, B., & Urban, D. (2015). Workplace violence and harassment of
low-wage workers. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 36, 169–213.
Kruse, L., & Wintermantel, M. (1986). Leadership Ms.-qualified: I. The gender bias in
everyday and scientific thinking. In C. F. Graumann, & S. Moscovici (Eds.),
Changing conceptions of leadership (pp. 171–197). New York: Springer.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–
498.
Laband, D. N., & Lentz, B. F. (1998). The effects of sexual harassment on job
satisfaction, earnings, and turnover among female lawyers. ILR Review, 51, 594–
607.
Lam v. University of Hawaii. (1994). 40 F.3d 1551 (9th Cir.).
Larsen, S. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2011). PTSD symptoms and sexual harassment: The
role of attributions and perceived control. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26,
2555–2567.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Transparency in
the workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be
improved. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 710–723.
Lee, S. (1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Lee, S. J., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2009). Beyond the “model minority” stereotype:
Trends in health risk behaviors among Asian/Pacific Islander high school
students. Journal of School Health, 79, 347–354.
Lee, S., & Williams, M.J. (2018). Sounds of leadership? A mismatch between Asian
Americans’ communication style and U.S. norms. Working paper.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., & Dahm, P. C. (2017). Why and when does the gender
gap reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women.
Academy of Management Journal, 60, 402–432.
Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. L. (2002). Perceived discrimination in
the context of multiple group memberships. Psychological Science, 13, 557–560.
Li, P. (2014). Hitting the ceiling: An examination of barriers to success for Asian
American women. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 29, 140–167.
Liang, J. G., & Peters-Hawkins, A. L. (2017). “I am more than what I look alike” Asian
American women in public school administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 53, 40–69.
Lim, S. G. L. (1993). Feminist and ethnic literary theories in Asian American
literature. Feminist Studies, 19, 570–595.
Lim, S. G. L., Tsutakawa, M., & Donelly, M. (1989). The forbidden stitch. An Asian
American Women’s Anthology. Corvallis: Calyx Books.
Ling, L. H. M. (1999). Sex machine: Global hypermasculinity and images of the Asian
woman in modernity. Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 7, 277–306.
Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black
woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on
perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23, 354–358.
López, V., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2014). Latina girls speak out: Stereotypes, gender and
relationship dynamics. Latino Studies, 12, 527–549.
Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance
evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785.
Maddox, K. (2014). Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 383–401.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, S. R., Côté, S., & Woodruff, T. (2016). Echoes of our upbringing: How growing
up wealthy or poor relates to narcissism, leader behavior, and leader
effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 2157–2177.
Maurer, K. L., Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1995). Subtyping versus subgrouping
processes in stereotype representation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 812–824.
McCabe, J. (2009). Racial and gender microaggressions on a predominantly-White
campus: Experiences of Black, Latina/o and White undergraduates. Race, Gender
& Class, 16, 133–151.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.
McDonald, P., Graham, T., & Martin, B. (2010). Outrage management in cases of
sexual harassment as revealed in judicial decisions. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 34, 165–180.
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2013). Access denied: Low mentoring of women
and minority first-time directors and its negative effects on appointments to
additional boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1169–1198.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
McDonald, M. L., Keeves, G. D., & Westphal, J. D. (2018). One step forward, one step
back: White male top manager organizational identification and helping
behavior toward other executives following the appointment of a female or
racial minority CEO. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 405–439.
McGinn, K. L., & Oh, E. (2017). Gender, social class, and women’s employment.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 84–88.
McKinsey and Company & Lean In. (2015). Women in the workplace. Retrieved from
McKinsey http://womenintheworkplace.com/ui/pdfs/Women_in_the_Work-
place_2015.pdf?v=5.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace
authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77, 625–647.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the
classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.
Mereish, E. H. (2012). The intersectional invisibility of race and disability status: An
exploratory study of health and discrimination facing Asian Americans with
disabilities. Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social Care, 5, 52–60.
