Perception Checking in Action: Critically Reflecting on Gendered Communication Within Workplace Interactions

Abstract

In the Two Islands Activity, students are given a fictitious prompt to examine and reflect on how their positionality influences their perceptions regarding their assumptions about gender and sexuality in interpersonal workplace interactions. Through the active process of perception checking, students examine how gender and sexuality stereotypes may influence their perception of a situation and their potential implications on business relationships. The activity is framed around the interpersonal Communication Theory of Identity as it relates to positionality, or how multiple identities (i.e., race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexuality, ability, age, and political ideology) in social and political contexts shape gender and sexuality roles and stereotypes within the workplace. Perception checking is an active, reflective process of asking questions and seeking alternative viewpoints to account for disentangling these perceptions. This activity encourages students to reflectively examine their identities, experiences, and stereotypes concerning cultural norms and ideologies of gender and sexuality.

Keywords

interpersonal communication within the workplace gender stereotypes and positionality perception checking

Increasingly, faculty within business and communication courses are asked to include experiential learning activities that encourage students to critically examine and reflect upon their experiences and perceptions when teaching students concepts related to gender, sexuality, and other social identity categories (Breunig, 2005; Denker, 2021; Elliott et al., 2020; Halualani, 2019; Hecht & Phillips, 2021; LeMaster & Johnson, 2019; Mumby, 2011; Priyashantha et al., 2023). Perception is the process by which we become aware of our surroundings and interpret meaning (Denker, 2021; Elliott et al., 2020; Halualani, 2019). Our perception is based on our positionality, experiences, and emotional state. Our perception inherently becomes our reality—meaning that our perception or interpretation of a situation affects how we approach relationships (i.e., interpersonal, family, workplace). Perception checking is the active, reflective process of asking questions and seeking alternative viewpoints to account for one’s perception and to understand others’ perception(s) (Denker, 2021; Halualani, 2019; Hecht & Phillips, 2021).

However, traditional approaches when teaching about gender in the workplace and specific to organizational management and business communication tend not to engage in perception checking; as such, failing to do so runs the risk of being overly trivial and/or reinforcing dominant interpersonal tropes and narratives (e.g., through the uncritical use of examples¹) (Belingheri et al., 2021; Castaño et al., 2019; Denker, 2021; Halualani, 2019; Priyashantha et al., 2023; Tabassum & Nayak, 2021; Triana, 2017; Wood, 2002). Not accounting for one’s perception may lead learners to overlook and/or discount the role of identity and one’s positionality in interpersonal interactions within the workplace in how we navigate and construct our social worlds, identities, and business relationships, especially as the above relates to understanding perceptions of gender stereotypes (Bogodistov et al., 2017; Castaño et al., 2019; Denker, 2021; Elliott et al., 2020; Halualani, 2019; Hecht & Phillips, 2021; Priyashantha et al., 2023; Triana, 2017). Specifically, gender stereotyping has implications regarding recruitment, retention, turnover, and legal risk, among other consequences within the workplace (Denker, 2021; Priyashantha et al., 2023). Therefore, it is important for faculty to utilize experiential learning activities to help students understand how one’s perceptions related to gender influence workplace interpersonal interactions.

Dachner and Polin (2016) examined how valuable experiential exercises are when developing learners’ sense of self and connecting course content to the workplace—and especially given that adult learners’ identities are “becoming more complex” (p. 127). However, they explained that for experiential learning to be effective, “instructors need to recognize that students’ identities are in a state of transition and identify [experiential] activities that are appropriate during this stage” (p. 129). Expanding on Dachner and Polin’s (2016) argument, Breunig (2005) reasoned that a hands-on action-oriented approach to learning did not mean that meaningful experiential learning occurred; for meaningful experiential learning to occur, critical reflexivity should be incorporated into the learning process, so that students and instructors engage in reciprocal dialogue that prepares them to apply the skills learned on their terms (Breunig, 2005). Moreover, Cunliffe (2016) explains how engaging in critical reflexivity is of relevance to today’s organizations and employers, given that managers and administrators must engage with accelerating levels of change and ambiguity with moral responsibility; critical reflexivity requires that individuals be able to surface various levels of complexity that may become part of highly politicized environments (see also Janssens & Steyaert, 2008, for additional examples). Thus, an experiential learning approach may also encourage students to examine and develop their internal “sense of self” (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. xxii), which is vital to address broader sociological shifts and trends that become embedded in the workplace.

