Band Aids Don’t Heal Bullet Wounds: Black Employees Need Organizational Justice

by Brenda Carter

In today’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) era, post-George Floyd, many companies have increased their pledges to provide resources and opportunities to the communities that they serve. Sunshine Anderson’s song, “HEARD IT ALL BEFORE,” comes to mind. In its truest nature, CSR is an organization's external focus on social justice issues that impact the ecosystem in which they operate.

BRENDA L. CARTER is a Business Psychologist and organizational justice expert who is completing her doctoral degree in Business Psychology at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

UUNDER CSR EFFORTS, organizations commit to no longer turning a blind eye to the injustices that pervade marginalized communities and organizations’ consumer base. It also forces organizations to acknowledge the ways in which they have contributed to these injustices through unfair and inequitable practices. Unfortunately, CSR efforts do not adequately address the internal needs of marginalized employees that work inside of the organizations. While many organizations leverage Diversity Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) to address internal inequities, there continues to be a substantial gap between the company’s stated values of inclusion and the perception of those values being lived up to by employees. According to a 2019 study conducted by Deloitte, 93% of respondents stated that their organization articulated inclusion as one of its values, while 78% felt their organizations lived up to those values.1 Ready for the shocker? Black employees don’t trust their organizations, this is also known as the trust deficit

according to a 2019 McKinsey study. According to the report, Black employees were 39% less likely than their white colleagues in the same company to believe that their company’s DE&I programs were effective. For many Black employees these sentiments are all too familiar as there is nothing new underneath the sun. If narcissism was a place If narcissism was a place it would be our places of employment. How dare Black employees not be content with vocational segregation, which manifests as an overrepresentation of Black employees in the frontline workforce? These roles often have no pathway for advancement, lack healthcare benefits, and pay low wages, according to a 2022 Race in the Workplace study conducted by McKinsey2, critically impacting Black generational wealth. Another study conducted by McKinsey in 2021 illuminated that despite widespread corporate commitments, many private sector companies have successfully hired Black employees as a whole but in mostly frontline and entrylevel roles. Black representation in management level roles significantly dropped, and the number decreased even farther at the senior manager, VP, and SVP levels. We all know the rebuttals to these data points always get redirected back to the fault of Black employees with an ever-moving bar of achievement or what is also known as “prove it again” bias. “I’m good Luv” “I’m good Luv” has become the sentiment of many Black employees who take on the new opportunities provided by these organizations, only to have their talents undervalued and exploited. Studies indicate that although companies have been effective at hiring Black employees at the lower level, they are having a harder time advancing and retaining them. Black employees made up 12% of the entry-level roles in the private sector (roles such as account associates, software engineers, and paralegals), but had higher turnover rates than their white counterparts. The high turnover rates of Black employees were also present at almost all levels. The high turnover/turnover intention rates, low organizational trust, and low employee

satisfaction come as no surprise for Black employees, as numerous studies have proven that Black employees experience significant roadblocks toward upward mobility in the workplace due to their incongruence with the prototype of the predominantly white leadership model.

Studies have found that despite not explicitly endorsing prejudice, people still unconsciously evaluate minorities and females negatively as a result of not fitting the “gold standard” prototype (Hoyt & Simon, 2016).3 This perceived prototype creates social order and social categorization, which triggers inter-group competition and discrimination from the in-group against the out-group (Khosrovani & Ward, 2011).4 It can also create an internalized white supremacy and racism intragroup (within the same group), as a result of social categorization. This is where the obstacles and roadblocks experienced by Black employees in the workplace start to become more apparent, although still covert. For example, Black employees are generally perceived as less effective leaders than white employees due to negative stereotypes that depict them as having traits that are contrary to traditional leadership characteristics (Rosette & Livingston, 2012).5 Such automatic characterizations of Black workers have had a significant and lasting impact on Black career mobility and growth. Directly impacting the racial wealth gap, these discriminatory practices lead to a lack of Black talent in management and leadership positions regardless of similar performance to white colleagues. The deep clog effect “Back, back, back it up, ah shoot” Ever wonder why there are few Black employees in the leadership pipeline? Consider what I like to call the deep clogged effect, where anything that goes through the drain becomes backed up and unable to pass through. All superficial acts to unclog a blocked drain do not work. Allow me to put this analogy into context. Blacks face harsher scrutiny and evaluation which leads to lower performance evaluations. An abundance of studies has found that Black employees are more likely to receive lower ratings

