It Takes Two to Untangle: Illuminating How and Why Some Workplace Relationships Adapt While Others Deteriorate after a Workplace Microaggression

Full text

IT TAKES TWO TO UNTANGLE: ILLUMINATING
HOW AND WHY SOME WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS
ADAPT WHILE OTHERS DETERIORATE AFTER
A WORKPLACE MICROAGGRESSION
SUMMER R. JACKSON*
Harvard University
BASIMA A. TEWFIK*
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Although scholars largely assume that workplace microaggressions negatively impact the
work relationship between the target and the perpetrator, relational deterioration is not the
only observable relational outcome. Indeed, there are instances of relational restoration or
even positive adaptation after a workplace microaggression. To coherently make sense of
myriad relational outcomes, we draw on theory on relational fractures and theory on inter-
group relations to build new theory that specifies how and under what conditions varied
relational outcomes may emerge. We theorize that a workplace microaggression, as a rela-
tional fracture, by and large activates a target’s motivational system aimed at protecting the
self at the expense of the relationship (a self-protective motivation). We then pinpoint the
relational conditions under which targets may shift from a self-protective motivation to a
relationship-promotive one (characterized by reflection and inquiry) and how, in turn, per-
petrators may proceed (in terms of the motivational system activated). We complete our
theory by theorizing the conditions under which the pair of motivational systems activated
leads to shallower or deeper levels of dyadic relational repair work, with consequences for
the work relationship. Our theory offers important insights that challenge, redirect, and
extend scholarship on workplace microaggressions.
When it comes to manifestations of subtle
discrimination—arguably the most prevalent type of
discrimination in the 21st-century workplace (Hebl,
Cheng & Ng, 2020; Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso &
Lindsey, 2017; Kellar & Hall, 2022; Rosette, Akinola
& Ma, 2018)—perhaps no term has gained more trac-
tion than “microaggressions”(Lilienfeld, 2017;
Smith & Griffiths, 2022). Microaggressions capture
seemingly innocuous acts or statements that are
communicated by an individual holding a dominant
social identity and directed toward and threaten
another individual and their marginalized social
identity (Sue et al., 2007). For example, consider the
following microaggression by a White employee to a
Black colleague, “You are so articulate”(Washington,
Birch & Roberts, 2020). Although seemingly compli-
mentary, this statement can signal to the target that
the speaker has an internalized belief that Black
people tend to be inarticulate, in line with pejora-
tive stereotypes that underlie social identity threats
(Sue, 2010).
Whereas microaggressions do not just occur at
work, they are often problematic when they do,
potentially hurting both targets and their organiza-
tions (Basford, Offermann & Behrend, 2014; DeCuir-
Gunby & Gunby, 2016; Galupo & Resnick, 2016;
Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King & Gray, 2016; King,
Fattoracci, Hollingsworth, Stahr & Nelson, 2023).
We deeply appreciate the generative guidance from
associate editor John Paul Stephens and three anonymous
reviewers. We also express gratitude for the generous feed-
back from Robin Ely, Kate Kellogg, Ray Reagans, and Ezra
Zuckerman. We would be remiss not to thank Drew Car-
ton, Adam Grant, Erin Kelly, Angelica Leigh, Courtney
McCluney, Lakshmi Ramarajan, Katina Sawyer, Heather
Vough, and JoAnne Yates, who each provided careful
reads and advice. Our paper was strengthened by com-
ments from audience and seminar participants at the Inter-
national Association for Conflict Management Conference
2022, Harvard Business School Organizational Behavior
Junior Faculty Working Group, International Association
for Conflict Management Conference 2023, and the Acad-
emy of Management Conference 2023. Finally, we thank
Cara Krupnikoff-Salkin, Sara Schmeider, and Haisley Wert
for their expert research assistance. We also appreciate the
helpful assistance that Amelie Chen, Kyna McGill, Sarah
Pottle, Sari Strizik, and Rachel Xu provided.
Asterisks indicate that both authors contributed
equally. Authors are listed alphabetically.
Accepted by John Paul Stephens
1
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
rAcademy of Management Review
2025, Vol. 00, No. 00, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0355

For example, scholars have outlined how workplace
microaggressions can be cognitively and emotion-
ally taxing for targets (King et al., 2023) and can
adversely affect an organization’s bottom line (Jones
et al., 2016). Building from this work, scholars have
largely assumed that microaggressions’negative
ramifications on targets and organizations also
extend to the relational level of analysis such that
workplace relationships are severely impacted, if
not severed. This assumption is unsurprising in light
of extant work. For example, Pierce (1970: 266,
emphasis added), who first drew attention to the
microaggression construct, motivated its importance
by highlighting that “the cumulative effect to the vic-
tim and victimizer [i.e., to the relationship] is of an
unimaginable effect.”Decades later, Sue and collea-
gues (2007) reiterated this point, problematizing the
microaggression experience as one that interferes
with maintaining positive cross-racial therapist–
client relationships. Indeed, it is not difficult to find
instances of worsened relationships between a target
and a perpetrator, with some targets even reporting
that they switched work supervisors or left their orga-
nizations entirely after a workplace microaggression
(e.g., Constantine & Sue, 2007; Levchak, 2018).
The assumption that workplace microaggressions
produce harmful relational consequences is undoubt-
edly reasonable. After all, targets experience microag-
gressions as aggressive, psychologically distressing,
and deeply hurtful (Spanierman, Clark & Kim, 2021).
Yet, at the same time, such an overwhelmingly nega-
tive view of the resultant relational outcomes does
not entirely comport with existing theory and work-
place realities. In original theorizing, Pierce (1970:
281) stated that microaggressions need not always
yield negative relational consequences. Likewise, Sue
and Spanierman (2020: 216) remarked that microag-
gressions may “present an opportunity for growth
and improved communication,”hinting that benefi-
cial relational outcomes may be possible. Indeed,
although instances illustrating negative relational
consequences after a workplace microaggression are
more plentiful, one can, nonetheless, also find a few
anecdotes that seem to capture improved, or, at the
very least, unchanged relational outcomes (e.g.,
Gosselin, 2022; King et al., 2023; Levchak, 2018).
Moreover, relational dissolution after a workplace
microaggression is not always inevitable. Workplace
norms around how to interact and the work tasks
themselves—rather than purely the volition of
interacting members (Abelson, 1981; Gibson, 2018;
Gioia & Poole, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Lord & Ker-
nan, 1987)—often govern patterns of interrelating at
work (King et al., 2023). Taken together, relational
consequences of workplace microaggressions are
likely varied and more complicated than what may
be assumed.
Understanding the range of possible relational
consequences requires theory that delineates how
and when they come to be. To date, microaggression
scholars have favored an approach that uncovers
and categorizes illustrative real-world incidents,
often through rich qualitative investigations that
elicit the lived experience of the target (e.g., Kim,
Block & Nguyen, 2019; King et al., 2023; Wilkins-
Yel, Hyman & Zounlome, 2019). These investiga-
tions have been generative and, appropriately, give a
central voice to those who are marginalized. Yet,
because they model microaggressions as events—
single acts understood at the individual level of anal-
ysis and from the target’s perspective—they do not
unpack how the “clash of realities”unfolds between
the target and perpetrator after a workplace microag-
gression has occurred (Sue et al., 2007). As such, the
preponderance of existing research lacks a coherent
theory regarding how the target of the workplace
microaggression responds to the perpetrator, how
the perpetrator responds in turn, and how these
responses affect their relationship. As organizations
become more diverse (Nkomo, Bell, Roberts, Joshi &
Thatcher, 2019), which likely increases the odds that
workplace microaggressions will occur, developing
an understanding of both parties’reactions, and of the
consequences of their reactions on their relationship,
is crucial. After all, healthy workplace relationships
lie at the heart of positive organizational functioning
(Grant & Parker, 2009; Olekalns, Caza & Vogus, 2020).
Moreover, without such an understanding, scholars
may unwittingly place the burden of managing rela-
tional outcomes solely on targets. Indeed, existing
recommendations to redress hurt center on arming
targets with tactics (Sue & Spanierman, 2020: 254)
and thus can overlook the perpetrator’s responsibility
in shaping relational outcomes.
Accordingly, we build a relational theory of work-
place microaggressions, exploring the range of
relational outcomes that may emerge after a microag-
gression occurs and specifying the process and
conditions under which more beneficial or more
harmful relational consequences may arise. To build
our theory, we integrate theory on relational frac-
tures (Olekalns et al., 2020) with that on intergroup
relations (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). We take
as a starting point the idea that targets perceive
workplace microaggressions as a threat not only to
themselves (see King et al., 2023; Sue et al., 2007; Tao,
Owen & Drinane, 2017; Wang, Leu & Shoda, 2011;
Williams, 2020) but also to their work relationship
2Academy of Management Review Month

with the perpetrator—what Olekalns and colleagues
(2020) term a “relational fracture.”As a relational frac-
ture, a workplace microaggression gives rise to nega-
tive relational emotions in the target and violates the
target’s relational expectations. We theorize that such
negative relational emotions and violated relational
expectations, in general, activate a motivational system
in the target aimed at protecting the self at the expense
of the relationship. We term this motivation a self-
protective motivation.
From this starting point, we develop a two-stage
theoretical model. In the first stage, we theorize the
relational conditions under which targets may shift
their initial motivation from a self-protective one to a
relationship-promotive one, which is aimed at learn-
ing and inquiry. In this stage, we also unpack the rela-
tional conditions under which perpetrators proceed
with either a self-protective or a relationship-
promotive motivation. In the second stage, we
consider the conditions under which different moti-
vational pairings—that is, target self-protective or
relationship-promotive paired with perpetrator self-
protective or relationship-promotive—lead to differ-
ing levels of relational repair work undertaken as a
dyad. We conclude this stage by theorizing that differ-
ing levels of dyadic relational repair work have conse-
quences for the work relationship. Specifically, the
greater (lesser) the depth of the dyad’s relational
repair work, the better (worse) their relationship. See
Figure 1 for our theoretical model.
Our model offers four theoretical contributions.
First, we both challenge and complement prevailing
wisdom that workplace microaggressions necessar-
ily lead to relationship deterioration. We pinpoint
the conditions under which one may observe more
beneficial or more problematic relational conse-
quences, thereby offering an integrative way to
understand the range of relational consequences
after a workplace microaggression occurs. Second,
we widen and redirect the existing theoretical focus
in the literature, which has focused largely on clari-
fying the microaggression construct and spotlighting
the target’s perspective (e.g., King et al., 2023; Smith
& Griffiths, 2022). We not only center the target, but
also bring the perpetrator and the relationship they
share to the foreground. In doing so, we not only
show why the burden in shaping microaggressions’
outcomes (relational or otherwise) may not rest
solely on targets—in line with past scholars (e.g.,
Fattoracci & King, 2023; Sue, Alsaidi, Awad, Glae-
ser, Calle & Mendez, 2019)—but also why it actually
does not. Third, we extend understanding around
precisely how a workplace microaggression yields
varied relational outcomes. Indeed, although existing
scholarship investigates or documents both work-
place microaggressions and varied relational out-
comes, it provides little insight into the process that
connects the two. We specify this process and its
subprocesses, and, in doing so, build on our prior
contribution to also show how the burden does not
rest solely on targets. The perpetrator and factors
about the shared relationship are consequential for
relational outcomes following a workplace microag-
gression. Fourth, we contribute to the theories upon
which we draw. Theory on relational fractures
alludes to the transformation of motivation as criti-
cal for overcoming relational fractures (Olekalns
et al., 2020: 15). However, it stops short of specifi-
cally delineating what is entailed in this process
(i.e., its starting point, its endpoint, and the factors
that may encourage or discourage such transforma-
tion). We bring in theory on intergroup relations
(Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016) to elaborate these com-
ponents. Likewise, theory on intergroup relations
(Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016) assumes that the self-
protective (relationship-promotive) motivation of the
first mover (i.e., the target in our theory) likely
prompts the second mover (i.e., the perpetrator) to
activate their self-protective (relationship-promotive)
motivation (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). We ques-
tion this assumption, broadening theory on inter-
group relations to theorize the adoption of the second
mover’s (i.e., the perpetrator’s) motivation more fully.
Finally, we advance practical implications (Hideg,
DeCelles & Tihanyi, 2020), reflecting on the ramifica-
tions of offering a relational theory. One practical
value of our theory is that it specifies a proactive role,
not only for the target but also for the perpetrator, in
increasing the odds that the relationship can recover
or positively adapt after a workplace microaggression.
In this way, our relational theory brings in the perpe-
trator as a vital contributor to and actor in relational
repair. Simultaneously, we elaborate and center the
target’s experience of a workplace microaggression as
a relational fracture, thereby preserving the empower-
ing nature of microaggression scholarship for captur-
ing targets’lived experiences (Sue et al., 2007).
WORKPLACE MICROAGGRESSIONS
Microaggressions are a form of subtle, rather than
overt, discrimination (Jones et al., 2017: 1591). They
are micro “because they arise during interpersonal
(i.e., micro-level) moments”between a perpetrator
and a target (Spanierman et al., 2021: 1038). They
are aggressive “because targets experience them as
such”regardless of the perpetrator’sintent—which
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 3