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2012). Temporal distance and
discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23, 710–717.
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2015). What happens before? A field
experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on
the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1678–1712.
Miller, R. L. (2013). Model minority stereotype. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), The encyclopedia
of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 887–889). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Miner, K. N., Pesonen, A. D., Smittick, A. L., Seigel, M. L., & Clark, E. K. (2014). Does
being a mom help or hurt? Workplace incivility as a function of motherhood
status. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 60–73.
Monahan, J. L., Shtrulis, I., & Givens, S. B. (2005). Priming welfare queens and other
stereotypes: The transference of media images into interpersonal contexts.
Communication Research Reports, 22, 199–205.
Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc. (1983). 708 F.2d 475 (9th Cir.).
Moraga, C., & Anzaldua, G. (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical
women of color. New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
Morgan, W. B., Walker, S. S., Hebl, M. M. R., & King, E. B. (2013). A field experiment:
Reducing interpersonal discrimination toward pregnant job applicants. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 98, 799–809.
Morgenroth, T., & Heilman, M. E. (2017). Should I stay or should I go? Implications of
maternity leave choice for perceptions of working mothers. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 53–56.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J.
(2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479.
Moynihan, D. P. (1965). Employment, income, and the ordeal of the Negro family.
Daedalus745–770.
Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational
cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological
Science, 18, 879–885.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Sexual
harassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences,
engineering, and medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Women’s Law Center. (2014). Underpaid and overloaded: Women in low-
wage jobs. Retrieved from https://nwlc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/final_-
nwlc_lowwagereport2014.pdf.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of
Doctorate Recipients. (2008). Table 9–26. “Employed doctoral scientists and
engineers in 4-year educational institutions, by broad occupation, sex, race/
ethnicity, and tenure status: 2008.”
Neal, D. (2004). The measured black–white wage gap among women is too small.
Journal of Political Economy, 112, 1–28.
Nicolas, G., la Fuente, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Mind the overlap in multiple
categorization: A review of crossed categorization, intersectionality, and
multiracial perception. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 621–631.
Niemann, Y. F., Jennings, L., Rozelle, R. M., Baxter, J. C., & Sullivan, E. (1994). Use of
free responses and cluster analysis to determine stereotypes of eight groups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 379–390.
Nieto-Gomez, A. (1974). La Femenista. Encuentro Femenil, 1, 34–39.
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 267–276.
Nkomo, S., & Cox, T. Jr. (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. Clegg, C.
Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies, London: Sage
Publications.
O’Neil, A., Sojo, V., Fileborn, B., Scovelle, A. J., & Milner, A. (2018). The #MeToo
movement: An opportunity in public health? The Lancet, 391, 2587–2589.
Opie, T. R., & Phillips, K. W. (2015). Hair penalties: The negative influence of
Afrocentric hair on ratings of Black women’s dominance and professionalism.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1311.
Paludi, M. A., & Coates, B. E. (Eds.). (2011). Women and transformational leaders: From
grassroots to global interests. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Parker, P. S. (2002). Negotiating identity in raced and gendered workplace
interactions: The use of strategic communication by African American women
senior executives within dominant culture organizations. Communication
Quarterly, 50, 251–268.
Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and
perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual
moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1129–1145.
Peterson, W. (1966). Success story, Japanese American style. New York Times
Magazine. p. 11.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1987). The effect of the proportion of women on
salaries: The case of college administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,
1–24.
Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the
cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406–413.
Phillips, K. W., Rothbard, N. P., & Dumas, T. L. (2009). To disclose or not to disclose?
Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of
Management Review, 34, 710–732.
Pinto, J. K., Patanakul, P., & Pinto, M. B. (2017). “The aura of capability”: Gender bias
in selection for a project manager job. International Journal of Project
Management, 35, 420–431.