The communication theory of identity (CTI) provides a valuable lens for helping learners to examine and develop their understanding of how their sense of self and their identification are key processes through which they and groups orient themselves to each other in the workplace and the world around them (Hecht & Phillips, 2021).CTI conceptualizes identity as experienced in multiple layers reflecting the person (self), communication (enactment), relationship (relational), and community (communal), where one has multiple identities that shift and evolve (Hecht & Phillips, 2021). Therefore, students should be allowed to interrogate their positionality and assumptions by instructors incorporating a critical approach to experiential activities, and CTI is a helpful framework for such experiential activities.

One possible way to incorporate a critical approach to experiential activities that CTI guides is the Two-Island Activity prompt, as described by Herakova, who learned about it from Hackford-Peer and Carmona (L. Herakova, personal communication, September 12, 2016), where students critically examine how their positionality may influence workplace assumptions; examination of positionality is particularly critical as it may relate to how we understand and surface tensions not just in the classroom, but also how they are embedded in the workplace and which relate to concepts of privilege. For example, Leigh and Rivers (2023) explain the importance of “becoming consciously aware of our privileges” (p. 4), and citing Jourdan (2021), how this relates to who may or may not have a voice; and how levels of reflexivity may “sometimes appear to be luxuries reserved for the privileged (Dotter, 2019)” but needs to be expanded to audiences.

The Two-Island Activity discussed below, thus, focuses on engaging learners in this process of reflexivity and perception checking, which they may extend to business and professional contexts.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this exercise, students will be able to:

Examine how one’s interpersonal interactions are influenced by their positionality as well as the positionality of others.

Critically evaluate through reflection how one’s positionality may influence their perceptions of others, especially as it relates to gender and sexuality.

Challenge preconceptions on issues related to gender and sexuality in interpersonal workplace interactions.

Compare personal experiences of gender and sexuality to others’ perceptions and cultural norms within business and professional communication.

Articulate thoughts orally and in written form, understanding perception and perception checking as it relates to gender roles and stereotypes in workplace interactions.

The Activity

To address the above learning objectives, we introduce the “Two Island Activity,” which has students execute their native assumptions of two primary and two sub-characters in the story in which the instructor and then a volunteer read the story out loud and then call upon students to highlight their assumptions around characters names, actions, and points of power (aka positionality); the story’s purpose is to expose areas for reflexive practice as related to gender and cultural influence.

This activity requires the “Two Islands” story (review Appendix A), a white/chalkboard, and markers/chalk for the instructor. The skills required of the instructor are the same required of them in general with engaging students in discussion, as well as comfortability with facilitating conversations surrounding gender roles, cultural influences, and stereotypes, as well as diversity and biases within the workplace. The above are accomplished by limiting time in the first read-through of the exercise to initiate students’ native assumptions and then in the second read-through of the exercise to have students critically reflect (i.e., through forms of action inquiry) why and where these stereotypes originate. In its utilization, the Two Islands Activity can be incorporated into any undergraduate or graduate management or human resource course, which discusses content related to workplace relationships, gender, implicit biases, and/or leadership, as well as the cultural factors that may influence them.

It is important to note, however, that if the activity is used in courses that do not provide a thorough discussion around the benefits of diversity in the workplace or cultural concerns and issues within businesses, the instructor will need to provide more background and a breakdown of specific terminology and concepts (review Appendix B for list of terminology). To do so, we recommend that students have read one or more of the following articles on topics related to gender in the workplace prior to this exercise: business and economic gender equality-research trends and findings from the last 22 years (Belingheri et al., 2021); analysis of research examining gender stereotypes and organizational discrimination in businesses (Castaño et al., 2019); unconscious bias training (Gino & Coffman, 2021); perspectives on changing gender stereotypes in the workplace (Priyashantha et al., 2023); gender stereotypes impact on women’s career advancement (Tabassum & Nayak, 2021); and/or examining flawed beliefs about how women and men communicate (Wood, 2002). We also recommend that for understanding the cultural effects of the above within interpersonal interactions, both students and instructors review Hecht and Phillips’ (2021) work on CTI and Denker’s (2021) scholarship on critical feminist theory. Review Appendix Table 1 for a description of each article, guidance on how instructors can use the articles in their course, and terminology that students should understand prior to this activity.

