Race-Conscious Career Development: Exploring Self-Preservation and Coping Strategies of Black Professionals in Corporate America

Abstract

The Problem

Corporations have maintained a history of operating as racialized social systems that contribute to racial divisions and inequities in the workplace. Despite this reality, there have been high-achieving Black men and women who have overcome limitations and unfavorable circumstances. In this study, resilience to racial bias in corporate America is explored through the lived experience of Black professionals by using a phenomenological research method.

The Solution

Race, racism, and workplace incivility are discussed in a conceptual framework to examine how racial bias still exists in the workplace and to contextualize the participants’ experiences. As a result of the findings, self-preservation and coping strategies are identified to provide insight into how the participants overcame social and racial barriers that influence their professional identities and career development in corporate America.

The Stakeholders

This research is intended to inform organizational leaders and career development researchers and specialists who are invested in the advancement of Black professionals and the communities they represent. This study also has implications for human resource developers and researchers who seek to minimize racial bias against Black professionals through racial discourse and race-conscious research.

Keywords

black professionals corporate America career development coping strategies resilience

In the United States, race is still a determining factor that influences multiple dimensions in one’s life, especially for those who are Black. The socially imposed restrictions and stigma that has historically been associated with the Black race (Clair et al., 2016; Yancy, 2016) presently impacts their educational achievement, physical health, well-being, and employment opportunities (Chetty et al., 2020; Cole & Omari, 2003). Despite this reality, there have been high-achieving Black men and women who have overcome limitations and unfavorable circumstances throughout history. In this study, self-preservation and coping strategies were identified by exploring how Black professionals in corporate America navigate racialized social systems, which Bonilla-Silva (2006) described as systems that prioritize Whites by maintaining social divisions and ignoring racial inequities.

The sociopolitical and cultural foundations of race and racism have led to tremendous disparities between the career outcomes of Whites and non-Whites (Watkins, 2013). Whites have traditionally occupied positions of authority and influence across all job sectors, while Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) have mostly worked in entry-level positions and labor-intensive industries (Collins, 1997; Eby et al., 1998; Vallas, 2003). Some experts assume these divisions start before applicants enter the workforce, beginning with access to suitable education and parental guidance (Duffy & Dik, 2009). More progressive scholars realize that race also influences career choices (Barret et al., 2004; Clair et al., 2016; Vallas, 2003). Other experts acknowledge that racial minorities have not entirely been able to recover from America’s history of expansionism and exploitation of labor (Brief et al., 1997; Logan, 2019; Yancy, 2016).

Need and Purpose

When attention is primarily focused on the Black experience, considerable research has found that Black professionals face greater challenges than their White counterparts and experience racial prejudice more than other racial and ethnic minorities in the workplace (Center for Talent Innovation, 2019; Cornileus, 2013). However, there is less research that has studied how Black professionals have navigated racialized social systems and achieved successful outcomes through self-preservation and coping strategies. By exploring the experiences of five Black professionals who represent different industries and occupations within leading S & P Fortune 500 companies, this study examined how they practiced resilience, the process of adapting to a situation when faced with adversity (Stuart et al., 2007). With this in mind, the overarching research question asked: What are the lived experiences of Black professionals working in corporate America? Gibson and Hanes (2003) explained that lived experience is a way of understanding a human phenomenon by unpacking the participants’ experience of the phenomenon. This inquiry guided the phenomenological research design and provided flexibility to explore the participants’ experiences through a race-conscious perspective that recognizes the historical, cultural, and sociopolitical context that informs current racial divisions and inequities in the workplace.

Race Matters: Race, Racism, and Workplace Incivility in Corporate America

In this article, race, racism, and workplace incivility provide a conceptual framework for reviewing the extant literature that has studied the experiences of Black professionals in corporate America. First, a Black-conscious lens was used to gain a broader view of ways that race and racism have defined the Black experience. Within this framework, a search for studies that have explicitly focused on the career development of Black professionals was conducted. Second, the concept of workplace incivility was reviewed to demonstrate how implicit racial bias is experienced by Black professionals in the workplace (Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Kabet-Farr & Cortina, 2012; Wade, 2001).

Race and Racism from a Black-Conscious Perspective

Although the concept of African American is often synonymous with the word Black in the United States, this word can also describe multiple cultures and origins across the globe (Yancy, 2016), including immigrants in America from Africa. In this study, Black will refer to Black American-born citizens with ancestry from Africa, who are commonly known as African American. Despite the fact that the word Black carries many meanings and represents a variety of experiences, Black is typically acknowledged as a monolithic group (Cornileus, 2016). However, there has been research that recognized the racialized experiences of Black faculty within institutions of higher education (Davis et al., 2020; Jean-Marie et al., 2009), but “relatively little is known about Black professionals’ experiences of racial microaggressions at work” (Pitcan et al., 2018, p. 301). When Blacks are discussed in relation to career development outside of higher education, research is mainly focused on entry-level, low-skilled, and trade education (Eby et al., 1998; Watkins, 2013). As opposed to focusing on vocational training or physical labor, this research is beneficial because it includes the experience of knowledge workers, which are employees who sustain, produce, and improve a company’s strategies, resources, technology, and other functions to help corporations become more competitive and effective (Davenport, 2005). Because of their elevated status as knowledge workers, there is reason to believe Black professionals experience different forms of racial bias and social inequities than non-knowledge workers. In spite of this distinction, it is universally understood that the “. . . the career development of African Americans [Blacks] in the United States is different from that of [W]hite people” (Barrett et al., 2004, p. 86), which make race and race-related issues relevant to the success of Black people.

