This Idea can be purchased for personal use only here
A new Mitigation–Signalling Model clarifies how allyship behaviours impact marginalized individuals’ work outcomes. Allyship, defined as efforts to change perceived disadvantages and support the disadvantaged, operates via two paths: the mitigation path, which reduces root causes of inequality (discrimination, unequal access to resources); and the signaling path, which provides socioemotional affirmation (safety, social value). The mitigation path is argued to lead to more significant and longer-lasting improvements.
A study from the University of North Carolina and the University of Virginia researchers addresses the ongoing challenge of workplace disparities that leave marginalised individuals, who are historically excluded from dominant groups, reporting worse professional outcomes, lower well-being, and strained relationships compared to their advantaged colleagues. While allyship behaviours (actions by advantaged individuals to support marginalised individuals) are frequently promoted as a solution, the effectiveness and consequences of these actions are only partially understood.
To address this gap, the researchers developed the Mitigation–Signalling Model, a conceptual framework that synthesises definitions and clarifies how allyship behaviours affect marginalised individuals’ outcomes.
The model first holistically defines allyship behaviours as encompassing efforts to effect change or provide support in relation to the perceived disadvantages faced by marginalised individuals.
It then categorises allyship into four distinct, non-interchangeable actions:
The first two categories of allyship describe efforts to effect change; the last two describe efforts to provide support.
The Mitigation–Signalling Model then proposes two independent pathways through which these behaviours influence work outcomes (which include both professional results and well-being measures).
The Mitigation Path focuses on eliminating or disrupting three underlying mechanisms of disadvantage. Specifically, the model proposes that Confrontation works to reduce interpersonal discrimination (discriminatory treatment by individuals). Advocacy combats structural discrimination (institutional biases in policies or systems). Finally, Instrumental Support seeks to correct unequal access to resources (gaps in networks, influence, or skills needed to navigate careers).
The Signalling Path focuses on the symbolic value of allyship behaviours. When marginalised individuals observe these actions, they interpret them as socio-emotional signals regarding their social value, safety, or competence within the organisation. Interpreting these positive signals buffers against fear of being devalued and leads to improved well-being. Unlike the mitigation path, any observed allyship behaviour (confrontation, advocacy, and instrumental support as well as emotional support) can be interpreted as a signal. That said, the researchers note that the mitigation path, which addresses root causes, is expected to have a more significant and longer-lasting impact compared to the socio-emotional benefits provided by the signalling path.
The researchers found empirical support for their Mitigation–Signalling Model through an exhaustive review of more than 600 academic articles related to the issues in their model. Eventually, they identified 58 articles that specifically informed their conclusions. While the model was supported, a wide variety of factors can influence the success and failure of the model’s mitigation and signalling paths. For example, whether the person confronting someone engaged in discrimination is from the marginalised or advantaged population makes a difference: an advantaged confronter is more likely to successfully reduce the discrimination. Another difference, staying within the same path, is the tone of the confrontation. A confrontation framed positively is likely to be more successful than a confrontation framed negatively.
While these caveats offer numerous channels for further scholarly study, the model itself does offer some practical implications for employees, managers, and organisational leaders. Potential allies should recognise that their allyship efforts may not always have the hoped-for impact in reducing the disadvantage or improving work outcomes (e.g., well-being). That said, managers can help promote successful allyship through training that distinguishes the various types of allyship behaviour as described in this research, and the specific effects that such behaviour can have in certain contexts. At the organisational level, leaders should also recognise the complexity of allyship intentions and results. If they want to create a culture that promotes and rewards allyship, they should invest in standardised, validated measures—measures that will help ensure successful allyship behaviours in their organisation. Specifically, organisational leaders can use the model to design measures focused on the impact of allyship behaviours on the three mechanisms of disadvantage: interpersonal discrimination, structural discrimination, and unequal access to resources.
Alyssa Tedder-King’s profile at UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alyssatedderking/
Melanie Prengler’s profile at UVA Darden School of Business
https://www.darden.virginia.edu/faculty-research/directory/melanie-prengler
Elad Sherf’s profile at UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School
https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/directory/elad-sherf/
The Mitigation-Signaling Model: An Integrative Conceptual Review of Allyship Behaviors’ Consequences for Marginalized Individuals. Alyssa Tedder-King, Melanie K. Prengler, und Elad N. Sherf. Journal of Applied Psychology (June 2016).
Ideas for Leaders is a free-to-access site. If you enjoy our content and find it valuable, please consider subscribing to our Developing Leaders Quarterly publication, this presents academic, business and consultant perspectives on leadership issues either as a digital subscription, or better still in a beautifully produced, small volume delivered to your desk four times a year.
For the less than the price of a coffee a week you can read over 650 summaries of research that cost universities over $1 billion to produce.
Use our Ideas to:
Speak to us on how else you can leverage this content to benefit your organization. info@ideasforleaders.com