Step 1 (5 Minutes)

In preparation for the activity, students should understand key terminology: perception, cultural norms, positionality, perception checking, gender, gender identity, stereotypes and roles, sex, and sexuality, among others. Begin by reviewing the following terms (all terms were adapted and paraphrased from Halualani, 2019):

Perception is the process by which we become aware of our surroundings and interpret meaning. Our perception is based on our positionality, experiences, and emotional state. Our perception or interpretation of a situation affects how we approach relationships (i.e., interpersonal, family, workplace).

Cultural norms are social rules for what specific types of people should and should not do. Different cultures have norms for nonverbal and physical behaviors in specific social, relational, and geographical contexts. Cultural norms are embedded in daily interactions, influencing our perceptions.

Positionality is the social and political context that creates your identity (i.e., race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, age, political ideology) and how your identities influence and bias your perception of and outlook on the world.

Perception checking is essential for effective interactions, and we do so by actively asking reflective questions to understand our perception(s) and seek out alternative realities and experiences.

Gender refers to the socially constructed attitudes, feelings, expressions, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s assigned sex at birth. Gender influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in a culture/society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man), nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time.

Gender identity is the way you identify your gender—it describes a person’s psychological sense of their gender. Many people describe gender identity as a deeply felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or a nonbinary gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender-nonconforming, gender-neutral, agender, gender-fluid) that may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth, presumed gender based on sex assignment, or primary or secondary sex characteristics. Gender identity can be in tandem with your gender expression (how you present your gender to the world through clothing, dress, physical attributes, mannerisms, behaviors, etc.). However, it does not have to be correlated.

Gender Stereotypes are relatively fixed, and overgeneralized attitudes and behaviors considered normal and appropriate for a person in a particular culture based on the sex assigned at birth. Gender stereotypes reflect ingrained biases based on the dominant social norms of that culture. Typically, gender stereotypes are considered binary—male/female and feminine/masculine.

Gender roles refer to the role or behaviors learned by a person as appropriate to their gender and are determined by the dominant cultural values and norms. Gender roles are culturally and socially defined ways that gender is expected to be performed and can often be harmful to folks who fall outside of the binary system often upheld through systemic and cultural institutions. Gender roles are often linked to the sex individuals are assigned at birth. Thus, gender roles often reveal how we make culturally contextual assumptions about what different types of bodies should “do.”

Ideologies of gender refer to attitudes regarding the appropriate roles, rights, and responsibilities of what specific genders should and should not do in a culture. Ideologies of gender influence gender roles and stereotypes.

Sex is often assigned at birth and is generally based on a person’s physical or genetic characteristics or markers at birth (i.e., hormones, genes, and reproductive organs). When you are assigned a sex at birth and are comfortable and continue to identify that way, you identify as cisgender. However, when you are assigned a sex at birth, and you no longer identify that way socially, physically, or in other ways, you may be someone who identifies within the transgender community.

Sexuality is a personal identifier that best describes who you may be attracted to sexually, emotionally, intellectually, or romantically at that current period. Some common terms associated with sexuality are heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and queer.

Step 2 (3 Minutes)

After reviewing the terminology, ask students to reflect and free-write their initial assumptions regarding gender roles and gender stereotypes in the workplace. Then, ask the following question, which can be written on the board: What are your thoughts or what do you know about gender roles and gender stereotypes within the workplace?

Step 3 (5 Minutes)

Once the students finish, explain that today’s lesson focuses on examining our assumptions during interpersonal interactions within the workplace. Then, state the following directions out loud:

a. Listen closely—I will read a story called Two Islands, once and ask a volunteer to read it a second time.

b. As you listen, please consider whose actions were the worst. Whose actions were the best? Why do you think this?

c. Then, rank the characters in the story (Nin, Zug, Yak, and Goo) from 1 = best to 4 = worst based on your perception of them. Finally, I will write the characters’ names on the board.