Whites who are secluded and unfamiliar with the plight of the Black experience might be inclined to disagree that Blacks still experience unfair treatment. Pushback about the reality of current racism has been challenged because of the incredible accomplishments achieved by Black Americans, with the presidency of Barack Obama as a leading example (DeSante, 2013). However, those who question the existence of racism in the twenty-first century are using the wrong metric. Anti-Black racism is still extant at the individual and systemic level (Gillborn, 2018), but a more subtle form of racism has grown from overt bigotry against Blacks. Instead of physical abuse, mockery, and racial segregation, the “new racism” is quiet and in-direct (Bonilla-Silva, 2015; Brief et al., 1997). This off-the-record evolution of racial discrimination has created new ways that racism is understood and practiced.

Workplace Incivility in Corporate America

Fox and Stallworth (2005) argued “that while laws and norms no longer condone overtly racist behaviors, the “modern” workplace provides ample opportunity for subtle, even unconscious manifestations of racism, including neglect, incivility, humor, ostracism, inequitable treatment, and other forms” (p. 439). This section is focused on how Black professionals experience workplace incivility in corporate America. “Workplace incivility is a subtle type of deviant work behavior that is low in intensity and violates workplace norms of respect” (Welbourne et al., 2015, p. 205). Some scholars have viewed this concept through a critical lens and acknowledged the connection between contemporary racism and workplace incivility (Sue, 2016; Wade, 2001). Anderson and Pearson (1999) characterized workplace incivility as uncivil work behaviors that intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) reinforce the cultural superiority of a dominant group within an organization. Expanding on this understanding, the authors suggested organizations can knowingly or unknowingly practice racial bias through workplace incivility. Cortina et al. (2009) investigated this theory in a variety of organizations and found that minority women, especially Black women, are more subjected to mistreatment, social isolation, and unfair social systems than any other minority group.

Although numerous social factors may contribute to the unique disadvantages of Black women, Wade (2001) argued that Black professionals are consciously working against false perceptions of their racial and professional identity. The author explained that Black professionals are consistently in jeopardy of their White colleagues associating them with criminality, violence, and other Black stereotypes. Steele et al., (2002) suggested being falsely linked to stereotypes can lead to stereotype threat, defined as the threat of being viewed through a negative stereotype, which can result in adverse performance outcomes. Studies that have researched the learning and development of minorities have used stereotype threat to explain the poor academic performance and slow career progression of Blacks (McKay et al., 2002; Thomas, 2019). Some scholars have also determined that Black professionals who are tokens, the only Black professional in their workgroup or department, are more susceptible to the negative outcomes of stereotype threat than non-tokens (Roberson et al., 2003).

Aside from being subjected to racial stereotypes, Bonilla-Silva (2006) claimed Black professionals also experience “social segregation” from Whites in the workplace (p. 229). When workplace incivility is directly targeted on the bias of gender and/or race, Kabet-Farr and Cortina (2012) explained it elevates to another hidden form of discrimination known as selective incivility, which ostracizes women and BIPOC and “perpetuates gender and racial disparities in organizations” (p. 110). In the case of Black men, Cornileus (2016) claimed that they are intentionally left out of social and informal networks that drive business decisions, despite whether or not they hold leadership positions. Black women have encountered similar experiences of social isolation from White colleagues, including seclusion from White women (Hall et al., 2012). Studies have also indicated Black professional men and women are more likely to experience additional subjectivity and scrutiny of their work during the hiring and promotion process (Eby et al., 1998; Vallas, 2003), and they are less likely to have access to a high-ranking mentor who is willing to support their career development (Thomas, 2019). To overcome these challenges, DeSante (2013) explained there is a general philosophy that suggests “Blacks must work twice as hard as Whites to get half as far” (p. 342). Similarly, Cole and Omari (2003) stated that the cost of upward mobility for Blacks has a higher taxation than Whites, but the authors further explained that the extra work can lead to burnout or exhaustion, and result in emotional and psychological trauma to the extent that Blacks are unable to enjoy the success of their hard-work. Moreover, Brown and Segrist (2016) argued that the consistent uphill battle to prove their worth can lead some Black professionals to lower their career aspirations as a form of “acceptance” that recognizes the social and systemic limitations to advance their careers (p. 179). This study explored the resilience of high-achieving Black men and women by understanding how they endure these challenges in corporate America.

