Why Intersectionality Matters at Work

So, what can we do with this information?

Employees and organizational leaders at all levels can take a variety of actions to promote intersectional awareness, identify specific challenges faced at the intersections of different marginalized identities, and address inequities like those introduced in the first two parts of this series. At first, it may feel overwhelming to think of all of the things you could change in your organization by applying the lens of intersectionality to your work. So, instead of thinking about taking action through a complete and immediate overhaul, it can be helpful to think of this work as an ongoing and iterative process that requires everyone to cultivate a deeper understanding of the complexity of human experiences and needs.

To help you consider some of those iterative pathways forward for your own organization, we’re going to break down some recommended actions from the intersectionality research into three groups: increasing awareness, finding and addressing inequities, and changing culture.

1) Increasing awareness

Dupreelle et al. argue that intersectionality should be central to all DEI efforts, including ERGs, which they believe can play a role in developing intersectional fluency in the workforce: “When crafting D&I strategy, organizations need to consider each of these identities and all the permutations of how they may overlap for an individual… [This approach] does not require creating countless subgroups for each possible intersection…Rather, D&I leaders and ERGs should equip their workforces with a fluency in intersectionality.” That fluency can then be leveraged by ERG leaders to identify new opportunities for cross-ERG collaboration, new types of supportive programming to meet intersectional needs, and for using their influence to change policies and other practices that may be negatively impacting their members.

One way to begin building this kind of intersectional fluency is through learning & development programs. In their research into top companies’ current DEI training efforts, Steinfield et al. found very few examples of intersectional awareness included in organizational training. As a result, they recommend “stretching diversity training to include understandings of more nuanced intersectional identity categories, and having conversations about privilege.” Existing DEI-related programs could be adapted to include this type of content, and/or new programming could be developed to introduce the concept of intersectionality and help individuals explore ways to apply an intersectional lens to their work.

Based on their research into employee mental health, Greenwood and Anas also recommend increasing awareness and prioritizing transparent communication around employees’ identities and related inequities. One way they suggest surfacing unseen inequities is by allowing employees to “discuss challenging social and political topics at work.” An awareness of intersectionality can help organizations create safe spaces for these types of conversations, which could be facilitated by ERGs, incorporated into learning programs, or pursued through other channels depending on the ways employees commonly interact with one another in a given work environment.

2) Finding and addressing inequities

In a 2019 article focused on intersectionality and work-life balance, Ryan and Briggs demonstrate that “Unidentified needs of multiply-stigmatized groups can be brought to light with intersectional approaches to work-life research and practice.” Basically, the researchers are proposing moving from an awareness of intersectionality as a concept to actually applying it as a framework in order to thoroughly investigate employee needs and experiences related to organizational policies, for instance.

If it seems intimidating to imagine creating policies that align with a nuanced understanding of employees’ intersectional identities, Ryan and Briggs point out the reality that “most organizations already have a recognition of differential needs based on social categorization, such as providing senior employees with more support for eldercare responsibilities or single parents greater levels of flexibility.” By applying an intersectional lens to our thinking about how policies and processes may be serving (or failing to serve) employees at the intersection of multiple identities, organizations can surface previously unidentified needs and make tweaks to policies and programs that build on the existing types of support available.

Greenwood and Anas return to ERGs as a mechanism for addressing inequities, recommending that employers can address the disparities around mental wellness by, in part, empowering employees to build workplace communities around this issue: “At the grassroots level, employees should be empowered to form mental health employee resource groups (ERGs) and other affinity groups.” This type of grassroots empowerment can happen in parallel with changes at higher levels of organizational leadership as part of a comprehensive (top-down and bottom-up) strategy for improving DEI outcomes.

3) Changing culture

Ryan and Briggs argue that applying an intersectional lens to our work isn’t only about calling greater attention to the needs of non-majority group members, but that “An intersectionality perspective highlights broader concerns about inclusive climates in organizations.” The new perspective offered by intersectionality doesn’t only highlight cultural concerns; it also helps achieve cultural goals. For instance, one of the common aspirations organizations have for their work culture is “authenticity,” and the desire to create a more authentic culture is well-served by applying an understanding of intersectionality. According to Ryan and Briggs’ research, “For individuals who feel they are categorized in ways that fail to reflect their identity, recognizing the unique needs and experiences of intersected identity groups indicates a more authentic workplace.”

A 2017 study by Carberry and Meyers analyzed organizations in the Forbes “best places to work” list, and similar to Ryan and Briggs, these researchers also call attention to intersectionality’s potential impact on culture. For example, they identify trust as the key metric that leads to companies being selected for the “best places to work” list and note that fairness and camaraderie are crucial components of trust-building. Based on that understanding, their article includes a call to action for managers: “Managers seeking to improve experiences of fairness and camaraderie should pay particular attention to how race/ethnicity and gender influence these experiences, and how they do so intersectionally.”

At an even higher level, Steinfield et al. suggest that organizations should walk the talk when it comes to their DEI goals, ensuring, for example, that their panels, boards, and c-suites “reflect the diversity they wish to achieve.” This kind of leadership modeling at the highest levels sets a strong example of dedication to diversity and inclusion for the entire organization, which makes it more likely that the kinds of positive changes to organizational policies, training, and other aspects of culture we’ve discussed so far will be prioritized throughout the company.