After explaining the directions, read the “Two Islands” story. Note that no gender(ed) pronouns are used anywhere in the story—just names that are not easily connected to any one gender identity. Gender is often assumed in names that can translate to specific pronouns such as he or she rather than non-gendered pronouns that are more gender neutral such as the use of they or zis (Denker, 2021; Halualani, 2019; LeMaster & Johnson, 2019). The key to working with this activity is to not draw upon students’ attention to the lack of gender(ed) or sexual identifications in the story, but rather to let them execute on their native assumptions, followed then by allowing students 2 minutes to consider and reflect on their initial perception of the characters in the story, encouraging them to free-write their thoughts and how they might arise due to power or positionality and cultural influence. For example, based on their assumptions, do they tend to view one or more of the characters as more-or-less unfavorable and/or more-or-less appropriate? How might this be connected to initial gendered versus non-gendered pronouns and assumptions? Senden et al. (2015) highlight how using such pronouns, particularly those more gender-neutral, can affect how individuals deal with the status quo and their attitudes toward change in themselves and the workplace.

Step 4 (5 Minutes)

Once students reflect on their initial reaction to characters in the story, ask for a student volunteer to read the “Two Islands” story prompt again. Next, allow students 2 minutes to rank the characters with whom they think are the best to worst based on their perceptions and write why they ranked the characters in the order that they did. Finally, like what is described under Step 3, have the students relate this to their assumptions around gender and cultural norms.

Step 5 (5 Minutes)

Students will then discuss their rankings with a partner or a small group. The instructor should visit with students and listen carefully to their language, specifically pronouns, gendered assumptions, and stereotypes.

Step 6 (6–8 Minutes)

Once the students discuss their rankings with their peers, facilitate a large-group conversation about how the characters should be ranked. Again, it would help if you stimulated participant interactions (e.g., you could rephrase a participant’s argument and ask, “How would you convince someone else in the class of your ranking?”). While this large-group conversation continues, pay attention to the language and assumed connections students make. Record these (assumed) connections on the board and then engage students in debriefing their language choices.

For example, some assumptions that are frequently articulated include the following:

a. Nin is usually referred to as “she,” while all the other characters are “he.”

b. Nin cries→she; the other characters fight or manipulate into (presumed) sexual favors→he

c. All the characters are assumed to be heterosexual.

d. “Spend the night” = sexual encounter between two heterosexuals.

After at least 5 minutes of large-group conversation (or upon saturation), interrupt and draw students’ attention to the language used. Note that the activity was never about finding the correct ranking but about engaging in the perception process and assessing how culture plays a role in our workplace communication and interpretations.

Debriefing (About 30 Minutes—Shorter or Longer If Needed)

The activity concludes with a class-wide debriefing conversation and individual reflection, connecting and revisiting perception checking in the workplace. Drawing attention to the language used in justifying ranking choices leads to a discussion on gender(ed) and sexuality stereotypes, the communication of cultural norms, and the consequences. The following questions are helpful for debriefing:

How do the Two Islands ultimately highlight our assumptions about gender and sexuality? Specifically, think of “pairing” communicative acts (i.e., nonverbal communication) with gender(ed) performances and interpretations in the workplace.

How might your evolution of going through this activity demonstrate how your cultural background (i.e., race, sexuality, ethnicity, socioeconomic, ability, age) may or may not influence the assumptions you make about others, particularly those with a different cultural background than yours? What language is used in your assumptions, and what does the language you use imply?

How might your cultural background further influence how you perceive, interact with, and build relationships with others (or not build relationships with), particularly those who have a different cultural background than yours? For example, how might your cultural background influence or be refined in how you perceive others in the workplace?

After a large-group conversation, conclude the activity and session with a 5-minute reflection, which can be anonymous if the instructor desires (the activity typically happens at the end of class). We find that anonymity allows some students to be more honest and open with their reflections than if we required them to put their names on them. Questions/prompts for the reflection should center on students’ learning and affective experience of the activity. For example, What is your experience with this activity that surprised you? Were any assumptions and/or responses of other people in the class that surprised you? What are your thoughts about gender and sexuality after completing this activity? This reflection can, in turn, be connected to the initial prompt from the beginning of the session, allowing participants to “track” their responses and learning.

