How to React to a Colleague’s Microaggression

The mean rating was 3.62, the second lowest for any of our four installments. This situation is challenging.

We next turn to the average ratings of each response submitted. The following analysis is restricted to the 139 responses with 10 or more ratings. The histogram below plots the average ratings for each of these responses. The average rating is 3.58, with responses ranging from the worst rated (1.33) to the best rated (4.92). Fifty-three (38 percent) of the 139 responses had an average rating of 4 or higher. Once again, there were many responses that might be viewed as good, but an absence of responses that were universally seen as outstanding.

Just over half of the responses came from men, and 32 percent of the responses came from participants who used a ChicagoBooth.edu email address. For the fourth straight time, female responses (3.97) scored higher than male responses (3.5) and Booth-affiliated responses (3.87) were rated more positively than others (3.52).

If you provided a response, we have sent you: (i) a histogram of the ratings for your response, (ii) your average rating, and (iii) a percentile ranking that indicates where your response fell in the distribution of all submitted responses.

To give you a sense of the range of ratings, we’ve listed a few responses spanning from unfavorably rated (5 percent, 10 percent, and 25 percent in the distribution, meaning that 95 percent, 90 percent, and 75 percent of responses are rated better), to average (50 percent in the distribution), to favorably rated (75 percent, 90 percent, and 95 percent in the distribution). All responses included in this article were subject to light editing for grammar and style.

The two most negatively viewed responses above involved no response. Overall, 18.3 percent of participants indicated that they would not respond—but the no-response rate was considerably lower for females (8.7 percent) than for males (20.8 percent). The average rating for no-responses was 2.38, compared to 3.88 for responses that would engage in some way. A little more than half of raters scored a no-response 1 out of 7! And, as the graph below shows, only 1 of the 112 responses with some form of engagement scored lower than the average rating for no-responses.

The responses above also varied in terms of the tone of the language. Some responses used direct confrontation. (“That was patronizing.”) Others invoked a more subtle strategy. (“I’ll take notes.”) Finally, some participants combined these approaches. The graph below shows the frequency of tone, as well as the average rating for responses of each type. Direct responses were viewed most negatively. Subtle responses were rated .35 points higher, on average. Interestingly, the most highly rated responses were ones that mixed subtle and direct language, scoring .52 points higher than direct answers and .17 points higher than subtle submissions. Women were considerably less likely to use direct language than men (22.7 percent versus 35.7 percent) and almost twice as likely to use a mixed approach (15.9 percent versus 8.9 percent).

Responses also varied in whether a response was evoked during the meeting or later on. More than 70 percent of responses were immediate, and unsurprisingly, immediate messages tended to be considerably more subtle. In fact, 85.3 percent of immediate responses included a subtle approach, whereas 52.4 percent of delayed responses were direct. The graph below shows that immediate responses were judged 0.25 points higher on average than delayed messages.

We also inferred the goals motivating our readers’ responses. We identified four common goals:

• Change Greg’s behavior (“I would have a pretty honest discussion with Greg around this . . . ‘Let’s make sure she agrees or volunteers.’”)
• Ally with Becky (“‘Becky did do an awesome job last time but she isn’t here as a secretary or admin.’”)
• Change group norms (“‘Let’s instead rotate notes, or why not each of us take our own notes.’”)
• Defuse tension (“I would volunteer to take notes.”)

The most infrequent goal, changing group norms, used by less than 10 percent of participants, was also the most effective, scoring about half a point higher than any other responses.

Finally, we examined the frequency of three commonly used elements:

• Reaching out separately to Becky
• Speaking with Greg privately
• Offering to take notes

Offering to take notes was by far the most commonly used element. It was also the most effective. Interestingly, women were significantly more likely to offer to take notes (84 percent) than men (67.8 percent). All of the other elements and goals were equally effective, though women were much more likely to reach out to Becky (29.5 percent versus 14.2 percent of men) and much less likely to defuse the tension of the situation (25 percent versus 37.5 percent).

Top-rated results

Now for the top three responses. We’ve listed names and backgrounds when we’ve gotten permission to do so.

Thanks for these responses. Each of the respondents will receive a Business Practice coffee mug. Display it proudly!

Action versus intention

This installment differed from previous scenarios in allowing readers to propose strategies for responding to a tricky situation. Doing nothing was explicitly one option. Fewer than one in five readers chose to opt out, and doing nothing was judged quite negatively relative to almost all other responses. Of course, submitting a response anonymously and online is quite different from actually saying something in a large group meeting in your workplace. In other words, intentions and action are different. Most of us know that there are uncomfortable situations in which we should engage, but somehow we don’t.

In a recent study conducted by York University’s Kerry Kawakami,University of British Columbia’s Elizabeth Dunn, University of Toronto postdoctoral fellow Francine Karmali, and Yale’s John F. Dovidio, one group of participants experienced a white person uttering an antiblack slur and subsequently had to make a choice about partnering with that person. Another group of participants were presented with this scenario as a hypothetical and were asked to predict how they would react. The critical question: Would you partner with that individual? Only 17 percent of forecasters predicted that they would choose the perpetrator as a partner. In contrast, 63 percent of those who actually experienced the slur chose that person as a partner. Yes, there’s a difference between intending to do something and actually executing.

This research and similar work suggest that many of the 81.7 percent of our respondents who would hypothetically engage in some way with Greg would actually do nothing in the equivalent real-world situation. We can relate—both of us look back, ruefully, on past situations in which we should’ve acted but failed to engage.

So how do we align our intentions and actions? We can’t give you a simple answer. Indiana University’s Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Butler’s Kathryn A. Morris, and Wright State’s Stephanie A. Goodwin have proposed that actually confronting another requires all of the below:

1. You interpret the incident as a slight.
2. You view immediate action as necessary.
3. You have a unique responsibility for intervening.
4. You know what to do.

This is a stage-gate process in which confrontation is infrequent because it requires affirmative answers to all of the above. Interpersonal situations are often ambiguous. (“Is it just me?”—see #1 above.) Or, there might be a lack of urgency to do something now. (“I can deal with this later”—see #2.) Perhaps there are many people at this meeting. (“Why isn’t someone else doing something!?!”—speaks to #3.) Business Practice, hopefully, helps with #4.

Strategic takeaways

• Although it is difficult to speak up and easy to rationalize not speaking up, the majority of respondents strongly believe that action, preferably immediate action, is warranted here.
• Subtlety was an important element for those who chose to respond to Greg in the moment. A subtle approach not only reduces the chance that you’ll permanently fracture your relationship with Greg or harm the group’s dynamic; it also supports Becky without making her feel spoken for or further undermined.
• Addressing the situation indirectly by suggesting a change in group behavior—for instance, that group members rotate note-taking duty—is not a first instinct for many people, but it was among the most effective strategies as evaluated by our raters.

Jane L. Risen is professor of behavioral science and the John E. Jeuck Faculty Fellow at Chicago Booth and George Wu is the John P. and Lillian A. Gould Professor of Behavioral Science at Booth.