Cultural Competence and Professional Training

Microaggressions_in_Everyday_Life_Race_Gender_an..._----_Microaggressions_in_Everyday_Life_Race_Gender_and_Sexual_Orientation.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Cultural Competence and Professional Training

209

C H A P T E R T E N

Microaggressive Impact in the Workplace and Employment

Thus far, our discussion of racial, gender, and sexual-orientation microaggres-

sions has been to describe their etiology, manifestation, characteristics, and

effects upon marginalized groups in America. We have repeatedly stressed

that the power of microaggressions often lies in their invisibility to perpetra-

tors and victims. Throughout the text we have given numerous examples

of how microaggressions occur in interpersonal encounters, in the environ-

ment, under a variety of circumstances, and in many different situations.

Microaggressions not only demean and harm targeted individuals and

groups, but they also affect the quality of life of people of color, women, and

LGBTs. In this chapter, we specifi cally trace the manifestations and potential

harms that microaggressions cause in employment and the workplace.

MICROAGGRESSIONS IN THE WORKPLACE/EMPLOYMENT

It ’ s not really the quid - pro - quo variety — “ put - out - or - get - out ” harassment — that ’ s

most prevalent.

It ’ s sexual harassment in terms of creating a hostile and demeaning environment.

I resent having my anatomy discussed in front of clients.

c10.indd 209c10.indd 209 1/19/10 6:13:26 PM1/19/10 6:13:26 PM

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life : Race, gender, and sexual orientation. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from capella on 2020-09-12 14:15:23.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

210 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

I ’ m furious at the men who toss condoms to each other in front of me and who

have computer graphics of naked women.

When men make off - color remarks or tell bawdy jokes at meetings, I think it ’ s

meant to put me in my place. The comments about “ how great your blouse

shows your fi gure off ” are meant to remind me and others of our sexual difference,

which has always meant male dominance and female subservience.

It ’ s not about fl irtatiousness or even about sex. It ’ s about humiliation of women

and intimidation and resentment because we are moving into a formerly male

world. The purpose is to undercut our professionalism and credibility. (Blank &

Slipp, 1994, pp. 155 – 156)

These voices from fi ve different women attest to the demeaning, insulting,

and humiliating sexist work environment that they must endure in their

daily transactions in many places of employment. Gender microaggressions

(sexual objectifi cation, sexist jokes, and assumptions of inferiority) in the above

examples run the gamut from overt to subtle and intentional to uninten-

tional, but they all have a negative impact on these female employees. As

we have seen, psychological health, self - esteem, subjective well - being, and

job performance suffer from the negative overt and covert messages directed

toward women.

Workplace microaggressions are also experienced by people of color and

LGBTs in many different forms. African American employees experience

being tracked and “ ghettoized ” by being considered (assumption of infe-

rior intelligence/skills) for only certain jobs and tasks in the workplace: support

services, personnel, human resources, community relations, and “ black

products ” departments instead of top decision - making positions. LGBTs tell

stories of how “ coming out ” negatively impacted their hiring and promo-

tional opportunities at work and subjected them to ridicule and violence

(assumption of abnormality and sinfulness). There is little wonder that

women, people of color, and LGBTs continue to be among the most under-

paid, underemployed, and, for some, the most unemployed in the workforce.

Microaggressions seem to play a pronounced role in creating disparities in

employment, specifi cally in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of

these three groups (Hinton, 2004; Rubin, 2008; Sue, Lin, & Rivera, 2009).

With the diversifi cation of the workforce, it seems imperative that we under-

stand the relationship between microaggressions and their impact on diverse

work groups in the workplace.

c10.indd 210c10.indd 210 1/19/10 6:13:26 PM1/19/10 6:13:26 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Diversifi cation of the Workforce

The workforce of the United States is undergoing one of the most dramatic,

sweeping changes of all time. Two of these can literally be described as the

feminization of the workforce (Taylor & Kennedy, 2003) and the changing

complexion of the workforce (Sue, Parham, & Santiago, 1998). These changes

are especially signifi cant for not only the world of work, but our society as

well (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanches - Burks, 2008).

Feminization of the Workforce Women now comprise 46.5% of the total U.S. labor force and they will reach

47% by the year 2016 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). The net increase in

the labor force for women has progressively shown an upward trend: 38%

in 1970; 42% in 1980; 45% in 1990; and over the next 10 - year period from 2006

to 2016 will account for 49% of the growth (U.S. Department of Labor, 1992,

2009). The trend affects both single women and married women. Married

women in 1950 accounted for less that 25% of the labor force; now, however,

58% of married women work. More complicated and stressful for women

employees, however, is that 60% have preschoolers and 75% have school - age

children. Two major issues arise with respect to women in the workforce.

First, women continue to occupy the lower rungs of the occupational

ladder, to encounter the glass ceiling when promotions are considered, and

to be paid much less than their male counterparts (U.S. Department of Labor,

2009). Some of the discrepancy may be due to how women are perceived

through traditional gender - role microaggressions. Interestingly, the disparity

in income and employment in lower paying and/or status occupations can be

seen in the 10 most prevalent occupations for employed women in 2008:

Secretaries and administrative assistants

Registered nurses

Elementary and middle school teachers

Cashiers

Retail salespersons

Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides

First - line supervisors/managers of retail sales workers

Waitresses

Receptionists and information clerks

Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks

•

Microaggressions in the Workplace/Employment 211

c10.indd 211c10.indd 211 1/19/10 6:13:26 PM1/19/10 6:13:26 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

212 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

Second, women continue to carry the major domestic and childcare respon-

sibilities of the home and family life. For example, studies indicate that even

when both partners have equivalent work demands, women continue to be

more responsible for making childcare arrangements and for social interper-

sonal activities inside and outside of the home than their married or part-

nered men (Morales & Sheafor, 2004). Thus, it is not diffi cult to conclude that

women are subjected to a greater number of stressors inside and outside of

work than their male counterparts.