The class-wide discussion leads to robust conversations about how language and emotions matter when conflicts arise and how specific language usage and assumed emotions reinforce gender stereotypes (Castaño et al., 2019; Denker, 2021; Halualani, 2019; Priyashantha et al., 2023), especially in the workplace interpersonal interactions. Students explain that this activity helps them to understand how certain gendered and sexuality assumptions elicit defensive responses while also reinforcing gendered, heterosexual stereotypes, which limits the possibility for dialogue and understanding. Students also discuss how continuously shutting someone down and refusing to listen contributes to defensive communication and frustrating relational difficulties in the workplace and how gendered assumptions may influence future workplace decisions that limit opportunities for non-Cisgender straight males. They ask: What do we do in situations like that? What if there is no resolution? How do we engage in dialogue and understand each other when someone in the workplace has gendered stereotypes and refuses dialogue, acknowledgment of the other, or listening?

Students appreciate this activity because it allows them to reflect critically on the interconnections of communication, identity, and emotions when experiencing potential interpersonal interactions. Students also learn more about the connections and differences they have with each other. In reflections, students report that they see how “cultural influences may impact how we responded/reacted” and how “experiences with my family and past employment translated into how I interpreted the behavior of the characters”—comments that relate to a critical application of experiential learning (Breunig, 2005) with self-development (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Hecht & Phillips, 2021) and dialogic approaches to interpersonal communication within organizational management (Denker, 2021; Mumby, 2011; Triana, 2017).

Students also find this activity, corresponding discussion, and individual reflections helpful in seeing “the importance of discussing things and working out problems versus condemning one for their opinion or actions, especially since we may not understand the entire picture.” Others have commented on a more personal level that the experience has helped them learn to communicate more with coworkers, friends, and family members with empathy and understanding. The activity has also allowed them to try out communication strategies in class. One student proposed, for example, “We need to know how to respond more productively by asking questions or using ‘I statements’ because it is not worth it to continue to argue and make assumptions if it will only cause more conflict.” Another student focused on supportive communication and set a goal to “focus on the observations or actions that occurred and how things that were said may have hurt and why.”

Imagining and enacting responses to experiences of hurt is both a strength and a limitation of this activity, which centers vulnerability and possible mistake-making as dialogic openings. The activity asks much of students and takes continuous relationship-building throughout the semester to be successful. When this long-term approach poses a limitation within the structural constraints of the semester and class length, a possible variation may present students with pre-developed scenario prompts related to gendered communication in the workplace on which they can continue to build. Additionally, as conversations around gender and culture can lead to heightened sensitivity, it is crucial that when this exercise is applied not just in the classroom but also in workplace settings, instructors and managers also consider psychological safety considerations that can allow for deeper conversations around gender communication. To consider this activity without developing psychological safety considerations may pose an additional limitation when trying to realize the benefits of this activity fully.

Specifically, Foster-English and McNutt (2022) note that conversations around diversity (which we, as the authors note here, include gender communication) may heighten levels of task, socio-emotional, and value conflict. Foster-English and McNutt (2022) argue that methods and practices that increase psychological safety, such as the EMBRACE method (which includes the surfacing of equity, mediation, belonging, and accountability in diversity conversations), may be critical to prepare for this exercise and to reduce its limitations.

One tool that can help surface these areas of conflict as a starting point to develop psychological safety is having students take The Harvard Implicit Association Test™ (IAT²) before or shortly after this activity. The IAT is an online test that focuses on examining one’s unconscious bias in a variety of areas (i.e., race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic, ability, religion) and is based on the strength category association and response time; a description and link to that test can be found at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html for further discussion and elaboration of the activity for self-development. The IAT has been utilized both in school and workplace settings to begin discussions of how categorization of attributes and assumptions may limit or frame those of others and what in social contexts, in part, may help arise to the above. While the psychometric properties remain under discussion, it is a starting point for a broader discussion of categorization effects, of which gender is one of many.

