Examining the Context and Content of Organizational Solidarity Statements on Black Americans' Expectations of Identity Safety.

Abstract

Despite the increasing use of organizational solidarity statements following instances of social injustice, little-to-no research has examined whether these statements signal inclusion for minoritized groups. The present work investigates how different types of solidarity statements affect Black Americans' sense of identity safety and assesses mechanisms underlying their responses. Across three online experiments, Black Americans recruited from Prolific Academic (N = 1,668) saw solidarity statements from a fictional organization that were either written in response to a race-related event at the societal level (e.g., George Floyd's murder; Studies 1-2) or an instance of racism occurring at the organizational level (Study 3). The statements were manipulated on three dimensions: acknowledgment of systemic racism, acknowledgment of organizational racism, and inclusion of concrete actions to address racism (Study 2). Findings showed that statements which acknowledged systemic racism or included actions to address racism were more likely to increase identity safety, whereas statements acknowledging racist organizational practices were relatively less effective at promoting identity safety. Feelings of identity safety emerged via decreased perceptions that the organization was engaging in performative allyship and/or increased perceptions of procedural fairness. Collectively, findings elucidate features of organizational solidarity statements that are more (versus less) effective for promoting identity safety among Black Americans.