Changing Complexion of the Workforce It is estimated that some time between the years 2030 and 2050, people of

color will become a numerical majority in the United States (Sue & Sue,

2008). If we view the 10 - year period from 1990 to 2000, fi gures indicate

that the population increased 13% to over 281 million (U.S. Bureau of the

Census, 2001). Interestingly, however, most of the population increase was

in growth of visible racial/ethnic minority groups: 50% for Asian American/

Pacifi c Islander, 58% for Latino/Hispanic, 16% for African American, and

15.5% for American Indian/Alaskan Native. This is in marked contrast

to only 7.3% for Whites. Such demographic changes are due primarily to

the recent immigration rates of documented immigrants, undocumented

immigrants, and refugees, which are characterized as the largest in U.S.

history. Further, the birthrates of people of color far surpass those of

Whites as mothers of racial/ethnic minority groups have many more children

per mother.

People of color, however, continue to be the most underemployed and

unemployed when compared to their White counterparts (U.S. Department

of Labor, 2005). The representation of people of color in higher levels of

employment is much lower (except Asians) than Whites in management

and professionally related occupations: 35.5% of Whites, 26% for African

Americans, and 17% for Latinos. Although Asian Americans may be well

represented in the higher echelons of management, evidence suggests that

they must possess higher levels of education and training to attain a compa-

rable position to their White colleagues (S. Sue, Sue, Zane, & Wong, 1985).

In other words, the “ super minority ” syndrome must be achieved to obtain

an equal occupational level as White employees. Like their female counter-

parts, many more employees of color are also more likely to be employed

in service occupations: 23.9% African Americans, 23.8% Latinos, and 15.2%

Whites.

c10.indd 212c10.indd 212 1/19/10 6:13:27 PM1/19/10 6:13:27 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Workplace Implications

Overall, these demographic shifts in society are refl ected in the workforce where

close to 75% of those now entering employment are racial/ethnic minorities

and women (Sue & Sue, 2008). There are major economic implications of these

changes. First, the majority of those that will be contributing to social security

and pension plans will be women and employees of color. As the baby boomers

retire (primarily White retirees), they will increasingly depend on their cow-

orkers of color and women for economic stability in the retirement years. Yet if

women and people of color continue to encounter the glass ceiling, be underpaid,

underemployed, and unemployed, it bodes poorly for their future security.

Business and industry, educational institutions, and municipalities now

recognize that their workforces must be drawn increasingly from a diverse

labor pool and that sole dependence on White male workers is no longer a

reality (Sue, 1991, 1994). The economic viability of businesses will depend on

their ability to manage a diverse workforce effectively, allow for equal access

and opportunity, and make appropriate multicultural organizational change

(Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez - Burks, 2008). In recognition of the changing com-

position of the nation, there has been a movement by business and industry

toward diversity training, the infusion of multicultural concepts into school

curriculum, and many attempts to fi ght bigotry, bias, and discrimination in

our social, economic, and political systems (Sue, Parham, et al., 1998).

Yet, marginalized groups continue to describe their work climates as

hostile, invalidating, and insulting because of the many microaggressions that

assail their race, gender, or sexual - orientation identities, deplete their psy-

chic energies, restrict their work options, lower their work productivity,

generate suppressed rage and anger, stereotype them as less worthy workers,

and detrimentally impact their recruitment/hiring, retention, and promotion

in organizations (Blank & Slipp, 1994; Deitch et al., 2003; Dovidio, Gaertner,

Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Gore, 2000; Hinton, 2004; Purdie - Vaughns, Davis,

Steele, & Ditlmann, 2008; Rowe, 1990; Sue, Lin, & Rivera, 2009).

Racial, gender, and sexual microaggressions are especially problematic

because of their invisibility, diffi culty in being proven (Deitch et al., 2003;

Rowe, 1990), and because they are often minimized as trivial and innocuous

(Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). Discussions of racism and sexism in the work-

place generally involve acts of discrimination that are considered unlawful or

analyzed from a legal perspective (Coleman, 2004). Many places of employment

that have instituted diversity training and/or passed policies that condemn

Microaggressions in the Workplace/Employment 213

c10.indd 213c10.indd 213 1/19/10 6:13:27 PM1/19/10 6:13:27 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

214 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

overt discrimination and harassment in the workplace have concentrated

efforts upon the obvious and overt bias - based acts of coworkers (sexist, racist, or

homophobic jokes, epithets, inappropriate behaviors, unwanted sexual con-

tact, and offensive displays — naked pictures of women, Confederate fl ags,

nooses, etc.).

More diffi cult to control, however, are complaints by employees of color

that they are “ watched over ” more carefully than their White coworkers

(assumption of intellectual inferiority and/or criminality related to mistrust),

that comments by women in team meetings are ignored (invisibility and

assumption of inferiority), and that gay employees are often told by superiors

that they should wear looser clothes and/or are told “ We don ’ t like they way

you move ” (oversexualization and endorsement of heteronormative culture/

behaviors). The messages behind these microaggressions are that people of

color cannot be trusted or are less capable, and therefore require close monitor-

ing, that contributions of women are less worthy than those of men, and that

gays should conform to heterosexual roles. The unending parade of microag-

gressions creates a hostile and uninviting work environment for marginalized

groups in our society. Rather than being able to focus on their work and

productivity, they are left with having to attend to their own strong feelings

of anger, rage, and frustration.