FIGURE 1
Theoretical Model
Type and Potential Distribution of Depth
Range
Relational Level
Individual Level—Target
Individual Level— Perpetrator
Temporal Dynamics
Target Perceptions of the
Relationship’s Qualities:
Dyadic Perceptions of the
Relationship’s Structure:
Perpetrator Perceptions of the
Relationship’s Qualities:
Microaggression as Target-Perceived Relational Fracture
Activation of
Provisional Self-
Protective
Motivation
Target Self-
Protective
versus
Relationship-
Promotive
Motivation
Perpetrator
Self-
Protective
versus
Relationship-
Promotive
Motivation
Workplace
Relationship
Outcomes
Dyadic Relational
Repair Work
Relationship-
Promotive–
Relationship-
Promotive
Relationship-
Promotive–
Self-Protective
or Vice Versa
Self-Protective–
Self-Protective
Adaptive
Restorative
Negligible
Adaptation
Restoration
Deterioration
Deepest
Shallowest
Violated
Relational
Expectations
(Cognitive)
Negative
Relational
Feelings
(Affective)
· Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion-
Related Interaction History
· Relational Viability
· Relational Closeness
· Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion-
Related Interaction History
· Relational Viability
· Relational Closeness
· Shared Internalization of Work
Meaningfulness
· Shared Internalization of
Workplace Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion Norms
.
.
.
4Academy of Management Review Month

can range from unintentional to intentional and be
either conscious or unconscious (Spanierman et al.,
2021: 1038). Foundational theory has specified three
types of microaggressions: (1) explicit social-
identity-based derogations, (2) communications that
nullify the experience of a marginalized individual,
and (3) rude or insensitive communications that
demean an individual’ssocialidentity(Sueetal.,
2007). Subsequent work has offered important
refinements to this typology. Because explicit social-
identity-based derogations were similar to blatant
discrimination, thereby blurring conceptual bound-
aries between microaggressions and more overt
forms of discrimination (Spanierman et al., 2021:
1038), scholars honed in on the latter two types:
communications that nullify the experience of a
marginalized individual and rude or insensitive
communications that demean an individual’ssocial
identity. As such, microaggressions, more generally,
are thought to capture those seemingly innocuous,
social-identity-threatening acts or statements pre-
dominantly communicated by a dominant group
member and directed toward a marginalized group
member (Smith & Griffiths, 2022; Sue et al., 2007).
Conceptualized as such, microaggressions subtly
convey negative sentiments about a marginalized
target’s social identity—for example, race, gender, or
sexual orientation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Edelman,
Fuller & Mara-Drita, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1986)—
regardless of perpetrator intent (Smith & Griffiths,
2022; Williams, 2020).
Microaggressions happen in many spheres of life,
including work, which is the focus of our theory
(Basford et al., 2014; DeCuir-Gunby & Gunby, 2016;
Galupo & Resnick, 2016; Jones et al., 2016; King et al.,
2023). Centering the workplace context provides a
window through which to consider how workplace
microaggressions not only threaten the target—as is
typically depicted in the literature (King et al., 2023;
Sue et al., 2007; Tao et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011;
Williams, 2020)—but also threaten the target’swork-
place relationship with the perpetrator, as perceived
by the target. In our theory, we conceptualize this
relational threat as a relational fracture, or an injury
to the relationship characterized by negative rela-
tional feelings and a sense that one’s expectations
around how one should be treated in the relation-
ship have been violated (Olekalns et al., 2020: 4).
Given our theory’s focus on ultimately explaining
consequences at the relational level of analysis,
delineating why a workplace microaggression can
reflect a relational fracture offers a way to begin to
bridge levels of analysis.
Workplace Microaggression as a
Relational Fracture
Workplace microaggressions first reflect relational
fractures because they engender negative relational
feelings. Negative feelings in the wake of a work-
place microaggression are indisputable and run
deep (Lui & Quezada, 2019), with many papers
describing how they sting (e.g., Freeman & Stewart,
2021; Sue et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2011). Such
descriptions bring to mind imagery of a papercut, in
that a workplace microaggression is seemingly
innocuous but quite painful (Nadal, Issa, Leon,
Mererko, Wideman & Wong, 2011). Feelings typi-
cally mentioned are self-relevant ones (e.g., sadness,
fear, shame), consistent with the dominant focus of
workplace microaggressions as primarily a social
identity (i.e., self) threat to the target (Galupo &
Resnick, 2016; King et al., 2023; Nadal, Wong, Issa,
Meterko, Leon & Wideman, 2011; Weber, Collins,
Robinson-Wood, Zeko-Underwood & Poindexter,
2018). However, workplace microaggressions also
yield negative relational feelings such as betrayal,
hurt, belittlement, and devaluation (Freeman &
Stewart, 2021; Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, Wong, Mar-
shall & McKenzie, 2015; Williams & Lewis, 2019).
Indeed, accounts from targets expressing how they
felt “marginalized [and] hurt”(Harwood, Choi,
Orozco Villica~
na, Huntt & Mendenhall, 2015: 8) or
“so dismissed and minimized”(Constantine & Sue,
2007: 146) by those who perpetrated workplace
microaggressions are plentiful.
Workplace microaggressions also reflect target-
perceived relational fractures (Olekalns et al., 2020)
because they violate targets’expectations of how
they should be treated with dignity within and out-
side the workplace. Concerns about being treated
with dignity and respect are often top of mind for tar-
gets given histories of discrimination against margin-
alized employees (Avery, McKay & Volpone, 2013;
Le, Palmer Johnson & Fujimoto, 2021). However, in
conveying negative sentiments about a marginalized
target’s social identity (Smith & Griffiths, 2022),
workplace microaggressions do not align with such
norms of dignity and respect that deeply permeate
professions, organizations, and daily life (Brown &
Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1959; Miller, 2006). Con-
sider the hospital social worker who described how
anurse’s microaggression insulting his gay identity
violated his expectations of how she should have
behaved toward him: “She said ‘you work with those
kind of [gay] people?’and I responded YES,and I am
gay, too. She said to my face, ‘God forbid’…I never
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 5

expected a nurse to act that way toward me”(Galupo
& Resnick, 2016: 278).
In reflecting on the conceptualization of a work-
place microaggression as a relational fracture, it is
worth noting that targets can vary in the speed with
which and extent to which they perceive that their
relational expectations have been violated. More-
over, targets can vary in the speed with which and
the extent to which they feel negative relational feel-
ings. In making these claims, we follow theory that
underscores how the lived experiences of those tar-
geted by workplace microaggressions differ (King
et al., 2023; Singh, Bhambhani, Skinta & Torres-
Harding, 2021; Sue & Spanierman, 2020). That is, a
workplace microaggression may hurt more (greater
relational fracture) or less (lesser relational fracture)
due to variations in the weighting and constellation
of violated expectations and negative feelings (i.e.,
felt cognitive and emotional hurt; Lui & Quezada,
2019).
TOWARD A RELATIONAL THEORY OF
WORKPLACE MICROAGGRESSIONS
Framing a workplace microaggression as a rela-
tional fracture sensitizes us to relevant theoretical
perspectives helpful for developing novel theory
about how and under what conditions a range of
relational outcomes may emerge after a workplace
microaggression. To build a theory that is unique to
workplace microaggressions, we draw on and mean-
ingfully extend theory on intergroup relations (Gar-
cia & Crocker, 2009, 2016) and theory on relational
fractures (Olekalns et al., 2020). Theory on inter-
group relations (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016),
which builds from the rich literatures on relation-
ship and conflict management, offers insight into the
different motivational responses that individuals
can have in reaction to threats in intergroup interac-
tions. Because most workplace microaggressions are
communicated by a dominant group member and
directed toward a marginalized group member
(Sue et al., 2007), it is a logical theory to draw upon.
Theory on relational fractures (Olekalns et al.,
2020)—which is relevant given our conceptualiza-
tion of a workplace microaggression—is comple-
mentary in that it focuses less on the specific
individual motivations and more on what can
follow—the relational repair process—at the rela-
tional level of analysis.
Our theory progresses from two overarching
assumptions. First, we assume some degree of work-
place interdependence, broadly defined, between
the target and the perpetrator. After all, if the two do
not cognitively, emotionally, or physically depend
on each other at work, there may be no workplace
relationship to disrupt or improve (Ferris, Liden,
Munyon, Summers, Basik & Buckley, 2009). Second,
we assume the presence of workplace relational
norms that govern (same-social-identity and cross-
social-identity) interactions for the target and the
perpetrator. These norms need not be explicitly
stated, endorsed, or espoused given the previously
noted broader norms of dignity and respect that
deeply permeate professions, organizations, and
daily life (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1959;
Miller, 2006). Both these assumptions are consistent
with our focus on workplace relationships, given
that workplace norms around how to interact and
the work tasks at hand govern patterns of interrelat-
ing at work (Abelson, 1981; Gibson, 2018; Gioia &
Poole, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Lord & Kernan,
1987).
Beginning with theory on intergroup relations
(Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016), when relational frac-
tures involve a threat to a target’s social identity—as
is the case with workplace microaggressions—a
target’s likely response tends toward protecting the
self rather than the relationship. We term this a
self-protective motivation (similar to what Garcia
and Crocker [2009, 2016] call an “egosystem
motivation”). A self-protective motivation involves
shoring up the self to defend against perceived self-
threats, which include social identity threats
(Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016; Sedikides, 2012). It
carries distinct physiological, motivational, cogni-
tive, and behavioral markers. These include fight-
or-flight stress responses, diminished self-control,
a reduced ability to reason about the accuracy of
the perceived self-threat, a diminished capacity to
engage in perspective-taking, and a reduced ability
to think through the consequences of various
courses of action (Garcia & Crocker, 2016: 72).
Behaviorally, the activation of a self-protective
motivation in response to a workplace microaggres-
sion can make a target appear as if they are afraid,
“almost frozen [with fear]”(Pitcan, Park-Taylor &
Hayslett, 2018: 307), hostile, ready to “curs[e] [the
perpetrator] out”(Nadal, Wong, et al., 2011: 28),
or mistrusting of the perpetrator (King et al.,
2023: 198).
Theory on intergroup relations poses a self-
protective motivation as one targets can choose
to adopt (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). In our the-
ory, however, the activation of a self-protective
6Academy of Management Review Month

motivation is the common initial kneejerk response.
1
This follows from the conceptualization of microag-
gressions as social-identity-threatening statements
or acts in which the cognitive and emotional hurt
the target feels is often at odds with the seemingly
innocuous nature of the statement or act (Smith &
Griffiths, 2022; Sue et al., 2007). It is also consistent
with research that suggests that microaggressions, in
particular, cut to a target’s core, reliably precipitating
physiological changes consistent with a self-
protective motivation (Spanierman et al., 2021;
Zeiders, Landor, Flores & Brown, 2018). Countless
microaggression investigations offer examples of tar-
gets overwhelmingly responding with what appears
to be a self-protective motivation in a kneejerk-like
fashion (Constantine, Smith, Redington & Owens,
2008; DeCuir-Gunby, Johnson, Womble Edwards,
McCoy & White,2020; Levchak, 2018).
Transformation of Motivation: From Self-Protective
to Relationship-Promotive
With a self-protective motivation activated, we
theorize that targets can nonetheless question and
shift away from this motivation. That is, targets can
transform their initial self-protective motivation.
The notion of a transformation of motivation has
roots in theory on relational fractures (e.g., Finkel,
Rusbult, Kumashiro & Hannon, 2002; Olekalns et al.,
2020; Yovetich & Rusbult, 1994). Yet, even in this
existing theory, the transformation of motivation is
referred to only in passing (Olekalns et al., 2020: 15),
with little theoretical elaboration around the starting
and ending motivations involved and the conditions
under which it occurs.
To theoretically elaborate these starting and end
points and conditions, we draw on theory on inter-
group relations (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). We
first propose that targets can shift from a self-
protective motivation to a relationship-promotive
motivation—similar to what Garcia and Crocker
(2009, 2016) term an “ecosystem motivation.”
In contrast to a self-protective motivation, a
relationship-promotive motivation transcends the
self in the face of perceived threats, thereby paving a
way to preserve the relationship (Garcia & Crocker,
2009, 2016). It is marked by tend-and-befriend stress
responses, learning- and growth-oriented cognitions
(e.g., self-reflection and perspective-taking), and
improved self-regulation (Garcia & Crocker, 2009,
2016). It manifests behaviorally in inquiry and con-
structive communication of felt emotions and vio-
lated expectations that refrain from judgment,
criticism, or withdrawal (Garcia & Crocker, 2009,
2016). Illustrations of what appear to be a target’s
relationship-promotive responses are present in
existing research. For example, in an investigation
of microaggressions in higher education, DeCuir-
Gunby and colleagues (2020: 498) detailed how one
informant, a Black employee named Michael,
responded to a workplace microaggression commit-
ted by his colleagues by engaging them “in an open
dialogue about the experiences unique to both the
Black and White communities, while also offering
them the opportunity to consider the perspectives of
Black people.”Likewise, King and colleagues (2023:
197) recounted how one informant responded to a
workplace microaggression by working to “educate
[the perpetrator] on the implications of that percep-
tion …explain[ing] what it felt like and why it felt
that way.”
Given our theory’s focus on the workplace rela-
tionship, we further suppose that targets’percep-
tions of relational factors can most proximally
prompt targets to shift from a self-protective motiva-
tion to a relationship-promotive motivation.
2
We
build on hints in our foundational theories to reason
that the most effectual relational factors may be
those preestablished target perceptions of the work-
place relationship inferred from the pattern of past
interactions (or the “behavioral bank account”into
which past positive and negative interactions have
been unconsciously deposited), the relational affec-
tive sentiments, and the relatively accessible rela-
tional cognitions (Finkel et al., 2002; Olekalns et al.,
2020). Following from the pattern of past interactions,
1
We do not mean that other types of transgressions do
not engender a kneejerk response of self-protection.
Rather, we suggest that the activation of a self-protective
motivation may not be the common, or predominant, ini-
tial kneejerk response for other types of transgressions, as
it is for workplace microaggressions. For example, con-
sider workplace incivility, defined as “low intensity devi-
ant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target in
violation of workplace norms for mutual respect”(Anders-
son & Pearson, 1998: 457). Given the lower intensity of
such a transgression, targets may not predominantly
respond with a kneejerk self-protective response as they
would to a workplace microaggression.
2
Given our aim of developing a relational theory of
workplace microaggressions in sufficient depth, we refrain
from foregrounding the role of individual differences. In
our Discussion section, we ponder how scholars can con-
sider such individual factors to further complexify our
theory.
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 7