As our article is about the inherent, embedded assumptions we may have around gender and sexuality and their social-cultural context, this test provides an additional means beyond our activity toward surfacing these assumptions. Instructors may also extend this discussion by explaining how perception checking may require moving beyond perception checking toward acknowledging bias to seek active resolution. Specifically, examine how Gino and Coffman’s (2021) work may extend the above.

Through this activity, students raise many questions. The questions raised are difficult, perhaps impossible, to answer definitively—and this is part of experiential learning that embraces critical reflexivity; the activity opens critical questioning that is at once intimate and political. Students reflect in class and afterward on taken-for-granted norms and patterns in the workplace and society.

Conclusion

This activity encourages students to reflectively examine their identities, stereotypes, and constructs in relation to cultural norms and ideologies of gender. Furthermore, it engages us all in an active process of perception checking that can be utilized in various areas of life outside the classroom.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Mark Congdon Jr.

Nicole C. Jackson

Notes

References

Baxter Magolda

M. B.

(2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Stylus.

Belingheri

Chiarello

Fronzetti Colladon

Rovelli

(2021). Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. PLoS ONE, 16(9), Article e0256474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474

Bogodistov

Presse

Krupskyi

O. P.

Sardak

(2017). Gendering dynamic capabilities in micro firms. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 57, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020170308

Breunig

(2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590502800205

Castaño

A. M.

Fontanil

García-Izquierdo

A. L.

(2019). “Why can’t I become a manager?”—A systematic review of gender stereotypes and organizational discrimination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101813

Cunliffe

A. L.

(2016). Republication of “on becoming a critically reflexive practitioner.” Journal of Management Education, 40(6), 747–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916674465

Dachner

A. M.

Polin

(2016). A systematic approach to educating the emerging adult learner in undergraduate management courses. Journal of Management Education, 40, 121–151.

Denker

K. J.

(2021). Critical feminist theory: Giving voice and visibility to gendered experiences. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal (3rd ed., pp. 221–232). Routledge.

Dotter

(2019). With great privilege comes great responsibility. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 20(1), 45–49.

10.

Elliott

Mavriplis

Anis

(2020). An entrepreneurship education and peer mentoring program for women in STEM: Mentors’ experiences and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intent. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 43–67.

11.

Foster-English

McNutt

(2022). Reframing the conversation: Embracing conflict through a DEIB lens. Journal of Employee Assistance, 52(4), 32–38.

12.

Gino

Coffman

(2021). Unconscious bias training that works. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/09/unconscious-bias-training-that-works

13.

Halualani

R. T.

(2019). Intercultural communication: A critical perspective. Cognella.

14.

Hecht

M. L.

Phillips

K. E.

(2021). Communication theory of identity: Understanding the multilayered nature of identity. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal (3rd ed., pp. 221–232). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-20

15.

Janssens

Steyaert

(2008). HRM and performance: A plea for reflexivity in HR studies. Journal Management Studies, 46(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00812.x

16.

Jourdan

(2021). Talk about privilege at work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/08/talk-about-privilege-at-work

17.

Leigh

J. S.

Rivers

(2023). Reflect, rethink, and redesign: Responses to privilege in management education. Journal of Management Education, 47(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629221145800

18.

LeMaster

Johnson

A. L.

(2019). Unlearning gender—Toward a critical communication trans pedagogy. Communication Teacher, 33, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2018.1467566

19.

Mumby

(2011). Reframing difference in organizational communication studies: Research, pedagogy, practice (pp. xiii–311). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230467

20.

Priyashantha

K. G.

De Alwis

A. C.

Welmilla

(2023). Three perspectives on changing gender stereotypes. FIIB Business Review, 12, 120–131.

21.

Senden

G. M.

Back

E. A.

Lindqvist

(2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 893. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893

22.

Tabassum

Nayak

B. S.

(2021). Gender stereotypes and their impact on women’s career progressions from a managerial perspective. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 10(2), 192–208.

23.

Triana

(2017). Diversity in organizations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315689289

24.

Wood

J. T.

(2002). A critical response to John Gray’s Mars and Venus portrayals of men and women. Southern Communication Journal, 67(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940209373229