Method

An interpretive phenomenological research design was selected to acknowledge the historical, cultural, and sociopolitical influence of the participants’ experiences (Larkin et al., 2006). The primary goal of using this method is to capture both the phenomenon and the human experience (Seah & Wilson, 2011). “The interest in human experience is one that HRD, with its concern for human development in organizations, has in common with phenomenology” (Gibson & Hanes, 2003, p. 199). The intuitive and insightful nature of an interpretive phenomenology is expected to avoid a static and neutral stance (Larkin et al., 2006). Instead, the researcher’s purpose is to co-construct the meaning of the phenomenon with the participants (Gadamer, 1976), which involves an in-depth examination into their lived experience (Gibson & Hanes, 2003). This focus was considered during participant selection and maintained throughout the data collection and analysis process.

Participants

The data was comprised of fifteen interviews documenting the experiences of five Black professionals, composed of two females and three males. All participants were employees at an operational or world headquarters located in the Midwest. They represented industries in banking and finance, manufacturing, medical technology, innovation, and healthcare; and their professions included supply chain, marketing, biochemistry, information management, and information technology. Collectively, the sample represented an average age of 42 and included mid-level to senior-level employees. Although other participants were considered, the participants included in the data were selected because: (1) they worked for the same corporation for at least three years, (2) had the availability to undergo three separate interviews, and (3) had the willingness to engage in the interpretive phenomenological process.

Data Collection and Analysis

To complement the interpretive approach, a three-series interview model was applied to the study. Schuman (1982) introduced the three-series interview model as an investigative strategy to examine participants’ experiences and place them into context, which allows for both the researcher and participant to revisit and uncover the details and meaning of their experience. Seidman (2013) outlined how to use this approach for phenomenological research in education and the social sciences, which included three distinct phases. This study implemented each of the recommended phases.

During the first interview, introductory questioning was utilized for participants to disclose their scholastic and professional journeys, their conceptualization of being Black, and opinions about Black culture. The second phase allowed time to elaborate on relevant discussion, with heightened attention to their encounters and reactions to racial bias and incivility at work. The last interview was a collaborative effort to review their previous responses by reexamining the motivations and outcomes of their actions, as well as considering how their Black and non-Black colleagues perceived their actions. To obtain this level of specificity, each of the 15 interviews were approximately 90 minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed for analysis.

Due to the race-conscious focus in the study, a critical hermeneutic interpretive approach was used to guide the data analysis process. A critical hermeneutic inquiry allows marginalized groups or their members to share experiences from their lack of privilege and/or power (Phillips & Brown, 1993). Nonetheless, the central component of hermeneutics is interpreting the data in the form of text (van Manen, 1994). This method of data analysis is used “to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world” (Smith & Osborn, 2015, p. 26). This required a detailed process of line-by-line coding of each transcribed interview, with the aim to identify “objects of concern” and “experiential claims” from the participants (Larkin et al., 2006, p. 111). Thereafter, van Manen’s (1994) thematic analysis recommendations were applied to delicately group together shared meanings without reducing each participants’ unique perceptions and experiences. This process included identifying structures of experience, describing how structures were thematically representative of the phenomenon, and explaining the significance of each theme. The data was analyzed in this sequence for individual interviews and across all interview series.

Discussion of Findings

In this section the experiences of Black professionals are presented with a particular focus on how they practice resilience to counteract workplace incivility in corporate America. As a result of data analysis, four main themes emerged, which each represent a strategy (see Table 1). The first two themes are self-preservation strategies that relate to the participants’ instinct to protect their Black and professional identities. When describing the strategy, the concept of safeguard came to mind. Safeguard means to “protect from harm or damage with an appropriate measure” (Safeguard, n.d.). On account of this discovery, the theory of stereotype threat also became relevant. Thus, safeguard personal narratives and safeguard Blackness were identified as strategies to overcome stereotype threats that jeopardize the integrity of the participants’ racial and professional identities. Subsequently, the remaining two strategies explained how the participants cope with race-related barriers that influence their career development. These strategies were synthesized into two themes, micro-manage expectations and micro-target opportunities.

Table 1.

Summary of Participants’ Self-Preservation and Coping Strategies.

Strategy	Description	Example	Influence
Safeguard personal narratives	Share personal narratives to ensure accurate representation and to supersede socially imposed depictions of being Black	Announce major accomplishments and establish social connections with White colleagues	Professional identity (self-preservation)
Safeguard blackness	Recognize the taxation of tokenism and White gaze	Educate those who are allies to the Black community, after their intentions to support the advancement of the Black community are confirmed	Professional identity (self-preservation)
Micro-manage expectations	Realize hard-work and determination may not amount to the same success or receive the same recognition as Whites	Celebrate promotions, but anticipate pushback from colleagues unfamiliar and/or uncomfortable with Black men and women in leadership	Career development (coping)
Micro-target opportunities	Identify ways to gain social capital and minimize social isolation	Consider partnerships with White mentors and allies to gain access to (otherwise restricted) social networks	Career development (coping)

Safeguard Personal Narratives

The first strategy described how the participants attempted to safeguard their personal narrative to avoid being misrepresented, misunderstood, and misidentified by socially imposed identities, such as being the “angry Black woman” or the “aggressive Black man.” The participants mentioned the importance of shaping their own narratives, as opposed to allowing their colleagues’ curiosity and inexperience to configure false and irrelevant conceptions of their Black and professional identities. One participant provided an example when she described her relationship with her previous supervisor. She said:

I think the assumption is that we’re educated but we have a lot of issues. They simply do not hold us in a high light and they try to keep their distance [from us] because they think “black” is negative and confrontational. . . But the reality is that Blacks are very hard-working. . . My first supervisor would go out of her way to make sure I was getting work done, even though my work always got done. . . it was kind of like the cat and mouse game. . . I always had to be on my p’s and q’s . . . even when I was leaving for the day I would make sure to email not just my boss but her boss.