Psychological Implications of Workplace Microaggressions and Harassment

Being exposed to environments that contain racial, gender, and sexual -

orientation microaggressions, as indicated earlier, has major psychological

consequences. In her work with employees who experience chronic micro-

assaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations, Root (2003) has identifi ed ten

clusters of the most common symptoms likely to emerge in marginalized

employees. These clusters indicate that employees of color, women, and

LGBTs are struggling against wounds to core aspects of their spirit, reputation,

or personal integrity.

1. Anxiety — The employee experiences a dread of going to work, loses a sense of identity with his/her work or career, may experience physical

problems (high blood pressure, migraine headaches), exacerbation of an

existing medical condition, or periods of anxiety and even panic attacks.

2. Paranoia — The self - consciousness created by second - guessing of others, worry about the racial and gender attributions of others, fear of damage

c10.indd 214c10.indd 214 1/19/10 6:13:27 PM1/19/10 6:13:27 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

to one ’ s reputation from false beliefs and misinformation, and the close

monitoring of their work make them guarded, suspicious, and mistrustful

of the intents of others.

3. Depression — Depression is common in social or work withdrawal, isola- tion from coworkers, feelings of fatigue and exhaustion from even minor

work tasks, and diffi culty in getting out of bed to go to work. Work drains

the emotional, psychological, and physical energies of the person.

4. Sleep Diffi culties — While correlated with depression, this cluster of symptoms is generally likely to occur fi rst. The person has diffi culty

falling asleep or staying asleep. Recurrent intrusive thoughts persist

about work or anticipated future workdays, resulting in dissatisfaction

with life and irritability.

5. Lack of Confi dence — The worker begins to question their abilities, judg- ment, and decision making. Constantly being second - guessed, close

and constant monitoring by superiors, and being treated as an inferior

takes its toll on the worker. The person begins to doubt his or her own

worth in the company.

6. Worthlessness — This feeling is related to a lack of confi dence as the person now questions their value to coworkers, the company, and to

themselves. The ultimate manifestation is a belief that one has nothing

to offer and is truly replaceable.

7. Intrusive Cognitions — These are the constant and continuing thoughts that are replayed over and over in the mind of the person. They involve

incidents at work that assail their integrity, and remind them of their

ineptness and low value in the company. As mentioned earlier it may

disrupt sleeping patterns and/or result in dreams or nightmares related

to work.

8. Helplessness — This is most related to two facets of work. The person feels powerless to stop the microaggressions experienced in the work-

place. Trying to confront the person may result in punitive consequences,

especially from superiors. Quitting one ’ s job may not be an option for

economic reasons, thus causing the feeling of being trapped. Second, the

constant mischaracterizations of one ’ s abilities and/or person are fi lled

with stereotypes.

9. Loss of Drive — The person ’ s energy, spiritual and psychological, is sapped through chronic workplace microaggressions. The high ambition

that characterized the person who has gone this far in the company is

driven from the spirit and personal identity.

Microaggressions in the Workplace/Employment 215

c10.indd 215c10.indd 215 1/19/10 6:13:27 PM1/19/10 6:13:27 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

216 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

10. False Positives — Because of the constant and continuing feelings of harassment and put downs, the person begins to overgeneralize to

coworkers or others all the negative experiences that they have had

with others. Such an orientation has the unintended consequences of (1)

further isolating oneself from others, (2) increasing mistrust — “ every-

one is out to get me, ” and (3) externalizing blame in a way that avoids

personal responsibility for one ’ s own actions.

Organizational Color - Blind Philosophy as a Microaggression

In their attempts to recognize, manage, cultivate, and utilize diversity as a

positive rather than negative force, many organizations over the past several

decades have attempted to (1) reduce bias and discrimination in the work-

place, (2) allow for equal access and opportunities in hiring, retention, and

promotion of all groups, and (3) develop a philosophy or vision statement

that “ treats everyone the same ” (Sue & Sue, 1994; Stevens, Plaut, & Sanches -

Burks, 2008; Purdie - Vaughns et al., 2008). It is suggested that one of the most

dominant philosophical approaches to diversity in the workplace is the

“ color - blind approach ” that attempts to emphasize commonalities rather than

racial or gender differences (Plaut & Markus, 2007; Thomas & Plaut, 2008).

Such a philosophy is grounded in the belief that “ treating everyone the same

regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation ” is consistent with the ideals

of democracy (equality and meritocracy). Race, for example, is minimized or

even seen as unrelated to individual accomplishments or merit, which should

be the criteria used for hiring, retention, and promotion of all employees. Accompanying the color - and gender - blind approaches is an emphasis on

similarities, shared goals, and an overall group identity.

Inherent in this philosophy, however, are less apparent assumptions or

hidden messages that may serve as microaggressions to marginalized groups:

(1) “ differences are divisive so let ’ s avoid them and emphasize our similarities, ”

(2) women, employees of color, and LGBTs should assimilate and acculturate

to the organizational culture, (3) leave your “ cultural baggage ” and racial,

gender, and sexual - orientation identities at home, and (4) as an organiza-

tion, we are not biased and do not discriminate because we treat everyone

the same (Sue, 2008). Earlier, we indicated that research reveals that “ color -

blindness ” and “ denial of racism ” for racial/ethnic minorities represent major

racial microaggressions (Apfelbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008; Sue, 2005;

Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). From the perspective of employees of color, the

c10.indd 216c10.indd 216 1/19/10 6:13:28 PM1/19/10 6:13:28 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

color - blind approach, rather than including them, has the opposite effect of

exclusion, makes them more suspicious and mistrustful of the organization

and White coworkers, and may reveal hidden racial biases that are denied or

covered up (Stevens et al., 2008).