we advance a target-perceived ratio of past positive to
negative diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)-related
interactions as a key relevant moderator affecting
a target’s transformation of motivation after a
workplace microaggression. Following from affective
sentiments surrounding the work relationship, we
theorize that target-perceived relational closeness
serves as a key moderator. Finally, following from
salient relational cognitions, we identify target-
perceived relational viability as a key moderator.
We next define and explicate how each of these
relational conditions affects a target’s transformation
of motivation, theorizing how they may consciously
or unconsciously weaken or strengthen the founda-
tion to challenge an initial self-protective motiva-
tion. Indeed, conscious and unconscious processing
may both occur given that the micro-mechanisms
through which our relational factors operate are
both affective—which tends to involve automatic
processing—and cognitive—which tends to involve
more deliberate processing (Kunda, 1990). When
explicating how our relational factors may moderate
(and when explicating subsequent parts of our the-
ory), we bring in examples from extant qualitative
investigations to make our theory more vivid. These
examples serve as illustrations, not evidence, given
that our theory is new and has not guided prior exist-
ing research. In many of these examples, the perpe-
trator is of a dominant social identity group (e.g.,
White if the workplace microaggression is racial;
heterosexual if the workplace microaggression is
related to sexual orientation), and the social identity
of the target that is subordinated is the target’sown
rather than one that may be adjacent (e.g., if the tar-
get is transgender, the workplace microaggression
subordinates a transgender identity, rather than an-
other LGBTQ1identity, which may still sting given
that it is targeting an adjacent member of the same
marginalized community). As such, our theory does
not forefront discussions of intersectionality (in
which, for example, perpetrators and targets may
share a different social identity not subordinated)
nor different types of workplace microaggressions
(e.g., intragroup workplace microaggressions). None-
theless, we use our Discussion section to speculate
on how these matters complicate our theorized pro-
cess, thereby outlining how our theory can serve as a
springboard for future research.
Target-perceived DEI-related interaction history.
We first theorize that the most germane pattern of
interaction that can prompt a target to shift from a
self-protective to a relationship-promotive motiva-
tion is the target-perceived ratio of past positive to
negative DEI-related interactions with the perpetra-
tor. Positive DEI-related interactions are those in
which perpetrators have demonstrated inclusive or
diversity-valuing behaviors toward the target—
either directly or indirectly through reputational
information (Ferris et al., 2009; Kurland & Pelled,
2000). This can include behaviors such as hiring,
promoting, and mentoring underrepresented group
members (e.g., Arnett, 2023; Ely & Thomas, 2001).
In contrast, negative DEI-related interactions can
include those in which perpetrators have taken
actions such as espousing a colorblind ideology,
articulating stereotypical beliefs about underrepre-
sented group members, or questioning the value of
DEI at work (e.g., Apfelbaum, Sommers & Norton,
2008; Kendall, Cannon & Gill, 2021; Shore, Randel,
Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart & Singh, 2011).
Consistent with the “bad-is-stronger-than-good”
effect (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs,
2001), targets may weigh negative indicators more
heavily than positive ones.
The ratio of past positive to negative DEI-related
interactions likely affects a target’s transformation of
motivation because itprovides a stronger (or weaker)
foundation to challenge an initial self-protective
motivational response. A past with a perceived pre-
ponderance of positive DEI-related interactions
likely means that the target sees the perpetrator as an
individual who is positively predisposed to treating
members of marginalized identity groups cordially
and with respect. In such a context, a target is likely
to have the sense that a workplace microaggression
is out of character for the perpetrator. Thus, rather
than maintain a self-protective motivation, a target
may shift to a relationship-promotive motivation
that transcends the self to engage in inquiry and con-
structive communication around the workplace
microaggression. Consider the following incident in
which the target moved from a self-protective moti-
vation to a relationship-promotive one because she
knew her colleague, the perpetrator of a workplace
microaggression, had participated in anti-bias train-
ing and had a history of refraining from “sexist or
racist”language:
When she [committed the workplace microaggres-
sion], I cringed inwardly but said nothing. Instead, I
laughed alo ng with her …[but] I deliberated for a long
time [about what I knew of her] before deciding to
confront [her] …Eventually, I had a conversation
with my colleague and told her how her language
struck me [with the goal] of affect[ing] her self-
awareness …We were able to move on from this [inci-
dent]. (Gosselin, 2022: 293, 309)
8Academy of Management Review Month

By reflecting on the colleague’s (i.e., perpetrator’s) pos-
itive ratio of DEI-related interactions, the target was
able to shift from a self-protective motivation, charac-
terized by avoidance, to a relationship-promotive one,
characterized by growth and development.
In contrast, when the target perceives more nega-
tive than positive DEI-related interactions, there is a
weaker basis for shifting away from an initial self-
protective motivational response. After all, the per-
petrator’s workplace microaggression is not that
inconsistent with past interactions. Examples that
bring our argument to life are present in extant
research. For instance, in her investigation of micro-
aggressions, Levchak (2018: 147) described how a
Black woman perceived more negative than positive
past DEI-related interactions with her microag-
gressing supervisor and, thus, maintained a self-
protective motivation (as evidenced by her
retaliation):
[In the past, he would] put me in meetings …[that] I
[had] nothing to do with. But the meetings I should
have been on …[he] exclude[d] me from…[I con-
cluded that] he wants me to feel excluded, and more
off to the side, as if I’m not really n eeded there …[and
now, after he committed another microaggression]
when he comes [to ask me questions], even when I do
know [the answer, I say], “Oh, I don’tknow,Ihaveno
idea.”I’m not even interested in finding out what the
answer is for [him] anymore.
As this example illustrates, a preponderance of past
negative interactions with her supervisor prevented
the target from shifting from a self-protective to a
relationship-promotive motivation.
Target-perceived relational closeness. We theo-
rize that a second relevant relational moderator is
how emotionally close the target feels to the perpe-
trator, following from the idea that affective senti-
ments toward the perpetrator or the relationship can
also transform a target’s motivation (Finkel et al.,
2002; Olekalns et al., 2020). Relational closeness is
defined as a subjective feeling of interconnectedness
and bonding between the self and another person
(Aron, Aron, Tudor & Nelson, 1991; Dumas, Phillips
& Rothbard, 2013). Greater relational closeness is
characterized by greater positive regard for the
work relational partner, increased socializing and
sharing of personal information, and greater feelings
of validation and care in the relationship (e.g., Fin-
kel, Simpson & Eastwick, 2017; Reis & Patrick,
1996). Lesser relational closeness is characterized by
decreased regard for the work relational partner, the
maintenance of work and personal boundaries, and
engagement based primarily on task- or work-related
issues rather than socioemotional goals (e.g., Dumas
et al., 2013; Finkel et al., 2017; Trefalt, 2013).
Target-perceived relational closeness likely affects
the transformation of a target’s motivation because it
provides a stronger (or weaker) foundation to chal-
lenge an initial self-protective motivation. When a
target perceives greater relational closeness with the
perpetrator, they are more likely to feel positive
toward and interdependent with the perpetrator
(e.g., Aronet al., 1991; Collins & Feeney, 2004; Cross,
Morris & Gore, 2002; Dumas et al., 2013). These posi-
tive sentiments provide an impetus for the target
to shift from a self-protective motivation to a
relationship-promotive one. As an illustration, Ely
and colleagues (2006: 83) described how Mary, a law
firm partner, transformed her motivation after col-
leagues committed a workplace microaggression,
in part because of the closeness she felt with the
perpetrators:
When a male colleague told an off-color joke [about
women’s lack of fit in an all-male culture] and others
laughed, Mary felt her anger rising. Yet instead of lec-
turing her colleagues on the errors of their ways…she
paused and took several deep breaths. She then
checked her anger and jettisoned her sense of self-
righteousness …[after all, the workplace microaggres-
sion] didn’t fit with her core belief that they [the
perpetrators] were good, decent men [who supported
her professionally]. …Following [the workplace
microaggression] …she reflected …[and] respon-
ded …by describing her personal experience. Her
story was not a diatribe; her intention was not to
teach or to blame but to engage and inquire. She then
asked the men [what it had] been like for them when
women entered the firm.
Put simply, greater relational closeness—as indi-
cated by Mary’s belief that the perpetrators were
“good, decent men”who supported her
professionally—seemed to nudge her to eschew her
initial self-protective motivation. Of course, the effi-
cacy of relational closeness in encouraging a shift in
her motivation could diminish at its highest levels.
Indeed, if Mary perceived extremely high relational
closeness, the workplace microaggression could
seem particularly hurtful given that a very close per-
petrator should have known better (Galupo, Henise
& Davis, 2014). Such hurt could outweigh the
positive sentiments at very high levels of relational
closeness that challenge an initial self-protective
motivation, suggesting that the relationship may
resemble an inverted U.
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 9

When the target perceives lower relational close-
ness with the perpetrator, a weaker foundation exists
to challenge an initial self-protective motivation.
After all, there is little in the way of positive rela-
tional sentiment to prompt a transformation of moti-
vation. Consider the following example, in which a
Black employee described her reaction to a microag-
gression committed by her White manager, whom
she believed “didn’tcareforher”(Levchak, 2018:
186) and thus to whom she did not feel close.
Following the workplace microaggression, the
target doubled down on her initial self-protective
response. She “tried not to talk to her [supervisor]
face-to-face,”thereby reflecting a “flight”reaction,
and kept meticulous records because “people [like
that] can try to set you up for failure”(Levchak,
2018: 186). In other words, the target maintained a
self-protective motivation, reinforced by low rela-
tional closeness.
Target-perceived relational viability. Finally, a
third relational moderator in our theory that can
affect whether the target shifts from a self-protective
motivation to a relationship-promotive one is target-
perceived relational viability, in line with the
notion that relational cognitions play a role (Finkel
et al., 2002; Olekalns et al., 2020). Relational viabil-
ity is the target’s perception that the perpetrator
believes in the future of the workplace relationship
with the target (Maner, Gailliot & Miller, 2009;
Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013). When relational viability
is high, the target perceives that the perpetrator
has invested in the workplace relationship, thereby
signaling the perpetrator’s intention to maintain
the relationship (Goodfriend & Agnew, 2008;
Rusbult, Martz & Agnew, 1998). By contrast, when
relational viability is low, the target believes the per-
petrator has more of a short-term, low-investment
orientation toward the workplace relationship (Good-
friend & Agnew, 2008; Huynh, Yang & Gross-
mann, 2016).
Target-perceived relational viability likely affects
the transformation of a target’s motivation because
it provides a stronger (or weaker) foundation to
challenge an initial self-protective motivational
response. When the target perceives that the perpe-
trator has a long-term orientation toward the rela-
tionship, the perpetrator’s signals of intent to
maintain the relationship are salient in the target’s
mind (Bliege Bird, Ready & Power, 2018; Yamagu-
chi, Smith & Ohtsubo, 2015). As such, despite the
workplace microaggression committed by the perpe-
trator, the target has reason to stay invested in the
relationship. In a real-life example that brings this
proposition to life, Sarah, an employee reporting to
Steve, a social entrepreneur, felt hurt when Steve
microaggressed. Yet, knowing that Steve felt like she
was “an equally valued member of the team”—that
is, not expendable—she had “the courage to tell
[him] she fe[lt] minimized”by his comment and
to explain why (Knight, 2020). Sarah sought to pro-
ductively engage with Steve, consistent with a
relationship-promotive response, as she knew that
he was someone who had a long-term orientation
toward her given how much he believed she was not
expendable.
In contrast, when the target perceives low rela-
tional viability, the basis for challenging a target’s
initial self-protective motivational response is
weaker. After all, the target has little reason to shift
from protecting themself (Rusbult et al., 1998). To
illustrate the maintenance of a self-protective moti-
vation in light of low perceived relational viability,
consider the following: A Black therapist reflected
that his White supervisor “never took the time to
find out [about him],”indicating that he believed
that his supervisor was not invested in him long-
term (Constantine & Sue, 2007: 146). After a work-
place microaggression, the therapist noted that he
did not feel safe discussing his Black clients with his
supervisor and thus avoided doing so (Constantine &
Sue, 2007: 146), reflecting the maintenance of a self-
protective motivation.
Activation of a Perpetrator’s Self-Protective or
Relationship-Promotive Motivation
Influenced by our theorized relational moderators,
a target will have either maintained a self-protective
motivation or shifted to a relationship-promotive
one after a workplace microaggression. The associ-
ated behavioral markers—for example, avoidance,
withdrawal, anger, or incivility when a target has a
self-protective motivation; compassion, curiosity,
vulnerability, or inquiry when a target has a
relationship-promotive motivation (Garcia &
Crocker, 2009, 2016)—can give a perpetrator insight
into the target’s state. Both sets of markers can signal
to the perpetrator that they may have erred in the
interaction (Goffman, 1967; Rattan & Dweck, 2010).
At best, perpetrators may perceive that the target’s
self-protective or relationship-promotive markers
indicate that the target has not necessarily indicted
them as a bad person despite their error. At worse,
however, they may perceive that the target has
indicted them as a racist, sexist, homophobe, and
10 Academy of Management Review Month

so on.
3
In other words, based on a target’s behavioral
markers, perpetrators may perceive a threat to their
own self-image (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). Perpe-
trators may detect such a self-image threat consciously
or unconsciously, given that monitoring of such threats
for individuals happens at both levels (Leary & Baume-
ister, 2000). Indeed, detecting a self-image threat does
not rest on perpetrators fully recognizing that they
have committed a workplace microaggression.
In our theory, when the perpetrator interprets the
target’s expressed behaviors as a threat to their own
self-image (i.e., a negative character judgment), the
perpetrator is likely to adopt a self-protective moti-
vation. That is, they are likely to respond with fight-
or-flight responses marked by hostile or withdrawal
behaviors, a diminished capacity to engage in
perspective-taking, and a reduced ability to reason
(Garcia & Crocker, 2016: 72). This aligns with how
individuals typically respond to perceived self-
image threats (Dickerson, Gruenewald & Kemeny,
2009). In contrast, when the perpetrator interprets
the target’s expressed behaviors as not particularly
threatening to their own self-image (i.e., free of
indictment of the perpetrator’s character as per-
ceived by the perpetrator), the perpetrator is likely to
adopt a relationship-promotive motivation. That is,
they are likely to respond with tend-and-befriend
stress responses, learning- and growth-oriented cog-
nitions (e.g., self-reflection and perspective-taking),
and constructive behaviors such as openness and
inquiry, because they do not perceive a negative
character indictment (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016).
A perpetrator may require repeated signals from a
target to perceive a self-image threat. This is because a
target’s behavioral markers may differ in their salience,
with some markers (e.g., withdrawal) seeming more
ambiguous than others (e.g., direct incivility). Whether
a target sends clearer or vaguer behavioral signals is
likely influenced by how much interpersonal risk
seems present in the target’seyes.
4
For example, if the
target perceives that the potential for perpetrator retalia-
tion outweighs the potential for remediation (Ely, Pada-
vic & Thomas, 2012), the target may perceive more risk
and thus display less salient behavioral markers.
Building from the notion that target behavioral
markers are subject to interpretation, we theorize
that relational factors may influence the level of self-
image threat perpetrators perceive, with conse-
quences for their adopted motivation. Specifically,
we propose that the same relational factors that play
a moderating role in a target’s transformation of
motivation may play a moderating role in the type of
motivation that perpetrators adopt. However, given
that it is the activation of the perpetrator’s motiva-
tion that is of interest at this point in our theory,
perpetrator-perceived—not target-perceived—DEI-
related interaction history, relational closeness, and
relational viability most proximally influence the
level of perpetrator-perceived self-image threat, and
thus, subsequent perpetrator motivation.
Perpetrator-perceived DEI-related interaction
history. Perpetrator-perceived DEI-related interac-
tion history consists of the ratio of positive to
negative DEI-related interactions, with negative,
compared to positive, interactions weighing more
heavily for perpetrators (Baumeister et al., 2001).
Positive DEI-related interactions are cross-social-
identity interactions for which the perpetrator has
received positive feedback from, or in the presence
of, the target. Negative DEI-related interactions are
those for which the perpetrator has received negative
feedback. Indeed, feedback is likely critical for
forming what comprises perpetrator-perceived DEI-
related interaction history. This is because perpetra-
tors of workplace microaggressions are less likely
than targets to spontaneously see interactions
through a social identity lens (Block, Roberson &
Neuger, 1995; Ely, 1995; Sue et al., 2007).
The perceived ratio of past positive to negative
DEI-related interactions likely affects a perpetrator’s
adopted motivation because it influences the level of
self-image threat that a perpetrator perceives. By
definition, a past with a preponderance of positive
DEI-related interactions means the perpetrator
believes they have received more positive than
negative feedback when interacting across social-
identity-dividing lines. These DEI-related interac-
tions may be top of mind for the perpetrator, and
suggest that they may have a capacity to effectively
navigate cross-social-identity interactions (Crary,
2017). Accordingly, when presented with behavioral
signals from the target that they may have erred in
their interaction, perpetrators should be less likely
3
Such an indictment is not trivial given that people
wish to see themselves as unprejudiced following perva-
sive, often internalized, social norms denouncing the
expression of prejudice (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998;
Dovidio & Gaertner, 2016; Garcia & Crocker, 2016; Monin
& Miller, 2001; Plant & Devine, 1998).
4
To assess interpersonal risk, targets may attend to fac-
tors such as perpetrator relative status or power (Ashburn-
Nardo et al., 2014), perpetrator capacity to modify their
behavior (Rattan & Dweck, 2010), or the presence of an
organizational climate of mistreatment (Cortina & Magley,
2003).
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 11