The participant believed the spotlight on her work was motivated by the spotlight on her race. The unnecessary hovering over the participants’ work could also be considered a form of incivility known as “social undermining,” which can occur when supervisors enact their negative bias through “petty tyranny” (Fox & Stallworth, 2005).

Nonetheless, the participant made a conscious effort not to share any “stereotypical” emotions as a Black woman. Instead, she informed her human resources department of her assumption, which initiated an investigation and validated her claim. Other participants also mentioned how they experienced discomfort. The other female participant recalled an incident when she confronted a co-worker about name-calling, typically known as a verbal offense that has potential to incite emotional stress (Delgado, 1982). She said:

There was a time when one of my coworkers was discussing something and used the word “Indian Giver.” I don’t think the other people around understood what that meant, [but] I didn’t have the conscious just to push that aside. . . I think as individuals and as corporations we should have those courageous conversations. I had to make sure I didn’t lose myself in the situation. It was personal for me. It’s a conversation that they’re having at the “water cooler,” but to me, it’s something that I live. They have the privilege not to worry about race if they don’t want to because it’s not required for them to succeed in life. Yet, it affects me if I want to or not.

Hence, the effective ways participants attempted to safeguard their personal narrative was by addressing false narratives through intentional and direct forms of intervention. Other methods included making efforts to draw connections with their colleagues, share their accomplishments, and maintain an elevator speech, so their colleagues have a clear understanding of their personal and work identity. However, sharing personal information with their White colleagues was discussed from another perspective as well.

Safeguard Blackness

The concept of safeguarding Blackness (the experience or conditions of being Black) described how the participants were cautious of how much information they shared with their White colleagues, especially to those who did not present themselves as allies to the Black community. In this theme, the participants gave examples of how their White colleagues reinforced racial divisions through tokenism and White gaze. The participants shared experiences of being prompted to answer questions about Black culture and the Black experience to entertain their White colleagues’ curiosity. One participant described this feeling when she explained that she feared her White colleagues would use her personal narrative as proof that they have “one Black friend” when they try to engage in conversations about race. She also said:

Every time they hear something happen on the news [“about Black stuff”] they look to me—they act like I have additional information. But, it’s different for me. It’s like the scab has been pulled off every week and it doesn’t get a chance to heal because we’re living this over and over again. . . They don’t seem to be interested in the full story. . . They just want to be filled in about Black stuff.

This experience classified as a very subtle form of workplace incivility, on account of the insensitivity of the participants’ co-workers to disregard how unfortunate incidents within the Black community affected her well-being. Du Bois (1903) conveyed a similar concern when he described the tendency of Whites to ignore social problems but be intrigued by those who experience struggle. He said, “Instead of saying directly, how does it feel to be a problem? They say, I know an excellent colored man in my town” (p. 213). Therefore, tokenism is not only about representation, it is also about White gaze, which is not a new phenomenon. White gaze is the ability of Whites to view the disadvantages and suffering of those without power or privilege, and willingly maintain a system of injustice and imbalance (Yancy, 2016). The notion of White gaze was further explained by another participant who expressed the need to maintain a secure distance from White colleagues. He said:

I tend to wear a shirt and tie while my colleagues can wear a polo or just a button-up shirt. Maybe there’s some additional pressure [of me] trying to prove myself each day. But, maybe some of it is just saying I deserve to be here. No different than anyone. I hesitate to invite my co-workers to my home because maybe they realize I live in a house the same as them or a different zip code than what they expect me to live in.

He continued by explaining he has witnessed White men change qualifications, when they realize Blacks are capable and willing to hold positions of power. This concern was also articulated by James Baldwin (1961) when he said, “I have spent most of my life. . . watching [W]hite people and outwitting them so that I might survive” (p. 217). Despite the time that has transpired between Du Bois’ (1903) and Baldwin’s (1961) experience and the participant’s statements, there is still fear and mistrust between the White and Black community. With this in mind, safeguarding Blackness is a strategy that suggests intimate details of the Black experience should be selectively disclosed to trusted individuals who support the advancement of the Black community, as opposed to anyone simply exploring their imagination about what it means to be Black.