In a revealing study of the effects of the color - blind philosophy on African

American employees (Purdie - Vaughns et al., 2008), investigators addressed

the question of how external cues in the environment (number of other

minorities in the workplace and the organization ’ s philosophy) may signal

either safety or threat to marginalized groups. If individuals feel or believe

their group identities are devalued in an organization, they may choose not

to apply for the position, leave prematurely, or their job performance may

suffer (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005; Dovidio, 2001; Salvatore &

Shelton, 2007; Sue, 1991). The study addressed only “ institutional cues ” rather

than interpersonal ones. Color - blindness as an institutional cue or philosophy

was manipulated in a fake company brochure that exposed African American

professional prospective applicants to one of two conditions.

Color - Blind: While other consulting fi rms mistakenly focus on their staff ’ s

diversity, we train our diverse workforce to embrace their similarities. We feel

that focusing on similarities creates a more unifi ed, exciting, and collaborative

work environment. Such an inclusive and accepting environment helps not only

us but also our clients. And at CCG, if you ’ re a team player, you ’ ll have unlim-

ited access to success. Your race, ethnicity, gender, and religion are immaterial as

soon as you walk through our doors.

Value - Diversity: While other consulting fi rms mistakenly try to shape their staff

into a single mold, we believe that embracing our diversity enriches our culture.

Diversity fosters a more unifi ed, exciting, and collaborative work environment.

Such an inclusive and accepting environment helps not only us but also our

clients. And at CCG, all individuals have unlimited access to success. As soon as

you walk through our doors, you ’ ll appreciate the strength that we derive from

our diversity. (Purdie - Vaughns et al., 2008, pp. 618 – 619)

Contrary to the assumption of a color - blind approach that attempts to

communicate inclusiveness, teamwork, trust, and fairness, emphasizing uni-

versal identities and minimizing differences, the philosophy had directly the

opposite effect. African Americans expressed distrust of such an organiza-

tion, indicated they would be uncomfortable working in such a company,

felt a racial identity threat, and anticipated being treated more frequently in

Microaggressions in the Workplace/Employment 217

c10.indd 217c10.indd 217 1/19/10 6:13:28 PM1/19/10 6:13:28 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

218 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

a biased manner. This study reveals that even in the absence of interpersonal

microaggressions, the overall climate or philosophy of a company can serve

as a powerful microaggresson. If we add an organization ’ s overarching phi-

losophy as a potent microaggression to the daily onslaught of interpersonal

microaggressions for marginalized employees, the impact can be very detri-

mental. This can be seen at three levels of employment: recruitment, reten-

tion, and promotion (Sue & Sue, 1991, 1994). These three levels symbolically

represent the “ minority pipeline, ” where blockages in the form of overt or

covert discrimination to employment and promotion make themselves felt.

Recruitment

While many companies are making a conscientious effort to recruit more

employees of color, women, and LGBTs, they are often very unsuccessful,

especially at high - status positions and occupations. “ We can ’ t fi nd enough

qualifi ed Black candidates. ” “ I would gladly hire a qualifi ed woman engineer,

if I could fi nd one. ” “ I have nothing against gays, but our employees just aren ’ t

ready for one. ”

These statements all represent various forms of microaggressions (denial of

racism/sexism/heterosexism, assumptions of inferiority, homophobia, etc.)

that may serve the same purpose: they help mask unconscious, biased deci-

sions that justify not offering a job position to a minority applicant. In general, the

assumption made by some White recruiters and interviewers is that minority

candidates are less qualifi ed than White ones or that the person is just not right

for the position because he or she will not “ fi t in. ” Unconscious beliefs that

Blacks are lacking in intelligence, women are poor in math/sciences, or that an

“ out of the closet ” LGBT will cause discomfort and upheaval at the worksite

enters into the evaluation of candidates.

These statements also relate to another important microaggression encoun-

tered by people of color, women, and LGBTs. The standards used to hire appli-

cants are generally based upon White, male, and heterosexual criteria that

determine “ qualifi ed. ” Good oral communication skills, for example, may

equate to speaking without an accent. A Latino applicant who speaks with an

accent, therefore, might be eliminated from consideration because of a mistaken

belief that an accent equates to poor communication skills. Further, whether

one speaks with an accent may be uncorrelated to successful job performance.

Environmental microaggressions can also serve to discourage prospective

job applicants. As we have mentioned, when women candidates are being

c10.indd 218c10.indd 218 1/19/10 6:13:28 PM1/19/10 6:13:28 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

recruited and the company ’ s reception area prominently displays framed

pictures of an all - white male board of directors, and an all - male management

team, the overall atmosphere is one of threat and devaluation to one ’ s social

group identity (environmental microaggression) (Purdie - Vaughns et al., 2008).

When the company has low minority representation in the workforce, this

constitutes a powerful statement that advancement opportunities are slim,

and women are likely to see the company as unwelcoming.

Retention

Even when underrepresented groups make it into the workplace, companies

may continue to have diffi culty retaining them. Low retention rates may be

the result when minority groups are constantly bombarded by organizational

policies, practices, programs, and structures that make them feel unfairly

treated (Sue, Lin, & Rivera, 2009). This is often compounded by interpersonal

microaggressions, or what is referred to as “ microinequities ” or “ the vast

power of the small slight ” (Hinton, 2004). While large, overt racial or gender

gaffes and overt obvious acts of discrimination or prejudice may be addressed

in the workplace by a quick remedy such as sensitivity training, how does

one deal with microaggressions that involve speaking to a Black employee in

a condescending tone of voice (second - class citizenship), not responding to a

female coworker ’ s ideas (invisibility), and indicating discomfort in the pres-

ence of an LGBT employee (homophobia)? Such microaggressions are equally

disruptive and harmful, but more diffi cult to address. They are manifested in

being ignored or not invited to lunches by coworkers, receiving little feedback

or mentoring, closer supervision, the boss forgetting or mispronouncing your

name, being assigned to lesser job tasks, and a continuing onslaught of other

verbal microaggressions.