regardless of their actual performance and that social behavior characteristics more significantly impact the ratings of Black than white employees (aka you can’t do what they do). This, in turn, impacts promotion, which then subsequently impacts pay and raises. It is not a performance issue. Studies also show that Black workers receive lower pay raises despite receiving high or comparable performance scores and appraisals as their white counterparts (Khosrovani, & Ward, 2011).6 The devaluing of Black labor dates back to slavery, as the white labor force was seen as the cream of the crop and therefore more valuable than the Black enslaved. Subsequently, this provided justification for white workers to receive top wages as opposed to the free labor gained by Black workers. The devaluation of Black labor continued even after the enslaved were emancipated from slavery because the only jobs Black workers could obtain were subservient, low-wage labor roles. As more ethnicities began to migrate to America, those that had greater proximity to whiteness were included in the white demographic and were subsequently seen as deserving of power and economic and social status. Proximity to blackness was seen as inferior and devoid of value, which resulted in whiteness being considered the gold standard. As Shock G once said, “All around the world it’s the same song” Despite policy-level and legal efforts aimed to reduce the mistreatment of Black people, and other marginalized minorities, powerful belief systems remain embedded as whiteness continues to play an invisible role in business and social operations all around the world, resulting in whiteness being presumed to be generalizable to all, universal, and preferred. This covert approach to bias, and discrimination has allowed organizations to further marginalize different ethnicities and genders in their hiring, firing, and promotion practices under the guise of “not being a cultural fit.” The laws of cause and effect lead to high turnover rates as Black workers look for greener pastures that will not pose a high risk to their psychological safety and emotional wellbeing while receiving their just due for

their work input. Many of us find ourselves quoting Fantasia, “If you don’t want me then don’t talk to me” as we chuck up the deuces to employers with intolerable cultures who then later backpedal when discriminatory behaviors are dragged into the light by black Twitter. One would think that in the midst of all of the traditional employee satisfaction and retention efforts deployed by human resources, Black and brown employees would get to experience the benefits of these efforts. I mean, we are employees too, right? Unblocking the Clog So how can organizations repair the relationship with their Black talent? They have to move beyond the band aid over a bullet wound-style effort. CSR and DEIB efforts only scratch the surface of repairing deep-rooted inequities and injustices, which is why they aren’t seen as effective for Black employees. It’s been the equivalent of using Tussin and Ginger Ale to cure Covid. While it might help with some of the symptoms, it doesn’t address the virus and the internal issues. Instead, companies must transition their DEIB practices to Organizational Justice practices. Unlike CSR, organizational justice focuses on multilevel internal justice.

What is organizational justice? The foundational underpinnings of organizational justice hold that a person’s perception of fairness depends on the employee’s assessment of whether the organization is operating in a way that is fair, moral, and equitable to all. Employees (Black employees included even though we somehow get ignored) assess the perceived balance between what the employee has invested into the organization (inputs), what the organization has provided in return to the employee (outputs), and if those outputs are equally comparable to others. This relationship of inputs, outputs, and comparing to others then determines employee engagement, commitment, or ultimate decision to chuck up the deuces and leave the organization. Inequity in the workplace creates tension that eventually causes employees to seek to achieve equity or reduce the inequity depending on the

magnitude of inequity. These efforts often result in what I like to call the “allow me to reintroduce myself” moments where employees reevaluate their relationship with the organization and decide to either leave the organization, transfer out of a department, or practice absenteeism. These moments of reevaluation are often ignited by what Lee & Mitchell (2001) call shocks,7 where in-ignorable incidents happen that cause “image violations’’ for the employee.8 These image violations cause employees to recognize the organization’s goals and values are no longer consistent and aligned with their own. The three primary dimensions of organizational justice help to realign organizational values with the values of its Black and other marginalized employee groups. Let’s go deeper There are three primary components of organizational justice: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interpersonal justice. Distributive justice deals with the allocation of economic benefits and resources in the form (but not limited to) equality, need, ownership, and merit (Elenbaas, and Mistry, 2021).9 Procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the processes that are used in an organization to determine the allocation of distributive outcomes (Williams, 1999).10 Interpersonal justice, also known as interactional justice, refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment and interaction between individuals, traditionally identified within the context of the manageremployee relationship but can include interactions among peers and colleagues (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002).11

Interpersonal justice is among one of the biggest pain points for Black employees at every level. It’s often the interpersonal/ interactional piece that has served as a sort of gatekeeper and point of contention for many of us that drive us to leave organizations. This is because perceptions of interpersonal justice influence and directly impact the perceptions of procedural fairness. Interpersonal justice asserts that fairness has an interpersonal component that encompasses being concerned with others’ well-being and dignity, therefore

playing a role in governing one’s actions in social conduct and interaction (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2013).12 This has often been a major opportunity area for many organizational managers and leaders of Black employees and ties back to how Black labor has traditionally been devalued. To build a culture of interpersonal justice within an organization, interpersonal sensitivity must be amplified in the form of what Bies (1998)13 identifies as including honesty, timely feedback, courtesy, and respect for rights. This also includes operating in acts of ethicality and moral conduct that include treating all (including rather than excluding marginalized employees) employees fairly according to the prevailing norms of decency. It is important for organizations to note that interpersonal justice extends beyond fair treatment based on outcomes, which is usually where most DEIB programs tend to stop short.