Micro-Manage Expectations

The idea to micro-manage expectations refers to the participants micro-managing their expectations and conditions for their success. This theme emerged when it became evident that the participants did not believe they were capable of achieving the same success as their White colleagues. Similar to the vigorous work ethic that DeSante (2013) described, the participants explained they had to remain resilient by working harder than their White colleagues and and maintaining a competitive mindset, in the event an opportunity suddenly became available. However, the practice of bracing themselves for “let-downs” was also mentioned on numerous occasions. One of the participants described this concept when he explained the lack of acknowledgment he received for his promotion. He said:

That new job represents change to them and that new job represents economic power to them [and] change to the environment. . . It also makes them uncomfortable because it does not fit into a stereotype that they feel comfortable with. . . If you’re Black and a rising star in the company, and if you do something wrong, the first thing [that is] going to be mentioned is that you’re Black—that’s literally probably going to come before your name. . .I have to be tip-top—no doubt about it.

He further explained that his mere presence is a manifestation of change, but it will be met with “push back” because his White co-workers were not accustomed to being supervised by a Black man. Other studies have uncovered similar hurdles and constraints Black men encounter in leadership positions. Collins (1997) explained that Black mobility in primarily White organizations increases the vulnerability of Black leaders because they lose support as they gain more visibility.

Another participant also discussed this dilemma regarding Black women in leadership. She argued Black women experience greater difficulty because they share the least in common with White men. The other participants reinforced these comments by acknowledging they were educated and supervised primarily by Whites. One of the participants explained that there are structures in place to create the same barriers for the next cohort of Black professionals. He said:

[In my department] I think there was something like 60% to 70% of the direct hires from referrals—hiring from online was a secondary source. That creates automatic decreases in the potential for new Black hires. . . And, some people think we are moving the needle because we have more women in leadership positions but sometimes that overshadows People of Color because it’s White women in leadership, so that’s one White leader exchanged for another White leader.

Thus, conversations about the normalization of Whites being in positions of authority and influence was widely discussed and stood out as a central component in each of their experiences at work. This sentiment was summarized through the understanding that Whiteness (the experience or conditions of being White) operates invisibly. Whereas, anyone who is Black is always seen and operates under a microscope, and therefore subjected to more scrutiny and surveillance. Despite this racial bias, the participants reiterated their hard work and determination was still necessary and expected, but they simply needed to operate realistically. When realizing the participants’ fortitude to endure this circumstance, it was obvious they each practiced a great deal of tenacity and grit.

Micro-Target Opportunities

The last strategy is inspired by a technique used in marketing research known as micro-targeting. The process of micro-targeting identifies specific interests extracted from consumer data with the purpose of targeting a particular consumer-base using their preferred or likely medium of communication (Ziliani & Bellini, 2004). The participants described a similar process for targeting career development opportunities by making connections that were outside of their immediate reach. There was a consensus that their race set the parameters on their access to opportunities and social connections. Through this point of view, the participants reinforced the understanding that meritocracy is a delicacy experienced by very few individuals, but certainly not the Black race (Brown, 2004; Roberts, 2019). The participants explained their merits needed to be supplemented and validated by their White peers, which mainly took place through social networking.

Employee resource groups (ERGs) and mentorship were mentioned on several occasions. In regard to mentorship, one participant explained the need to think broadly about mentors and not restrict partnership to race. She said:

One of my co-workers, a Black attorney, had an intern start in her department, and they paired her up to mentor the Black intern, and she declined. She said she needs to be paired with somebody else on my same level. And everyone was shocked at her response. . . But she responded that she [the Black intern] will already get a relationship with me because I’m already going to connect with her. . . she needs to be with someone outside of her [Black experience] to give her perspective. . . I think of the same thing with senior leadership. We’re trying to learn how to get sponsorship and visibility from someone outside our circle. . . [and also] to have our influence come through another person.

Additionally, executive sponsors of ERGs, who were characterized as powerful White men, were recognized as potential allies to support their careers as well. One of the participants disclosed the executive sponsor of his group was able to place him in their company’s leadership program, which led to other connections and opportunities. Other participants claimed their work and accomplishments in their ERGs was a more efficient way to be recognized because they represented the whole organization, whereas their job was just a small piece of a larger system.

Holder et al. (2015) added that support from White allies includes validating the existence of racial bias and inequities. A participant corroborated the above claim when she explained that she felt a greater sense of commitment to her employer because they recognized the historical and present connotations of being Black and understood why the ERG was so important to the Black professionals in her organization. Another participant said that, “. . . Being Black is knowing that we didn’t get here alone and that we had support from Caucasian Americans.” As one of the senior-level participants, he also explained the ERGs are a way for Black professionals to support one another. He further explained:

Sometimes you hear about how we [Black professionals] don’t help each other. We don’t support each other. I don’t believe that’s true. You come to a certain level and you’re not intimidated or worried about sharing our information. . . Whether they’re entry level or in middle management, we should be making sure that they’re creating what we call a personal board of directors, people that they can tap into to give advice and counsel as they navigate those treacherous waters of corporate America.

He believed being Black and “working with your head down” and “working alone” were not viable strategies. This belief was communicated by all the participants. Isolation, toleration, nor inaction was deemed beneficial to overcome social barriers in the workplace. The participants expressed a need to seek support from within and outside their Black community to increase their social capital, and ultimately, progress their careers.