to interpret these signals as ones indicting their char-
acter (Solomon & McLaren, 2008), and more likely to
respond with a relationship-promotive, rather than
self-protective, motivation. As an illustration, in a
qualitative study of cross-race work relationships,
Crary (2017: 306) detailed how a perpetrator noticed
he may have erred in an exchange with his Asian
colleague, given her “kind of odd reaction that [sug-
gested] maybe she felt like she was having to fight to
make space.”Based on “all the other experience [the
perpetrator had] had”—that is, his perceived (more
positive) DEI-related history—he interpreted his
error as one that may have related to something he
was doing, rather than an indictment of who he was
(Crary, 2017: 306). As a result, he responded by
engaging in questioning: “I was asking myself, ‘What
am I doing?’…I said [to her], ‘Are you feeling invisi-
ble? Because when you say this, it gives me the idea
that you’re thinking that I’m not seeing you, I’mnot
listening to you’” (Crary, 2017: 306). In sum, the per-
petrator’s more positive than negative DEI-related
interactions prompted him to respond to the target
with what appeared to be a relationship-promotive
motivation characterized by learning and inquiry.
In contrast, when the perpetrator perceives more
negative than positive DEI-related interactions, the
perpetrator is more likely to interpret behavioral sig-
nals from the target as ones indicting their character
(Solomon & McLaren, 2008). After all, DEI-related
interactions suggesting that the perpetrator may
not have the capacity to effectively navigate cross-
social-identity interactions may be top of mind
(Crary, 2017). Given greater perceived self-threat,
then, the perpetrator should be more likely to
respond to the target with a self-protective, rather
than relationship-promotive, motivation.
Perpetrator-perceived relational closeness. A
second relational factor that may affect a perpetra-
tor’s adopted motivation is perpetrator-perceived
relational closeness, or how interconnected the per-
petrator feels with the target (Aron et al., 1991;
Dumas et al., 2013). Relational closeness with the
target likely affects a perpetrator’sadoptedmotiva-
tion because it influences the level of self-image
threat a perpetrator perceives. When a perpetrator
perceives greater relational closeness with the target,
it means the perpetrator feels that the target under-
stands, cares for, and validates them (e.g., Afifi,
Merrill & Davis, 2016; Feeney & Lemay, 2012; Gil-
dersleeve, Singer, Skerrett & Wein, 2017). These pos-
itive sentiments can serve as rose-colored glasses
(Sternglanz & DePaulo, 2004), nudging the perpetra-
tor to view the target’s actions in a less negative,
perhaps even neutral, light. As such, when pre-
sented with a target’s behavioral markers indicating
that they may have erred, the perpetrator should be
less likely to interpret behavioral signals from a tar-
get as threatening to their self-image, and thus, more
likely to adopt a relationship-promotive, rather than
self-protective, motivation.
In contrast, when a perpetrator perceives lower
relational closeness with the target, they should be
more likely to interpret behavioral signals from a tar-
get as threatening to their self-image and thus adopt
a self-protective, rather than relationship-promotive,
motivation. Indeed, low relational closeness means
the perpetrator does not have the accompanying pos-
itive sentiments that can tint their perceptions of tar-
get behaviors. As such, target behaviors that signal
that the perpetrator may have erred are likely to
seem particularly threatening to the perpetrator. In
an example from Crary’s (2017: 296) study of cross-
race work relationships, Larry, a White man,
recounted how he “clammed up,”“shut off,”and
left the room (indicative of a self-protective motiva-
tion) after his Black supervisor, Bill, questioned a
behavior that could be viewed as a workplace micro-
aggression. In explaining his adopted self-protective
motivation in response, Larry indicated that he did
not feel as close to Bill, because he had “just joined”
the company (Crary, 2017: 295): “Had [this occurred
with] my last boss [who I was close to] …Iwould’ve
said, ‘Let’s talk about this’right from the beginning”
(Crary, 2017: 296). Taken together, Larry’s perceived
lack of closeness prompted him to adopt a self-
protective motivation in response to Bill’squestion-
ing of his behavior. With his previous boss, with
whom Larry felt closer, he may have been more
likely to adopt a relationship-promotive motivation.
Perpetrator-perceived relational viability. Finally,
perpetrator-perceived relational viability also likely
affects a perpetrator’s adopted motivation. Rela-
tional viability is the perpetrator’s perception that
the target believes in the future of the workplace rela-
tionship with the perpetrator (Maner et al., 2009;
Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013). Perceived relational via-
bility likely affects a perpetrator’s adopted motiva-
tion because it influences the level of self-image
threat that a perpetrator perceives. By definition,
higher relational viability means that the perpetrator
perceives that the target is invested and wants to
continue in the relationship (Goodfriend & Agnew,
2008; Huynh et al., 2016; Rusbult et al., 1998). With
greater perceived target investment and persistence,
the perpetrator should be less likely to view the tar-
get’s behavioral markers as an indictment of the
12 Academy of Management Review Month

perpetrator’s character, and thus more likely to
adopt a relationship-promotive motivation rather
than a self-protective one. After all, character indict-
ments are precisely the type of threat that could jeop-
ardize a working relationship (Sue et al., 2019).
Hints of this moderating effect are present in the lit-
erature. For example, a White man recounted how
Black colleagues repeatedly corrected him after he
microaggressed at work. Rather than taking such cor-
rections as indicators that he was an “egotistical per-
son or dominant personality”—that is, as a threat to
his self-image—he “credited his colleagues with pro-
viding him useful developmental feedback”(Crary,
2017: 301). He recognized that he and his colleagues
had an ongoing relationship—that they were “part of
a‘we’” (Crary, 2017: 301). In sum, with higher per-
ceived levels of relational viability, he responded to a
behavioral indicator that he had erred with openness
consistent with a relationship-promotive motivation.
In contrast, when relational viability is lower, the
perpetrator is less likely to infer that the target has a
stake in maintaining the relationship (Goodfriend &
Agnew, 2008; Huynh et al., 2016; Rusbult et al.,
1998). Without such inferences to sway the interpre-
tation of the target’s behavioral markers, the perpe-
trator should be more likely to view those markers as
an indictment of their character, thereby experienc-
ing greater self-image threat. With greater perceived
self-threat, the perpetrator should be more likely to
adopt a self-protective, rather than relationship-
promotive, motivation.
The Dyadic Motivational Foundation for
Relational Repair Work
In the second stage of our theory, the types of moti-
vations that the target and perpetrator adopt—that is,
target self-protective or relationship-promotive paired
with perpetrator self-protective or relationship-
promotive—affect the depth of relational repair work
the target and perpetrator undertake as a dyad. The
depth of relational repair work can vary along a con-
tinuum from no repair work to restorative repair work
to even adaptive repair work, consistent with theory
on relational fractures (Olekalns et al., 2020). No
repair work needs little explication, manifesting as
“[breaking] off the conversation and refus[ing] to talk
about the incident”(Sue et al., 2007: 275). In contrast,
restorative repair work involves returning the rela-
tionship to the status quo. It takes the form of acts
of goodwill, apologies, offering situational attribu-
tions to mitigate blame, and favoring constructive
responses over hurtful ones (Olekalns et al., 2020).
Targets and perpetrators may differ in their efforts
involved in this type of repair work. Nonetheless,
each party’s efforts must be accepted by the other
party for successful relational restoration (Olekalns
et al., 2020). Finally, adaptive repair work manifests
in the form of behavioral flexibility and out-of-the-
box thinking that allows a target and a perpetrator to
not only restore a level of status quo but also to have a
better relationship than they had before (Olekalns
et al., 2020). It requires sustained efforts from both the
perpetrator and the target, directed toward addressing
and satisfying the needs of both parties (Olekalns
et al., 2020).
In general, we theorize that a self-protective–self-
protective target–perpetrator motivational pairing should
yield no repair work; a relationship-promotive–
relationship-promotive target–perpetrator motiva-
tional pairing should yield adaptive repair work;
and pairings in which one party is self-protective
and the other relationship-promotive should fall
somewhere in between. This is because self-protective–
self-protective motivational pairings in contrast to
relationship-promotive–relationship-promotive moti-
vational pairings do little to engender the key mecha-
nisms for greater types of repair work identified in
theory on relational fractures (Olekalns et al., 2020).
These three mechanisms include (1) building a shared
long-term relational narrative (e.g., a “redemption”
narrative), (2) resetting the shared emotional climate to
one that is infused with positive affect (given negative
relational feelings associated with a relational frac-
ture), or (3) building relational agility (evidenced by
novel, flexible relational behaviors) to help withstand
future relational fractures (Olekalns et al., 2020). At the
highest levels of this trio of mechanisms, emanating
from a relationship-promotive–relationship-promotive
motivational pairing, targets and perpetrators align on
the occurrence of the workplace microaggression cog-
nitively, emotionally, and behaviorally. That is, both
perpetrators and targets come to recognize the work-
place microaggression’s occurrence. At their lowest
levels, emanating from a self-protective–self-protective
motivational pairing, such alignment is negligible, if
present at all.
Although we theorize that specific motivational
pairings generally result in specific types of relational
repair work (e.g., a relationship-promotive–relationship-
promotive pair yields adaptive repair work), the
depth of each type of repair work need not look the
same across different pairs (i.e., adaptive repair work
may not have the identical depth across all relationship-
promotive–relationship-promotive pairs; see the dyadic
relational repair box in Figure 1 for curves that represent
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 13

possible distributions in the depth of relational repair
work for varied pairings). This proposition follows
theory on intergroup relations (Garcia & Crocker,
2009, 2016) and theory on relational fractures (Ole-
kalns et al., 2020), both of which offer unelaborated
hints that shared perceptions surrounding how the
relationship can be structured may play a role in the
depth of relational repair a dyad undertakes. Accord-
ingly, we propose that the depth of the type of rela-
tional repair work targets and perpetrators undertake
most proximally varies depending on the pair’s
shared, internalized understandings of the structure
of their relationship, specifically the work tasks and
norms guiding how to behave. Indeed, as stated at
the outset of this paper, workplace interactions are
governed by the work tasks at hand and workplace
norms about how to interact (Abelson, 1981; Gibson,
2018; Gioia & Poole, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Lord
& Kernan, 1987). By shared, we mean that both
parties have—and are aware that they have—the
same understanding (Cannon-Bowers & Salas,
2001). By internalized, we mean that both parties act
in accordance with their understanding (Aronfreed,
1968).
To elaborate on shared, internalized perceptions
of work tasks, we turn to theory on intergroup rela-
tions (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). Such theory
notes that a “focus on contributing to something
larger than the self”(Garcia & Crocker, 2016: 74) can
facilitate better relational outcomes because it leads
to upward spirals of interaction that may share simi-
larities with positive relational repair efforts. To
elaborate on shared internalization of norms around
how to interact, we turn to theory on relational frac-
tures (Olekalns et al., 2020) because it provides a
basis for considering how the workplace context—
that is, workplace norms—may amplify or constrain
the depth of relational repair efforts (Johns, 2006).
The upshot is an extension of our foundational theo-
ries to put forth two factors at the dyadic level that
capture perceptions of the relationship’s structure:
shared internalization of work meaningfulness and
shared internalization of workplace relational
norms, specifically pro-DEI norms.
Consistent with the first stage of our theory, dyads
may process these moderators, which amplify or
dampen the depth of the type of repair work they
undertake, consciously and unconsciously. This is
because the aforementioned mechanisms upon
which they operate are affective (which tends to
involve automatic processing) and cognitive (which
tends to involve more deliberate processing) (Kunda,
1990). Moreover, these moderators are likely to have
greater influence for relationship-promotive–relation-
ship-promotive pairs, followed by mismatched motiva-
tional pairs, followed by self-protective–self-protective
pairs. This is because there is a greater range for the
depth of adaptive relational repair work associated
with relationship-promotive–relationship-promotive
pairs compared to the restorative repair work associ-
ated with mismatched pairs, and compared to the
lack of repair work associated with self-protective–
self-protective pairs by definition.
Shared internalization of work meaningfulness.
We theorize that shared internalization of work
meaningfulness may influence the depth to which a
motivational pair engages in a particular type of rela-
tional repair work. Shared internalization of work
meaningfulness is defined as the extent to which the
target and perpetrator agree that their work offers a
sense of purpose or makes a difference to others—
and they act accordingly (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003;
Rosso, Dekas & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Wrzesniewski,
Dutton & Debebe, 2003). More specifically, high
shared internalization of work meaningfulness
means both the target and the perpetrator agree—
and behave in ways that suggest—that their work is
“particularly significant and hold[s] …positive
meaning”(Rosso et al., 2010: 95). Low shared inter-
nalization of work meaningfulness means the target
or the perpetrator are not in accord that their work is
important (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010;
Wrzesniewski et al., 2003), either because they do
not agree about their work’simportanceorbecause
neither views their work as important.
Shared internalization of work meaningfulness
likely affects the depth of relational repair work a
motivational pair undertakes because it affects the
dyad’s relational agility, development of a shared
redemption narrative, and ability to reset the emo-
tional climate. When a target and perpetrator agree
and internalize thatthe work they are doing has great
significance, they are more motivated to overcome
challenges in getting their work done together (Hack-
man & Oldham, 1976; Rosso et al., 2010). As such,
they may engage in more out-of-the-box problem-
solving and creative behaviors. Such relational agil-
ity lowers barriers to building a shared redemption
narrative and resetting the emotional climate, and
opens up new ways of thinking, feeling, and behav-
ing about fractures, which promotes deeper rela-
tional repair (Olekalns et al., 2020; Petriglieri, 2015).
Indeed, examples in the literature help illustrate
this point. Ely, Meyerson, and Davidson (2006: 84)
recounted how one informant, Brianna, a Black
female CEO, and, Jay, a White male founder,
14 Academy of Management Review Month

