IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v180y2024ics0749597823000729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sincere solidarity or performative pretense? Evaluations of organizational allyship

Author

Listed:
  • Ponce de Leon, Rebecca
  • Carter, James T.
  • Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby

Abstract

Although organizations increasingly seek to communicate allyship with the Black community, their ally statements can receive vastly different responses from Black observers. We develop and test a theoretical model outlining key drivers of allyship evaluations among these perceivers. Drawing from signaling theory and integrating insights from the literature on identity safety, we reveal the costliness and consistency of ally statements as critical determinants of Black perceivers’ evaluations of organizations as allies. Two studies—the first leveraging statements released by Fortune 500 companies and the second a more controlled follow-up experiment—demonstrate the interactive effects of cost and consistency on these assessments. Specifically, the most positive allyship evaluations emerged for organizations whose statements conveyed both high cost and high consistency. Our findings have implications for organizations and business leaders who aim to communicate allyship. To be recognized as allies, devoting resources and incurring costs is not enough; organizations must also signal a consistent commitment to supporting marginalized communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Ponce de Leon, Rebecca & Carter, James T. & Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby, 2024. "Sincere solidarity or performative pretense? Evaluations of organizational allyship," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:180:y:2024:i:c:s0749597823000729
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000729
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104296?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:180:y:2024:i:c:s0749597823000729. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.