Implications for Human Resource Development

Prior to this article, other discussions about workplace incivility have been mentioned in HRD research, but without acknowledgment of race or racism in corporate settings (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Estes & Wang, 2008; Ghosh et al., 2011), even though BIPOC are most likely to encounter uncivil behavior both within and outside of the workplace (Cortina et al., 2017). The findings reaffirmed the pervasiveness of workplace incivility experienced by Black professionals, and it provided a reason to reconsider the relationships between race, racism, and workplace incivility. When describing how racial stereotypes are a form of workplace incivility within large corporations, Wade (2001) explained that “racially toxic corporate cultures” exist because there is no “generalized code of workplace civility” that is protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act (p. 1461). Others have also realized that racial bias against Black professionals is still being measured by outdated forms of racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2015; Gillborn, 2018). Consequently, Wade (2001) claimed that workplace incivility against Black professionals has become a part of corporate culture that is often unchecked, on account of its subtle form and abstract intentionality. Further discussion is needed to explore this topic in more depth. Questions still remain, such as: Is workplace incivility against BIPOC a more acceptable, less stigmatized, and unpunishable form of racism? Is there a certain degree of workplace incivility against BIPOC that is not considered to be disruptive to the progress of BIPOC at work? These questions require race-conscious discussions. In the absence of research and theory that informs the lived experiences of Black professionals, the ability to be resilient when faced with racism and workplace incivility is compromised. Consequently, the theory to practice relationship is broken. To have race-conscious discussions in the field of HRD, there must be a shift in how HRD research, theory, and practice prioritizes humanism over performative goals (Bierema & Callahan, 2014).

HRD Research and Theory

When describing who benefits from workplace incivility and who becomes targets of workplace incivility, Cortina et al. (2009) discussed power relations within organizations. Critical HRD has also been conceptualized as a lens to analyze power relations in organizations (2005), but there is a gap between theory and practice. Moving beyond the conceptualization of critical HRD is necessary to minimize the gap between theory and practice. More attention on how to operationalize CHRD is needed. CHRD is not just a lens to self-reflect on HRD itself or analyze power relations in organizations. CHRD has the capability to incite social change. Having an awareness of the experience of BIPOC in corporate settings can help devise strategies to dismantle racialized systems.

More specifically, more race-conscious research is needed to provide a better understanding of the human experience, as it relates to human resource development. Phenomenology research delivers deep insight into complicated and sensitive phenomena (Seah & Wilson, 2011; Thompson, 1990), such as racial divisions in the workplace. However, the use of phenomenological research is gravely underutilized in HRD research (Gibson & Hanes, 2003). HRD could benefit from more phenomenological studies that unpack the social inequities and disparities that interrupt the learning and development of racial minorities and other marginalized groups. Investigating their counter-narratives can provide a more practical and comprehensive understanding of the conditions that influence their career outcomes. As it currently stands, the performance theories that have rigidly bound the field of HRD do not consider lived experiences of racism and workplace incivility as social realities that influence performance (Byrd & Stanley, 2009). Sociocultural theories that explain the interplay between social realities, power, performance, and resilience are needed.

HRD Practice

Conversations about race and racism must be met with greater intentionality to recognize why race is still relevant to our social systems. By choosing to disregard race, and adopt a colorblind lens, our racialized systems reproduce disparities and maintain social division. Sue (2016) explained workplace civility has been falsely upheld by Whites who refrain from conversations about race. The author identified a series of tactics used by Whites to avoid racial discourse, which included: proclaiming universal themes of oppression (e.g., sexism, homophobia, classism are also social problems), professing innocence (e.g., slavery is over and I do not support racism), downplaying the social significance of race (e.g., I do not see color), and claiming victimhood for themselves (e.g., affirmative action has taken away my opportunities). Thus, it is unacceptable to continue to allow Whites to be unbothered by the racially imposed disadvantages of BIPOC. Equally important, conversations about race and racism should not be left to HRD professionals who are targets of racism. To disarm racists and racism, intervention is needed from targets, White allies, and bystanders of racism (Sue et al., 2019). Human resource developers also need the support, attention, and full participation of organizational leaders in corporate America.

