Barnini Bhattacharyya is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Ivey. Barnini teaches Leading People and Organizations in the HBA program. Her research sheds light on barriers to inclusion at work for individuals with marginalized identities, and how organizations and organizational members can create more inclusive structures and environments at work. Barnini was awarded a SSHRC Insight Development Grant in 2024 for a project titled "Caste out in Canada: An examination of privilege and marginalization within overlapping systems of power of white supremacy, racism, and casteism in Canadian workplaces". Barnini brings her extensive industry experience in banking and the nonprofit sector from various regions into her teaching and research. Barnini's research has been reported on in top media outlets like the Globe & Mail and Stanford Social Innovation Review.
-
Berdahl, J. L.; Bhattacharyya, B. B., (Forthcoming), "Do white women gain status for engaging in anti-Black racism at work? An experimental examination of status conferral", Journal of Business Ethics, June 193: 839 - 858.
Abstract: Businesses often attempt to demonstrate their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by showcasing women in their leadership ranks, most of whom are white. Yet research has shown that organizations confer status and power to women who engage in sexist behavior, which undermines DEI efforts. We sought to examine whether women who engage in racist behavior are also conferred relative status at work. Drawing on theory and research on organizational culture and intersectionality, we predicted that a white woman who expresses anti-Black racism is conferred more status in the workplace than a white woman who does not. A pilot study (N = 30) confirmed that making an anti-Black racist comment at work was judged to be more offensive than making no comment, but only for a white man, not a white woman. Study 1 (N = 330) found that a white woman who made an anti-Black racist comment at work was conferred higher status than a white woman who did not, whereas the opposite held true for a white man, with perceived offensiveness mediating these effects. Study 2 (N = 235) revealed that a white woman who made an anti-racist/pro-Black Lives Matter comment was conferred lower status than a white woman who did not, whereas the opposite held true for a white man. Finally, Study 3 (N = 295) showed that people who endorse racist and sexist beliefs confer more status to a white man than to a white woman regardless of speech, but that people low in racism and sexism confer the highest status to a white woman who engages in anti-Black racist speech. These studies suggest that white women are rewarded for expressing support for beliefs that mirror systemic inequality in the corporate world. We discuss implications for business ethics and directions for future research.
Link(s) to publication:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05727-7
-
Bhattacharyya, B. B.; Erskine, S.; McCluney, S., 2024, "Not all allies are created equal: An intersectional examination of relational allyship for women of color at cork", Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, May 182
Abstract: Allyship is typically considered a positive relationship between marginalized individuals and their relatively more privileged allies. Yet, this flattened, unidirectional, and single-identity view of allyship prohibits us from capturing the nuances and inherent power struggles embedded in the allied relationship. Our study aims to expand our understanding of how and whether allyship across multiple levels of difference helps dismantle oppressive structures or maintains power inequalities in organizations. Integrating current allyship research with intersectionality theory, we conduct an inductive qualitative study of allied relationships between professional women of color in Canada (n = 30) and their nominated allies (n = 30). We find that power schemata, or cognitive and emotional framing of systems of power in allied relationships affect allyship behaviors, such that power cognizance is key for effective allyship to occur. We identify three dimensions of allyship behaviors that emerge from these power considerations —(de)centering, (dis)respecting, and (in)action – which vary in terms of expected allyship by women of color and enacted allyship by their allies. Integrating power schemata and allyship dimensions, we identify three types of allied relationships for women of color at work, varying in effectiveness. We identify ongoing learning as a mechanism to move towards power-cognizance and therefore more effective allyship. Women of color emerge as the most effective allies in our study, highlighting that marginalized individuals can not only be allies, but that they play a crucial role in their own liberation. Based on these findings, we develop our intersectional theory of relational allyship for women of color at work.
Link(s) to publication:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104331
-
Bhattacharyya, B. B.; Berdahl, J. L., 2023, "Do you see me? An inductive examination of differences between women of color's experiences of and responses to invisibility at work.", Journal of Applied Psychology, July 108(7): 1073 - 1095.
Abstract: Intersectional invisibility is a salient experience for women of color in the workplace and stems from their nonprototypicality in gender and race. We expand research and theory on intersectional invisibility to propose that women of color vary in their degrees of nonprototypicality, and thus in their social power and their experiences of and responses to invisibility at work. We present an inductive interview study of a diverse sample of 65 women of color in the United States and Canada, who work in traditionally white and male professions. We examined how differences in race, immigration status, age, and organizational rank informed the types of invisibility they experienced and their responses to invisibility. Four forms of invisibility (erasure, homogenization, exoticization, and whitening) and three response pathways (withdrawal, approach, and pragmatism) emerged from our findings that differed according to women of color's social power. Women with less social power experienced the most invisibility and were more likely to engage in withdrawal tactics that intensified their invisibility and marginalization at work. Women with more social power experienced less invisibility and were more likely to engage in approach tactics that risked backlash. Women who understood their invisibility to be rooted in structural causes responded more pragmatically to invisibility, occasionally engaging in radical honesty to connect with others who treated them as invisible and to change their behavior. We discuss the implications of our research for intersectionality theory, directions for future research, and organizational practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Link(s) to publication:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36780282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0001072
-
Berdahl, J.; Bhattacharyya, B. B., 2021, "Four ways forward in studying sex-based harassment", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, May 40(4): 477 - 492.
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify promising themes of the papers in the special issues of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion dedicated to advancing scholarship on sex-based harassment. Design/methodology/approach: A conceptual overview of the research pertaining to these themes and an analysis of the special issues papers' contributions to these themes. Findings: Four themes that represent important but relatively neglected lines of inquiry into sex-based harassment are identified. These are (1) the psychology of harassment, (2) organizational culture and networks, (3) the invisible majority and (4) the importance of collective action. Originality/value: The paper offers an expert perspective on the state of research related to sex-based harassment and four themes that are important to moving it forward.
Link(s) to publication:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2021-0071
For more publications please see our Research Database
