How has intersectionality changed your perspective?

I found this 2019 study of bias in the performance evaluations of a midsize US law firm particularly enlightening on why we need an intersectional approach to diversity. https://hbr.org/2021/04/how-one-company-worked-to-root-out-bias-from-performance-reviews

To summarise some of the key points of the article:

• Most dramatic was that only 9.5% of people of color received mentions of leadership in their performance evaluations — more than 70 percentage points lower than white women. Not surprisingly, leadership mentions typically predicted higher competency ratings the next year.

• Prove it again: In year one of our study, 43% of people of color and 31% of white women had at least one mistake mentioned in their evaluation, compared to 26% of white men. Studies have shown that Black attorneys are consistently subjected to higher scrutiny, and this data set was no different, with 50% of Black men and 50% of Black women’s evaluations mentioning at least one mistake.

• Tightrope bias: We found that people of color and white women were far more likely to have their personality mentioned in their evaluations (including negative personality traits). What’s optional for white men (getting along with others), seemed to be necessary for white women and people of color. Case in point: 83% of Black men were praised for having a “good attitude” vs. 46% of white men, and 27% of white women were praised for being “friendly and warm” vs. 10% of white men.

• Office housework: 50% of Black women’s evaluations included mentions of doing the “office housework” (aka the undervalued, behind-the-scenes work) compared to 16% of white women and 3% of white men.

• Racial stereotypes: Racial stereotypes can be overt, eg Asian Americans are good at technical tasks but lack leadership ability, or more subtle, such as the assumption that people of color need to be more willing to sacrifice work-life balance than white men. In our audit, we found that one third (33%) of people of color received comments that they were willing to travel, as compared to 13% of white men.

Interestingly, during the study they implemented an intervention in the second year that had strict criteria, and ratings be backed by at least three pieces of evidence. That’s to combat the “halo-horns” effect where white men are artificially advantaged by global ratings because they get halos (where one strength is generalized into an overall high rating) whereas other groups get horns (where one mistake is generalized into an overall low rating) Results:

· In year two, not only did people of color get more leadership mentions (100% in year 2), they also got wildly more constructive feedback. Only 17% of the comments given to people of color contained constructive feedback in year one, as compared to 49% in year two. Constructive feedback increased for white women, too (from 10.5% to 29.5%) — and for white men (from 15% to 27%).

· The intervention leveled the playing field in other important ways, too. White men had longer, more complex evaluations in year one; in year two, both word count and language complexity were similar across all groups.

· ​The evaluations in year two suggest that this company still has a “women are wonderful” problem. Women had higher ratings on many different items, including being referred to as a value or an asset to the company, but this didn’t seem to translate into the opportunities that lead to promotion. White women were still far more likely than other groups to have comments in their evaluations saying they need additional opportunities (51% vs 33%) and that they deserve promotions (37% vs. 22%).

· ​People of color also still had “prove it again” problems. The new form asked evaluators to list the employee’s two or three top competencies. Only 33% of people of color had efficacy and effectiveness (a key value for the organization) listed, compared to 80% of white women and 63% of white men. People of color’s mistakes were also reported at higher levels than white people’s (78% vs. 43%).

In the workplace, people of colour are constantly monitored for mistakes. This paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21612/w21612.pdf

· "While white workers are hired and retained indefinitely without monitoring, black workers are monitored and fired if a negative signal is received."

Being cognisant of intersectionality has definitely affected my perception of society. This is relevant to the current pandemic context, where I’ve become increasingly aware of the bereft homogeneity in the COVID-19 experience. For instance, my privileged background has enabled me to have a comfortable lockdown in comparison to people in developing countries, where it may be impossible to comply with lockdown restrictions due to lack of shelter in security. I think that being aware of intersectionality’s importance in today’s globalised society is imperative in ensuring the safety of the vulnerable is prioritised – it is important for governments to remember that approaches to handling the COVID-19 should be multifaceted to ensure that all levels of society are catered for.

Recognizing intersectionality has made me more careful and considerate when seeing problems and currently available solutions. It also made me more critical when I see policies and programs that we currently have, esp. in Indonesia, my home country. I'm stoked though that intersectionality is getting more spotlight in the policymaking process, I hope that this will progress even more with time and more people being familiar with it!

I began to realise how important intersectionality was when I joined an NGO working on the rights of migrant workers in Thailand as an intern after my graduation. I felt that being migrant workers abroad was difficult that they had to deal with unequal treatments, stereotypes, suspicion, etc. Their life was even more marginalised that Thailand does not recognise the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This meant that their life was risky and somehow not protected by law. With this experience, I began to understand how diverse our society was and perceive the world through an intersectional lens.

I was raised to embrace intersectionality. I cannot say it has changed my perspective, for the reason that it has always been my perspective. I am indigenous. I am a woman. I come from a middle class background. I have a college degree and a master's degree. I am married, and as of this writing, without child in a society that expects married women to bear children. Given these circumstances, I learned to look at things from various perspectives and within changing contexts. I believe my background allows/ gives me a wide berth of understanding when meeting people from different walks of life.

There are many other people like me. Their circumstances may be more difficult or less difficult (this is relative, of course), but intersectionality teaches us that the best way to look at people is from their respective contexts/ backgrounds.