Corporations need to reassess their role in dismantling racism. “The workplace very likely accounts for a large portion of the interaction that takes place across the color line in the United States,” (Vallas, 2003, p. 382), and therefore, the workplace has the potential to impact race-relations that occur outside of the workplace. Companies can begin to repair racial tensions by accepting accountability for their past and present contributions to racial divisions in labor (Collins, 1997) and economic success (Chetty et al., 2020; Cole & Omari, 2003). Several companies have benefited from disempowering, profiting, exploiting, and excluding Blacks in the workplace (Collins, 1997; Logan, 2019), and although diversity management (DM) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts have helped minimize stigma to acknowledge the existence of racism in organizations (Brief et al., 1997; Holder et al., 2015), a greater focus is needed to make impactful and sustainable change. DM and CSR language should no longer be coded and modified to meet the demands of the marketplace. Instead, companies can start by admitting their wrong-doings and adhering to the social demands of operating “ethical organizational behavior that benefits [all of] society” (Logan, 2019, p. 982). The current race-relations of 2020, has prompted companies to respond to this call of action with much more urgency and meaningful resolutions.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize that Black professionals encounter racial bias (Cortina et al., 2017), and their experiences can lead to psychological distress through stereotype threat (Roberson et al., 2003) and other self-limiting mindsets (Brown & Segrist, 2016; Cole & Omari, 2003). By exploring the lived experiences of Black professional men and women in corporate America, this study identified how the participants practiced resilience through a series of coping and self-preservation strategies to navigate racial bias in the workplace. Their experiences also brought attention to the various ways racial bias and discrimination can be perceived in the workplace. Workplace incivility was used as a lens to illustrate how the absence of violent, harmful, and aggressive forms of racism still provides space for non-verbal, unintentional, and dismissive forms of racial division in the workplace. Ultimately, the participants shared how their Black identity was not necessarily the direct target of racial discrimination, but their Black identity was the reason why they experienced social barriers and disadvantages that influenced their professional identity and career development.

Thus, not being racist or not practicing discrimination is simply not enough to dismantle the structural and psychological remnants of racism. Additional research in organizational studies is needed to expose how subtle and unchallenged forms of workplace incivility prioritizes Whites (Anderson & Pearson, 1999) through the social distancing of BIPOC in the workplace (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Understanding how the workplace still operates as a racialized system can inform the necessary action needed to constitute sustainable social change within corporations. An active and critical approach in HRD research and practice can help mobilize this goal by engaging in racial-discourse and employing research methods that unpack the lived experiences of BIPOC to identify the social constraints that disrupt their learning and development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Stephanie Sisco is a postdoctoral associate at the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities. Her research seeks to identify and challenge business practices that negatively affect the employability and advancement of racial minorities. Dr. Sisco is also an assistant editor of New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, and a recipient of the 2017 Academy of Human Resource Development Cutting Edge Award.

References

Anderson

L. M.

Pearson

C. M.

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

Baldwin

(1961). Nobody knows my name. Dial.

Barrett

I. C.

Cervero

R. M.

Johnson-Bailey

(2004). The career development of black human resource developers in the United States. Human Resource Development International, 7(1), 85–100.

Bartlett

J. E.

Bartlett

M. E.

(2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69–84.

Bierema

Callahan

J. L.

(2014). Transforming HRD: A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 429–444.

Bonilla-Silva

(2006). What is racism? The racialized social system framework. In Durr

Hill

(Eds.), Race, work, and family in the lives of African Americans (pp. 13–43). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Bonilla-Silva

(2015). The structure of racism in color-blind, ‘post-racial’ America. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(11), 1358–1376.

Brief

A. P.

Buttram

R. T.

Reizenstien

R. M.

Pugh

S. D.

Callahan

J. D.

McCline

R. L.

Vaslow

J. B.

(1997). Beyond good intentions: The next steps toward racial equality in the American workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11(4), 59–72.

Brown

D. A.

(2004). Fighting racism in the twenty-first century. Washington Lee Law Review, 61, 1485–1499.

10.

Brown

D. L.

Segrist

(2016). African American career aspirations: Examining the relative influence of internalized racism. Journal of Career Development, 43(2), 177–189.

11.

Byrd

M. Y.

Stanley

C. A.

(2009). Giving voice: The socio-cultural realities of African American women’s leadership experiences. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(5), 551–561.

12.

Center for Talent Innovation. (2019). Being Black in corporate America: An intersectional approach. https://www.talentinnovation.org/_private/assets/BeingBlack-KeyFindings-CTI.pdf

13.

Chetty

Hendren

Jones

M. R.

Porter

S. R.

(2020). Race and economic opportunity in the United States: An intergenerational perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2), 711–783.

14.

Clair

Daniel

Lamont

(2016). Destigmatization and health: Cultural constructions and the long-term reduction of stigma. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 223–232.

15.

Cole

E. R.

Omari

S. R.

(2003). Race, class and the dilemmas of upward mobility for African Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 785–802.

16.

Collins

(1997). Black corporate executives: The making and breaking of a black middle class. Temple University Press.

17.

Cornileus

T. H.

(2013). “I’m a Black man and I’m doing this job very well”: How African American professional men negotiate the impact of racism on their career development. Journal of African American Studies, 17(4), 444–460.

18.

Cornileus

T. H.

(2016). The brotherhood in corporate America. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2016(150), 83–96.

19.

Cortina

L. M.

Kabat-Farr

Magley

V. J.

Nelson

(2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 299–313.

20.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272–288.

21.

Davenport

T. H.

(2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from knowledge workers. Harvard Business Press.

22.

Davis

T. J.

Greer

T. W.

Sisco

Collins

J. C.

(2020). “Reclaiming my time” amid organizational change: A dialectical approach to support the thriving and career development for faculty at the margins. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 22(1), 23–40.

23.

Delgado

(1982). Words that wound: A tort action for racial insults, epithets, and name-calling. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 17, 133–181.

24.