referenced how “their shared commitment to the
firm’s mission”(e.g., high shared work meaningful-
ness) strengthened (i.e., deepened) the type of repair
work emanating from their joint motivations,
“creat[ing] a different kind of connection with each
other.”By emphasizing the formation of a different
kind of connection, the repair work undertaken was
perhaps more adaptive than it otherwise would have
been given that both had relationship-promotive
motivations (Ely et al., 2006).
In contrast, low shared internalization of work
meaningfulness is likely to make a motivational
pair’s relational repair work shallower than it other-
wise could be. This is because low shared internali-
zation of work meaningfulness signals that targets
and perpetrators are less likely to be similarly com-
pelled to overcome work obstacles, given that
they do not agree that their work is meaningful. In
turn, they are less likely to engage in flexible
responding—that is, relational agility—which is crit-
ical for resetting the emotional climate and develop-
ing a redemption narrative associated with deeper
repair work (Olekalns et al., 2020).
Shared internalization of workplace pro-DEI
norms. We propose that a second relational modera-
tor that may influence how deeply a motivational
pair engages in a type of relational repair work is
the shared internalization of workplace relational
norms—specifically, pro-DEI norms, which need
not be explicitly endorsed or espoused—given the
differing social identities often involved. Shared
internalization of pro-DEI norms reflects a shared
and internalized commitment to the perceived orga-
nizational rules and norms dictating and upholding
appropriate and expected behavior in DEI-relevant
work interactions (Arendt, Kugler & Brodbeck, 2022;
Fiske, 1992; Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011). When
workplace pro-DEI norms are shared and internal-
ized, it means a target and perpetrator are interacting
in compatible ways that align with the pro-DEI
norms imbued within the organization (Arendt et al.,
2022; Fiske, 1992; Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011).
In contrast, when workplace pro-DEI norms are
not shared and internalized, it means that a target
and perpetrator believe in or are applying different
rules to the same DEI-relevant work interactions
(Arendt et al., 2022; Fiske, 1992; Nishii, 2013; Shore
et al., 2011).
When a shared internalization of workplace pro-
DEI norms prevails, a motivational pair is more
likely to engage in deeper relational repair work
because a shared redemption narrative, a reset of the
emotional climate, and greater relational agility
seem more accessible. Shared internalization of
workplace pro-DEI norms means a perpetrator may
be more likely to acknowledge that they have com-
mitted a workplace microaggression. It may also
mean that a target is more likely to think a perpetra-
tor can eventually, if they do not already, acknowl-
edge how the workplace microaggression violated
both of their standards (Arendt et al., 2022; Nishii,
2013); after all, DEI norms seemingly disavow
workplace microaggressions (Davis, Whitman &
Nadal, 2015; Sue & Spanierman, 2020). This com-
mon ground can serve as the needed bedrock for
deeper repair work, encouraging a target and a per-
petrator to work together in creative ways—that
is, engage in relational agility—to redeem the rela-
tionship and infuse it with more positive affect
(Andiappan & Trevi~
no, 2011; Olekalns et al., 2020).
Echoing this logic, in an investigation around com-
batting workplace microaggressions (Haynes-
Baratz, Bond, Allen, Li & Metinyurt, 2022: 9), one
informant remarked how a shared internalization
of workplace pro-DEI norms seemed likely to
encourage individuals to engage in deeper rela-
tional repair:
A universal [workplace] standard [around DEI-related
interactions] that everyone understands [and interna-
lizes] …[means] you can come up to a person [who
has violated the standard] and say “we both know
that that’s not an appropriate thing to do”…that
[standard] removes the ability for them to counter [in
a way that is not constructive], because you have now
put this responsibility of knowing in their hands.
In contrast, we theorize that when there is low
shared internalization of workplace pro-DEI norms,
the target and the perpetrator will engage in shal-
lower relational repair work than they otherwise
would. After all, low shared internalization of work-
place pro-DEI norms should make it more difficult
for targets and perpetrators to work together in crea-
tive ways—that is, engage in relational agility—to
build a redemption narrative and positive emotional
climate that deepens repair work (Olekalns et al.,
2020). To illustrate, consider this anecdote recounted
by a Black professional conducting training on
implicit bias with a group of physicians within an
organization, which is suggestive of a workplace with
pro-DEI norms that she shared:
I introduced myself as Dr. [Surname]. One of the phy-
sicians stated, “YOU are giving the lecture?”He
laughed and went onto his computer. He then Googled
me because he did not think I was a credible presenter.
After he saw that I published a few articles, he was
ready to listen …[Although it was] aggravating …Ijust
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 15

welcomed him back to the conversation. (King et al.,
2023: 196)
As seen in this example, the repair work—hinted at
in the speaker welcoming the physician back into the
conversation—was shallower than it could have been
and negatively affected by the physician’sbehavior.
He found it appropriate to laugh at the target during
implicit bias training, indicating an approach to DEI-
related interactions that was not aligned with the tar-
get’s approach. Thus, for this relationship-promo-
tive–self-protective pair, the restorative repair work
was not as deep as it could have been.
From Relational Repair to More Beneficial (More
Harmful) Relational Outcomes
Moderated by shared internalization of work mean-
ingfulness and shared internalization of pro-DEI
norms, the type of relational repair work should, in
turn, affect the quality of the workplace relationship
between the target and the perpetrator. Adaptive repair
work should result in more beneficial relational out-
comes, and negligible repair work, more detrimental
outcomes (Olekalns et al., 2020). Figure 2 provides
illustrative trajectories that relationship-promotive–
relationship-promotive pairs, relationship-promotive–
self-protective pairs (or vice-versa), and self-protec-
tive–self-protective pairs may take. At one extreme,
a better workplace relationship following adaptive
repair work is characterized by feelings of vitality, sup-
portiveness, responsiveness, and a greater relational
capacity to withstand strain (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003;
Garcia & Crocker, 2016; Olekalns et al., 2020; Stephens,
Heaphy & Dutton, 2011). At the other extreme, a worse
workplace relationship emanating from no repair work
is characterized by fragility, feelings of toxicity, unsup-
portiveness, and unresponsiveness (Dutton & Heaphy,
FIGURE 2
Illustrative Relational Trajectories for Motivational Pairings
Original
Baseline
Relationship
Status
Microaggression Incident
Time
Worse
Better
Adaptation
Restoration
Deterioration
Relational Outcome
Self-Protective–Self-Protective
Self-Protective–Relationship-Promotive or Vice Versa
Relationshi
p
-Promotive–Relationshi
p
-Promotive
Note: This graph illustrates possible relational trajectories for various motivational pairs. Following a workplace microaggression, all pairs
experience a relational fracture, signified by a dip in their relational quality. Self-protective–self-protective pairs may engage in little, if any,
repair work, leading to a worse relational outcome than their original baseline (i.e., deterioration). Pairs in which one person is self-protective
and the other is relationship-promotive may engage in restorative repair work, such that the relational outcome is close to the original baseline
level, reflecting restoration. Relationship-promotive–relationship-promotive pairs may end up in a better place than they had been before (i.e.,
adaptation), engaging in adaptive repair—the deepest level of repair work.
16 Academy of Management Review Month

2003; Garcia & Crocker, 2016; Olekalns et al., 2020;
Stephens et al., 2011). As illustrations, consider the
aforementioned motivational target–perpetrator pair
of Brianna, a Black female CEO, and Jay, the com-
pany’s founder, who engaged in deep, adaptive rela-
tional repair work characterized by flexible responding
and openness (Ely et al., 2006: 84). As a result of
this adaptive repair work, they “strengthened their
relationship”and “increased their capacity to work
toward [their] mission more effectively”(Ely et al.,
2006: 84). Conversely, consider the real-life experi-
ence documented in Sue et al. (2007: 275) in which
the first author shared how, after personally experienc-
ing a race-based workplace microaggression, he and
the perpetrator were unable to engage in repair work,
resulting in poorer relations:
Attempts to explain my perceptions and feelings only
generated greater defensiveness from her. For every
allegation I made, she seemed to have a rational rea-
son for her actions. Finally, she broke off the conver-
sation and refused to talk about the incident any
longer …Nevertheless…I stewed over the incident,
and it left a sour taste in my mouth.
Feedback Loop: From Relational Repair Work to
Revised Relational Perceptions
Finally, we theorize that the type (and depth) of
relational repair work also prompts targets (and per-
petrators) to revise their relational perceptions (i.e.,
DEI-related interaction history, relational closeness,
relational viability), should the perpetrator commit
another microaggression. For example, relational
repair work following a workplace microaggression
can logically become part of the target-perceived
DEI-related interaction history with the perpetrator
because it reflects the tail end of an inclusion-related
interaction. If the repair work is adaptive and deep,
targets are likely to code the episode as a positive
interaction, thereby tilting the ratio of positive to
negative DEI-related interactions more positively. In
contrast, if the repair work is negligible, targets are
likely to code the episode as a negative interaction,
thereby tilting the ratio more negatively. Consider
the following illustration in which Blithe and Elliott
(2020: 756) asked informants (i.e., targets) to recount
microaggression interactions and their aftermaths:
One of my male search committee members kept
referring to the female candidates as “girls”even
though one of them was a professor at Harvard! And I
actually said something like, “Unless she’snineyears
old, she’s a woman. Could we just say that?”And he
was like, “Idon’tknowwhatthebigdealis,tomeit’s
just like girls, guys, girls”…acoupleweekslaterat
the next meeting, he uses it again.
In this recounted anecdote, there was little attempt
to engage in relational repair after the first workplace
microaggression. As a result, the second time around
stuck out for the target—so much so that she felt the
need to openly share—indicating a possible update
to the ratio of positive to negative DEI-related inter-
actions with the perpetrator in the negative direction
(Blithe & Elliott, 2020).
Likewise, the type (and depth) of the repair work
can provide information to a target that prompts an
update to perceived relational closeness and viability.
This is because, by definition, adaptive repair work
involves relational agility that brings a workplace
relationship to new highs (suggesting greater close-
ness and viability), whereas no repair work brings a
relationship to new lows (suggesting lesser closeness
and viability) (Olekalns et al., 2020). Qualitative work
offers examples of targets and perpetrators adaptively
(or negligibly) working through a workplace microag-
gression to the benefit (or detriment) of subsequent
relational closeness and viability. For example, as
Knight (2013: 27) reported, adaptive repair work
undertaken by a Black target and her White therapist
allowed the two to become closer:
[We engaged in] an authentic exploration of our
difference. She was willing to face my difference …
and pointed out the need for me to face her
difference …[As a result] in the months to come [over
continued sessions] …[we felt more] connect[ed].
In short, the adaptive repair work positively changed
how the target and the perpetrator viewed their rela-
tional closeness and viability, as indicated by the
connectedness and session continuity.
Learning can manifest itself in other ways. For
example, repeated adaptive (negligible) relational
repair work can impact the length to which a target
must go to transform their motivation from self-
protective to relationship-promotive such that it
appears shorter (longer). This is because, as men-
tioned, adaptive (negligible) relational repair work
leads to a greater (lesser) relational capacity to with-
stand strain (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Garcia &
Crocker, 2016; Olekalns et al., 2020; Stephens et al.,
2011). Over time, this greater dyadic capacity to
withstand strain may allow a target to appear as if
they are foregoing their initial self-protective motiva-
tion entirely should subsequent microaggressive
interactions with the perpetrator occur.
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 17

