Resilience processes buffer the negative associations between marginalizing communication and career outcomes for women in male-dominated workplaces

ABSTRACT

Women in male-dominated workplaces may experience marginalization at work (communication of difference, disapproval, and/or exclusion), which can have deleterious effects on career outcomes. Engaging in communicative resilience processes likely mitigates some of these negative effects. Based on responses from 229 women who endured gender-based workplace marginalization, moderation models including communicative measures of marginalization and resilience processes as well as career outcomes were tested. Findings suggested that greater exposure to marginalization at work was associated with negative career outcomes, whereas increased engagement in resilience processes (e.g. reframing, humor, new routines) was associated with positive career outcomes (i.e. higher job satisfaction and fit, lower turnover intention). Moreover, some resilience processes moderated the association between marginalization at work and (a) job satisfaction, (b) organizational fit, and (c) turnover intention. Together, these results offer theoretical implications for the communication theory of resilience (CTR) and practical implications for organizations and women in male-dominated workplaces.

KEYWORDS:

• Career
• gender
• marginalization
• resilience
• male-dominated workplaces

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 There is considerable overlap between the dimensions of marginalization and the six types of marginalizing communication identified by Dorrance Hall and Gettings (2020). For example, ‘isolating communication’ involves segregation, that is, physically and conversationally separating marginalized individuals from the group. This resembles exclusion (e.g. ‘I feel like I am pushed to the side by my coworkers’). The full workplace marginalization scale can be found in the online supplemental materials.

2 The CFA with one higher-order factor and six subfactors had good fit, χ² (370) = 715.133, χ²/df = 1.933, CFI = .906, RMSEA = .064 (two error terms in new routines were correlated). One explanation for the slightly different factor structure of the CRPS in our study is that maintaining routines – particularly those connected to one’s workplace – may not be adaptive in the face of marginalizing communication in the same way as holding onto a sense of normalcy in light of other types of disruptions (e.g. families who face job loss maintain routines because they help achieve consistency; Buzzanell & Turner, 2003).

3 Age, marital status, education, race, blue/white-collar work, and income were also considered as potential control variables. Length of time at current job was retained as it was the only variable associated with the outcomes (e.g. fit).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Health and Risk Communication Center, Michigan State University.