DeSante

C. D.

(2013). Working twice as hard to get half as far: Race, work ethic, and America’s deserving poor. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 342–356.

25.

Du Bois

W. E. B

. (1903). The souls of black folk: Essays and sketches. A. C. McClurg & Co.

26.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2009). Beyond the self: External influences in the career development process. The Career Development Quarterly, 58(1), 29–43.

27.

Eby

L. T.

Johnson

C. D.

Russell

J. E.

(1998). A psychometric review of career assessment tools for use with diverse individuals. Journal of Career Assessment, 6(3), 269–310.

28.

Estes

Wang

(2008). Integrative literature review: Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218–240.

29.

Fox

Stallworth

L. E.

(2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 438–456.

30.

Gadamer

H. G.

(1976). Philosophical hermeneutics ( Linge

D. E.

, Trans.). University of California Press.

31.

Ghosh

Dierkes

Falletta

(2011). Incivility spiral in mentoring relationships: Reconceptualizing negative mentoring as deviant workplace behavior. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 22–39.

32.

Gibson

S. K.

Hanes

L. A.

(2003). The contribution of phenomenology to HRD research. Human Resource Development Review, 2(2), 181–205.

33.

Gillborn

(2018). Heads I win, tails you lose: Anti-black racism as fluid, relentless, individual and systemic. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(1), 66–77.

34.

Hall

J. C.

Everett

J. E.

Hamilton-Mason

(2012). Black women talk about workplace stress and how they cope. Journal of Black Studies, 43(2), 207–226.

35.

Hauser

S. T.

Allen

J. P.

(2007). Overcoming adversity in adolescence: Narratives of resilience. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 26(4), 549–576.

36.

Holder

Jackson

M. A.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2015). Racial microaggression experiences and coping strategies of Black women in corporate leadership. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 164–180.

37.

Jean-Marie

Williams

V. A.

Sherman

S. L.

(2009). Black women’s leadership experiences: Examining the intersectionality of race and gender. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(5), 562–581.

38.

Kabat-Farr

Cortina

L. M.

(2012). Selective incivility: Gender, race, and the discriminatory workplace. In Fox

Lituchy

(Eds.), Gender and the dysfunctional workplace (pp. 107–119). Edward Elgar.

39.

Larkin

Watts

Clifton

(2006). Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 102–120.

40.

Logan

(2019). Corporate personhood and the corporate responsibility to race. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 977–988.

41.

McKay

P. F.

Doverspike

Bowen-Hilton

Martin

Q. D.

(2002). Stereotype threat effects on the raven advanced progressive matrices scores of African Americans 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 767–787.

42.

Phillips

Brown

J. L.

(1993). Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1547–1576.

43.

Pitcan

Park-Taylor

Hayslett

(2018). Black men and racial microaggressions at work. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(4), 300–314.

44.

Roberson

Deitch

E. A.

Brief

A. P.

Block

C. J.

(2003). Stereotype threat and feedback seeking in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(1), 176–188.

45.

Roberts

L. M.

(2019). Race, work, and leadership: New perspectives on the black experience. Harvard Business Review Press.

46.

Safeguard. (n.d.). Oxford languages dictionary. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/safeguard

47.

Schuman

(1982). Policy analysis, education, and everyday life: An empirical reevaluation of higher education in America. D. C. Heath and Company.

48.

Seah

C. H.

Wilson

(2011). A phenomenological study of university students’ grieving experiences. Illness, Crisis & Loss, 19(1), 3–25.

49.

Seidman

(2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.

50.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (pp. 25–52). Sage.

51.

Steele

C. M.

Spencer

S. J.

Aronson

(2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). New York: Academic.

52.

Sue

D. W.

(2016). Race talk and the conspiracy of silence: Understanding and facilitating difficult dialogues on race. Wiley.

53.

Sue

D. W.

Alsaidi

Awad

M. N.

Glaeser

Calle

C. Z.

Mendez

(2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128–142.

54.

Thomas

K. M.

(2019). Leading as “the Other”. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(3), 402–406.

55.

Thompson

J. L.

(1990). Hermeneutic inquiry. In Moody

L. E.

(Ed.), Advancing nursing science through research (pp. 223–280). Sage.

56.

Vallas

S. P.

(2003). Rediscovering the color line within work organizations: The knitting of racial groups’ revisited. Work and Occupations, 30(4), 379–400.

57.

van Manen

. (1994). Pedagogy, virtue, and narrative identity in teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 24(2), 135–170.

58.

Wade

C. L.

(2001). Corporate governance as corporate social responsibility: Empathy and race discrimination. Tulane Law Review, 76, 1461–1482.

59.

Watkins

(2013). The black O: Racism and redemption in an American corporate empire. University of Georgia Press.

60.

Welbourne

J. L.

Gangadharan

Sariol

A. M.

(2015). Ethnicity and cultural values as predictors of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 205–217.

61.

Yancy

(2016). Black bodies, white gazes. Rowman & Littlefield.

62.

Ziliani

Bellini

(2004). Retail micro-marketing strategies and competition. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14(1), 7–18.