Ponce de Leon, R., & Rosette, A.S. (2018). Intersectional stereotypes at the leadership
level: The impact of differential agentic perceptions. Working paper. Duke
University.
Prasso, S. (2005). The Asian mystique: Dragon ladies, geisha girls, and our fantasies of
the exotic Orient. New York: Public Affairs.
Pratt, C. (2012). Sisters in Law: Black women lawyers’ struggle for advancement.
Michigan State Law Review1777–1795.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be,
are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender
stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive
advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex
Roles, 59, 377–391.
Radford-Hill, S. (2002). Keepin’ it real: A generational commentary on Kimberly
Springer’s “third wave Black feminism?”. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 27, 1083–1190.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences
of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.
Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful? Ethnic
harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 236.
Reskin, B. F., & Padavic, I. (2006). Sex, race, and ethnic inequality in United States
workplaces. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 343–
374). Boston, MA: Springer.
Reynolds-Dobbs, W., Thomas, K. M., & Harrison, M. S. (2008). From mammy to
superwoman: Images that hinder Black women’s career development. Journal of
Career Development, 35, 129–150.
Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the
prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 52–73.
Richardson, E., Phillips, K. W., Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2011). Double jeopardy or
greater latitude: Do Black women escape backlash for dominance displays.
Unpublished manuscript.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Kricheli-Katz, T. (2013). Intersecting cultural beliefs in social
relations: Gender, race, and class binds and freedoms. Gender & Society, 27, 294–
318.
Rodriguez, A. L., Guido-DiBrito, F., Torres, V., & Talbot, D. (2000). Latina college
students: Issues and challenges for the 21st century. Naspa Journal, 37, 511–527.
Rodriguez, E. M., Lytle, M. C., & Vaughan, M. D. (2013). Exploring the
intersectionality of bisexual, religious/spiritual, and political identities from
a feminist perspective. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 285–309.
Rodriguez, J. K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J. K., & Nkomo, S. M. (2016). The theory and
praxis of intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from
here? Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 201–222.
Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc. (1981). 527 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y).
Roman, E. (2000). Who exactly is living La Vida Loca: The legal and political
consequences of Latino-Latina ethnic and racial stereotypes in film and other
media. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 4, 37–65.
Rosenthal, L., & Lobel, M. (2016). Stereotypes of Black American women related to
sexuality and motherhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 414–427.
Rosette, A. S., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women:
Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-
subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1162–1167.
Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women
leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The
Leadership Quarterly, 27, 429–445.
Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2007). Why do people perceive ingroup homogeneity on
ingroup traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup traits? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 31–42.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and
benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 629.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The
role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward
agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle
managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash
toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender
stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
21
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity
and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice
against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics
surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersb, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think
female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male
stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 470.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., Kulich, C., & Atkins, C. (2007). Opting out or
pushed off the edge? The glass cliff and the precariousness of women’s
leadership positions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 266–279.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in
leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist,
65, 171–181.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.
Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 340–344.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological
effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401–415.
Schug, J., Alt, N. P., & Klauer, K. C. (2015). Gendered race prototypes: Evidence for the
non-prototypicality of Asian men and Black women. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 56, 121–125.
Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of
Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 356–360.
Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black
women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589–601.
Sewell, C. J. P. (2013). Mammies and Matriarchs: Tracing images of the Black female
in popular culture 1950 to present. Journal of African American Studies, 17, 308–
326.
Shields, S. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311.
Shih, M., Young, M. J., & Bucher, A. (2013). Working to reduce the effects of
discrimination: Identity management strategies in organizations. American
Psychologist, 68, 145–157.
Shimizu, C. P. (2005). The bind of representation: Performing and consuming
hypersexuality in “Miss Saigon”. Theatre Journal, 57, 247–265.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289.