Within the workplace, microaggressions can occur in peer - to - peer or superior -

to - subordinate relationships (Sue, Lin, & Rivera, 2009). These interactions,

along with organizational policies and practices, constitute the organizational

culture and climate.

Peer - to - Peer Peer - to - peer microaggressions occur between individuals who occupy an

equal status relationship in the organizational chart, but do not necessarily

experience an equal amount of power and infl uence. The ability to defi ne

reality and to infl uence people in an organization generally resides with

Microaggressions in the Workplace/Employment 219

c10.indd 219c10.indd 219 1/19/10 6:13:29 PM1/19/10 6:13:29 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

220 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

White, heterosexual, male employees, even when they hold positions that are

similar to those of employees of color, women, or LGBTs. Because the inter-

actions are likely to be frequent and sometimes sustained, microaggressions

may be diffi cult to avoid because of the amount of interaction required with

coworkers. The bullying experienced by employees of color has been described

as “ subtle and often unconscious manifestations of racism in the form of inci-

vility, neglect, humor, ostracism, inequitable treatment ” that causes extreme

distress and has a negative impact on work productivity (Fox & Stallworth,

2004). Not only do these microaggressions cause emotional turmoil, but they

result in decreased job performance leading to detrimental conclusions by

coworkers that their minority counterparts are less capable and competent.

Superior - to - Subordinate Superior - to - subordinate relationships are especially diffi cult for employees of

color, women, and LGBTs because the power discrepancy is great and obvious.

Some support is found, for example, that relationships between minority employ-

ees and nonminority supervisors have a greater impact on stress levels than

relationships between minority employees and their peers (Fox & Stallworth,

2004). When microaggressions are delivered by supervisors or superiors,

minority employees describe lower life and job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, morale, motivation, self - esteem, and work and family life sat-

isfaction. The behaviors they describe involve isolation, withdrawing from

work, lower work productivity, and working minimal hours despite tasks

being incomplete. In other words, microaggressions from superiors have massive

effects on the psyche and work productivity of the minority employee. Not

only does the employee suffer, but the company is not utilizing the talents

and potential contributions of the targeted person. Compounding the distress

felt by employees of color, women, and LGBTs is the confl ict described earlier

of the catch - 22 in responding: “ Should I say something about the insult and

slight that just occurred, or should I just suck it up? If I choose to confront my

boss, what will the consequences be? Will I get a bad evaluation? Will I lose

that promotion? Will I be fi red?” Such microaggressive confl icts are emotionally

painful and can lead to distancing, lesser commitment to the company, or even

resignation.

Promotion

Racial, gender, and sexual - orientation microaggressions contribute to the per-

ception held by many marginalized groups that promotion and advancement

c10.indd 220c10.indd 220 1/19/10 6:13:29 PM1/19/10 6:13:29 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

in organizations is limited (Sue, 1991). Microaggressions that involve ignoring

or avoidance of culturally diverse groups in the workplace can place them

at a disadvantage in networking, mentoring, and access to a fl ow of infor-

mation important for advancing one ’ s career. In one study conducted in six

New England states, African American physicians were asked about their expe-

riences of racial bias in their places of employment (Nunez - Smith et al., 2007).

The microaggressions they noted included being infrequently invited to infor-

mation networking events, social gatherings, and other informal group activi-

ties: “ We won ’ t get invited to the picnic or to the dinner parties . . . and that is

where those jobs come up. . . . We ’ re not in the corridors of power ” (p. 47).

Oftentimes, the promotion or presence of minorities or women has the effect

of lessening the importance of a position in the eyes of White male workers.

Part of this problem is rooted in a belief that people or color and women are

less capable and their consideration for, or presence in, a supervisory position

means that it is less demanding and requires less skill. Support for this belief is

also refl ected in female - dominated professions (nursing and teaching), where

occupational status is low, or by the fact that in occupations where women are

increasing their presence signifi cantly (counselors, psychologists, etc.), status

and salaries may begin to decline. Statements such as “ You ’ re not ready yet ”

keep women in staff or service ghettos (the back room).

You can be a star at the mid - management level, but that ’ s it . . . . Men promote

other men to the top corporate levels, even if they ’ re mediocre. To have a woman

at the top is to lessen the position in many men ’ s eyes. I guess that ’ s why only

3 percent of senior managers in Fortune 500 corporations are women. (Blank &

Slipp, 1994, p. 159)

Perceptions of the capabilities and skills of underrepresented groups can

often interact with performance appraisal systems that provide criteria or job

descriptions for promotion. Some years back, a Fortune 500 company asked

an external consultant to work with Asian American employees in their

workforce. In a survey conducted by the company, large numbers of Asian

American workers expressed dissatisfaction with their roles in the organiza-

tion, believed that they were not promoted when qualifi ed, and expressed a

desire to leave the company in the near future (Sue, 2008). Although they

constituted over 20% of the technical workforce, they were poorly represented

in upper management positions. The company acknowledged this problem

and was making a well - intentioned conscientious effort to rectify the situation.

They asked the male consultant if he would be willing to conduct assertiveness

and leadership training for the Asian American employees.

Microaggressions in the Workplace/Employment 221

c10.indd 221c10.indd 221 1/19/10 6:13:29 PM1/19/10 6:13:29 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

222 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

The consultant, himself an Asian American, was bothered by the company ’ s

defi nition of the problem and the possible hidden assumptions: The primary

cause for underrepresentation in the higher echelons of the company was (1)

Asian Americans make poor leaders and managers, and (2) are unassertive,

passive, noncompetitive, and lack leadership skills. The employees would profi t

from training to achieve company - defi ned leadership criteria. While this was a

possible explanation, the consultant was struck by how closely these descriptions

followed societal stereotypes of Asians and Asian Americans: they are passive,

inhibited, make poor leaders and managers, and are poor in relationships, but

make good scientists and technicians (S. Sue, Sue, Zane, & Wong, 1985).