You’ve reached the most important part of this series.

While it may be a tempting analogy, identifying intersections of injustice can’t be represented as a simple addition problem. The unique contextual experiences of injustice that occur at a given intersection of identity can’t be understood by simply adding up the injuries related to discrete aspects of those identities (e.g., race + gender + sexuality). As stated by Knights and Omanović in their 2016 meta-analysis of diversity management practices, “studies of intersectionality have shown clearly that disadvantage on one dimension (e.g., ethnicity) has multiple and not just incremental effects on the life chances of someone also disadvantaged on other dimensions such as age or gender.”

This type of common misunderstanding is why we are calling part 4 “the most important part of the series”; the misunderstanding of intersectional experiences of injustice as additive vs. uniquely compounded is just one of the many pitfalls to be avoided when we adopt intersectionality into our workplace practices, and that’s what this final installment in our series is focused on.

After reading four research-based, detailed posts on intersectionality and reflecting on your own experiences and practices, it would be easy to feel fairly well-versed in this concept, so it’s important to stop and remember that we’re really only scratching the surface here, folks! There is a huge body of research out there on this subject, and while we are happy to bring you this introduction to intersectionality at work, we all have to be cautious of the dangers of overconfidence in our adoption of the intersectional lens.

One of those dangers is the potential to exacerbate stereotypes through an “essentialist” understanding of identity. Ryan and Briggs note that, “One danger that can emerge in embracing an intersectionality lens is stereotyping those with a particular intersected identity…in seeking to recognize perspectives of ethnic minority women, the problem of stereotyping all individuals of an intersectional identity can also arise.” To address this, Olson et al. (2013) suggested “examining cultural values rather than ethnicity,” but this is just one mitigation strategy among many that may be valid depending on the particular intersections that exist within your own employee population.

Steinfield et al. echo the dangers of stereotyping and other dangers in their research, urging all of us to avoid losing sight of intersectionality’s crucial relationship to social justice. When that connection is broken, they note that organizations may end up focusing on the headcount of specific demographic groups instead of on the larger systems that may be creating challenges for those groups. It’s important to remember that the central focus of intersectionality research is to transform systems in order to achieve equity. As Steinfield et al. remind us, we should all keep the following three elements front-of-mind as we engage with intersectional work:

“i) a focus on oppressions or how people navigate oppressions

ii) the complex interactions of power dynamics and structures that create interlocking oppressions

iii) what needs to be transformed to achieve social justice”

What’s next?

Let’s wrap up by going back to where we began, with Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, whose advice on how to act on the information revealed through intersectionality remains crucial to anyone seeking to improve their workplaces through more effective DEI and anti-oppressive efforts. Rather than taking a “top-down approach to discrimination,” Dr. Crenshaw reminds us that centering those who are most marginalized is the best way to improve conditions for everyone:

If…efforts instead began with addressing the needs and problems of those who are most disadvantaged and with restructuring and remaking the world where necessary, then others who are singularly disadvantaged would also benefit. (Crenshaw, 1989)

It’s never a bad idea to end with some inspiration, so we’d highly recommend checking out our recent conversation with Coltrane Stansbury on topics including DEI, ERGs, and allyship. His advice for taking action as an ally to marginalized groups at work? Consider your sphere of influence as a starting point, and ask yourself: “Who are the people that I’m interacting with every day?… What could they possibly be experiencing that I am not?… How do I, as an ally, become aware of what their challenge and their pain is, and how do I do that in a way that doesn’t rob the person of their dignity, their voice or their self-empowerment?”

The allyship initiative Coltrane talks about in this conversation is a great example of the type of work that is necessary to, in his words, “operationalize awareness” in an organization. He explains that DEI work is an “area where we really have to slow the organization down and create real intimate spaces. This work can’t solely be done through 45 minute modules with a discussion group afterword or pre-work.” Instead, the work is all about building relationships, and change often starts small, even with just a couple of people partnering to try to do more for their colleagues.

In Coltrane’s experience, “It starts with two people deciding they have none of the answers in their head, but through vulnerability, transparency, and a framework of intimacy where people can share, we are going to start building a content driven conversation that gets to an empowerment model where a few people can start empowering others.”

In a conversation about this intersectionality blog series, Coltrane offered some additional insights for anyone engaging in allyship work, and it comes down to this: Allyship isn’t charity and should not be looked at as altruism. It is work that we are each responsible for and that benefits all of us. One way to keep that framing front-of-mind is to begin with the type of activity we asked you to try at the start of this series: by reflecting on the questions, “Who am I?” and “How did I get here?” Through reflecting on your own identities, experiences, traumas, supports, and obstacles, you’ll be more equipped to find commonalities with your colleagues vs. only differences, and you’ll be able to tap into the collective humanity and empathy necessary for effective intersectional work. Starting with empathy and an understanding that “my liberation is tied up in yours” is critical, and engaging with your colleagues as an ally should change you as much as it changes those you seek to better understand and support.