Shrake, E. K. (2006). Unmasking the self: Struggling with the model minority
stereotype and lotus blossom image. In G. Li, & G. H. Beckett (Eds.), “Strangers” of
the academy: Asian women scholars in higher education, Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and
women’s occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 40, 10–40.
Sotello, C., & Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with
multiple marginality. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 74–93.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of
statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., . . .
Lu, L. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of work–family stressors,
working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo
world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.
Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the
basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
207–218.
Stop Street Harassment. (2018). The facts behind the #MeToo movement: A national
study on sexual harassment and assault. Retrieved from http://www.stopstree-
tharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Full-Report-2018-National-
Study-on-Sexual-Harassment-and-Assault.pdf.
Swank, E., & Fahs, B. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and race for sexual
minorities who engage in gay and lesbian rights activism. Sex Roles, 68, 660–674.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–
48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajima, R. E. (1989). Lotus blossoms don’t bleed: Images of Asian women. In Asian
Women United of California (Ed.), Making waves: An anthology of writings by and
about Asian American women (pp. 308–317). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Tamayo, W. R., Caffarelli, A., & Rice, C. (2012). The effects of immigration status on
employment litigation after Hoffman Plastics Compound, National Employment
Lawyers Association Convention, San Diego, California, June 2012.
Taylor, A. (1983). Conceptions of masculinity and femininity as a basis for
stereotypes of male and female homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 37–
53.
Taylor, C. J. (2010). Occupational sex composition and the gendered availability of
workplace support. Gender & Society, 24, 189–212.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1988). Outcomes of sexual harassment charges.
Academy of Management Journal, 31, 185–194.
G Model
RIOB 119 No. of Pages 22
22 A.S. Rosette et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting from the margins: The coping
strategies of Black women and other women of color faculty members at a
research university. Journal of Negro Education, 70, 166–175.
Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The
effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 86–94.
Tilcsik, A., Anteby, M., & Knight, C. R. (2015). Concealable stigma and occupational
segregation: Toward a theory of gay and lesbian occupations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 60, 446–481.
Toliver, S. D. (1998). Black families in corporate America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Townsend, T. G., Neilands, T. B., Thomas, A. J., & Jackson, T. R. (2010). I’m no jezebel; I
am young, gifted, and Black: Identity, sexuality, and Black girls. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 34, 273–285.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
Tucker, J., & Patrick, K. (2017). Low-wage jobs are women’s jobs: The overrepresenta-
tion of women in low-wage work. National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved from
https://nwlc.org/resources/low-wage-jobs-are-womens-jobs-the-overrepre-
sentation-of-women-in-low-wage-work/.
Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple
marginality. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 74–93.
Tyler, J. M., & McCullough, J. D. (2009). Violating prescriptive stereotypes on job
resumes: A self-presentational perspective. Management Communication
Quarterly, 23, 272–287.
Vargas, D. R. (2010). Representations of Latina/o sexuality in popular culture. In M.
Ascencio (Ed.), Latina/o sexualities: Probing powers, passion, practices, and policies
(pp. 117­136New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Venkatesh, V., Windeler, J. B., Bartol, K. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2017). Person–
organization and person–job fit perceptions of new IT employees: Work
outcomes and gender differences. Management Information Systems Quarterly,
41, 525–558.
Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union.
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 211–228.
Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and
the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 400–414.
Villapando, B. (1989). The business of selling mail-order brides. In Asian Women
United of California (Ed.), Making waves: An anthology of writings by and about
Asian American women (pp. 318–326). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
von Hippel, C., Sekaquaptewa, D., & McFarlane, M. (2015). Stereotype threat among
women in finance: Negative effects on identity, workplace well-being, and
recruiting. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 405–414.
Wadsworth, N. (2010). Intersectionality in California’s same-sex marriage battle: A
complex proposition. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 200–216.
Waite, S., & Denier, N. (2015). Gay pay for straight work: Mechanisms generating
disadvantage. Gender & Society, 29, 561–588.