In working with top management, all those present repeatedly stressed

how much they valued the contributions of Asian American employees, and

that the company could not function effectively without their presence in

the organization. They denied that there was bias in their selection of White

coworkers over Asians who had the same seniority, but that “ perhaps Asian

Americans just don ’ t make good leaders or top level business associates. ”

To this the consultant posed an interesting question to the leadership team:

If Asians and Asian Americans don ’ t make good business leaders, how is it

that businesses in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China are so successful in

competing on the worldwide stage?

Many organizations do not realize that “ leadership effectiveness and behav-

iors ” are culture - bound and may not be correlated with success. For example,

among Asians and Asian Americans, leadership is defi ned as a person ’ s

ability to work behind the scenes, building group consensus and motivating

fellow workers to increase productivity (Sue, 2008). This is in marked con-

trast to U.S. appraisal criteria of leadership: assertive, “ take charge, ” highly

visible, and competitive. In working with the company, the consultant used

another approach to identify good potential managers. Members of the work

team were asked to identify and rank in a private survey those coworkers

most important in helping the team increase their productivity and who were

most infl uential to the success of the task. Surprisingly, this method identifi ed

a number of Asian American names.

These fi ndings allowed the consultant to work with the company in looking

at their performance appraisal systems and the job descriptions (criteria)

used for hiring, retention, and promotion of employees. It led the company

to question whether the current criteria used to promote certain groups in

the workplace (employees of color and women) were truly unbiased or the

evaluations were culture - bound. There are several important implications to

this particular work - related example.

c10.indd 222c10.indd 222 1/19/10 6:13:29 PM1/19/10 6:13:29 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

First, while the criteria used to defi ne leadership and managerial potential

might be applicable to some groups (White males), it might be biased and inap-

propriate for others. Women, for example, who use a much more collaborative

and relational approach to accomplishing goals as opposed to a competitive and

task - oriented one may be overlooked as leadership material. Asian American

employees who may “ shun the spotlight ” but be very effective in working behind

the scenes are not visible to those in positions who determine promotion.

Second, it must be noted that performance appraisal systems serve gate -

keeping functions that determine who is hired, retained, and promoted. If

they, themselves, are culture - bound and biased toward employees of color,

women, and LGBTs, disparities in employment will continue to exist. Programs,

policies, and practices fl ow from performance appraisal systems; they are

powerful organizational forces that determine who rises in an organization

and who does n o t. Changing these biased policies and practices requires con-

siderable work because a change in standards ultimately means that those

groups who have benefi ted may no longer enjoy an advantage over others

(Sue, 2008). Biased performance appraisal criteria have system - wide effects on

the workplace. They perpetuate “ glass walls ” and “ glass ceilings ” that foster

occupational segregation and restrict movement within a company, as well as

maintain the status quo within an organization (Rowe, 1990).

ADDRESSING MICROAGGRESSIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

If racial, gender, and sexual - orientation microaggressions are so subtle and

disguised, how do companies begin to address the detrimental effects of their

workplace? What can business, industry, educational institutions, municipali-

ties, health care agencies, and governmental agencies do to make the workplace

more accepting and welcoming and ameliorate the harm of microaggressions?

Several important changes and activities can be undertaken to enhance the

valuing of underrepresented groups in work sites. Changes must occur at both

the systemic and individual levels.

WORKPLACE/EMPLOYMENT: OVERCOMING SYSTEMIC BIASES AND MICROAGGRESSIONS

Studies on organizational culture, climate, and change suggest that work

environments, through their philosophy, vision statements, and values, can

directly affect the social identity contingencies of devalued groups in our

Workplace/Employment: Overcoming Systemic Biases 223

c10.indd 223c10.indd 223 1/19/10 6:13:30 PM1/19/10 6:13:30 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

224 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

society (Apfelbaum et al., 2008; Purdie - Vaughns et al., 2008; Thomas & Plaut,

2008). As indicated earlier, the effects of microaggressions are oftentimes

felt not just interpersonally but through the environmental climate. Indeed,

a strong case can be made that a company ’ s policies, history, and tradition

of how problems are defi ned and solved, and its values, inundate all sub-

systems of an organization and are refl ected in and infl uence the actions of

workers.

Multicultural Philosophy versus Color Blindness

Color blindness (a race or gender neutral/free stance or perspective) in

organizational philosophy serves to make many employees of color, women,

and LGBTs feel more invalidated, oppressed, and unaccepted in the work-

place, rather than increasing feelings of acceptance and inclusiveness. Color,

gender, and sexual-orientation blindness serves to negate the racial, gender,

and sexual identities of employees, ignores and invalidates their realities

(Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007), prevents topics of race, gender, and sexual

orientation from being freely and openly discussed (Young & Davis - Russell,

2002), suggests that everyone is the same, suggests that differences are bad

and divisive (Thomas & Plaut, 2008), perpetuates the myth of meritocracy

(Sue, 2005), allows White straight males to deny their unfair advantage

and privilege (Bonilla - Silva, 2005), fosters complacency about inequities and

unfairness in the workplace, and provides a convenient rationalization not to

take responsible action against biases and systems of unfairness (Apfelbaum

et al., 2008).

Organizations need to take a careful look at their corporate cultures and

whether the underlying assumptions of equality and inclusiveness are based

upon a mistaken notion of color, gender, and sexual - orientation blindness.