As previously mentioned, procedural justice addresses the fairness of the processes used to determine the allocation of distributive outcomes. Unfortunately, many Black and brown employees, do not get to experience the fair application of organizational procedures, as many studies have proven that we often receive lower performance ratings due to bias vs actual performance, harsher day-to-day managerial feedback, lower recognition for work, low development opportunities, and lower promotions to name a few. Studies have also found that our performance ratings are more likely to be based on social characteristics that are not standardly applied to other cohorts (i.e. the pervading angry Black woman myth that has been repeatedly debunked by data showing that Black women don’t express anger more than other cohorts male or female) rather than measuring actual job performance. Procedural justice anecdotally addresses these inequities by providing solutions that require adjustments to an organization’s procedural enactment. While tenets such as choice, decision control, voice, and process control are all part of procedural justice practice, procedural justice extends beyond this to include consistency of application, the accuracy of rating, suppression

of bias, correctability of decisions, representativeness of varying interest, and ethicality in the application of conduct (Leventhal, 1980).14 Procedural fairness by default impacts distributive outcomes. To date, Black and brown employees are on the lower end of receiving a fair distribution of resources such as wages, bonuses, and raises. It is time for organizations to give their Black employees the same chances at opportunities, success, and “failing forward” as they give to white colleagues. This also includes not taking advantage of our labor, therefore paying us our just due. Distributive justice addresses fairness in the allocation of resources based on employee inputs and outputs and how the allocation of certain groups compares against others that have similar inputs and outputs. “Walk it out” If organizations truly want to begin to “walk it like I talk it” rather than being all hype and no show, they have to understand that awareness is not enough. It feels extremely disingenuous when organizations leverage a racially incited tragedy (George Floyd) as a catalyst for change for every initiative but race in the workplace because it’s too touchy. For Black employees, it only confirms that once again others get to profit from our pain while our needs are lost by the wayside. Black talent has given birth to many of the innovations (oftentimes without acknowledgment) that have made this country the shining star that it is, regardless of how under and devalued light in which it held us. There isn’t an industry or arena in which we have not caused a significant impact. It is time for organizations to go beyond seeing the value in our dollars as a consumer group, and time to see the value we have always brought to the table that our ancestors helped make. Until organizations begin to stretch themselves beyond the band aid over the bullet wound efforts, they will continue to lose Black talent, which will continue to come back to bite them in the proverbial butt because as sister Beyonce once said, You won’t break my soul.”

Notes:

1 – https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/about-deloitte/us-about-deloitteuncovering-talent-a-new-model-of-inclusion.pdf 2 – https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/race-in-the-workplace-the-frontlineexperience 3 – Hoyt, C. L., & Simon, S. (2016). The role of social dominance orientation and patriotism in the evaluation of racial minority and female leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(9), 518-528. doi:10.1111/ jasp.12380 4 – Khosrovani, M., & Ward, J. W. (2011). African Americans’ perceptions of access to workplace opportunities: A survey of employees in Houston, Texas. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 18(4), 134-141. Retrieved from https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22288211 5 – Rosette, A. S., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162–1167. 6 – Khosrovani, M., & Ward, J. W. (2011). African Americans’ perceptions of access to workplace opportunities: A survey of employees in Houston, Texas. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 18(4), 134-141. Retrieved from https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22288211 7 – Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). 5. The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 189-246. 8 – Ibid. 9 – Elenbaas, L., & Mistry, R. S. (2021). Distributive justice in society and among peers: 8- to 14-year-olds’ views on economic stratification inform their decisions about access to opportunities. Developmental Psychology, 57(6), 951-961. 10 – Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. The Journal of Psychology, 133(2), 183-193. 11– Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 324-351. 12 – Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2013). Handbook of organizational justice. Psychology Press. 13 – Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. Advances in Organizational Justice, 89118 14– Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory?. In Social exchange (pp. 27-55). Springer, Boston, MA.