DISCUSSION
In this article, we jumpstart a conversation among
organizational scholars that advances understanding
of the range of relational consequences following
workplace microaggressions. Integrating theory on
relational fractures (Olekalns et al., 2020) with the-
ory on intergroup relations (Garcia & Crocker, 2009,
2016), we build new theory that specifies the process
and relational conditions under which varied rela-
tional outcomes may emerge. In doing so, we make
several theoretical contributions, including ones
that challenge, broaden, and extend scholarship on
workplace microaggressions. We also identify future
research opportunities to illustrate how much fur-
ther scholarly thinking can go. Finally, we discuss
practical implications.
Theoretical Implications
Challenging (and complementing) the consensus
around relational consequences. Prevailing wis-
dom tends to take for granted that workplace micro-
aggressions lead to relationship deterioration or
dissolution. This assumption permeates original and
contemporary theory (Pierce, 1970; Sue et al., 2007)
and carries significant qualitative support (e.g., Con-
stantine & Sue, 2007; Levchak, 2018). Yet, it does
not accommodate the less plentiful instances of
improved or unchanged relational outcomes that
also exist in workplace microaggression scholarship
(e.g., Gosselin, 2022; King et al., 2023; Levchak,
2018). It also does not align with assertions in influ-
ential papers that suggest that relational adaptation
following a workplace microaggression may be pos-
sible (Pierce, 1970: 216; Sue & Spanierman, 2020).
Our relational theory of workplace microaggres-
sions both challenges and complements this
assumption. In a challenge to prevailing wisdom, we
identify relational factors that can enable the emer-
gence of more beneficial relational outcomes. For
example, we identify how more target-perceived
positive—relative to negative—past DEI-related
interactions, greater relational closeness (to a point),
and greater relational viability may encourage targets
to shift from a self-protective motivation to a
relationship-promotive motivation, reflecting a criti-
cal first step toward better relational outcomes. We
further theorize that more perpetrator-perceived
positive—relative to negative—past DEI-related
interactions, greater relational closeness, and greater
relational viability may encourage perpetrators to
adopt a relationship-promotive motivation over a
self-protective motivation in response. Finally, we
propose that perceptions around how the workplace
relationship is structured—higher shared internali-
zation of work meaningfulness and higher shared
internalization of workplace pro-DEI norms—can
enable deeper levels of relational repair work. This
relational repair work, in turn, serves as a precursor
to more positive outcomes. Our theory also comple-
ments the prevailing wisdom because it allows for the
emergence of more harmful relational outcomes if
one focuses on the other pole of each moderator (e.g.,
lesser instead of greater relational viability). Indeed,
the same moderators that provide the conditions
under which better relational outcomes can emerge
are also those that can facilitate worse relational out-
comes. By pinpointing the conditions under which
one can observe either more beneficial or more harm-
ful relational consequences, we offer an integrative
way to understand the range of relational conse-
quences after a workplace microaggression.
Widening (and redirecting) the existing theoreti-
cal focus. Our theory also widens and redirects the
existing focus in the microaggression literature. To
date, scholarship on microaggressions has been fruit-
ful and generative, clarifying the dimensions of
microaggressions and explicating the cognitive and
emotional hurt that targets experience (e.g., King
et al., 2023; Smith & Griffiths, 2022). Notably, this
impressively rich scholarship tends to take the van-
tage point of only one party, most often the target
(e.g., Blithe & Elliott, 2020; Kim et al., 2019; King
et al., 2023; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2019). This stance is
appropriate given that targets are best positioned to
assess whether a workplace microaggression has
occurred and to give insight into their lived experi-
ences (Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Nkomo, 1992; Sue et al.,
2007). Yet, this target-only viewpoint is limited
when the focus falls on understanding relational
outcomes following a workplace microaggression.
Targets make up only one part of the workplace rela-
tionship (Heaphy, Byron, Ballinger, Gittell, Leana &
Sluss, 2018) and likely have a different lived experi-
ence than the perpetrator (Bergsieker, Shelton &
Richeson, 2010; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman &
Anastasio, 1994; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore & Tra-
walter, 2005; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Accordingly, our theory widens and redirects the
existing theoretical focus by not only centering the
target but also bringing the perpetrator and the rela-
tionship they share into the foreground. By doing so,
we not only show why the burden in shaping micro-
aggressions’outcomes (relational or otherwise) may
not rest solely on targets—in line with past scholars
(e.g., Fattoracci & King, 2023; Sue et al., 2019)—but
18 Academy of Management Review Month

also why it actually does not. Although our theory
begins with whether a target transforms their motiva-
tion, the factors that encourage or discourage this
transformation relate to the target’s perceptions of
the workplace relationship, which is formed and
shaped through a dyadic process that does not rest
solely with the target. Moreover, a perpetrator’s
adopted motivation also matters greatly for forming
the dyadic motivational foundation. Finally, the tar-
get’s and perpetrator’s motivations together inform
subsequent relational repair work. Accordingly,
scholarly conversation currently directed toward
providing “targets with a repertoire of interpersonal
responses”(Sue & Spanierman, 2020: 254)—which
implicitly, even if unintentionally, places a burden
on targets—may be of limited utility, at least when
focused on the range of relational outcomes emanat-
ing from workplace microaggressions.
Extending understanding around how work-
place microaggressions yield myriad relational
outcomes. Although existing scholarship investi-
gates and documents both workplace microaggres-
sions and relational outcomes, it provides little
insight into the process—the “how”—that connects
the two. As a third contribution, we extend under-
standing around precisely how a workplace micro-
aggression yields varied relational outcomes (see
Figure 1). In doing so, we set the stage to pinpoint
two subprocesses central to predicting the eventual
relational outcomes of a workplace microaggression:
(1) how a target shifts from self-protection to a gener-
ative relationship-promotive stance and how the
perpetrator responds, and (2) how the dyad engages
in relational repair.
In specifying this process and its subprocesses, we
build on our prior contribution that illuminates why
the burden does not rest solely on the target’s
shoulders to show how it does not—at least with
regard to relational outcomes emanating from a
workplace microaggression. Indeed, looking across
our theory, whether more beneficial or more harmful
relational outcomes emerge depends on the motiva-
tions of both targets and perpetrators—which requires
backing out and attending to the perpetrator’sper-
spective, too—and the relational work they under-
take together. Thus, the labor required to resolve or
productively move past a workplace microaggres-
sion does not sit on the shoulders of a target alone; it
requires considerable effort from the perpetrator as
well, and ultimately rests heavily on the relationship
between them. In making this claim, we bring to
light how generative conversations directed toward
how targets can respond to microaggressions (Sue &
Spanierman, 2020) may not go far enough when the
focus is on shaping relational outcomes.
Contributing to the theories upon which we
draw. Finally, we contribute to the theories upon
which we draw—theory on relational fractures (Ole-
kalns et al., 2020) and theory on intergroup relations
(Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). We extend theory on
relational fractures by theoretically elaborating the
transformation of motivation process. Theory on
relational fractures alludes to the transformation of
motivation as critical for overcoming relational frac-
tures (Olekalns et al., 2020: 15). However, it stops
short of specifically delineating what this process
entails (i.e., its starting point, its endpoint, and the
factors that may encourage or discourage such trans-
formation). We bring in theory on intergroup rela-
tions (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016) to elaborate
these components. First, we specify how the trans-
formation after a workplace microaggression
involves shifting from a self-protective motivation to
a relationship-promotive one. Second, by carefully
scrutinizing existing hints in the theory, we illumi-
nate and clarify how three relational factors—DEI-
related interaction history, relational closeness,
and relational viability—serve as key moderators.
Finally, we clearly specify factors that influence the
depth of repair work that follows (i.e., shared work
meaningfulness and internalization of pro-DEI work-
place norms). Such dyadic factors are either absent
or only briefly implied. In doing so, we increase
scholarly ability to both empirically uphold and
refute theory on relational fractures (Olekalns et al.,
2020), thereby enhancing its rigor (Popper, 1959).
Taken together, we both augment—by incorporating
theory on intergroup relations (Garcia & Crocker,
2009, 2016)—and elaborate upon theory on rela-
tional fractures.
We also contribute to theory on intergroup rela-
tions (Garcia & Crocker, 2009, 2016). This theory
assumes that the self-protective (relationship-
promotive) motivation of the first mover (i.e., the
target in our theory) likely prompts the second
mover (i.e., the perpetrator) to activate their self-
protective (relationship-promotive) motivation (Gar-
cia & Crocker, 2009, 2016).In many ways, this makes
sense. Yet, in not elaborating the adoption of the sec-
ond mover’s motivation, Garcia and Crocker (2009,
2016) implicitly paint this party as passive, boxed
into their motivation based on the motivation that
the first mover adopts. We question this assumption,
broadening theory on intergroup relations to more
fully theorize the adoption of the second mover’s—
that is, the perpetrator’s—motivation.
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 19

Opportunities for Future Research
and Boundaries
Testing our theory. Our model offers copious
research opportunities that can be explored quanti-
tatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, scholars
can survey targets and perpetrators at work to
explore our theorized moderators. As part of this
effort, scholars could consider developing a scale
measure of workplace microaggressions comprising
two factors: one for the violation of relational expec-
tations and one for negative relational emotions.
Given concerns surrounding the limited scales that
do exist (Lilienfeld, 2017), such a scale would reflect
a critical step forward, allowing scholars to quantify
the “hurt”felt by targets in the aftermath of a work-
place microaggression (Freeman & Stewart, 2021).
To strengthen claims of causality, scholars could
combine such efforts with experiments that manipu-
late the presence of a moderator in our theory along-
side either a microaggression (if interested in the
transformation of motivation) or the motivations
within the dyad (if interested in the relational repair
work). Executing experimental efforts would require
a great deal of consideration and care—both in
ensuring that experiments have sufficient psycho-
logical and mundane realism and in balancing ethi-
cal considerations (Berkowitz & Donnerstein, 1982;
Kimmel, 2004).
Qualitatively, myriad research opportunities exist,
especially regarding the temporal aspects of our
model. For example, we theorized that the emergent
dyadic motivational foundation is the product
of both the target’s and perpetrator’s individual
motivations. The emergence of this motivational
foundation may involve iterative target reaction–
perpetrator reaction sequences—indicated by the
dashed arrows depicted in Figure 1 between the tar-
get motivation box and perpetrator motivation box.
Similarly, we proposed that the depth of relational
repair work would not only determine the quality of
the workplace relationship between the target and
the perpetrator but also prompt targets to revise their
relational perceptions that impact their transforma-
tion of motivation should a subsequent workplace
microaggression occur. Qualitative scholars could
adopt an ethnographic approach, and conduct
in situ observations to capture this dynamism better
and deepen theorizing along these lines. Such an
approach is particularly useful for illuminating
dynamic paths (see Katz, 2001; Ragin, 1987), often
outperforming many alternative methodological
approaches.
Augmenting our theory. Unpacking additional
moderators at different levels of analysis may also be
fruitful for further elaborating the conditions that
affect a target’s transformation of motivation or the
undertaken dyadic relational repair work. These
could include factors such as organizational culture
and demography (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Kanter, 1977;
King, Hebl, George & Matusik, 2010; Nishii, 2013;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) or the power dynamics
involved in the relationship. They could also include
target or perpetrator individual differences. For
example, a target’s perspective-taking skills or their
belief that the perpetrator has the capacity to change
could encourage a target’s transformation of motiva-
tion (Rattan & Dweck, 2010, 2018; Todd & Galinsky,
2014). Likewise, a perpetrator’s perspective-taking
skills could encourage the adoption of one motivation
over another (Todd & Galinsky, 2014). Notably, tar-
gets and perpetrators may vary in whether they pos-
sess the skills relevant to transformation (if a target),
or adoption (if a perpetrator), of a particular motiva-
tion. Moreover, perpetrators and targets may vary in
the extent to which they have skills relevant to rela-
tional repair work (Crary, 2017). These skills could
influence the range of relational outcomes that
could emerge.
Considering interactions among potential modera-
tors either at the same level or cross-level at different
stages of our model may also be particularly genera-
tive (see Leigh & Melwani, 2019; Nkomo et al.,
2019). To further complicate our theory, scholars
could consider how the salience of a target’s behav-
ioral markers may interact with our theorized
perpetrator-perceived relational factors to influence
the perpetrator’s motivation. For example, direct
incivility from the target, which would be very
salient, may dampen the moderating effect that high
relational closeness has in encouraging a perpetrator
to adopt a relationship-promotive motivation. Alter-
natively, scholars may consider how first-stage tar-
get- or perpetrator-perceived relational perceptions
can influence second-stage dyadic relational repair
work, or how second-stage shared perceptions of the
relationship’s structure could influence the target’s
transformation of motivation or the perpetrator’s
motivation adoption in the first stage. As an illustra-
tion, when shared internalization of work meaning-
fulness is high (reflecting a second-stage moderator),
a target may be more likely to shift their motivation
from self-protective to relationship-promotive (the
process highlighted in the first stage). This is because
when a target and perpetrator agree and internalize
that the work they are doing has great significance,
20 Academy of Management Review Month

they are more motivated to overcome challenges in
getting their work done together (Hackman & Old-
ham, 1976; Rosso et al., 2010). A self-protective
motivation may be one obstacle to completing the
work the dyad must complete together.
Future scholars could also consider how target-
perceived perpetrator intentions may affect a target’s
transformation of motivation or the dyadic relational
repair work undertaken. On the one hand, perpetra-
tor intentionality may play a role. Because blame-
worthiness often affects how hurtful a target finds a
statementoraction(Baron&Richardson,1994),and
intentionality can matter for blameworthiness
(Shaver, 1985), perceived perpetrator intent may
affect the lengths to which a target may need to go to
transform their motivation. The length may be
shorter at the low end of perceived intentionality
and longer at the high end. On the other hand, the
harm felt and the subsequent relational repair pro-
cess dyads experience to reach a particular relational
outcome may have little to do with perpetrator
intent. Microaggressions sting regardless, such that
intent is distinct from impact (Spanierman et al.,
2021).
Pushing our theory’s boundaries. In our theory,
we assumed that targets and perpetrators are interde-
pendent. We also assumed that they operate in the
implicit or explicit presence of workplace relational
norms, specifically ones regarding DEI that are
grounded in broader norms of mutual respect, given
the cross-social-identity nature of microaggressions.
Both of these assumptions followed from our focus
on workplace relationships, in which workplace
norms surrounding how to interact and the tasks at
hand govern interrelating at work (Abelson, 1981;
Gibson, 2018; Gioia & Poole, 1984; Katz & Kahn,
1978; Lord & Kernan, 1987). Nonetheless, when pur-
suing future research opportunities, it is worth pon-
dering how our theory might change if our theory’s
scope was broadened.Relaxing our interdependence
assumption may make the target’s transformation
to, and perpetrator’s adoption of, a relationship-
promotive motivation less likely, because there may
not be a workplace relationship to salvage (Ferris
et al., 2009). It may also decrease the efficacy of
shared work meaningfulness as a moderator, given
that the target and perpetrator would not need to
work together in pursuing a higher goal. Likewise,
on the one hand, the absence of relational norms,
specifically pro-DEI norms, may dampen the extent
to which targets perceive that their relational expec-
tations have been violated, thereby dulling the tar-
gets’initial self-protective motivation. On the other
hand, the absence of pro-DEI norms may be coded by
targets as signals of anti-DEI norms (Purdie-
Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann & Crosby, 2008),
thereby strengthening the likelihood that the targets
respond strongly with an initial self-protective moti-
vation. The absence of pro-DEI norms could also
reduce the likelihood that targets and perpetrators
develop and internalize a shared understanding of
how to interact in DEI-related interactions, thereby
weakening the moderating effect of shared internali-
zation of pro-DEI norms.
It is also worth reflecting on how our theory might
apply to dyads that do not seem to be captured by
the examples we employed (i.e., those in which a
perpetrator held a dominant social identity and a
target held a marginalized identity—e.g., a White
perpetrator and a Black target if a racial microaggres-
sion). As an illustration, workplace microaggres-
sions may occur in dyads in which the perpetrator
and the target share an identity other than the one
that the microaggression threatens (e.g., the microag-
gression threatens a target’s Black identity, but both
the perpetrator and target are women). This shared
identity could impact the lengths to which a target
must go to transform their motivation. If the shared
social identity is more central to the target’sself-
concept (Ragins, 2008; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Row-
ley & Chavous, 1998), targets may be more motivated
to act in ways that preserve the relationship with the
perpetrator. In other words, they may be more moti-
vated to shift to a relationship-promotive motivation
to protect the social identity that they value so highly
(Phillips & Loyd, 2006; Phillips, Mannix, Neale &
Gruenfeld, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), thereby
making adaptive relational outcomes more likely. In
contrast, when the shared social identity is less cen-
tral, the lengths to which a target must go to trans-
form their motivation may be greater, hindering the
emergence of more adaptive outcomes.
Intragroup microaggressions in which the perpe-
trator and target share the marginalized identity tar-
geted (e.g., a gendered workplace microaggression
delivered by a woman to another woman) are
another theoretical wrinkle to explore in future
research. Such workplace microaggressions may
make more adaptive relational outcomes less likely.
When a workplace microaggression subordinates a
shared social identity, a target may feel more height-
ened negative relational emotions such as betrayal
or hurt and experience a greater sense that their
expectations have been violated. This occurs
because a target who shares the same marginalized
identity may expect the perpetrator to be familiar
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 21