Waldfogel, J. (1997). The effect of children on women’s wages. American Sociological
Review, 62, 209–217.
Walley-Jean, J. C. (2009). Debunking the myth of the “angry Black woman”: An
exploration of anger in young African American women. Black Women, Gender &
Families, 3, 68–86.
Wei, V. W. (1996). Asian women and employment discrimination: Using
intersectionality theory to address Title VII claims based on combined factors
of race, gender and national origin. Boston College Law Review, 37, 771–812.
Welsh, S., Carr, J., MacQuarrie, B., & Huntley, A. (2006). “I’m not thinking of it as
sexual harassment” Understanding harassment across race and citizenship.
Gender & Society, 20, 87–107.
West, C. (2008). Mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire, and their homegirls: Developing an
“oppositional gaze” toward the images of Black women, In J. C. Chrisler, C.
Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (pp. 286–299).
(4th ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc.
White, D. G. (1999). Arn’t I a woman? Female slaves in the plantation South. New York:
W.W Norton & Company, Inc.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Rosette, et al., Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work, Research in
Organizational Behavior (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
Wiley, M. G. (1991). Gender, work, and stress: The potential impact of role-identity
salience and commitment. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 495–510.
Williams, J. C. (2010). Reshaping the work–family debate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Williams, J. C. (2014). Double jeopardy? An empirical study with implications for
the debates over implicit bias and intersectionality. Harvard Journal of Law &
Gender, 37, 185–242.
Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. (2014). What works for women at work. New York: New
York University Press.
Williams, J. C., Blair-Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and
the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 209–234.
Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-
analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior.
Psychological Bulletin, 142, 165.
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and
consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127–
162.
Wilmoth, J. M., De Jong, G. F., & Himes, C. L. (1997). Immigrant and non-immigrant
living arrangements among America’s White, Hispanic, and Asian elderly
population. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17, 57–82.
Wingfield, A. (2007). The modern mammy and the angry Black man: African
American professionals’ experiences with gendered racism in the workplace.
Race, Gender & Class, 14, 196–212.
Winker, G., & Degele, N. (2011). Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing
with social inequality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 18, 51–66.
Wong, P., Lai, C. F., Nagasawa, R., & Lin, T. (1998). Asian Americans as a model
minority: Self-perceptions and perceptions by other racial groups. Sociological
Perspectives, 41, 95–118.
Woods, K. C., Buchanan, N. T., & Settles, I. H. (2008). Sexual harassment across the
color line: Experiences and outcomes of cross-versus intraracial sexual
harassment among Black women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 15, 67.
Wright, E. O., Baxter, J., & Birkelund, G. E. (1995). The gender gap in workplace
authority: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 60, 407–435.
Wu, L., & Jing, W. (2011). Asian women in STEM careers: An invisible minority in a
double bind. Issues in Science and Technology, 28, 82–87.
Xu, W., & Leffler, A. (1992). Gender and race effects on occupational prestige,
segregation and earnings. Gender & Society, 6, 376–392.
Yamada, M. (1981). Asian Pacific American women and feminism. In C. Moraga, & G.
Anzaldua (Eds.), This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color
(pp. 71–75). New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work–family conflict: A
Sino-US comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 113–123.
Yoder, J. D., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). “Outsider within” the firehouse: Subordination
and difference in the social interactions of African American women firefighters.
Gender & Society, 11, 324–341.
Yoder, J. D., & Berendsen, L. L. (2001). “Outsider within” the firehouse: African
American and White women firefighters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25,
27–36.
Yoshida, K., Hanass-Hancock, J., Nixon, S., & Bond, V. (2014). Using intersectionality
to explore experiences of disability and HIV among women and men in Zambia.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 36, 2161–2168.
Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates.
Harvard Educational Review, 79, 659–691.
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Guest editorial: Unpacking
diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspec-
tives. Organization, 17, 9–29.
Zia, H. (2000). Asian American dreams: The emergence of an American people. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.