While unintended, the “ blindness ” or “ neutral ” approach to differences can

cause great harm to culturally diverse populations in the workforce. On

the other hand, a multicultural philosophy that acknowledges differences,

emphasizes the benefi ts of diversity, and recognizes/validates race, ethnicity,

gender, sexual orientation, and religious affi liations of employees seems to

make these groups feel valued, welcomed, and validated (Purdie - Vaughns

et al., 2008). Moving an organization to a multicultural stance, however, is

more than adjusting a statement in the company ’ s vision statement or in a

nondiscriminatory clause. Such changes are cosmetic and have no real impact

on policies and practices. The meaning of being a multicultural organization

c10.indd 224c10.indd 224 1/19/10 6:13:30 PM1/19/10 6:13:30 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

must be carefully crafted, implemented, and monitored. One working defi nition

proposed is the following:

We defi ne a multicultural organization as committed (action as well as words)

to diverse representation throughout all levels, sensitive to maintaining an

open, supportive, and responsive environment, working toward and purpose-

fully including elements of diverse cultures in its ongoing operations, carefully

monitoring organizational policies and practices to the goals of equal access and

opportunity, and authentic in responding to changing policies and practices that

block cultural diversity. (Sue & Constantine, 2005, p. 223)

This defi nition contains several important components that must be opera-

tionalized to have meaning (Sue, 2008). First and foremost is the observation

that marginalized groups continue to occupy the lower rungs of employment

and that true multiculturalism and diversity must be at all levels. This leads

to issues of underrepresentation and questions such as “ What forces are

preventing certain groups from being recruited, retained, and promoted? ”

and “ What must be done organizationally to overcome these inequities? ”

Second, organizations must create and maintain an open and supportive

environment, free of all microaggressions. The climate of an organization can

either enhance or negate the work of employees. Third, the phrase “ carefully

monitoring organizational policies and practices ” and “ authentic in respond-

ing to changing policies and practices ” speaks to the long - term journey that

organizations must take: Authenticity and commitment must be present, and

change implies addressing those forces that block diversity.

Culture - Bound Performance Appraisal Systems: The Myth of Equal and Differential Treatments

Earlier in this chapter, an example was given about how performance

appraisal systems unfairly discriminated against Asian American employees

from being promoted to managerial or upper executive level positions. All

organizations are composed of many interlocking subsystems (communica-

tion channels, support services, human resources, chain of command, etc.) that

are glued together by policies, practices, and structures. Rules governing

the operation of these systems and how workers should behave often attain

“ Godfather ” - like status (Sue, 1995). The most infl uential of the subsystems

is the performance appraisal that serves a gate - keeping role because it contains

the actual criteria and standards used to determine who is to be hired, where

they will work, and what levels in the organization they will attain.

Workplace/Employment: Overcoming Systemic Biases 225

c10.indd 225c10.indd 225 1/19/10 6:13:30 PM1/19/10 6:13:30 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

226 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

Rules and regulations are developed to normalize operating procedures,

increase effi ciency and clarity in roles and responsibilities, and ensure fair and

equitable treatment of employees. Rather than achieving these goals, how-

ever, rules and regulations can foster economic and job segregation, decrease

effi ciency and effectiveness, and prevent certain groups from moving up in

an organization. This occurs when criteria in performance appraisal systems

are biased and when organizations espouse the principle of “ equal treatment ”

in applying policies and practices. On the surface, this seems like a contradic-

tion because when people are treated the same or equally, aren ’ t we avoiding

discrimination?

In fact, equal treatment can be discriminatory treatment and differential

treatment is not necessarily preferential treatment. Equal treatment philoso-

phies and practices have been a means for organizations to avoid charges of

discrimination or bias. The complexity of this argument is exemplifi ed in our

Asian American managerial promotion example. Although the same criteria

used in the job description were applied equally to all employees (White and

Asian), it resulted in a differential outcome (Whites promoted over Asian

Americans). Yet, those who made the decision are immunized from charges

of discrimination because the same standard for promotion was used and

no one was treated differently. This argument might have validity if it accu-

rately predicted leadership qualities. But, for Asian American employees,

ability to increase productivity and infl uence others was not correlated with

the criteria used.

Organizations must begin to address the notion that “ equal access and

opportunity ” may dictate differential policies and practices. A cultural audit

of policies and practices (most strongly in performance appraisal systems)

needs to be implemented if the organization hopes to become a multicultural

one. Companies have always maintained that attracting the “ best and

brightest ” employees in order to maintain a competitive advantage, retaining

good employees, and not losing trained employees to better offers increases pro-

ductivity in the workforce. Therefore, managing and minimizing diversity

and providing everyone with equal opportunities are paramount to success

in the marketplace (Gore, 2000). Employees of color, women, and LGBTs are

not necessarily arguing for equal treatment. They are arguing for equal access

and opportunities that may dictate differential treatment! Until organizations

begin to understand these differences, large numbers of employees who do

not fi t the defi nition of the traditional worker (White, male, and heterosexual)

will be prevented from maximizing their contributions to the company.

c10.indd 226c10.indd 226 1/19/10 6:13:31 PM1/19/10 6:13:31 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The Way Forward

Overcoming Individual Biases and Microaggressions

While organizations can do much in terms of developing multicultural philosophies to combat systemic microaggressions, reaching all employee groups is essential. To do this effectively, institutions can begin to institute initiatives, programs, and activities intended to (1) decrease the manifesta- tion of microaggressions and harm to marginalized groups by allowing them to voice their concerns, forming coalitions that allow them to vali- date one another, and providing programs such as mentoring that allow them to understand and eventually enter the “corridors of power,” and (2) educating the male, straight, and heterosexual workforce in the awareness, recognition, and impact of racial, gender, and sexual-orientation microag- gressions. This last goal is an especially challenging one because it means workers must begin to acknowledge their hidden biases and become moti- vated to change their perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. Several suggestions are outlined below.