with social-identity-relevant stereotypes and preju-
dices present in society from which workplace
microaggressions stem (Basford et al., 2014). As
such, a target may conclude that the perpetrator
“should have known better;”after all, they likely
have been targets of similar workplace microaggres-
sions themselves (West, 2019). In this context, the
target’s initial motivation to protect the self should
be particularly heightened, making the lengths to
which a target must go to transform their motivation
even greater.
5
Finally, future research could consider how work-
place microaggressions that differ from the ones fea-
tured in our examples may play out. Consider an
ambient microaggression in which a perpetrator
does not realize that those with the subordinated
social identity have overheard it. Or consider an
extended microaggression in which a target over-
hears a workplace microaggression that subordinates
a social identity they do not hold but with which
they feel a connection (e.g., overhearing a statement
that subordinates the social identity of a spouse or
partner). Finally, consider a workplace microaggres-
sion that subordinates a target’s invisible social iden-
tity (i.e., a social identity that rests on less overt
characteristics such as sexual orientation, religion,
or disability) (Clair, Beatty & MacLean, 2005). Across
these types of microaggressions, worsened relational
outcomes may be more likely than beneficial ones.
This is because, in all of these scenarios, even if a
perpetrator was cognizant that they subordinated a
social identity (which is debatable; see Mekawi &
Todd, 2021), they are unlikely to think that they
have harmed someone in attendance. As such, mis-
steps are more likely to occur during each party’s
transformation or adoption of motivation, with per-
petrators likely misunderstanding a target’smotiva-
tional response and failing to respond appropriately
in turn.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Our theory serves up several practical implica-
tions for both organizations and for microaggression
discourse more broadly. First, it helps explain why
instances of positive relational adaptation after a
workplace microaggression may be so rare. Given
that workplace microaggressions reflect a target-
perceived relational fracture, and perpetrators are
likely to interpret target behavioral signals following
a microaggression as a self-image threat, the path to
maintaining or improving a relationship is perilous
and fraught. According to our theory, it requires tar-
gets to transform their motivation, for perpetrators to
respond in kind, and for dyads to engage in deep
repair work. Yet, our theorizing also offers a second
important practical implication: Organizations can
increase the odds that more positive relational out-
comes emerge by promoting alignment and internal-
ization of high work meaningfulness and pro-DEI
norms. To promote greater shared internalization of
high work meaningfulness, organizations can engage
in sense-giving, “creat[ing] a cognitive blueprint
composed of a small and streamlined constellation
of connections that link everyday work and the orga-
nization’s ultimate aspirations”(Carton, 2018: 352).
In other words, organizations can offer milestones
and a single objective to help show how employees’
daily work contributes to the larger whole. Likewise,
organizations can encourage an internalization of
pro-DEI norms through increased socialization
efforts in which employees at all levels consistently
model and advocate for positive DEI-interaction
behaviors (Ashforth, Sluss & Harrison, 2007; Grant &
Patil, 2012).
Finally, a practical value of our theory for microag-
gression discourse more broadly is that it specifies a
proactive role for both the target and the perpetrator
in increasing the odds that the relationship can
recover or positively adapt after a workplace micro-
aggression. In specifying a proactive role for the per-
petrator, it may be tempting to view our theory as
one that diminishes the empowering nature of
microaggression scholarship—given that such schol-
arship has historically only factored in the target.
However, we strongly caution scholars and practi-
tioners from adopting this view. As our theory illus-
trates, failure to account for a relational perspective
may actually disempower targets by implicitly plac-
ing the burden of managing microaggressions’after-
effects solely on their shoulders. Indeed, the end
relational outcome after a workplace microaggres-
sion is not and should not be the responsibility
of a target alone; it requires significant labor from
the perpetrator, too, and ultimately rests on the rela-
tionship shared. It is our hope that our relational
theory of workplace microaggressions can help fos-
ter healthier working relationships that, in turn,
support more inclusive, positive, and diverse
workplaces.
5
The same logic might apply if the perpetrator holds
any marginalized identity, not just the same one the target
holds. Indeed, targets may expect those who hold margin-
alized identities, compared to those who do not, to be
more familiar with the harm of microaggressions.
22 Academy of Management Review Month

REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. 1981. Psychological status of the script con-
cept. American Psychologist, 36: 715–729.
Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A. F., & Davis, S. 2016. The theory of
resilience and relational load. Personal Relation-
ships, 23: 663–683.
Andersson, L. M. & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The
spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 24: 452–471.
Andiappan, M. & Trevi~
no, L. K. 2011. Beyond righting the
wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an
injustice. Human Relations, 64: 359–386.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. 2008.
Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic
colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 95: 918–932.
Arendt, J. F., Kugler, K. G., & Brodbeck, F. C. 2022. Being
on the same page about social rules and norms: Effects
of shared relational models on cooperation in work
teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,26:
1119–1139.
Arnett, R. D. 2023. Uniting through difference: Rich
cultural-identity expression as a conduit to inclusion.
Organization Science, 34: 1887–1913.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. 1991. Close
relationships as including other in the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 241–253.
Aronfreed,J.1968.Conduct and conscience: The sociali-
zation of internalized control over behavior.New
York: Academic Press.
Ashburn-Nardo, L., Blanchar, J. C., Petersson, J., Morris,
K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. 2014. Do you say something
when it’s your boss? The role of perpetrator power in
prejudice confrontation. Journal of Social Issues,70:
615–636.
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and
the organization. Academy of Management Review,
14: 20–39.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. 2007. Social-
ization in organizational contexts. International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy,22:1–70.
Avery,D.R.,McKay,P.F.,&Volpone,S.D.2013.Diversity
staffing: Inclusive personnel recruitment and selec-
tion practices. In Q. M. Roberson (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of diversity and work:282–299. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Baron, R. A. & Richardson, D. R. 1994. Human aggression.
New York: Plenum.
Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. 2014. Do
you see what I see? Perceptions of gender
microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 38: 340–349.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs,
K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of Gen-
eral Psychology,5:323–370.
Bell, E. L. & Nkomo, S. 2001. Our separate ways: Black
and white women and the struggle for professional
identity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bergsieker,H.B.,Shelton,N.J.,&Richeson,J.A.2010.To
be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interra-
cial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 99: 248–264.
Berkowitz, L. & Donnerstein, E. 1982. External validity is
more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of
laboratory experiments. American Psychologist,37:
245–257.
Bliege Bird, R., Ready, E., & Power, E. A. 2018. The social
significance of subtle signals. Nature Human Behav-
iour,2:452–457.
Blithe, S. J. & Elliott, M. 2020. Gender inequality in the
academy: Microaggressions, work-life conflict, and
academic rank. Journal of Gender Studies, 29: 751–
764.
Block, C. J., Roberson, L., & Neuger, D. A. 1995. White
racial identity theory: A framework for understanding
reactions toward interracial situations in organiza-
tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,46:71–88.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some uni-
versals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. 2001. Reflections on
shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 22: 195–202.
Carton,A.M.2018.I’m not mopping the floors—I’m put-
ting a man on the moon”: How NASA leaders
enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing
the meaning of work. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 63: 323–369.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. 2005. Out of sight
but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identi-
ties in the workplace. Academy of Management
Review,30:78–95.
Collins, N. L. & Feeney, B. C. 2004. An attachment theory
perspective on closeness and intimacy. In D. Mashak,
& A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and inti-
macy:163–187. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., & Owens,
D. 2008. Racial microaggressions against Black
counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A cen-
tral challenge in the multicultural counseling move-
ment. Journal of Counseling & Development,86:
348–355.
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 23

Constantine, M. G. & Sue, D. W. 2007. Perceptions of racial
microaggressions among black supervisees in cross-
racial dyads. Journal of Counseling Psychology,54:
142–153.
Cortina, L. M. & Magley, V. J. 2003. Raising voice, risking
retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreat-
ment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology,8:247–265.
Crary, M. 2017. Working from dominant identity positions:
Reflections from “diversity-aware”white people
about their cross-race work relationships. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 53: 290–316.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. 1998. Social stigma. In
J. Crocker, B. Major, C. Steele, D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,
& G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychol-
ogy:504–553. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cross, S. E., Morris, M. L., & Gore, J. S. 2002. Thinking about
oneself and others: The relational-interdependent self-
construal and social cognition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82: 399–418.
Davis,L.S.,Whitman,C.,&Nadal,K.L.2015.Microag-
gressions in the workplace: Recommendations for best
practices. In M. A. Paludi, J. L. Martin, J. E. Gruber, &
S. Fineran (Eds.), Sexual harassment in education
and work settings:135–155. Santa Barbara, CA:
Praeger.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. & Gunby, N. W., Jr. 2016. Racial micro-
aggressions in the workplace: A critical race analysis
of the experiences of African American educators.
Urban Education, 51: 390–414.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Johnson, O. T., Womble Edwards, C.,
McCoy, W. N., & White, A. M. 2020. African American
professionals in higher education: Experiencing and
coping with racial microaggressions. Race Ethnicity
and Education, 23: 492–508.
Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. 2009.
Psychobiological responses to social self threat: Func-
tional or detrimental? Self and Identity,8:270–285.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Ufkes, E. G., Saguy, T., &
Pearson, A. R. 2016. Included but invisible? Subtle
bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we.”
Social Issues and Policy Review, 10: 6–46.
Dumas, T. L., Phillips, K. W., & Rothbard, N. P. 2013.
Getting closer at the company party: Integration
experiences, racial dissimilarity, and workplace rela-
tionships. Organization Science, 24: 1377–1401.
Dutton,J.E.&Heaphy,E.D.2003.Thepowerof
high-quality connections. Positive Organizational
Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline,3:
263–278.
Edelman, L. B., Fuller, S. R., & Mara-Drita, I. 2001. Diver-
sity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 106: 1589–1641.
Ely, R. J. 1995. The role of dominant identity and experi-
ence in organizational work on diversity. In S. E.
Jackson, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work
teams: Research paradigms for a changing work-
place:161–186. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Ely,R.J.,Meyerson,D.E.,&Davidson,M.N.2006.
Rethinking political correctness. Harvard Business
Review,84:78–87.
Ely, R. J., Padavic, I., & Thomas, D. A. 2012. Racial diver-
sity, racial asymmetries, and team learning environ-
ment: Effects on performance. Organization Studies,
33: 341–362.
Ely, R. J. & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work:
The effects of diversity perspectives on work group
processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly,46:229–273.
Fattoracci, E. S. & King, D. D. 2023. The need for under-
standing and addressing microaggressions in the
workplace. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
18: 738–742.
Feeney,B.C.&Lemay,E.P.,Jr.2012.Survivingrelation-
ship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin,38:1004–1017.
Ferris,G.R.,Liden,R.C.,Munyon,T.P.,Summers,J.K.,
Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. 2009. Relationships at
work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization
of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Manage-
ment,35:1379–1403.
Finkel,E.J.,Rusbult,C.E.,Kumashiro,M.,&Hannon,
P. A. 2002. Dealing with betrayal in close relation-
ships: Does commitment promote forgiveness?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82:
956–974.
Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. 2017. The
psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core prin-
ciples. Annual Review of Psychology, 68: 383–411.
Fiske, A. P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality:
Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Psychological Review, 99: 689–723.
Freeman, L. & Stewart, H. 2021. Toward a harm-based
account of microaggressions. Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science,16:1008–1023.
Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A.,
& Anastasio, P. A. 1994. The contact hypothesis: The
role of a common ingroup identity on reducing inter-
group bias. Small Group Research, 25: 224–249.
Galupo,M.P.,Henise,S.B.,&Davis,K.S.2014.Trans-
gender microaggressions in the context of friend-
ship: Patterns of experience across friends’sexual
orientation and gender identity. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,1:461–
470.
24 Academy of Management Review Month

Galupo, M. P. & Resnick, C. A. 2016. Experiences of LGBT
microaggressions in the workplace: Implications for pol-
icy. In T. K€
ollen (Ed.), Sexual orientation and trans-
gender issues in organizations:271–287. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Garcia, J. A. & Crocker, J. 2009. Downward and upward
spirals in intergroup interactions: The role of egosys-
tem and ecosystem goals. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Hand-
book of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination:
229–245. New York: Psychology Press.
Garcia,J.A.&Crocker,J.2016.Upwardanddownward
spirals intergroup interactions: Compassionate goals
and transcending the ego. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Hand-
book of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination:
65–81. New York: Psychology Press.
Gibson, K. R. 2018. Can I tell you something? How disrup-
tive self-disclosure changes who “we”are. Academy
of Management Review, 43: 570–589.
Gildersleeve, S., Singer, J. A., Skerrett, K., & Wein, S. 2017.
Coding “we-ness”in couple’s relationship stories: A
method for assessing mutuality in couple therapy.
Psychotherapy Research, 27: 313–325.
Gioia, D. A. & Poole, P. P. 1984. Scripts in organizational
behavior. Academy of Management Review,9:
449–459.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday
life. Garden City, NY Anchor.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-
face interaction. Oxford: Aldine.
Goodfriend, W. & Agnew, C. R. 2008. Sunken costs and
desired plans: Examining different types of invest-
ments in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,34:1639–1652.
Gosselin, A. 2022. Responding to sanist microaggressions
with acts of epistemic resistance. Hypatia,37:293–314.
Grant, A. M. & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design
theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspec-
tives. Academy of Management Annals,3:317–375.
Grant, A. M. & Patil, S. V. 2012. Challenging the norm of
self-interest: Minority influence and transitions to
helping norms in work units. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 37: 547–568.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through
the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.
Harwood, S. A., Choi, S., Orozco Villica~
na, M., Huntt,
M. B., & Mendenhall, R. 2015. Racial microaggres-
sions at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign: Voices of students of color in the classroom.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign.
Haynes-Baratz, M. C., Bond, M. A., Allen, C. T., Li, Y. L.,
&Metinyurt,T.2022.Challenginggendered
microaggressions in the academy: A social–ecological
analysis of bystander action among faculty. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 15: 521–535.
Heaphy, E. D., Byron, K., Ballinger, G. A., Gittell, J. H.,
Leana, C., & Sluss, D. M. 2018. Introduction to special
topic forum: The changing nature of work relation-
ships. Academy of Management Review, 43: 558–
569.
Hebl,M.,Cheng,S.K.,&Ng,L.C.2020.Moderndiscrimi-
nation in organizations. Annual Review of Organiza-
tional Psychology and Organizational Behavior,7:
257–282.
Hideg, I., DeCelles, K. A., & Tihanyi, L. 2020. From the editors:
Publishing practical and responsible research in AMJ.
Academy of Management Journal, 63: 1681–1686.
Huynh, A. C., Yang, D. Y.-J., & Grossmann, I. 2016. The
value of prospective reasoning for close relationships.
Social Psychological and Personality Science,7:
893–902.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organi-
zational behavior. Academy of Management Review,
31: 386–408.
Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L., Alonso, N. M., &
Lindsey, A. P. 2017. Subtle discrimination in the
workplace: A vicious cycle. Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology,10:51–76.
Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray,
A. L. 2016. Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investiga-
tion of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimina-
tion. Journal of Management,42:1588–1613.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Some effects of proportions on group
life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.
American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965–990.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of
organizations.NewYork:Wiley.
Katz, J. 2001. Analytic induction. In N. J. Smelser, & P. B.
Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the
social and behavioral sciences:480–484. Hague:
Elsevier.
Kellar,S.J.&Hall,E.V.2022.Measuringracialdiscrimina-
tion remotely: A contemporary review of unobtrusive
measures. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
17: 1404–1430.
Kendall, D. L., Cannon, S., & Gill, J. K. 2021. The role of
White support in predicting racial minorities’feelings
of inclusion and retention. Journal of Organizational
Psychology, 21: 168–182.
Kim, J. Y.-J., Block, C. J., & Nguyen, D. 2019. What’s visible
is my race, what’s invisible is my contribution: Under-
standing the effects of race and color-blind racial atti-
tudes on the perceived impact of microaggressions
toward Asians in the workplace. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior,113:75–87.
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 25

Kimmel, A. J. 2004. Ethical issues in social psychology
research.InC.Sansone,C.C.Morf,&A.T.Panter
(Eds.), Sage handbook of methods in social psychol-
ogy:45–70. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
King, D. D., Fattoracci, E. S., Hollingsworth, D. W., Stahr,
E., & Nelson, M. 2023. When thriving requires effortful
surviving: Delineating manifestations and resource
expenditure outcomes of microaggressions for Black
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108:
183–207.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F.
2010. Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and con-
sequences of a psychological climate of gender ineq-
uity. Journal of Management, 36: 482–510.
Knight, R. 2020. July 24: You’ve been called out for a
microaggression. What do you do? Harvard Business
Review.
Knight, Z. G. 2013. Black client, white therapist: Working
with race in psychoanalytic psychotherapy in South
Africa. International Journal of Psychoanalysis,94:
17–31.
Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psycho-
logical Bulletin,108:480–498.
Kurland, N. B. & Pelled, L. H. 2000. Passing the word:
Toward a model of gossip and power in the work-
place. Academy of Management Review, 25:
428–438.
Le, H., Palmer Johnson, C., & Fujimoto, Y. 2021. Organiza-
tional justice and climate for inclusion. Personnel
Review,50:1–20.
Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. 32: 1–62.
Leigh, A. & Melwani, S. 2019. #BlackEmployeesMatter:
Mega-threats, identity fusion, and enacting positive
deviance in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 44: 564–591.
Levchak, C. C. 2018. Microaggressions, macroaggressions,
and modern racism in the workplace. In C. C. Levchak
(Ed.), Microaggressions and modern racism: Endur-
ance and evolution:105–212. Cham, Switzerland:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Lilienfeld, S. O. 2017. Microaggressions: Strong claims,
inadequate evidence. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 12: 138–169.
Lord,R.G.&Kernan,M.C.1987.Scriptsasdeterminants
of purposeful behavior in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 12: 265–277.
Lui, P. P. & Quezada, L. 2019. Associations between microag-
gression and adjustment outcomes: A meta-analytic and
narrative review. Psychological Bulletin,145:45–78.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. 2009. The
implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: Inat-
tention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology,45:174–179.
Mekawi,Y.&Todd,N.R.2021.Focusingthelenstosee
more clearly: Overcoming definitional challenges and
identifying new directions in racial microaggressions
research. Perspectives on Psychological Science,16:
972–990.
Miller, D. T. 2006. An invitation to social psychology:
Expressing and censoring the self.Belmont,CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Monin, B. & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and the
expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81: 33–43.
Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., Wong, Y., Mar-
shall, D., & McKenzie, V. 2015. A qualitative approach
to intersectional microaggressions: Understanding
influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and
religion. Qualitative Psychology,2:147–163.
Nadal, K. L., Issa, M.-A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman,
M., & Wong, Y. 2011. Sexual orientation microaggres-
sions: “Death by a thousand cuts”for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth,8:234–259.
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M.-A., Meterko, V., Leon, J., &
Wideman, M. 2011. Sexual orientation microaggres-
sions: Processes and coping mechanisms for lesbian,
gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues
in Counseling,5:21–46.
Nishii, L. H. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for
gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management
Journal,56:1754–1774.
Nkomo, S. M. 1992. The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting
“race in organizations.”Academy of Management
Review, 17: 487–513.
Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., &
Thatcher, S. M. 2019. Diversity at a critical juncture:
New theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy
of Management Review, 44: 498–517.
Ogolsky, B. G. & Bowers, J. R. 2013. A meta-analytic
review of relationship maintenance and its corre-
lates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
30: 343–367.
Olekalns, M., Caza, B. B., & Vogus, T. J. 2020. Gradual
drifts, abrupt shocks: From relationship fractures
to relational resilience. Academy of Management
Annals, 14: 1–28.
Petriglieri, J. L. 2015. Co-creating relationship repair: Path-
ways to reconstructing destabilized organizational
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,60:
518–557.
Phillips, K. W. & Loyd, D. L. 2006. When surface and deep-
level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group
members. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99: 143–160.
Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld,
D. H. 2004. Diverse groups and information sharing:
26 Academy of Management Review Month

The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 40: 497–510.
Pierce, C. 1970. Offensive mechanisms. In F. B. Barbour
(Ed.), The black seventies:265–282. Boston: Porter
Sargent.
Pitcan, M., Park-Taylor, J., & Hayslett, J. 2018. Black men
and racial microaggressions at work. Career Develop-
ment Quarterly, 66: 300–314.
Plant, E. A. & Devine, P. G. 1998. Internal and external
motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 811–832.
Popper, K. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery.New
York: Basic Books.
Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. 2003. Fostering meaningful-
nessinwork.InK.S.Cameron,J.E.Dutton,&R.P.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline:309–327. San Fran-
cisco: Barrett-Koehler.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann,
R., & Crosby, J. R. 2008. Social identity contingencies:
How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African
Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 94: 615–630.
Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond
qualitative and quantitative strategies.Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ragins, B. R. 2008. Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents
and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas
across life domains. Academy of Management
Review, 33: 194–215.
Rattan, A. & Dweck, C. S. 2010. Who confronts prejudice?
The role of implicit theories in the motivation to
confront prejudice. Psychological Science,21:
952–959.
Rattan, A. & Dweck, C. S. 2018. What happens after preju-
dice is confronted in the workplace? How mindsets
affect minorities’and women’s outlook on future
social relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103:
676–687.
Reis, H. T. & Patrick, B. C. 1996. Attachment and intimacy:
Component processes. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kru-
glanski (Eds.), Handbook of basic principles:523–
563. New York: Guilford Press.
Rosette, A. S., Akinola, M., & Ma, A. 2018. Subtle discrimi-
nation in the workplace: Individual-level factors and
processes. In A. J. Colella, & E. B. King (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination:
7–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. On
the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and
review. Research in Organizational Behavior,30:
91–127.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. 1998. The
investment model scale: Measuring commitment
level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and
investment size. Personal Relationships,5:357–387.
Sedikides, C. 2012. Self-protection. In M. R. Leary, & J. P.
Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity:327–
353. New York: Guilford Press.
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A., &
Chavous, T. M. 1998. Multidimensional model of
racial identity: A reconceptualization of African
American racial identity. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review,2:18–39.
Shaver, K. G. 1985. The attribution of blame: Causality,
responsibility, blameworthiness. New York: Springer
Verlag.
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Trawalter, S.
2005. Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial
interactions. Psychological Science, 16: 397–402.
Shore,L.M.,Randel,A.E.,Chung,B.G.,Dean,M.A.,Hol-
combe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. 2011. Inclusion and
diversity in work groups: A review and model for
future research. Journal of Management,37:1262–
1289.
Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. 1999. Social dominance: An inter-
group theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Singh, R. S., Bhambhani, Y., Skinta, M. D., & Torres-
Harding, S. R. 2021. Measurement of intersectional
microaggressions: Conceptual barriers and recommen-
dations. Perspectives on Psychological Science,16:
956–971.
Smith, I. A. & Griffiths, A. 2022. Microaggressions, every-
day discrimination, workplace incivilities, and other
subtle slights at work: A meta-synthesis. Human
Resource Development Review, 21: 275–299.
Solomon, D. H. & McLaren, R. M. 2008. Relational framing
theory. In P. Schrodt, K. M. Scharp, & D. O.
Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interper-
sonal communication: Multiple perspectives:103–
116. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spanierman, L. B., Clark, D. A., & Kim, Y. 2021. Reviewing
racial microaggressions research: Documenting tar-
gets’experiences, harmful sequelae, and resistance
strategies. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
16: 1037–1059.
Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. 2011. High
quality connections. In G. Spreitzer, & K. Cameron
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational
scholarship:385–399. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sternglanz, R. W. & DePaulo, B. M. 2004. Reading nonver-
bal cues to emotions: The advantages and liabilities of
2025 Jackson and Tewfik 27

relationship closeness. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 28: 245–266.
Sue, D. & Spanierman, L. 2020. Microaggressions in
everyday life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sue, D. W. 2010. Microaggressions in everyday life:
Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle,
C. Z., & Mendez, N. 2019. Disarming racial microag-
gressions: Microintervention strategies for targets,
White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist,
74: 128–142.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C., Torino, G., Bucceri, J., Holder,
A., Nadal, K., & Esquilin, M. 2007. Racial microaggres-
sions in everyday life: Implications for clinical prac-
tice. American Psychologist, 62: 271–286.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations:
33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of
intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations:7–24.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tao, K. W., Owen, J., & Drinane, J. M. 2017. Was that racist?
An experimental study of microaggression ambiguity
and emotional reactions for racial–ethnic minority
and white individuals. Race and Social Problems,9:
262–271.
Todd,A.R.&Galinsky,A.D.2014.Perspective-takingasa
strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence,
mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Person-
ality Psychology Compass,8:374–387.
Trefalt,

S. 2013. Between you and me: Setting work-
nonwork boundaries in the context of workplace rela-
tionships. Academy of Management Journal,56:
1802–1829.
Wang, J., Leu, J., & Shoda, Y. 2011. When the seemingly
innocuous “stings”racial microaggressions and their
emotional consequences. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin,37:1666–1678.
Washington, E. F., Birch, A. H., & Roberts, L. M. 2020. July
3: When and how to respond to microaggressions.
Harvard Business Review.
Weber, A., Collins, S.-A., Robinson-Wood, T., Zeko-
Underwood, E., & Poindexter, B. 2018. Subtle and
severe: Microaggressions among racially diverse
sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality,65:
540–559.
West, K. 2019. Testing hypersensitive responses: Ethnic
minorities are not more sensitive to microaggressions,
they just experience them more frequently. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin,45:1619–1632.
Wilkins-Yel, K. G., Hyman, J., & Zounlome, N. O. 2019.
Linking intersectional invisibility and hypervisibility
to experiences of microaggressions among graduate
women of color in STEM. Journal of Vocational
Behavior,113:51–61.
Williams, M. G. & Lewis, J. A. 2019. Gendered racial micro-
aggressions and depressive symptoms among Black
women: A moderated mediation model. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 43: 368–380.
Williams, M. T. 2020. Microaggressions: Clarification, evi-
dence, and impact. Perspectives on Psychological
Science,15:3–26.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. 2003. Inter-
personal sensemaking and the meaning of work.
Research in Organizational Behavior,25:93–135.
Yamaguchi, M., Smith, A., & Ohtsubo, Y. 2015. Commit-
ment signals in friendship and romantic relationships.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 36: 467–474.
Yovetich, N. A. & Rusbult, C. E. 1994. Accommodative
behavior in close relationships: Exploring transforma-
tion of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 30: 138–164.
Zeiders,K.H.,Landor,A.M.,Flores,M.,&Brown,A.
2018. Microaggressions and diurnal cortisol: Examining
within-person associations among African-American
and Latino young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health,
63: 482–488.
Summer R. Jackson (sjackson@hbs.edu) is an assistant
professor of organizational behavior at Harvard Business
School. Her research uses ethnographic methods to study
organizational inequality, social hierarchies, and related
topics in the sociology of work and occupations. She
earned her PhD in management from the economic soci-
ology group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sloan School of Management.
Basima A. Tewfik (btewfik@mit.edu) is an assistant pro-
fessor of work and organization studies at the MIT Sloan
School of Management. She studies the psychology of the
social self at work, with a focus on workplace impostor
thoughts (also known as the “impostor phenomenon”)
and workplace microaggressions.
28 Academy of Management Review Month