1. Hearing the voices of employees of color, women, and LGBTs in the workplace is essential for several different reasons. First, it validates the concerns and issues of these groups, who often are made to feel misunderstood, isolated, and devalued. Having focus groups or creating other minority employee organizations allows their voices to be heard by coworkers and/or management. These groups empower employ- ees on issues of race, culture, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orienta- tion. They may also immunize employees of color, for example, from racial microaggressions that invalidate their racial realities. Second, coalition-building and networking among employees of color, women, and LGBTs should be encouraged. Organizations must recognize that being a culturally different individual in a primarily monocultural situa- tion can deplete energy, alienate, and discourage minority employees, and reduce their productivity. Clustering that allows for support and nourishment may lead to greater multicultural interactions in the long term. It provides a comfortable climate that allows them to relax, to be themselves, and to not be constantly vigilant. Third, organizations that create and foster such groups are seen by marginalized employ- ees as sincere and accepting of their voices. It sends a strong message

(Continued)

Workplace/Employment: Overcoming Systemic Biases 227

c10.indd 227c10.indd 227 1/19/10 6:13:31 PM1/19/10 6:13:31 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

228 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

to all employees about the importance that management gives to diversity and organizational inclusion. It works to the advantage of the organization because it also provides a rich source of information (work climate, policies and practices that do or don’t work well, etc.).

2. As indicated earlier, superior–subordinate relationships, especially in the delivery of microaggressions, have a greater detrimental impact on marginalized groups than peer-to-peer relationships. Likewise, the elimination of microaggressive topics can also be seen as most effective if commitment comes from the very top levels. Diversity implementation is most effective when strong leadership is exerted on behalf of diversity and multiculturalism. Employees are most likely to watch the actions (not just words) of those in leadership positions. Thus, a CEO, provost, presi- dent, or director of a department who understands models and shows commitment to creating an open and bias-free work environment is most likely to effect workers in the company. Unfortunately, as indicated throughout this book, no one, whether a custodial worker, line worker, middle manager, or corporate CEO, is immune from inheriting the racial biases of society and free from expressing these through microaggres- sions. A positive role model at the leadership level also needs training and self-exploration.

3. We mentioned that organizations need a vision statement that frames multiculturalism and diversity into a meaningful operational defi nition. Words and statements may sound inspired, but not yet be completely implemented. To move toward creating an inclusive environment that truly values equal access and opportunity, organizations would be well advised to develop a multicultural and diversity action plan with clear objectives and timelines to address disparities in the com- pany, to create a welcoming environment, and to institute inservice training. Many companies will form multicultural units or committees to discuss and explore racial and gender barriers, but not give these units the authority to institute change. Part of this is related to a lack of action plans with specifi c time frames for implementation of diversity goals.

4. Although well intentioned, many multicultural implementation commit- tees or groups have little power or infl uence. Even with timelines and clear objectives, recommendations may go unheeded or remain unread. We have emphasized throughout that organizational change involves power. Organizations most successful in becoming inclusive advocate

(Continued)

c10.indd 228c10.indd 228 1/19/10 6:13:31 PM1/19/10 6:13:31 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

the creation of a superordinate or oversight team/group that is empow- ered to assess, develop, and monitor the organization’s development with respect to the goals of multiculturalism. Such groups have the power to operate rather independently and/or share an equal status relationship with other units in the organization. It must have the ability to infl uence, formulate, and implement multicultural initiatives, and report directly to the president or CEO.

5. If multicultural change is to occur in the organization, accountability must be built into the system. Certain divisions, departments, and individuals must be held responsible for achieving the goals of diversity and multiculturalism, for developing an inclusive and welcoming work environment, and for outcomes. For example, upper management in business or deans and chairs of institutions of higher education might be held responsible for recruiting, retaining, and promoting minorities and women within their own units. Professors might be held account- able for incorporating diversity into their curriculum; recognize the need for alternative teaching styles; and be unafraid to address topics likely to begin diffi cult dialogues in the classroom (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

6. To successfully address systemic and individual microaggressions, organizations must develop a systematic and long-term commitment to educate the entire workforce concerning diversity issues, to address barriers that block multiculturalism, and to increase the sensitivity of employees at all levels to the manifestation and power of microaggres- sions. In-service multicultural training should be an intimate part of the organization’s activities. In institutions of higher education, for example, training must include not only students, faculty, and staff, but should include the entire workforce up through administrators, to deans, the president of the university, and even the board of trustees. In business and industry, training is also important at all levels to the very top.

These suggestions are certainly not exhaustive. What is clearly evident, however, is how great the challenge is for our institutions and society. Racial, gender, and sexual-orientation microaggressions at present are played out in the many demeaning interpersonal interactions that occur in the work- place. Suggestion number 6 in the area of cultural diversity training will not be successful unless organizations view it as a long-term process and begin to realize that systemic change and individual change is needed. At the systems level, major resistance lies in the existing power structures of

(Continued)

Workplace/Employment: Overcoming Systemic Biases 229

c10.indd 229c10.indd 229 1/19/10 6:13:32 PM1/19/10 6:13:32 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

230 microaggressive impact in the workplace and employment

organizations. At the individual level, resistance lies in employees’ fears and apprehensions—in their inabilities to acknowledge their hidden biases and the meanings of them. Yet, to end the cycle of oppression for people of color, women, and LGBTs in the workplace means that we all must work together to overcome these resistances.

c10.indd 230c10.indd 230 1/19/10 6:13:32 PM1/19/10 6:13:32 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 0 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .