#BLACKEMPLOYEESMATTER: MEGA-THREATS ... - Angelica...

Q Academy of Management Review2019, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1–28.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0127

#BLACKEMPLOYEESMATTER: MEGA-THREATS, IDENTITYFUSION, AND ENACTING POSITIVE DEVIANCE

IN ORGANIZATIONS

ANGELICA LEIGHSHIMUL MELWANI

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Despite recognizing the importance of events, researchers have rarely explored theinfluence of broader societal events on employee experiences and behaviors at work.We integrate perspectives on events and social identities to develop a cross-level the-oretical model of the spillover effects of mega-threats, which we define as negative,large-scale, diversity-related episodes that receive significant media attention. With afocus on highly publicized instances of violence enacted against Black Americans bylaw enforcement as the mega-threat under study, we propose that the coupling of in-trapsychic and group-level processes that occur as a result of a mega-threat leadsminorities to experience identity fusion that involves the blurring of organizational andsocial identities through both affective and cognitive pathways. We further propose thatidentity fusion compels minorities to engage in task and relational positively deviantbehaviors: progroup voice and relational bridging. We also propose that factors withinthe organizational context, including leader compassion, organizational climate forinclusion, and organizational demography, serve to empower minority employees,heightening the functional outcomes of mega-threats.

If I had a son, he’d look like TrayvonMartin.When Ithink about this boy, I think about my own kids(President Barack Obama, response to TrayvonMartin shooting, March 23, 2012).

It’s crazy we have to be afraid to get pulled over orlord forbid we run out of gas or get a flat tire causenow your life is at stake (Kapri Bibbs, NFL player,Twitter response to Terence Crutcher shooting,September 20, 2016).

Oscar Grant could have been any one of our sons,nephews or grandsons (members of InternationalLongshore and Warehouse Union 10, comment onshutting down commerce for a day in honor of Os-car Grant, October 27, 2010).

Events in our world impinge on us. They inciteemotions, elicit cognitions, influence our in-teractions, and change our behaviors, even whenthey do not directly happen to us (Morgeson,

Mitchell, & Liu, 2015). In the epigraphs above,Black Americans describe feeling injured, evenpersonally targeted, when they hear news of un-armed Black Americans being shot by law en-forcement or other authority figures. The sourcesof these quotes are varied—a dockworkers union,a professional football player, and the formerPresident of the United States—yet all expressa common sense of shared racial group mem-bership and are powerful illustrations of the in-fluence that broader societal events can have onindividuals’ emotions, cognitions, and behav-iors. Given the permeability of organizationalboundaries (Katz & Kahn, 1978), experiences ofdiversity that have been traditionally construedas more or less stable (Sveningsson & Alvesson,2003) may actually shift or change as a result ofevents that occur outside of the organizationalcontext. In particular, research in this domainmay benefit from examining diversity as a dy-namic experience, one that may evolve inresponse to events that occur in the broader so-cietal context.A long tradition of organizational research has

shown that events in employees’ lives can influ-ence criticalworkplace outcomes.While researchon the influence of events has focused mainlyon self-relevant events, or events that directly or

As two women of color in academia, we are immenselygrateful for the freedom to openly discuss complex issues re-lated to our own identity experiences at work. We are alsothankful for generative conversations with faculty and stu-dents of the OB area of the Kenan-Flagler Business School,with a special thanks toMatthewPearsall andMikeChristian,who helped us in the revision process. Last, we are verygrateful to Laura Morgan Roberts for her stewardship througheach stage of this paper and three anonymous reviewers fortheir insightful suggestions and developmental feedbackthroughout the review process.

1Copyright of theAcademy ofManagement, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmittedwithout the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0127

personally happen to the individual under study(Mark & Mellor, 1991), scholars are beginning torecognize the criticality of non-self-relevantevents, which occur to others. In this vein, Tilcsikand Marquis (2013) introduced a theory of mega-events—large-scale cultural, political, or com-mercial events that attract significant mediaattention—and have begun to study the impact ofmega-events on firm-level outcomes. In this workmega-events are found to influence firm-levelactions related to philanthropic spending (Luo,Zhang, & Marquis, 2016; Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013)and to enhance mutual dependence among firms(McNamara, Pazzaglia, &Sonpar, 2018).While thisresearch has added to our knowledge about theimpact of mega-events for firms as a whole, it hasnot considered the top-down impact of mega-events on individuals within organizations.

Thus, the purpose of this article is to extendmega-events theorizing beyond the current fram-ing by presenting amodel that explains the cross-level impact of these events on individuals’mutable experiences of diversity at work. Giventhat organizations are more likely to respond tomega-events that occur within their local com-munities because they are more relevant to them(Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013), we argue that em-ployees also respond differentially to societalevents, based on the extent to which they identifywith the individuals or groups implicated in theevent. Focusing primarily onminority employees,which Ragins (1997) defined as organizationalmembers who belong to social identity groupsthat have lower levels of power within organiza-tions and society, in this article we seek to un-derstand how minority employees respond to aparticular form of mega-event—a mega-threat—which we define as a negative, large-scale,diversity-related episode that receives signifi-cant media attention. Based on this definition, amega-threat occurs when an individual or groupis targeted, attacked, or harmed because of theirsocial identity group and that event is then highlypublicized. Recent examples of mega-threatsabound: the 2016 Orlando Pulse nightclub shoot-ing, the implementation of the U.S. Muslim im-migration ban, the separation of families at theU.S./Mexicanborder byU.S. immigration officials,the 2017 Finsbury Park attack in London where avanwas driven into a crowd of pedestrians near aMuslim mosque, the highly publicized accusa-tions of sexual harassment by Hollywood pro-ducer Harvey Weinstein, and the shooting death

of Black American Michael Brown by a law en-forcement officer.In this article we focus on a particular type of

mega-threat: highly publicized instances of po-lice violence and shootings of Black Americans.As evidenced by the epigraphs at the beginningof this article and in recent research (Bor,Venkataramani, Williams, & Tsai. 2018), in-stances of police brutality enacted against BlackAmericans elicit visceral reactions, especiallyfrom those who share the same racial identity asthe victims. With this mega-threat in the fore-ground, we present a conceptual model that il-lustrates the influence of mega-threats on Blackemployees at work (see Figure 1 for full model).Our proposed dual-pathway model suggests

thatmega-threats spill over into theworkplace byleading social identity group members to experi-ence cognitions and emotions that triggerchanges in the relationship between their identi-ties and subsequent behaviors. On a routine ba-sis, most individuals are likely to enact only theidentity that is considered most relevant to thesituation, turning on their organizational identi-ties and turning off their personal and socialidentities when entering the workplace (Kreiner,Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). For minorities this on/off switching process is particularly poignantbecause they are more likely to see their racialidentities as misaligned with the professionalenvironment (Bell & Nkomo, 2001). Thus, undernormal circumstances many minority employeesmay choose to engage in identity strategiesthat mask, ignore, or disregard their social iden-tities at work (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009;Roberts, Cha, & Kim, 2014), even as these identi-ties remain salient lenses through which theyperceive their workplaces (Major, Quinton, &McCoy, 2002).We suggest, however, that because mega-

threats cause individuals to experience adverseintrapsychic outcomes—namely, negative emo-tions and rumination—they impel these socialidentities to become activated and stay at the forewithin the workplace, along with their alreadyactivated organizational identities. Becausethese identities often operate with opposing andindependent sets of expectations, scripts, andvalues (Bell, 1990; Roberts, 2005), their simulta-neous activation will typically lead to an experi-ence of identity conflict or interference (Bell,1990; Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009; Settles, 2004).However, we argue that because mega-threats

2 JulyAcademy of Management Review

FIGURE1

AMod

elof

theInflue

nceof

Meg

a-Th

reats

andIden

tity

Fusion

onIndividu

alsin

Organ

izations

Iden

tity

fusi

on

Vis

cera

l fee

lin

gof

on

enes

s w

ith

a g

rou

p w

her

eth

eb

oun

da

ries

bet

wee

nor

ga

niz

ati

ona

la

nd

soci

al s

elf b

lur

Gro

up

iden

tifi

cati

on

Intr

apsy

chic

pro

cess

Gro

up-l

evel

pro

cess

es

Neg

ati

ve e

mot

ion

sP2

P1c

P1d

P3d

P3c

P6

P7b,

P8b

P7a,

P8a

P5

P9

P1a,

P1b

P3a,

P3b

P3

Cog

nit

ive

rum

ina

tion

Em

otio

na

l sh

ari

ng

Col

lect

ive

sen

sem

aki

ng

Fa

mil

ism

Rel

ati

ona

lb

rid

gin

g

Org

an

iza

-ti

ona

ld

emog

rap

hy

Lea

der

com

pa

ssio

n

&

clim

ate

for

incl

usi

on

Pro

-g

rou

pvo

ice

Meg

a-th

reat

s

Neg

ati

ve, l

arg

e-sc

ale

, div

ersi

ty-

rela

ted

epis

odes

tha

t rec

eive

sig

nif

ica

nt

med

ia a

tten

tion

concern all members of a social identity group,affected employees will also engage in affectiveand cognitive group-level processes with otheringroupmembers tomakesenseof the threats.Weposit that these group-level processes will theninteract with individuals’ intrapsychic experi-ences to kindle identity fusion, in which individ-uals experience the reconstruction or eliminationof the boundaries between their organizationaland social identities such that they experience adeep, visceral feeling of “oneness” with theirgroup (Swann, Gomez, Seyle, Morales, & Huici,2009; Swann, Jetten, Gomez, Whitehouse, &Bastian, 2012). We then posit that this experienceof identity fusion will act as a catalyst to motivatepersonally risky, progroup behavior (e.g., Gomezet al., 2011; Swann et al., 2009), which, in organi-zational settings, takes the form of positive de-viance, or intentional actions that depart fromorganizational norms to benefit an individual’sgroup (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Vadera, Pratt,& Mishra, 2013).

In this article we focus on two positively deviantworker behaviors that are task related and re-lational, which are progroup voice—speakingup on behalf of one’s group—and relationalbridging—building high-quality connections withdiverse others—respectively. Furthermore, we de-scribe threecontextual facilitating factors thatmayenhance individuals’ internal experience of powerto engage in these risky progroup behaviors:leader compassion, an organizational climate forinclusion, and organizational demography. Weassert that these factors, when combined withidentity fusion, have especially potent effects onthe enactment of positive deviance, countering or-ganizationalexpectations thatminorityemployeesaccept the status quo and stay silent at work.

Our goals in this article are threefold. First, byhighlighting the far-reaching spillover effects oflarge-scale, diversity-related occurrences (i.e.,mega-threats) on experiences of diversity in or-ganizations, we address calls for research on theinfluence of changes in macrosocietal context onindividual organizational experiences (Johns,2006; Morgeson et al., 2015) and perceptions ofdiversity (Joshi & Roh, 2009). Diversity—that is,differences among individuals that arise fromdemographic characteristics, experiences, and/orperspectives (Thomas & Ely, 1996)—typically hasbeen examined as a static phenomenon andtreated as fixed or unchanging (Sveningsson &Alvesson, 2003). By contrast, our theory assumes

that diversity experiences are dynamic: we positthat mega-threats forcibly alter the relationshipbetween organizational and social identities,changing how minority organizational membersview their experiences of diversity.Our second goal in this article is to propose a

mechanism whereby mega-threats lead to func-tional organizational outcomes. Specifically, weargue that identity fusion, a possible conse-quence of a mega-threat, is an important ante-cedent to positive change within organizationssince it leads individuals to engage in two pro-ductive behaviors: progroup voice and relationalbridging aimed at improving the social stature ofa group within the organizational context. Wealso postulate that factors in the organizationalcontext, including leader compassion, a climatefor inclusion, and organizational demography,serve to empowerminority employees to act moreaudaciously and heighten the functional out-comes of mega-threats.Last, our third goal in this article is to shine a

light on the unique experiences of Black em-ployees. Organizational scholars have noted thatmanagement researchers typically take a homo-geneous approach to theorizing, with minorityperspectives typically being overlooked or ig-nored (Bell&Nkomo, 2001;Nkomo, 1992).While ourtheory is relevant for any minority employeecoping with the occurrence of a relevant mega-threat, we specifically focus on highly publicizedinstances of violence enacted against BlackAmericans by law enforcement officers as thespecific mega-threat under study. To underscorethe reason why we focus on this particular mega-threat: Black Americans are three times morelikely than are White Americans to be killed bypolice and five times more likely to be killed un-armed (Buehler, 2017). Thus,wesuggest that Blackemployees in particular are constantly copingwith the occurrence of group-relevant mega-threats. However, the spillover effects of thesesocietal events on Black employees have largelybeen overlooked by management scholars. Bycentering our theorizing on the experiences ofBlack workers after instances of police violenceenacted against Black Americans, we add to anascent body of organizational research in whichscholars have begun to investigate the uniquechallenges and experiences of Black workers(Ashburn-Nardo, Thomas, & Robinson, 2017;McCluney, Bryant, King, & Ali, 2017; Opie &Roberts, 2017).


In sum, our model of mega-threats specifieswhy, when, and how these events can be galva-nizing for minority employees and the organiza-tions theybelong to.We integrate fragmentedanddisparate bodies of literature onevents, emotions,and identities to build a dual-pathway (individual-and group-level) model that includes both affec-tive and cognitive components. Accordingly, wehighlight the factors that cultivate identity fusionand its potentially functional effects, and we offercritical moderators upon which these outcomesdepend. We conclude by offering an agenda forfuture theory and research.

BUILDING A THEORY OF MEGA-THREATSIN ORGANIZATIONS

Since the early days of organizational research(Allport, 1940; Pepper, 1948), scholars have recog-nized that organizational phenomena are bestunderstood by virtue of the events that are en-countered by organizations as a whole and theentities within them. Defined as discrete, observ-able, discontinuous, nonroutine episodes thatoccur within or outside of an organization’s envi-ronment (Morgeson et al., 2015), organizationalevents have also been referred to as “critical in-cidents” (Flanagan, 1954), “shocks” (Lee &Mitchell, 1994), “jolts” (Meyer, 1982), “milestones”(Hoffmann, 1999), “occurrences” (Basch & Fischer,1998), and “emergencies” (Latane & Darley, 1969).Highlighting their import, researchers havestated that these events occur “at every hierar-chical level, from the most molar environmentallevel to the most molecular individual level”(Morgeson et al., 2015: 515). For instance, at theindividual level, “affective events” (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996) are proximal causes of in-trapsychic emotions; at the dyadic level, “an-choring events”affect interpersonal relationships(Ballinger & Rockmann, 2010); at the teamlevel, “critical events” and “interruptive events”impinge on team processes to influence teamperformance (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006; Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003); and at the firm level, events such astechnology introductions and mergers have far-reaching effects on organizational performance(Barley, 1986; Burkhardt & Brass, 1990).While this wide-ranging work provides a thor-

ough picture of the vital role of events at work, italso exemplifies how “event” researchers tend tofocus on the single-level effects of events, con-verging on how an event at a particular level(i.e., individual, team, organization) shapes re-sponses at that same level (Morgeson et al., 2015).However, this approach ignores cross-level ef-fects of events, thus precluding a deeper un-derstanding of how events that occur in thebroader societal context may influence lower-level phenomena—that is, the organizations,teams, and individuals who are not directly in-volved in the event (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000;Morgeson et al., 2015). In an attempt to beginclosing this gap, scholars have proposed that“mega-events”—large-scale cultural, political,athletic, or commercial occurrences that befall acommunity and garner significant media atten-tion (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013)—exert a powerfulimpact on firm-level actions, such as corporategiving. Figure 2 illustrates the relationshipamong mega-events and other types of events.However, this work has yet to explore how

mega-events influence individual outcomes(Morgeson et al., 2015). We therefore extend

FIGURE 2A Typology of Events Within the Organizational Literature

Event location Inside organization Outside organization

Even

t rel

evan

ce

Self

Occurrences that happen directly to actors inside the boundaries of an organization

Occurrences that happen directly to focal actors outside the boundaries of an organization

Example theories: Affective events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), lunch breaks (Trougakos, Hideg, Cheng, & Beal, 2014), traumatic work events (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Vashdi, 2005), identity threat (Petriglieri, 2011)

Example theories: Life events (Bhagat, 1983), discontinuous career transition (Haynie & Shepherd, 2011), work commutes (Hennessy, 2008), work-family conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)

Oth

er

Occurrences that happen to distant others inside the boundaries of an organization

Occurrences that happen to distant others outside the boundaries of an organization

Example theories: Event system (Morgeson, Mitchell, & Liu, 2015), organizational identity threats (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996)

Example theories: Mega-events (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013)

2019 5Leigh and Melwani

research on mega-events by building a theoryof how individuals are impacted by one type ofmega-event—amega-threat—whichwedefineasnegative, large-scale, diversity-related episodesthat receive significant media attention. Weidentify three defining characteristics of mega-threats: identity relevance, negativity, and broadimpact. First, regarding identity relevance, re-search on mega-events has shown that bothplanned events (e.g., the Olympic Games or theSuper Bowl) and exogenous shocks (e.g., naturaldisasters) can affect individuals, groups, and or-ganizations that make up the community wherethe event has occurred (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013).Yet this focus on community as a geographic lo-cation is somewhat restrictive when we considerthat a community can be more comprehensivelydefined as a group of people having a particularinterest or characteristic in common (Bender, 1978;see Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary). We draw onthis more inclusive definition of community toposit that mega-threats are diversity related—that is, highly germane to any individual whoshares a social identity with an individualor group involved in the event, such as race,ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or otheridentity characteristic, regardless of the in-dividual’s geographic location in relation to theevent. Second, because the identity groups inquestion are threatened, devalued, or harmed bymega-threats, we identify these events as in-herently negative. Finally, mega-threats garnersignificant media attention. This includes tradi-tional media attention (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013),such as coverage on the news, as well as morecontemporary forms of media attention on plat-forms like Facebook and Twitter (Leonardi &Vaast, 2017). Together, these three characteris-tics distinguish mega-threats from other large-scale events.

In this articlewedemonstrate themain tenets ofour theory by considering onemajor type ofmega-threat: instances of police shootings and brutalityenacted against Black men and women that havereceived significantmedia attention over the pastdecade. A few examples of these mega-threatsinclude the 2014 shooting of Black teenager Mi-chael Brown by a police officer, the 2015 death ofSandra Bland in police custody following an ille-gal arrest, the 2015 death of EricGarner as a resultof an illegal police chokehold, and the 2018shooting of Stephon Clark by two Sacramentopolice officers, all of which underscore the

experience of danger for Black Americans in in-teractions with law enforcement. As per our defi-nition, these tragic instances were accompaniedby considerable media attention; for instance, 3.7million tweets were posted in response to theMichael Brown shooting, making it one of themost-tweeted topics in 2014 (Kamarck, 2015).These examples each fit the definition of a mega-threat in that they are large-scale events thatparticularly threaten Black Americans becausethey contradict a value shared that all Americans,regardless of race or ethnicity, are united underthe motto of e pluribus unum (out of many, one)and, thus, should be treated equally and justlyunder the law (McAuliffe, 2010). Table 1 providesdetails regarding the numerous mega-threatsreferenced in this article.

A DUAL-PATHWAY MODEL OF MEGA THREATS

To understand how mega-threats influencedownstream outcomes for individuals’ identitiesand work behaviors, we propose a dual-pathwayprocess that has both affective and cognitiveprocesses operating simultaneously at the indi-vidual and group levels. At the individual level,we argue that mega-threats act as stressors thatlead minorities to experience negative emotionsand cognitive rumination. We then argue thatmega-threats trigger a second group-level path-way, where group members collectively engagein the social sharing of emotion and sensemakingabout the event, and that it is the combination ofthese intrapsychic and group processes thatleads to identity fusion. We then describe howindividual-level group identification and group-level cultural values moderate intrapsychic- andgroup-level pathways, respectively.We posit that these pathways serve as the

proximal mechanisms that influence how in-dividuals’ identities operate at work. Individ-uals in organizations have multiple identities(Ramarajan, 2014), includingpersonal identities, oridiosyncratic characteristics of an individual;social identities, or aspects of an individual’s self-concept that are derived from membership insocial groups (e.g., race or gender); and organiza-tional identities, which include the self-definitionsthat arise from workgroups or roles within organi-zations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner,1985). Typically, researchers view identities asdistinct entities that areseparated fromeachother,operating such that situational features of an


individual’s context at any given moment triggersthe activation of one identity and quells the others(Kreiner et al., 2006; Phinney, 1990; Rothbard &Ramarajan, 2009). Accordingly, this researchsuggests that the work context likely activates in-dividuals’ organizational identities while deacti-vating their social identities (Kreiner et al., 2006).This identity-switching process is particularly im-portant for minority employees whose socialidentities are intentionallymanaged ormasked soas not to draw attention to characteristics thatmake them appear visibly different within theworkplace (Roberts et al., 2014). Even if they are not

entirely “switched off,” these social identities maystay salient, operating passively in the back-ground and enabling minority individuals to stayvigilant for cues of possible devaluation (Emerson& Murphy, 2014; Major et al., 2002); under normalcircumstances minority employees may not allowtheir social identities to remain activated guidingbehavior while at work. Yet scholars have alsoposited that identities can be simultaneouslycoactivated, either ina compatibleway,working inharmony with each other, or in a conflictual man-ner, interferingwithoneanother (Ashforth,Kreiner,& Fugate, 2000; Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009).

TABLE 1Examples of Recent Mega-Threats

Name of Mega-Threat Description of Mega-ThreatDate ofOccurrence

Identity Group Threatedby the Event

Shooting death of TrayvonMartin

TrayvonMartin, an unarmedBlack teen,was shot bya neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida,sparking the creation of the Black Lives Mattermovement

2/26/2012 Black Americans

Shooting death of TerenceCrutcher

Terence Crutcher, an unarmed Black man, was shotby police after having car trouble on a highway inTulsa, OK


Orlando Pulse nightclubshooting

49 people were killed and 58 were wounded in amass shooting/hate crime inside Pulse nightclub,a LGBTQ nightclub in Orlando, FL

6/12/2016 LGBTQ community

U.S. Muslim immigrationban

ExecutiveOrder 13769 suspended the entry of Syrianrefugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya,Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (6 of 7 Muslim-majority countries) into the United States

1/27/2017 Muslims/immigrants

Separationof families at theU.S./Mexico border

“Zero tolerance” policy enacted that criminalized allimmigrants into theUnitedStates, including thoseseeking asylum, and separated thousands offamilies at the border

5/7/2018 Latin Americans/immigrants

Finsbury Park attack inLondon, England

DarrenOsbornedrovea van into a crowdofMuslimsleaving evening prayer during the month ofRamadan; 1 person was killed and 10 others wereinjured

6/19/2017 Muslims

Harvey Weinstein sexualharassment allegations

The New York Times published an investigativereport chronicling accusations of sexualmisconduct and harassment against HarveyWeinstein

10/5/2017 Women

Death of Sandra Bland SandraBland, aBlackwoman,was foundhanging ina jail cell 3 days after an illegal arrest in Texas


Shooting death of MichaelBrown

Michael Brown, an unarmed Black teen, was shot bya police officer, sparking months of protest andunrest in Ferguson, MO


Death of Eric Garner Eric Garner, a Black man, was killed in analtercation with police, where 5 officers held himin an illegal chokehold while he yelled, “I can’tbreathe”


Shooting of Stephon Clark Stephon Clark, a Black man, was shot by 2 policeofficers who confronted him while in hisgrandmother’s backyard in Sacramento, CA


Note: The events are listed in the order they are referenced in the article.


Drawing from this work, we argue below thatwhen decoupled from group-level processes,mega-threats have negative intrapsychic out-comes, engendering negative emotions and rumi-nation processes that rouse minority employees’social identities and highlight the aspects of howthese social identities conflict with their organiza-tional identities. Because of the tension involved inmanagingboth of theseconflicting identities at thesame time, individuals will likely experienceidentity interference (Hirsh & Kang, 2016; Settles,2004) between their organizational and socialidentities, impeding them from fully enacting theirorganizational roles. However, when minority em-ployees engage in group-level processes in re-sponse to mega-threats, these group processes actin concert with intrapsychic ones, compelling mi-norities to reconstruct the relationship betweentheir conflicting organizational and social identi-ties to produce identity fusion, a visceral sense ofoneness between social and organizational iden-tities that, we suggest, has positive organizationaloutcomes.

Intrapsychic Outcomes of Mega-Threats

Individual-level affective process: Negativeemotions. We draw from appraisal theories ofemotions (for a review see Ellsworth & Scherer,2003) to understand individuals’ affective re-sponses to mega-threats. At the crux of this theo-retical perspective is the stimulus event (Lazarus,1991; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Events that are at-tention grabbing, vivid, novel, unexpected, andrelevant to the needs, values, goals, or beliefs oftheaffected individual (Frijda, 1988; Lazarus, 1991)act as a gateway to emotion. If the event is ap-praised as irrelevant to the individual’s concerns,the individual will return to baseline and nospecific emotion will develop. If the event drawsattention and is evaluated as significant with re-spect to an individual’s goals and desires, theindividual will then judge its intrinsic level ofpleasantness or unpleasantness (Zajonc, 1980) aspart of a swift, unconscious assessment processthat is indistinguishable from the experience ofattention itself (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). Anappraisal of pleasantness andoverall benefitwillelicit positive emotions, whereas an evaluation ofunpleasantness and appraised harm will pro-duce negative emotions (Smith & Lazarus, 1993).

We suggest that mega-threats, which are in-herentlynegative, identitydevaluing,andattention

garnering, are likely to be appraised as undesir-able, deleterious occurrences for relevant groupsand the individuals that belong to them. Drawingon research that has demonstrated that experi-ences of identity devaluationandnegativity lead toanger, anxiety, and increased vigilance (Inzlicht &Kang, 2010; Vescio, Gervais, Snyder, & Hoover,2005), we propose that mega-threats lead impactedidentity group members to experience intenselynegative emotions. Critically, these negative emo-tions also arise when individuals themselves arenot directly involved in the triggering situation(Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). For example, terrorattacks on the World Trade Center in New YorkCity on September 11, 2001, led to crippling anx-iety and stress for many Americans, even thosenot directly involved in the attacks (Yzerbyt,Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003).In turn, we posit that a relevant mega-threat,

such as a highly publicized instance of police vi-olence enacted against a Black American, willlead Black Americans to affectively appraise thisevent as harmful because it highlights the po-tentially dangerous consequences of discrimina-tion and racism that may befall any member ofthis group (Harrell, Hall, & Taliaferro, 2003;Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000). Based on thisset of appraisals, we argue that Black Americanswill be more likely to experience high-arousal,negative emotions like anger, fear, anxiety, andgrief in response to this event (Bor et al., 2018;Mackie et al., 2000). By contrast, Americans ofother races, for whom this event carries neitherpersonal nor group relevance, will likely perceivethis event as but one of the numerous mega-threats occurring across the world every day.Because of a habituation process that makes itdifficult for individuals to have arousing, nega-tive affective reactions to every non-self-relevantevent (Anderson & Bushman, 2001), Americanswho are not Black will be more likely to experi-ence emotions like empathy, pity, or sadness,rather than the anger and anxiety experienced byBlack Americans.Individual-level cognitive process: Cognitive

rumination. When exposed to a mega-threat,group members are also likely to engage in cog-nitive rumination in an attempt to understandthe event. Rumination—repetitive, intrusivethoughts—is a common response to significantevents, from interpersonal interactions to note-worthy personal life experiences (Kashdan &Roberts, 2007; Weick, 1993). We argue that, similar


to personally threatening events, mega-threatscause postevent cognitive rumination, in whichindividuals ruminate about the relevance of theevent to themselves as individuals as well astheir social identity groups.

Mega-threats cause individuals to ruminateabout their social identities because these eventschallenge taken-for-granted notions that we livein a predictable world. As such, because peoplegenerally believe that they are personally in-vulnerable to negative events, that they them-selves are worthy individuals, and that otherpeople get what they deserve, exposure to mega-threats highlighting to minority group membersthat their identities are perceived as lower instatus and desirability shatters these positiveassumptions (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Because theseevents are perceived as unfair and in oppositionto beliefs of how the world works, they cause in-dividuals to view the world as malevolent andfrightening, insteadof benevolent and just (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983), and,thus, they lead individuals to hyperfocus on theirsocial identities. Focusing onmaking sense of theevent and how it affects their identities—a form ofcognitive rumination, or a “cognitive chewing thecud” (Cann et al., 2011: 138)—helps affected in-dividuals rebuild an understanding of their placein the world. For instance, in reacting to theshooting of Terence Crutcher in the epigraph atthe beginning of the article, Karpi Bibbsexpressed fear for his personal safety and thesafety of other Black Americans when interactingwith police. This quote is an example of rumina-tive thoughts triggered by a mega-threat.

Affective-cognitive feedback loop and link toidentity interference and conflict.Once triggered,these intrapsychic affective and cognitive pro-cesses are likely to have bidirectional effects(Pachankis, 2007). Cognitive rumination canmaintain and intensify negative affective states(Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000; Smith & Alloy, 2009) bynegatively biasing individuals’ interpretations oftheir environment and preventing individ-uals from taking action to improve their mood(Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995). Addi-tionally, experiences of negative emotions alsoincrease ruminative thought as individuals seekto understand these emotions, which then servesto further prolong experiences of negative affect(Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000).

We argue that these affective and cognitiveprocesses cause the social identity implicated by

themega-threat to becomeactivatedatwork. Thisexperience stands in contrast to the typical iden-tity transition process, where organizationalidentities switch on and non-work-relevant socialidentities switch off at work (Kreiner et al., 2006).This on/off switching process is especially rele-vant for minority employees who are more likelyto censor and mask their social identities whiledisplaying organizational ones in an attempt toreduce the salience of visible differences (Robertset al., 2014), decrease feelings of dissimilarityin interactions with majority group members(Dumas, Phillips, & Rothbard, 2013), and exhibit aprofessional image (Roberts, 2005). Examples ofthis on/off switching abound in the literature: fe-male scientists describe hiding their femaleidentities when enacting a scientist identity(Settles, 2004), mothers “put on their work hats”when they enter the workplace (Ladge, Clair, &Greenberg, 2012), Black female employees de-scribe needing to “lose their Blackness” and “actWhite” at work (Bell & Nkomo, 2001: 13), and ho-mosexual men prefer to keep “personal mattersout of the office” (Woods & Lucas, 1993: 68).However, in the face of this identity-switching

strategy, the shock of a mega-threat and its ac-companying negative intrapsychic processes arelikely to keep the social identity activated even atwork, an arena in which an individual’s organi-zational identity is typically at the fore. From acognitive standpoint, the process of cognitive ru-mination keeps the social identity at the forefrontof an individual’s mind, since attempts to sup-press negative thoughts about the identity arelikely to fail. Indeed, research shows that duringrumination, participants continue to face in-trusive thoughts (Smart & Wegner, 1999) and ex-perience a rebound effect where thoughts of thetarget emerge even during attempts at suppres-sion (Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987).This effect is especially likely at work, where re-sources focused on additional cognitive tasksmake thought suppression an even more difficultprocess (Wegner & Erber, 1992). Compoundingthis challenge is the role of negative emotions;research has shown that thoughts that have anemotional component are more difficult to sup-press and more likely to recur, especially whenthe emotions associated with the ruminatingthoughts are negative (Edwards & Bryan, 1997;Petrie, Booth, & Pennebaker, 1998). Together, theindividual’s experience of negative emotions andrumination creates an escalating effect in which


the previously switched-off social identity staysat the forefront of an individual’s mind.

The activation of a social identity alongwith anorganizational one is likely to be problematic forminority individuals because their social identi-ties may provide divergent and incompatible setsof expectations about how to engage with othersand enact behaviors at work. This, along with thenegative rumination and emotions that occur as aresult of a mega-threat, restricts an individual’scognitive capacity and prevents them from mak-ing positive connections between their simulta-neously activated identities (Dutton, Roberts, &Bednar, 2010; Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009). In-stead, we posit that the negative intrapsychicexperience of mega-threats leads to the negativechronic activation of two incompatible identities,organizational and social, which will lead toidentity conflict or interference (Hirsh & Kang,2016; Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009; Settles, 2004).

Proposition 1: Mega-threats lead toindividual-level (a) negative emotionsand (b) cognitive rumination that (c)influence each other through a feed-back loop that (d) leads to identity in-terference and conflict.

The Moderating Role of Group Identification

We propose that group identification has animportant moderating influence on the in-trapsychic experience of mega-threats. Groupidentification refers to the extent to which one’smembership in a particular group is incorporatedinto one’s self-definition (Tajfel & Turner, 1985).Individuals high in group identification are likelyto view themselves as representatives of theirgroup as a whole and to define themselves interms of their group (Sellers & Shelton, 2003;Spears, Doosje, & Ellmers, 1997); in contrast, thoselow in group identification are likely to view theirgroup identity as a peripheral or even a non-existent aspect of their self. For members of stig-matized groups, group identification is animportant antecedent to perceptions of discrimi-nation, andhighly identified individualsaremorelikely to be aware of and acknowledge personaland group experiences of discrimination (Sellers& Shelton, 2003). Individuals who are highlyidentifiedwith their groups are alsomore likely toexperience identity-related threats as psycho-logically painful because the threats hurt a cen-tral aspect of themselves (Settles, 2004).

Building on this research, we posit that the in-trapsychic experience of mega-threats will beheightened for individuals high in group identi-fication. Because these individuals have aheightened sense of connection to their group, amega-threat involving another group memberwill trigger highly arousing negative emotions.Indeed, related experiences of discriminationagainst their ingroup leads highly identified in-dividuals to experience depression, sadness, andanger (Hansen & Sassenberg, 2006; Sellers &Shelton, 2003). Highly identified individuals arealso more likely to ruminate about a mega-threatbecause the event challenges an identity that is acore aspect of their self-concept, leading to re-petitive negative thoughts about the event. Tak-ing these findings together, we argue that highlevels of group identification heighten the in-trapsychic experience following the occurrence ofa mega-threat, leading individuals to experiencestronger negative emotions and higher levels ofrumination. Yet we also hold that those low ingroup identification are also affected, albeit to alesser degree. As such, a mega-threat may serveas the less-identified individual’s first encounterwith racism that triggers an awakening (Kim,1981; Phinney, 1990), spurs the experience of im-mersion within their own social identity group(Cross, 1995), and leads to an increase in groupidentification. We therefore hold that for in-dividuals who have low group identification,mega-threats may goad these individuals intorecognizing their status as minority group mem-bers and perceiving the potential threats associ-ated with being a member of their group. Hence,while the intrapsychic experience of mega-threats may be particularly strong for highlyidentified individuals, we argue that individualslow in identification also experience negativeemotions and cognitions as a result of a mega-threat.

Proposition 2: Group identification willmoderate the effect of mega-threats onthe individual-level intrapsychic ex-perience of mega-threats such thathigher levels of identification will leadto increased negative emotions andrumination.

Facilitating Role of Group-Level Outcomes

Because mega-threats pertain to all membersof a social group, individuals confronted by a


mega-threat are likely to seek out groupmembersfor emotional support and social validation. Wepredict that these group interactions involvinggroup-level affective processes of emotionalsharing and cognitive processes of collectivesensemakingwill then combinewith intrapsychicidentity responses to mega-threats to engenderidentity fusion. Identity fusion is a form of groupalignment that has cognitive and affective ante-cedents and entails a deep, visceral feeling of“oneness” with one’s groups (Swann et al., 2012).For highly fused individuals, the boundaries be-tween their identities becomes permeable, andthese identities mutually influence each othersuch that activating one identity necessarily ac-tivates the other (Swann et al., 2012). Below wediscuss the facilitating effect of group-level pro-cesses on the development of identity fusion.

Group-level affective process: Shared emo-tions. Since members of a group will likelyhave similar individual-level emotional ap-praisals of a group-relevant mega-threat, wepropose that processes of emotional sharing(Rime, 1998) and emotional contagion (Barsade,2002) will lead to group-level shared emotion.With regard to emotional sharing, abundant datademonstrate that when people directly or in-directly experience an emotionally chargedevent, they feel compelled to discuss their sub-sequent feelings with others, through a processknown as the social sharing of emotion (Rime,2009). The more intense the emotion associatedwith the event, the more likely individuals are totalk about it (Luminet, Bouts, Delie, Manstead, &Rime, 2000), and theyare also likely todo soalmostimmediately after the emotional event has oc-curred, with 60 percent of people sharing theiremotions on the day of the event (Gable & Reis,2010).

This process of emotional sharing reactivatesthe emotional experience for the person retell-ing their story (Rime, 2009), and this is espe-cially likely for negative emotions (Baumeister,Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). For thereceiver of the emotion, the emotional narrative isin itself an emotion-eliciting situation that gen-erates or exacerbates similar emotions (Zech &Rime, 2005). Because people are more likely toengage in emotional sharing with members oftheir ingroup (Peters & Kashima, 2007), a mega-threat may be an especially potent event. For ex-ample, an online video of the shooting of a Blackteen by police is likely to set off a social sharing

chain reaction among Black people, wherein ev-ery round of sharing reactivates the felt emotionwithin the group (Rime, 2009) and cascades into agroup-level shared emotion.In addition, because simply interacting with an

emotionally expressive individual can triggeremotional contagion processes in both face-to-face interactions (Barsade, 2002) and online com-munications (Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock, 2014),the emotions expressed by the sharer are alsolikely tobe “caught”by thoseon the receivingend.Emotional contagion with a resulting consoli-dated emotion is even more likely when thereceivers have experienced the same emotion-eliciting event (Elfenbein, 2014), when individualssee themselves as being on the “same side”(Lanzetta & Englis, 1989), andwhen they belong tothe same ingroup (Van der Schalk, Fischer,Doosje, Wigbodus, & Hawk, 2011)—all factorsthat are relevant whenmembers of a social groupare discussing a mega-threat. Together, theseaffective sharing experienceswill increase groupshared emotion.Group-level cognitive process: Collective

sensemaking. We also propose that group mem-bers engage in collective sensemaking in whichthey jointly work as a group to attempt to reduceconfusion in the uncertain environment createdby a mega-threat. Specifically, we argue thatmega-threats foment a contextual ambiguity re-garding the value and meaning of social identi-ties and that group members use collectivesensemaking to reduce this ambiguity. Becausecollective sensemaking typically occurs throughsocial interactions (Ashforth, 1985; Ibarra &Andrews, 1993), individuals will aim to makesense of mega-threats by interacting with similarothers with whom they can engage in more in-timate and open self-disclosure and also validatetheir beliefs (Festinger, 1954; Phillips et al., 2009).Critically, given that individuals are more

likely to engage in open communication withsimilar group members, they are more able tothen develop a mutual understanding of themeaning of an uncertain situation (Schneider &Reichers, 1983). This development of mutual un-derstanding may be of particular importance toBlack Americans, for whom storytelling is an im-portant tradition (Cannon, 1995; Haight, 1998) andserves as a means of conveying and preservinghistory (Kouyate, 1989). For example, following thedeath of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Af-rican Americans created a number of Twitter


hashtags, including #WeAreTrayvonMartin,#BlackLivesMatter, and #HandsUpDontShoot,that quickly spread among Black Americans andbecame rallying cries for the Black Lives Mattermovement (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2017; Garza,2014). This shared sentiment among Black Amer-icans that society does not value Black lives andthat their value must be reaffirmed is an exampleof the collective sensemaking process that occursamong group members following a mega-threat.

The combination of group-level and individual-level processes and the development of identityfusion. These group-level affective and cognitiveprocesses influence each other, since the cognitiveprocess of sensemaking is an affectively chargedexperience for dyads and groups (Bartunek,Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006) and group-level shared affect is also linked to an increase insensemaking (Kataria, Kreiner, Hollensbe, Sheep,& Stambaugh, 2018; Rime, 2009). We posit that anoverarching group-level affective and cognitivefeedback loop then combineswith the intrapsychicoutcomes of mega-threats, leading minorities toexperience identity fusion, or a visceral sense ofonenesswith a group that involves the eliminationof boundaries between organizational and socialidentities (Swann et al., 2009; Swann et al., 2012).

While in prior research on identity fusionscholars have predominantly investigated fusionbetween personal and social identities, we positthat because identity fusion can occur with anyset of salient identities (Swann et al., 2012), in-dividuals can also experience fusion betweentheir organizational and social identities while atwork, thus compelling the continued activation ofsocial identities, even while individuals enacttheir organizational roles. When coupledwith theindividual experience of mega-threats, the ex-treme group solidarity and connection fosteredthroughgroup-level processes begins to spill overinto an individual’s organizational identity suchthat the organizational definition of the self be-gins to include the social definition of the self.Thus, highly fused individuals are likely to an-swer in the affirmative to both the statements“My group membership is an important part ofmy work identity” and “My work identity is im-portant to my group identity.” Indeed, whileidentity fusion—an experience that involves thesimultaneous coactivation of an individual’sidentities—has been shown to be different fromgroup identification—in which an individual’sidentities operate like ahydraulic system,with an

activated social identity reducing the salience ofanother identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1985)—we alsosuggest that it is different from similar structuralidentity constructs like identity coactivation(Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009), identity inte-gration (Kreiner et al., 2006), and identity comple-mentarity (Dutton et al., 2010). Specifically, wesuggest that while these particular constructs aresimilar to identity fusion because they also in-volve activated and merged identities, the cau-ses, characteristics, and consequences of identityfusion differentiate this identity experience fromthe others. The four differentiating criteria thatcharacterize identity fusion include the un-expected and dysphoric nature of mega-threats,the accompanying negative intrapsychic pro-cesses of rumination and emotional arousal, thecoupling of these individual-level processes withgroup-level emotions and cognitions aboutmega-threats among group members, and the enact-ment of personally risky, progroup behaviors.First, unlike identity coactivation and in-

tegration, which are experiences that occur inroutine day-to-day situations (Kreiner et al., 2006;Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009), identity fusion oc-curs as a result of unexpected, “dysphoric(i.e., painful and frightening)” occurrences expe-rienced by all members of a group (Whitehouseet al., 2017: 2). Given that mega-threats are par-ticularly intense dysphoric events, we posit thatthey are precursors to identity fusion. For exam-ple, Black Americans have been found to experi-ence symptoms of trauma, such as loss of socialstatus or self-regard and increased fear and an-ger, as a result of a police shooting of an unarmedBlack American (Bor et al., 2018).The painful nature of these events highlights the

second and critical antecedent to identity fusion.Specifically, these events lead to intrapsychicprocesses of personal reflection (Whitehouse &Lanman, 2014) and emotional arousal (Swann,Gomez, Dovidio, Hart, & Jetten, 2010), which createintense, traumatic imagery that becomes part ofindividuals’ self-concepts. The resulting negativeemotionsandrumination,whichserveasoneof thefacilitating conditions for identity fusion, are ex-perienced as arousing and uncomfortable and,thus,atoddswithother identity constructs inwhichsimultaneously activated identities are experi-enced in a positive and harmonious manner(Dutton et al., 2010; Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009).Third, unlike other identity coactivation expe-

riences that are primarily individually oriented


and experienced, because mega-threats aregroup experiences shared by all members of asocial group, they also lead to a visceral and in-herent sense of similarity and connection withgroup members (Swann et al., 2012), and we sug-gest that it is this group-level connection thatcouples with the negative intrapsychic outcomesto lead to identity fusion. By seeing other ingroupmembers emotionally reacting to and makingsense of the same set of upsetting experiences,individuals are likely to feel more tightly coupledwith their social group (Whitehouse et al., 2017).Recent research supports our proposition byshowing that reflection about shared experiences(Jong, Whitehouse, Kavanagh, & Lane, 2015;Whitehouse & Lanman, 2014) and synchronizedemotions (Paez, Rime, Basabe, Wlodarczyk, &Zumeta, 2015) strengthen identity fusion by mak-ing the fused individual see all social groupmembers, even those with whom they have littleto no direct contact, as potential family membersor psychological kin. For instance, while a policeshooting onlydirectly implicates the officer(s) andthe victim(s) of violence, because the eventmakessalient the inherent risk of discrimination or harmto all identity group members, individuals in theaffected group will start to perceive harm towardany of their group member(s) as harm to them-selves. Last, as we describe below, the arousingand discomforting intrapsychic experiences,coupled with group-level relevance and connec-tions, lead individuals to engage in behaviorsthat are beneficial for their group but may haveperilous individual outcomes.

Overall, our proposition suggests that ratherthan the two identities undermining or interferingwith each other, as in the case of identity in-terference, the intrapsychic and group-level pro-cesses combine to foster fusion or interconnectionbetween the two identities.

Proposition 3: Mega-threats lead togroup-level (a) shared emotions and (b)collective sensemaking that (c) influenceeach other through a feedback loop that(d) interacts with individual intrapsychicresponses to lead to identity fusion.

The Moderating Role of the Cultural Valueof Familism

An important cultural value of many socialgroups is familism, an orientation toward thewelfare of one’s own immediate or extended

family (Gaines et al., 1997). We predict that thisvalue of familism influences how groups respondto a mega-threat. For groups high in familism,group members are more likely to turn to eachother for psychological and emotional support,which could enhance the link between mega-threats and group-level processes. In essence,high levels of familism increase the likelihoodthat groupmemberswill feel comfortable sharingtheir emotions and will engage in group sense-making processes following events that impactany member of the group. In contrast, individualswho belong to groups lower in familism are lesslikely to receive psychological or emotional sup-port from their groups andare therefore less likelyto share their internal cognitions or emotionswithgroup members.Thevalueof familismisespecially relevant toour

model because minority groups, including BlackAmericans, tend to have higher levels of familismcompared to other social groups. Consistent withan Afrocentric cultural orientation, communitymembers are viewed as primary resources forpsychological, political, and economic support,thus reinforcing familistic values for Black Ameri-cans (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1995).Additionally, a history of oppression, including theenslavement of Africans and continued discrimi-nation in the United States, have forced BlackAmericans to seek strength in numbers (Harrisonet al., 1995), thus leading to increased familism. Inthe wake of the death of Trayvon Martin, BlackAmericans created the hashtag #WeAreTrayvon toexpressa familistic kinshipwith theslain teenager.This hashtag provided a common language for theshared experience, enhancing group-level emo-tional sharing and sensemaking.

Proposition 4: Familism will moderatethe effect of mega-threats on group-level processes such that higher levelsof familism will lead to increased emo-tional sharing and group sensemaking.

IDENTITY FUSION AND ENACTING POSITIVEDEVIANCE IN ORGANIZATIONS

We have argued that when the negative in-trapsychic experience of mega-threats is decou-pled from group-level processes, the coactivationof individuals’ organizational and social identitiesleads minority employees to experience identityinterference. Identities that are coactivated yet


incompatible provide opposing guidance andheighten uncertainty and conflict (Rothbard &Ramarajan, 2009), an internal experience that ac-tivates the behavioral inhibition system (BIS;Gray,1982). The BIS, in turn, enhances anxiety, turns at-tention to negatively valenced information, andincreases an individual’s sensitivity to potentialenvironmental threats (Hirsh & Kang, 2016). Theseappraisals make behavioral action seem riskier(Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001), makeindividuals more reluctant to freely express theirthoughts (Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993), and increasesocial inhibition (Hirsh & Kang, 2016). It follows,then, that theactivationof theBIS thataccompaniesidentity interference triggered by a mega-threatwill lead individuals to shut down socially, remainsilent, and withdraw from their organizations.

In contrast to the negative outcomes of identityinterference, we argue that identity fusion, whichoccurs as a result of both intrapsychic and group-level processes, acts as a catalyst to positive de-viance, heightening “intentional behaviors thatdepart from the norms of a referent group in hon-orable ways” (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004: 209).We posit that when minorities engage in behav-iors on behalf of their social group within the or-ganizational context, these behaviors are, in fact,“positively deviant” because they depart fromorganizational norms, which dictate that socialidentities should be deactivated—and not drivebehavior—at work (Dumas et al., 2013; Roberts,2005). Because identity fusion provides individ-uals with the motivational machinery to act onbehalf of their group, even when those behaviorscarry self-relevant risks (Swann et al., 2012), wepredict that identity fusion will enhance positivedeviance. Within the construct of positive de-viance, we focus on the impact of identity fusionon a task-related behavior, progroup voice, whichis a speaking-up behavior that aims to improvethe organizational context for a specific socialgroup (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998;Bell, Ozbilgin, Beauregard, & Surgevil, 2011), anda relational behavior, relational bridging, whichinvolves creating ties with dissimilar others(McEvily & Zaheer, 1999).

Identity Fusion and Progroup Voice

While “voice” is broadly described as discre-tionary speaking-up behavior aimed at enhanc-ing organizational functioning (for a review seeMorrison, 2014), we focus specifically on progroup

voice, a speaking-up behavior that aims to im-prove the organizational context for employeeswho belong to a specific social group (Ashfordet al., 1998; Bell et al., 2011). This form of voice isaimed at improving the organization because itfosters a sense of inclusion, empowerment, andbelonging for minority employees (Bell et al.,2011), but it may be considered an act of positivedeviance because it challenges the status quo(Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). For minority em-ployees in particular, who are accustomed toconcealing their identities at work (Phillips et al.,2009) for fear of drawing attention to differencesthat activate low-status demographic stereotypesor result in backlash (Hekman, Johnson, Foo, &Yang, 2017; Roberts, 2005), engaging in this formofvoice may be especially risky. Given pressures toremain silent, many minority employees maydecidenot to engage inprogroup voice, a decisionthat would prevent organizations from success-fully achieving parity and inclusion acrossgroups.We argue that one important antecedent to

progroup voice is identity fusion, a state thatprovides minorities with the motivation neces-sary to engage in risky progroup voice for tworeasons. First, strongly fused individuals come tosee their group members as family (Swann et al.,2014), a perception often manifested in linguisticexpressions of kinship among group members(e.g., BlackAmericans routinely refer toeachotheras “brothers and sisters”; Atran, 2010; Baugh,1991). This experience of kinship causes groupmembers to perceive a threat to any group mem-ber as a threat to the self, compelling fused in-dividuals to defend the group (Swann et al., 2009).Second, because identity fusion involves the si-multaneous activation of personal and socialselves, activating either identity inevitably gal-vanizes the other and produces a “motivationaloomph” (Swann et al., 2012: 3) that drives fusedindividuals to engage in risky progroup behavior,such as fighting and dying on behalf of one’sgroup (Buhrmester, Fraser, Lanman, Whitehouse,& Swann, 2014; Gomez et al., 2011).At work, progroup voice allows fused in-

dividuals to continue to enact organizationalroles while simultaneously demonstrating com-mitment to their social group. Football playerColin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee duringthe U.S. National Anthem before an NFL game isan example of organizational progroup voice.Kaepernick has described feeling compelled to


voice his concern about the injustice and brutalityroutinely faced by fellow Black Americans at thehands of police, even while continuing to enacthis roleasanNFLplayerduring football games. Inline with this sentiment, Kaepernick stated, in anAugust 28, 2016, interview:

This stand wasn’t for me. This stand wasn’t be-cause I feel like I’m being put down in any kind ofway. This is because I’m seeing things happen topeople that don’t have a voice, people that don’thave aplatform to talk andhave their voices heard,and effect change. I refuse to be one of thosepeople who watches injustices yet does nothing(Biderman, 2016).

Based on this, we propose the following.

Proposition 5: Identity fusion leads mi-nority employees to engage in pro-group voice within organizations.

Identity Fusion and Relational Bridging

Diversity research shows that people preferto interact with those who share their demo-graphic characteristics (McPherson, Smith-Lovin,& Cook, 2001), forming bonding ties with similarothers even in diverse group settings (Mollica,Gray, & Trevino, 2003). However, these bondingties, while individually beneficial, also causegroups to become fragmented and insulated(Carton & Cummings, 2013). Importantly, along-side relational bonding that occurs with similarothers, individuals can also engage in relationalbridging, connecting with dissimilar persons orwith fragmented groups (McEvily & Zaheer, 1999).This can be considered a positively deviant be-havior for minorities because it involves goingagainst organizational norms by integrating“one’s gendered and cultural experiences into thevalues and practices of the work environment”(Roberts, 2012: 834). Indeed, because high-qualityorganizational relationships are developedthrough the exchange of authentic self-disclosureand the expression of both positive and negativeemotions (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), minorities’ en-gagement in relational bridging with dissimilarothers involves “peeling off the mask” (Roberts,2012: 834) in interactions—that is, revealing theirauthentic selves. This process canbe challengingbecause divulging aspects of social identitieswith dissimilar others may lead to the revelationof dissimilarities or the confirmation of negativegroup stereotypes (Dumas et al., 2013; Shelton &Richeson, 2005).

Critically, however, authentically buildingstrong ties with majority group members whilemaintaining connections with their minoritygroup enables individuals to use the organiza-tional rhetoric of majority powerholders to helpmajority group members engage in perspectivetaking (Batson et al., 1997), to build coalitions(Meyerson&Scully, 1995), and to buildmomentumtoward change on behalf of lower-status mem-bers (Bell, Meyerson, Nkomo, & Scully, 2003). Weposit that identity fusion acts as a catalyst thatenables relational bridging. As such, fusion be-tween organizational and social identities en-hances a sense of authenticity (Roberts, 2012) andwholeness (Kahn, 1990) that provides minorityorganizational members with the motivation tointegrate aspects of their cultural heritage intotheir organizational relationships, which, in turn,allows them to build authentic relationships withsimilar and dissimilar others (Dutton et al., 2010;Roberts, 2012). Additionally, based on researchpositing that fused individuals perceive all iden-tity group members as psychological kin (Swannet al., 2012), we assert that identity fusion leadsminorities to view individuals from their socialgroup aswell as their organization as related and,thus, similar to them. These perceptions of simi-larity magnify connectedness to members withinthe organization and decrease the perceived riskof self-disclosure that typically accompanies in-teractions with dissimilar others (Phillips et al.,2009). Thus, identity fusion provides individualswith the courage to go against organizationalnorms and express their authentic selves whileinteractingwithdissimilar others,whichprovidesthe foundation for thedevelopment of broaderanddeeper relationships with others (Bell & Nkomo,2001; Roberts, 2012). Examples of relationalbridging sparked by mega-threats and identityfusion can be found in NFL locker rooms acrossthe country. Sports commentators have noted thatNFL locker rooms have become “cauldrons of ac-tivism,”where teammateswhobelong to differentracial groups engage in discussions about raceand politics (Freeman, 2017), which has ledplayers to develop deeper relationships acrossracial divides. These bridging behaviors have ledWhite players, like Aaron Rodgers, to engage indiscussions about racial inequality (TheGuardian, 2017a) and others, like Seth DeValve,to take a knee during the anthem, stating in anAugust 21, 2017, interview, “I wanted to take theopportunity with my teammates during the


anthem to pray for our country, and also to drawattention to the fact that we have work to do”(The Guardian, 2017b).

Based on these arguments, we propose thefollowing.

Proposition 6: Identity fusion leads mi-nority employees to engage in re-lational bridging within organizations.

MODERATORS OF THE IDENTITYFUSION–POSITIVE DEVIANCE LINK

While identity fusion may add fuel to the moti-vational fire, enabling fused individuals to en-gage in positive deviance behaviors, the risks oftermination and demotion that often are associ-ated with these behaviors (Detert & Edmondson,2011) may constrain individuals, forcing them toremain withdrawn and silent. However, we sug-gest that when individuals feel empowered toenact change, this experience of psychologicalpower provides them with the agency to act onbehalf of their identity groups, because powerincreases the likelihood that individuals will defysocial norms (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson,2003) and engage in risky behaviors (Anderson &Galinsky, 2006). Individuals who have powerfulallies or are positioned within an empoweringenvironment are more likely to experience ahigher sense of power (Tedeschi &Melburg, 1984),which, in turn, drives positive deviance behav-iors. Thus, we explore three empowering and fa-cilitating factors that enhance the likelihood thatfusion will lead to positive change: leader com-passion, organizational climate for inclusion, andorganizational demography.

The Moderating Role of Leader Compassion

We propose that leader compassion moderatesthe influence of identity fusion on the enactmentof positive deviance. Compassion, a discreteemotion (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010),involves three subprocesses: noticing a person’ssuffering, vicariously placing oneself in that per-son’s “emotional shoes,” and responding by tak-ing action to alleviate the suffering (Kanov et al.,2004). At work, leaders’ compassion is especiallyeffective since their higher levels of power enablethem to recognize and offer assistance upon no-ticing their followers’ distress (Melwani, Mueller,& Overbeck, 2012). This other-focus facilitatesleaders’ ability to engage in supportive helping

behaviors, such as listening, counseling, andadvocating (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002), whentheir followers are suffering owing to the occur-rence of a mega-threat. Importantly, because theexperience of compassion makes leaders morelikely to vicariously experience their sub-ordinates’ suffering (Kanov et al., 2004), higherlevels of leader compassion may increase thelikelihood that leaders will engage in helpingbehaviors or encourage progroup behavior evenin situations where the leaders, or the organiza-tions they belong to, are not especially inclusiveof diversity. The short-term experience and ex-pression of leader compassion then serves as amodel of appropriate responses to others in theorganization, setting the stage for a more in-clusive organization in the long term (Dutton,Frost, Worline, Lilius, & Kanov, 2002).Low-power minority employees who perceive

that their leaders understand their travails andare aiming to help them will feel empowered tospeak up on behalf of their group. Additionally,because compassionate leaders are likely to dis-play concern for their followers’well-being (Scott,Colquitt, Paddock, & Judge, 2010), this should in-crease self-disclosure, setting the foundation forrelational bridging ties. Thus, compassionateleaders strengthen the effect of identity fusion onprogroup voice and relational bridging such thatthese leaders provide their followers with the so-cial support and empowerment needed to engagein task- and relational-oriented change. Wetherefore propose the following.

Proposition 7: Leader compassion mod-erates the effect of identity fusion onprogroup voice and relational bridgingin organizations such that high levels ofleader compassion (a) increase pro-group voice and (b) increase relationalbridging after a mega-threat.

The Moderating Role of Organizational Climate

We propose that, at the organizational level,organizational climate for inclusion is an addi-tionalmoderator of the influence of identity fusionon positive deviance. Inclusion is defined as anemployee’s perception that their unique contri-bution to an organization is fully appreciated andtheir full participation is encouraged (Mor Barak,2015; Shore et al., 2011); in turn, a climate for in-clusion is the shared perception that inclusivebehaviors are expected, supported, and rewarded


within the organization (Nishii, 2013; Shore et al.,2011).

Anorganization’s climate for inclusion includesfairly implemented employment practices, in-tegration of differences, and inclusion in decisionmaking (Nishii, 2013). These components collec-tively lower the risk and increase individuals’power to reveal core aspects of their self-conceptor culture without suffering negative conse-quences (Nishii, 2013), thus making it imperativeto the enactment of positive deviance within or-ganizations. Specifically, based on the assertionthat a high climate for inclusion ensures that di-verse individuals are included in decision-makingprocesses (Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011), we arguethat these environments lead individuals who aremotivated to speak up on behalf of their group tofeel psychologically empowered (Spreitzer, 1996) todo so, thus increasing progroup voice. In contrast,organizations with exclusionary climates may pe-nalize individuals for speaking up on behalf oftheir marginalized groups, a notion supported bythe NFL’s recent decision to fine players engagingin progroup voice by kneeling on the football fieldduring the National Anthem (Ortiz, 2018). Indeed,while many players may still have the motivationto engage in progroup voice by taking a knee, theNFL’s lack of support for these actions may pre-clude players from engaging in this positively de-viant behavior.

Additionally,within inclusionary organizationsthat integrate differences across their membersby enabling them to routinely include portions oftheir cultural identities into their workplace in-teractions (Nishii, 2013), individuals may feelmore empowered to reveal their social identitiesin interpersonal interactions with dissimilarothers and, thus, engage in higher levels of re-lational bridging. Based on this, we propose thefollowing.

Proposition 8: Climate for inclusionmoderates the effect of identity fusionon progroup voice and relationalbridging such that high levels of cli-mate for inclusion (a) increase pro-group voice and (b) increase relationalbridging following a mega-threat.

The Crucial Role of Organizational Demography

Organizational demography, whichwe define asthe demographic composition of an organization

(Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), is a powerful cue aboutwho is valued within organizations. A large repre-sentation of minority group members in an organi-zational context, especially at higher levels in afirm, signals to employees that minorities areesteemedmembers of theorganizationand that it issafe to include characteristics or aspects of a rep-resented social identity in the organizational con-text (Ely, 1995).We thereforeargue thathigher levelsof organizational demographic diversity boost theeffects of identity fusion on positive deviance byenhancing leader compassion and perceptions ofan inclusionary climate.With regard to leaders’ experiences and ex-

pressions of compassion, shared demographicattributes, or even a common experience of“otherness,” will enable those in positions ofpower to notice their subordinates’ experiencesof distress, as well as readily empathize withthem. This will inevitably lead to increased ex-pressions of compassion, which will, in turn,enable fused minority individuals to engage inmore risky change-oriented behaviors across theorganization. Even when the leaders themselvesare not demographically similar to their sub-ordinates, an organization with a large numberof demographically diverse leaders will be moreaware of negative, identity-relevant mega-threats, and this increased level of conscious-ness may cascade through the organization.Furthermore, higher levels of minority repre-sentation is an essential component of in-dividuals’ perceptions of how inclusionary theorganizational climate is (Roberson, 2006), es-pecially when the demographic diversity is atthe upper echelons of the organization (Ely, 1995).Thus, in a demographically diverse organiza-tion, because individuals are likely to perceivehigher levels of tolerance, openness, and in-clusion (Kanter, 1977), they may be more likely toview the organization as a safe place to takerisks and speak up about issues related to theirsocial group.

Proposition 9: Organizational demo-graphic diversity moderates the effectof leader compassion and climate forinclusion on the enactment of posi-tive deviance such that high levels oforganizational demographic diversity(a) increase leader compassion and(b) increase organizational climate forinclusion.


DISCUSSION

Organizations, often described as open sys-tems (Katz & Kahn, 1978), are impacted by eventsthat occur both within and outside their bound-aries. However, management theories have tra-ditionally remained silent about the influence ofmacrolevel or societal-level events on organiza-tions and the employees within them (Johns,2006; Morgeson et al., 2015). In this article we de-velop a dual-pathway model that explains thepsychological effects of one type of societalevent—mega-threats—on minority employees inorganizations. We argue that the coupling of in-trapsychic reactions and group-level interactionstriggered by mega-threats leads employees be-longing to affected identity groups to becomemore deeply connected to their social groups, andthis connection remains salient even at workwhen organizational identities come to the fore.This blurring of the boundaries between organi-zational and social identities, an experiencecalled identity fusion, then compels employeesto engage in progroup voice and relationalbridging—positive deviance behaviors that goagainst individual and organizational norms dic-tating that minorities suppress their social identi-ties at work. Below we describe three importanttheoretical implications of our model for research.

Theoretical Contributions

Research on events. As a solution to Johns’sconcern that “research in organizational behavioris seldom timely enough to capture the impact ofsuch events as the Enron meltdown or the Sep-tember 11 tragedy” (2006: 390), wedevelopamodelof the top-down effects of mega-threats on orga-nizations. By explicating the process throughwhich mega-threats influence lower-level orga-nizational phenomena, our model makes numer-ous theoretical contributions to research onevents and diversity. First, by introducing theconcept of mega-threats and highlighting theunique influence of mega-threats on minorityemployees, we extend research on mega-events(Luo et al., 2016; McNamara et al., 2018; Tilcsik &Marquis, 2013). Prior work has demonstrated thatmega-events, such as the Olympics or naturaldisasters, have important organizational conse-quences (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013). However,scholars have not considered the influence ofother types of important, highly publicized socie-tal events, like police shootings or religious

attacks. Our theory suggests that mega-threatsare especially pertinent occurrences for minorityemployees, because these events act as stressorsthat highlight discrimination and/or harm thatroutinely befalls minority group members both inorganizations and in society. Moreover, we sug-gest that these events cause minority groupmembers to experience adverse intrapsychicoutcomes that in the absence of group-level in-teractions may lead to negative organizationalconsequences, such as silence or withdrawal. Byexplaining the spillover effects of mega-threatson minority employees, our theory demonstratesthe far-reaching consequences of mega-threatson organizations and the individualswithin them.Second, our article advances diversity researchby calling attention to societal events as anunderexplored influence on organizational di-versity. In examining the effect of diversity onorganizational outcomes, scholars have rarelyconsidered the influence ofmacrosocietal contexton diversity (Joshi & Roh, 2009). Our model takes astep toward filling this gap by highlighting thecross-level effects of changes in macrosocietalcontext on perceptions of organizational di-versity. We suggest that mega-threats trigger thechronic activation of social identities, which, inturn, motivates minority employees to enact be-haviors to advance their social identity groupwithin their organizations. By highlighting thepermeability of societal and organizationalboundaries, our work illuminates the connec-tion between macrosocietal occurrences anddiversity-related cognitions and behaviorswithinorganizations.Third, our article also contributes to research on

social media use and its outcomes in organiza-tions (Mcfarland & Ployhart, 2015) in two ways. Assuch, because of thewide and fast reach of onlinenews media, organizational boundaries havebecomemore permeable, which we posit enablesexternal societal events to capture the attention ofemployees and influence employee behavior atwork. Furthermore, because social media plat-formshave revolutionized thewaypeople connectand communicatewith eachother (Beal&Strauss,2008), facilitating virtual community building,employees can easily apprehend the reactions ofingroup members similarly affected by an event,even those who are not part of their organization.We theorize that these group-level interactions,coupled with intrapsychic responses to mega-threats, foster a deep connection between an


individual and their social group, which may in-fluence behavior in theworkplace. Consequently,even for individuals who do not have otheringroupmembers to talk to at work, they may stillexperience the benefits of group-level processingby engaging in interactions with other groupmembers online.

Dynamic experiences of diversity in organiza-tions. Understanding the influence of mega-threats on minority employees has importantimplications for the organizational diversity lit-erature. In most diversity research scholarsoperate under the assumption that an organiza-tion’s diversity, and employees’ experiences ofdiversitywithin organizations, remains static andunchanging (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003).However, taking an identity lens, we illustratethat, in fact, diversity is a mutable characteristic,and broad societal factors can influence how itchanges. Specifically, by explaining how mega-threats alter the relationship between organiza-tional and social identities and, thus, lead tochanges in experiences and perspectives ofminority organizational members, we demon-strate the dynamic nature of diversity withinorganizations.

The implications of diversity’s being variablerather than stable are many. For instance, ourmodel suggests that perceptions of inclusionwithin a particular organizational context maychange as a result of the occurrence of a mega-threat. We posit that mega-threats bring socialidentities to the fore, which may lead minorityemployees to then reexamine their organization’ssupport of diversity, especially in light of theevent. If minority employees assess their organi-zation’s actions as deficient, diminished per-ceptions of inclusion could then lead theseemployees to feel alienated, reducingmorale andincreasing turnover (Shore et al., 2011), evenwithout any change in organizational diversitypolicies. Furthermore, we suggest that these al-tered identities could leadminorities to engage inchange-oriented behaviors aimed atmoving theirorganizations from monocultural environments,in which racial differences are minimized or ig-nored, to ones that value differences and dealopenly with racial conflict and diversity issues(Cox, 1991). These varied responses to mega-threats create different environments that mayenhance or inhibit minority employee retention.

In addition, in integrating research on diversityand positive deviance, our article highlights the

potential paradoxical effect of mega-threats onorganizations. While mega-threats are over-whelmingly negative occurrences, our proposi-tions suggest that organizationsmay, in fact, reappositive long-termbenefits from these events.Ourtheory posits that identity fusion, experienced asa result of a mega-threat, motivates employees toengage in risky change-oriented behaviors thatbenefit their social group in organizations. In ex-amining the positive effects of organizationaldeviant behavior, researchers have examinedbehaviors such as voice, whistle-blowing, andissue selling (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004;Vadera et al., 2013). We complement these per-spectives by highlighting the positively deviantnature of two diversity-related behaviors: pro-group voice and relational bridging. Moreover,existing positive deviance theory has not consid-ered the moderating organizational factors thatmay inhibit positive deviance (Vadera et al., 2013).Our theoryposits that climate for inclusion, leadercompassion, and organizational demography areimportant organizational factors that may en-hance or inhibit the enactment of positive de-viance. In doing so our article highlights theimportant influence of context on positivedeviance.Last, our article introduces the identity con-

struct of identity fusion to the organizationalidentity literature. Although there are numerousconstructs that describe the typical identity pro-cesses that individuals continually engage inwhile transitioning from different contexts orperforming different roles (Dutton et al., 2010;Kreiner et al., 2006; Rothbard & Ramarajan, 2009),theantecedents of identity fusiondiffer from theseexisting identity processes in two importantways. First, existing theories assume that in-dividuals consciously employ integration tacticsor experience positive emotions that allow themto build linkages among their multiple identities(Dutton et al., 2010; Kreiner et al., 2006). Con-versely, the development of identity fusion is pri-marily unconscious and occurs because of anexogenous unexpected dysphoric experience(Whitehouse et al., 2017). Second, these theoriesprimarily focus on intrapsychic identity pro-cesses, remaining silent on the influence ofgroup-level processes on individuals’ identities.In contrast, we suggest that it is the coupling ofindividual personal reflection and group-levelinteractions that kindles identity fusion (Jonget al., 2015; Swann et al., 2012). Thus, identity


fusion provides important contributions to theorganizational identity literature because it ex-plains the influence of both individual- andgroup-level processes that may unfold as a resultof a negative experience—namely, a mega-threat. Moreover, the unique experience andoutcomes of identity fusion—specifically, the ex-treme feeling of onenesswith a group that definesidentity fusion and the resulting enactment ofzealous progroup behavior (e.g., Swann et al.,2009)—add to the existing literature by providinga theoretical mechanism that explains the influ-ence of societal-level threats on progroup behav-ior enacted in organizations.

Highlighting the experience of Black em-ployees. By focusing particularly on police brutal-ity and violence enacted against Black Americansas the mega-threat under study, our theory con-tributes a unique perspective to the organiza-tional literature. Most organizational theoriesare race- neutral, and discussions of race and theexperiences of minorities remain scarce (Bell &Nkomo, 2001; Nkomo, 1992). By focusing on theexperiences of Black Americans coping withmega-threats, our theory joins a growing body ofresearch that is centered on the experiences ofBlack employees (e.g., Bell & Nkomo, 2001;McCluney et al., 2017; Opie & Roberts, 2017). Wetheorize that high levels of connection or fami-lism (Gaines et al., 1997) among Black Ameri-cans lead group members to experience highlyarousing negative cognitions and emotions afteramega-threat involving Black victims, and thesecognitions and emotions permeate their organi-zational lives, compelling progroup behaviorwithin organizations. By using examples that areparticularly relevant to Black Americans, ourarticle demonstrates the importance of under-standing the experiences of minority organiza-tional members for fully understanding andpredicting behavior in organizations.

Directions for Future Research

Positive versus negative mega-events. Whileour article focuses on mega-threats alone, re-search in this domain would gain from a betterunderstanding of positive mega-events as well.For example, in contrast to our examples of policeshootings of Black Americans, how would a con-trasting positive event, such as the historic elec-tion of President Barack H. Obama in 2008, affectBlack Americans at work? Indeed, although prior

work suggests that negative dysphoric experi-ences associatedwithmega-threats are crucial tothe development of identity fusion, a recent studyhighlights that positive group events may alsohave similar effects on identity fusion (Newson,Buhrmester, & Whitehouse, 2016). While this re-mains an open question, further research is alsoneeded to clarifywhether thepathways to identityfusion are the same for both euphoric and dys-phoric experiences. Research is also needed tobetter understand the differences in the down-stream consequences of positive and negativeevents for ingroup members.In addition, while we explore the effects of

mega-threats for minority group members andpropose that majority group members may alsofeel negative emotions in response to mega-threats, it is important to explore how majoritygroupmembersmay respond tomega-events thathave positive outcomes for minority groups.Mega-threats enable majority group members toengage in compassion and other helping behav-iors, which, while valuable, may also serve thepurpose of maintaining the status quo such thatmembers of dominant groups can preserve thestatus hierarchy by reminding minorities thattheir rewards and resources are at least partlydependent on majority members’ largesse. How-ever, positivemega-events that have the capacityto disrupt societal hierarchical arrangementsmay benefit minorities but may also be threaten-ing for those in majority groups. For example, theU.S. Supreme Court decision to nationally legal-ize same-sex marriage was positive for LGBTQgroup members and allies, but this event wasperceived negatively and actively attacked bymany dominant religious groups (Pearson,Sanchez, & Martinez, 2015). Similarly, the elec-tion of President Obama led an already dominantmajority group to experience threat, triggering aprotective defense of their own ingroup and out-group negativity (Mutz, 2018).Role of majority members. In continuing the

discussion of the role ofmajoritymembers, furtherresearch questions arise. First, future researchshould investigate how majority group membersrespond to mega-threats for their own group. Onepossible outcome is that majority groupmembersare less likely to experience identity fusion in re-sponse to amega-threat becausemajority groupshave lower levels of familism compared to mi-nority groups (Gaines et al., 1997). A lack of fami-listic values prevents individuals from engaging


in group-level processes and experiencing theirfusion-related outcomes.

A second question concerns whether in-dividuals in dominant groups are immune to theeffects of mega-threats. Because dominant groupmembers (e.g., White males) do not routinely ex-perience discrimination in society, they may bebuffered from actually experiencing threat as aresult of a mega-threat. Yet, because individualsin positions of power are sensitive to potentiallossesof power (Mutz, 2018), thesedominantgroupmembers may be especially susceptible to theexperience of mega-threats. Thus, scholarsshould investigate whether the experience ofthreat and thedownstreamconsequencesof theseevents are the same for majority and minoritysocial groups.

In addition, future work should also investigatethe role of majority allies who work to amelioratethreat for minority group members. In our dis-cussion of compassionate leaders, we suggestthatmajority groupmembersmayenable positivedeviance by empowering their employees to defyorganizational norms (Meyerson & Scully, 1995;Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). However, future re-search would benefit from amore comprehensivereview of the facilitating role that majority groupmembers play in the enactment of progrouppositive deviance in organizations.

Additional moderators. We also recommendthat researchers examine additional moderatorsof the effect of mega-threats on identity fusion.Features of mega-threats, such as the eventlength or frequency, may be important factors inthe development of identity fusion. Our modelprovides a snapshot of individuals’ responsesto mega-threats; however, the mega-threatsthemselves may have varying levels of lastingpower. While the effects of shorter mega-threats(e.g., shooting of a Black teen) may be short-lived,the influenceof longermega-threats (e.g., slavery)may continue to be passed down to subsequentgenerations through traditions and oral histories,thus keeping the threat alive. Furthermore, mul-tiple events like police shootings that occurclosely in space and time form a distinctive event“cluster” (Morgeson et al., 2015) that can havesignificantly stronger effects on individual andgroup outcomes. Finally, the location of a mega-threat may be an important factor that influencesthe effect of the event. While we primarily haveused examples of police shootings of BlackAmericans to demonstrate the main tenets of our

theory, we developed our model to explain theorganizational effects of all mega-threats thatoccur bothwithin and outside of theUnitedStates.Future research would benefit from investigatingthe applicability of our model in other contextsand with other mega-threats that are relevant toother types of social identities (e.g., religion, sex-uality, etc.).Additional moderators may also occur at the

individual, dyadic, or group level. For instance, atthe individual level, an individual’s organiza-tional identification may play an important role.For individuals high in organizational identifica-tion whose organizational role is an importantaspect of their self-definition, fusion between so-cial and organizational identities may be morelikely to occur since both are extremely importantto their self-concept. However, it is also plausiblethat high levels of organizational identificationcould reducean individual’s connectionwith theirgroup, which may prevent identity fusion. An-other individual-level factor that may influencethe development of identity fusion is the em-ployee’s level of power. Individuals who havehigh levels of legitimate power coupledwith highlevels of personal powermay bemore likely to actwhen in a fused state, compared to those withlower levels of power. At the dyadic level, anemployee’s relationship with their leader, as wellas a leader’s own values, background, and priorexperiences of trauma, may influence the extentto which the leader experiences compassion andacts to help their employees. At the group level,given that our theory suggests that ingroup in-teractions are the chief precursor to identity fu-sion, future research should explore whether thelocation of these ingroup interactions, either atwork or outside of work, influences the develop-ment of fusion between organizational and socialidentities. While we stay agnostic about the lo-cation of these interactions and whether they oc-cur face to face or online, this research canexplore whether the effects of the group arestronger or weaker when they happen at or out-side of work.

Practical Implications

Because organizations typically provide fewguidelines for responding to external events(Johns, 2006), managers may often overlook orignore the influence of these events on their fol-lowers. Our model may assist managers in


understanding and supporting their employeeswhen they are coping with a mega-threat. Oneimportant implication of our theory is that di-versity is dynamic anddifferences that aredue tosocial identity group membership can becomemore pronounced after a mega-threat. Impor-tantly, our theory highlights that in order tosuccessfully manage a diverse workforce, orga-nizations must attend to both internal and ex-ternal events. Thismay seem like a tall order, butwe do not believe that organizations must re-spond individually to every mega-threat as theyoccur. Instead, deriving from our propositions,we argue that compassionate leaders providesupport to their followers that may empowerthem to respond to mega-threats in a positivemanner.

A second practical implication of our theory isthat while mega-threats are negative occur-rences, organizations may reap positive benefitsfrom these occurrences, in the form of increasedprogroup voice and relational bridging. Thesebehaviors are similar to extrarole behaviors, likehelping behaviors, which may be outside thescope of an individual’s core job tasks but arebeneficial to organizations in the long run. How-ever, we argue thatminorities will only engage insuch behavior when the organizational contextsupports the enactment of social identities, whichmay be different from those typically enactedwithin the organizational environment. Thus, ourtheory argues that organizations that have highlevels of inclusion facilitate the enactment ofidentity fusion and the resulting positive behav-iors that allow organizations to reap long-termbenefits from mega-threats.

CONCLUSION

This article highlights the importance of ex-amining the influence of events occurring outsidean organization on individuals and diversity atwork. We join other organizational scholars whohave recently highlighted the importance of so-cietal context (Johns, 2006) and mega-events onorganizations (Luo et al., 2016; McNamara et al.,2018; Morgeson et al., 2015; Tilcsik & Marquis,2013), and we begin to answer the call to developtheory that explains the dynamic nature of di-versity (Shore et al., 2009) at work. It is our hopethat our theory of mega-threats generates addi-tional momentum in the study of events and thedynamic nature of diversity.

REFERENCES

Allport, F. 1940. An event-system theory of collective action:With illustrations from economic and political phenom-ena and the production of war. Journal of Social Psy-chology, 11: 417–445.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2006. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36: 511–536.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. 2001. Effects of violent videogames on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition,aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocialbehavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific litera-ture. Psychological Science, 12: 353–359.

Ashburn-Nardo, L., Thomas, K., & Robinson, A. J. 2017. Broad-ening the conversation: Why Black LivesMatter. Equality,Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36:698–706.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998.Out on a limb: The role of context and impression man-agement in selling gender-equity issues. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 43: 23–57.

Ashforth, B. E. 1985. Climate formation: Issues and extensions.Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 837–847.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day’swork: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy ofManagement Review, 25: 472–491.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory andthe organization. Academy of Management Review, 14:20–39.

Atran, S. 2010. Talking to the enemy: Faith, brotherhood, andthe (un)making of terrorists. New York: Ecco Press.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Vashdi, D. 2005. Diversityand homophily at work: Supportive relations amongWhite and African-American peers. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 48: 619–644.

Ballinger, G. A., & Rockmann, K. W. 2010. Chutes versus lad-ders: Anchoring events and a punctuated equilibriumperspective on social exchange relationships. Academyof Management Review, 35: 373–391.

Barley, S. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring:Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the socialorder of radiology departments. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 31: 78–108.

Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion andits influence on group behavior. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 47: 644–675.

Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma,J. A. 2006. On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion,and assessments of an organizational change initiatedby others. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42:182–206.

Basch, J., & Fischer, C. D. 1998. Affective events-emotionsmatrix: A classification of work events and associatedemotions. Paper presented at the First Emotions in Or-ganizational Life Conference, San Diego.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J.,Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L.1997. Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of


a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 105–118.

Baugh, J. 1991. The politicization of changing terms of self-reference among American slave descendants. AmericanSpeech, 66(2): 133–146.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D.2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psy-chology, 5: 323–370.

Beal, A., & Strauss, J. 2008. Radically transparent: Monitoringand managing reputations online. Indianapolis: Wiley.

Bell, E. L. 1990. The bicultural life experience of career ori-ented black women. Journal of Organizational Behavior,11: 459–477.

Bell, E. L., Meyerson, D., Nkomo, S., & Scully, M. 2003. Inter-preting silence and voice in the workplace. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 39: 381–414.

Bell, E. L., & Nkomo, S. 2001. Our separate ways: Black andwhite women and the struggle for professional identity.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bell, M., Ozbilgin, M., Beauregard, T., & Surgevil, O. 2011.Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organiza-tions: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual,and transgender employees. Human Resource Manage-ment, 50: 131–146.

Bender, T. 1978. Community and social change in America.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bhagat, R. S. 1983. Effects of stressful life events on individualperformance effectiveness within organizational set-tings: A research model. Academy of Management Re-view, 8: 660–671.

Biderman, C. 2016. Transcript: Colin Kaepernick addressessitting during national anthem. Niners Wire, August 28:http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/08/28/transcript-colin-kaepernick-addresses-sitting-during-national-anthem/.

Bor, J., Venkataramani, A. S., Williams, D. R., & Tsai, A. C. 2018.Police killings and their spillover effects on the mentalhealth of black Americans: A population-based, quasi-experimental study. Lancet, 392: 302–310.

Buehler, J. W. 2017. Racial/ethnic disparities in the use of le-thal force by US police, 2010–2014. American Journal ofPublic Health, 107: 295–297.

Buhrmester, M. D., Fraser, W. T., Lanman, J. A., Whitehouse, H.,& Swann, W. B. 2014. When terror hits home: FusedAmericans saw Boston bombing victims as “family” andrushed to their aid. Self and Identity, 14: 253–270.

Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. 1990. Changing patterns orpatterns of change: The effects of a change in technologyon social network structure and power. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 35: 104–127.

Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., Triplett, K. N.,Vishnevsky, T., & Lindstrom, C. M. 2011. Assessingposttraumatic cognitive processes: The Event RelatedRumination Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24:137–156.

Cannon, K. 1995. Surviving the blight. In G.Wade-Gayles (Ed.),My soul is a witness: African American women’s spiritu-ality: 19–26. Boston: Beacon Press.

Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. 2013. The impact of subgrouptype and subgroup configurational properties on workteam performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98:732–758.

Cox, T. J. 1991. The multicultural organizrtion. Executive, 5(2):34–47.

Cross,W. E. 1995. The psychology of nigrescence: Revising theCross model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, C. M. Suzuki,& M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural coun-seling: 93–122. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories:Taken-for-granted rules for self-censorship at work.Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461–488.

Dumas, T. L., Phillips, K. W., & Rothbard, N. P. 2013. Gettingcloser at the company party: Integration experiences,racial dissimilarity, and workplace relationships. Orga-nization Science, 24: 1377–1401.

Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., Worline, M. C., Lilius, J. M., & Kanov,J. M. 2002. Leading in times of trauma. Harvard BusinessReview, 80(1): 54–61.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high-qualityconnections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations ofa new discipline: 263–279. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways forpositive identity construction at work: Four types of pos-itive identity and the building of social resources. Acad-emy of Management Review, 35: 265–293.

Edwards, K., & Bryan, T. 1997. Judgmental biases produced byinstructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) case of emo-tional information. Personality Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 23: 849–864.

Elfenbein, H. 2014. The many faces of emotional contagion: Anaffective process theory of affective linkage. Organiza-tional Psychology Review, 4: 326–362.

Ellsworth, P., & Scherer, K. 2003. Appraisal processes inemotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith(Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences: 572–595. New York:Oxford University Press.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members’ responses toorganizational identity threats: Encountering and coun-tering the business week. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 41: 442–476.

Ely, R. J. 1995. The power in demography: Women’s socialconstructions of gender identity at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38: 589–634.

Emerson, K. T. U., &Murphy, M. C. 2014. Identity threat at work:How social identity threat and situational cues contributeto racial and ethnic disparities in the workplace. CulturalDiversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20: 508–520.

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations, 7: 117–140.

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 51: 327–358.

Freeman, M. 2017. Beyond the anthem: Inside NFL lockerrooms on Trump, Kap, Charlottesville & race. BleacherReport, September 8: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/


http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/08/28/transcript-colin-kaepernick-addresses-sitting-during-national-anthem/

http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/08/28/transcript-colin-kaepernick-addresses-sitting-during-national-anthem/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2731043-beyond-the-anthem-inside-nfl-locker-rooms-on-trump-kap-charlottesville-race

2731043-beyond-the-anthem-inside-nfl-locker-rooms-on-trump-kap-charlottesville-race.

Frijda, N. 1988. The laws of emotion. American Psychologist,43: 349–358.

Gable, S., & Reis, H. 2010. Good news! Capitalizing on positiveevents in an interpersonal context. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology, 42: 195–257.

Gaines, S. O., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., Steers, W. N.,Henderson, M. C., Granrose, C. S., Barajas, L., Hicks, D.,Lyde, M., Takahasi, Y., Yum, N., Rios, D., Garcia, B., Farris,K., & Page, M. 1997. Links between race/ethnicity andcultural values as mediated by racial/ethnic identity andmoderated by gender. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72: 1460–1476.

Garza, A. 2014. A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement.Feminist Wire, October 7: https://thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/.

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. 2010. Compassion:An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 136: 351–374.

Gomez, A., Brooks, M. L., Buhrmester, M. D., Vazquez, A., Jetten,J., & Swann, W. B. 2011. On the nature of identity fusion:Insights into the construct and a new measure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 100: 918–933.

Gray, J. 1982. On mapping anixety. Sciences, 5: 506–534.

The Guardian. 2017a. Aaron Rodgers: Racial injustice is “real”and Kaepernick should be in NFL. August 31: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/30/aaron-rodgers-colin-kaepernick-nfl-protests.

The Guardian. 2017b. Two white players join ClevelandBrowns in NFL’s largest anthem protest. August 21: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/21/cleveland-browns-national-anthem-protest-giants.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict be-tween work and family roles. Academy of ManagementReview, 10: 76–88.

Haight, W. 1998. “Gathering the spirit” at First Baptist Church:Spirituality as a protective factor in the lives of AfricanAmerican children. Social Work: Journal of the NationalAssociation of Social Workers, 43: 213–221.

Hansen, N., & Sassenberg, K. 2006. Does social identificationharm or serve as a buffer? The impact of social identifi-cation on anger after experiencing social discrimination.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 983–996.

Harrell, J. P., Hall, S., & Taliaferro, J. 2003. Physiological responsesto racism and discrimination: An assessment of the evi-dence. American Journal of Public Health, 93: 243–248.

Harrison, A., Wilson, M., Pine, C., Chan, S., & Buriel, R. 1995.Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. In N.Goldberger & J. Veroff (Eds.), The culture and psychologyreader: 292–320. New York: New York University Press.

Haynie, J. M., & Shepherd, D. 2011. Toward a theory of dis-continuous career transition: Investigating career tran-sitions necessitated by traumatic life events. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96: 501–524.

Hekman, D. R., Johnson, S. K., Foo, M.-D., & Yang, W. 2017.Does diversity-valuing behavior result in diminished

performance ratings for nonwhite and female leaders?Academy of Management Journal, 60: 771–797.

Hennessy, D. A. 2008. The impact of commuter stress onworkplace aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 38: 2315–2335.

Hirsh, J. B., & Kang, S. K. 2016. Mechanisms of identity conflict:Uncertainty, anxiety, and the behavioral inhibition sys-tem. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20:223–244.

Hoffmann, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: En-vironmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academyof Management Journal, 42: 351–371.

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. 1993. Power, social influence, andsense making: Effects of network centrality and proximityon employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 38: 277–303.

Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. K. 2010. Stereotype threat spillover:How coping with threats to social identity affects ag-gression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 467–481.

Janoff-Bulman, R. 1992. Shattered assumptions (towards a newpsychology of trauma). New York: Free Press.

Janoff-Bulman, R., & Frieze, I. 1983. A theoretical perspectivefor understanding reactions to victimization. Journal ofSocial Issues, 39(2): 1–17.

Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organiza-tional behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31:386–408.

Jong, J., Whitehouse, H., Kavanagh, C., & Lane, J. 2015. Sharednegative experiences lead to identity fusion via personalreflection. PLOS ONE, 10(12): 1–12.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work teamdiversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy ofManagement Journal, 52: 599–627.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal en-gagement and disengagement at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kamarck, A. 2015. Hashtag #Ferguson—Twitter reacts toFerguson. The Fox and The Hedgehog, http://thefoxandthehedgehog.com/hashtag-ferguson-america-discussed-ferguson-twitter/.

Kanov, J., Maitlis, S., Worline, M., Dutton, J., Frost, P., & Lilius,J. M. 2004. Compassion in organizational life. AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 47: 808–827.

Kanter, R. M. 1977. Man and women of the corporation. NewYork: Basic Books.

Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. 2007. Social anxiety, depressivesymptoms, and post-event rumination: Affective conse-quences and social contextual influences. Journal ofAnxiety Disorders, 21: 284–301.

Kataria, N., Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., &Stambaugh, J. 2018. The catalytic role of emotions insensemaking: Evidence from the blogosphere. AustralianJournal of Management, 43: 456–475.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1978. The social psychology of organiza-tions. New York: Wiley.




https://thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

https://thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/30/aaron-rodgers-colin-kaepernick-nfl-protests



https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/21/cleveland-browns-national-anthem-protest-giants



http://thefoxandthehedgehog.com/hashtag-ferguson-america-discussed-ferguson-twitter/



Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, ap-proach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110:265–284.

Kim, J. 1981. The process of Asian-American identity develop-ment: A study of Japanese American women’s perceptionof their struggle to achieve positive identities. Doctoraldissertations 1896–February 2014, University of Massachu-setts Amherst. Available at https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/3685.

Kouyate, D. 1989. The role of the griot. In L. Gross & M. Barnes(Eds.), Talk that talk: An anthology of African Americanstorytelling: 179–181. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approachto theory and research in organizations: Contextual,temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions,and new directions: 3–90. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, A., Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. 2014. Experimental evi-dence of massive-scale emotional contagion through so-cial networks. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 111: 8788–8790.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. On theedge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the interface ofindividual and organizational identities. Human Re-lations, 59: 1315–1341.

Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A., & Greenberg, D. 2012. Cross-domainidentity transition during liminal periods: Constructingmultiple selves as professional and mother during preg-nancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1449–1471.

Lanzetta, J., & Englis, B. 1989. Expectations of cooperation andcompetition and their effects on observers’ vicariousemotional responses. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56: 543–554.

Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. 1969. Bystander “apathy.” AmericanScientist, 57: 244–268.

Lazarus, R. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lee, T., & Mitchell, T. 1994. An alternative approach: Theunfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Acad-emy of Management Review, 19: 51–89.

Leonardi, P., & Vaast, E. 2017. Social media and their affor-dances for organizing: A review and agenda for research.Academy of Management Annals, 11: 150–188.

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. 2001.Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 267–286.

Luminet, O., Bouts, P., Delie, F., Manstead, A., & Rime, B. 2000.Social sharing of emotion following exposure to a nega-tively valenced situation. Cognition and Emotion, 14:661–688.

Luo, X. R., Zhang, J., & Marquis, C. 2016. Mobilization in theInternet age: Internet activism and corporate response.Academy of Management Journal, 59: 2045–2068.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 1995. Effects ofself-focused rumination on negative thinking and in-terpersonal problem solving. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 69: 176–190.

Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. 2000. Intergroup emo-tions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an in-tergroup context. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 79: 602–616.

Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. 2002. Antecedents andconsequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoreti-cal and empirical advances. Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 34: 251–330.

Mark, M., & Mellor, S. 1991. Effect of self-relevance of an eventon hindsight bias: The foreseeability of a layoff. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76: 569–577.

McAuliffe, B. 2010. All men are created equal? Journal ofPsychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 1(3):78–84.

McCluney, C. L., Bryant, C., King, D. D., & Ali, A. A. 2017.Calling in Black: Dynamic model of racially traumaticevents on organizational resourcing. Equality, Diversityand Inclusion: An International Journal, 36: 767–786.

McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firmheterogeneity in competitive capabilities. StrategicManagement Journal, 20: 1133–1156.

Mcfarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. 2015. Social media: A con-textual framework to guide research and practice. Journalof Applied Psychology, 100: 1653–1677.

McNamara, P., Pazzaglia, F., & Sonpar, K. 2018. Large-scaleevents as catalysts for creating mutual dependence be-tween social ventures and resource providers. Journal ofManagement, 44: 470–500.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of afeather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review ofSociology, 27: 415–444.

Melwani, S., Mueller, J. S., & Overbeck, J. R. 2012. Lookingdown: The influence of contempt and compassion onemergent leadership categorizations. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 97: 1171–1185.

Meyer, A. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 27: 591–622.

Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. 1995. Tempered radicalismand the politics of ambivalence and change. Organiza-tion Science, 6: 585–600.

Mollica, K. A., Gray, B., & Trevino, L. K. 2003. Racial homophilyand its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Or-ganization Science, 14: 123–136.

Mor Barak, M. E. 2015. Inclusion is the key to diversity man-agement, but what is inclusion? Human Service Organi-zations Management, Leadership and Governance, 39(2):83–88.

Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. 2006. Event criticality, urgency,and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teamsand influence team leader intervention. LeadershipQuarterly, 17: 271–287.

Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. 2015. Event systemtheory: An event-oriented approach to the organizationalsciences. Academy of Management Review, 40: 515–537.

Morrison, E. W. 2014. Employee voice and silence. AnnualReview of Organizational Psychology andOrganizationalBehavior, 1: 173–197.


https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/3685

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/3685

Mutz, D. 2018. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 115: 194–198.

Newson, M., Buhrmester, M., & Whitehouse, H. 2016. Explain-ing lifelong loyalty: The role of identity fusion and self-shaping group events. PLOS ONE, 11(8): 1–13.

Nishii, L. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender di-verse groups.AcademyofManagement Journal, 56: 1754–1774.

Nkomo, S. M. 1992. The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting“Race in Organizations.” Academy of Management Re-view, 17: 487–513.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 2000. The role of rumination in depressivedisorders and mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109: 504–511.

Opie, T., & Roberts, L. 2017. Do Black lives matter in theworkplace? Restorative justice as a means to reclaimhumanity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An In-ternational Journal, 36: 707–719.

Ortiz, E. 2018. New NFL policy: Teams to be fined if playerskneel during anthem. NBC News, May 23: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nfl-announces-new-national-anthem-policy-fines-teams-if-players-n876816.

Pachankis, J. E. 2007. The psychological implications of con-cealing a stigma: A cognitive–affective–behavioralmodel. Psychological Bulletin, 133: 328–345.

Paez, D., Rime, B., Basabe, N., Wlodarczyk, A., & Zumeta, L.2015. Psychosocial effects of perceived emotional syn-chrony in collective gatherings. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 108: 711–729.

Pearson, M., Sanchez, R., & Martinez, M. 2015. Here’s howAmerica reacted to Friday’s marriage equality ruling.CNN, June 26: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-reaction/.

Pepper, S. C. 1948. World hypotheses: A study in evidence.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Peters, K., & Kashima, Y. 2007. From social talk to social ac-tion: Shaping the social triad with emotion sharing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 780–797.

Petrie, K. J., Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. 1998. The immu-nological effects of thought suppression. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 75: 1264–1272.

Petriglieri, J. L. 2011. Under threat: Responses to and the con-sequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academyof Management Review, 36: 641–662.

Phillips, K. W., Rothbard, N., & Dumas, T. L. 2009. To disclose ornot to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure indiverse environments. Academy of Management Review,34: 710–732.

Phinney, J. S. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults:Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 499–514.

Ragins, B. R. 1997. Diversified mentoring relationships in or-ganizations: A power perspective. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 22: 482–521.

Ramarajan, L. 2014. Past, present and future research onmultiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal networkapproach. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 589–659.

Rime, B. 1998. Expressing emotion, physical health, andemotional relief: A cognitive-social perspective. Ad-vances in Mind-Body Medicine, 15(3): 175–179.

Rime, B. 2009. Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion:Theory and empirical review. Emotion Review, 1(1): 60–85.

Roberson, Q. M. 2006. Disentangling the meanings of diversityand inclusion in organizations. Group and OrganizationManagement, 31(2): 212–236.

Roberts, L. M. 2005. Changing faces: Professional imagechanging construction in diverse settings organizational.Academy of Management Review, 30: 685–711.

Roberts, L. M. 2012. Reflected best self engagement at work:Positive identity, alignment, and the pursuit of vitalityand value creation. In I. Boniwell, S. David, & A. Ayers(Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness: 767–782. New York:Oxford University Press.

Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., & Kim, S. S. 2014. Strategies formanaging impressions of racial identity in the work-place. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,20: 529–540.

Rothbard, N. P., & Ramarajan, L. 2009. Checking your identi-ties at the door? Positive relationships between nonworkand work identities. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.),Exploring positive identities and organizations: Buildinga theoretical and research foundation: 125–148. New York:Psychology Press.

Rubin, K. H., & Asendorpf, J. B. 1993. Social withdrawal, in-hibition and shyness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. 1983. On the etiology of climates.Personnel Psychology, 36: 19–39.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. 2010. Adaily investigation of the role of manager empathy onemployee well-being. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 113: 127–140.

Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. 2003. The role of racial identity inperceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 84: 1079–1092.

Settles, I. H. 2004. When multiple identities interfere: The roleof identity centrality. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30: 487–500.

Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship qualityand relationship context as antecedents of person- andtask-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87: 255–267.

Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. 2005. Intergroup contact andpluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 88: 91–107.

Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H.,Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., & Singh, G. 2009. Diversity inorganizations: Where are we now and where are wegoing? Human Resource Management Review, 19:117–133.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart,K. H., & Singh, G. 2011. Inclusion and diversity in workgroups: A review andmodel for future research. Journal ofManagement, 37: 1262–1289.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nfl-announces-new-national-anthem-policy-fines-teams-if-players-n876816



http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-reaction/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-reaction/

Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. 1999. Covering up what can’t beseen: Concealable stigma and mental control. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 77: 474–486.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. 1985. Patterns of cognitive ap-praisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 48: 813–838.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. 1993. Appraisal components, corerelational themes, and the emotions. Cognition andEmotion, 7: 233–269.

Smith, J. M., & Alloy, L. B. 2009. A roadmap to rumination: Areview of the definition, assessment, and conceptualiza-tion of this multifaceted construct. Clinical PsychologyReview, 29: 116–128.

Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellmers, N. 1997. Self-stereotyping inthe face of threats to group status and distinctiveness:The role of group identification. Personal and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 23: 538–553.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psy-chological empowerment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39: 483–504.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. 2004. Toward the constructdefinition of positive deviance. American BehavioralScientist, 47: 828–847.

Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. 2003. Managing managerialidentities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse andidentity struggle. Human Relations, 56: 1163–1193.

Swann, W. B., Buhrmester, M. D., Gomez, A., Jetten, J., Bastian,B., Vazquez, A., Ariyanto, A., Besta, T., Christ, O., Cui, L.,Finchilescu, G., Gonzalez, R., Goto, N., Hornsey, M.,Sharma, S., Susianto, H., & Zhang, A. 2014. What makes agroup worth dying for? Identity fusion fosters perceptionof familial ties, promoting self-sacrifice. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 106: 912–926.

Swann,W. B., Gomez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. 2010.Dying and killing for one’s group: Identity fusion moder-ates responses to intergroup versions of the trolleyproblem. Psychological Science, 21: 1176–1183.

Swann, W. B., Gomez, A., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., & Huici, C.2009. Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and socialidentities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 96: 995–1011.

Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., Gomez, A., Whitehouse, H., &Bastian, B. 2012. When group membership gets per-sonal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Re-view, 119: 441–456.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1985. The social identity theory ofintergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7–24. Chi-cago: Nelson-Hall.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. 1984. Impression managementand influence in the organization. Research in the Soci-ology of Organizations, 3: 31–58.

Thomas, D., & Ely, R. 1996. Making differences matter.HarvardBusiness Review, 74(5): 79–90.

Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. 2013. Punctuated generosity: Howmega-events and natural disasters affect corporate

philanthropy in U.S. communities. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 58: 111–148.

Trougakos, J., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. 2014. Lunchbreaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator ofrecovery during lunch. Academy of Management Journal,57: 405–421.

Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. 2013. Constructivedeviance in organizations: Integrating and moving for-ward. Journal of Management, 39: 1221–1276.

Van der Schalk, J., Fischer, A., Doosje, B., Wigbodus, W., &Hawk, S. 2011. Convergent and divergent responses toemotional displays of ingroup and outgroup. Emotion,11(2): 286–298.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. 2003. Conceptualizingemployee silence and employee voice as multidimen-sional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40:1359–1392.

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. 2005.Power and the creation of patronizing environments:The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful andtheir effects on female performance in masculine do-mains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88:658–672.

Wegner, D. M., & Erber, R. 1992. The hyperaccessibility ofsuppressed thoughts. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 63: 903–912.

Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., &White, T. L. 1987.Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53: 5–13.

Weick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organiza-tions: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38: 628–652.

Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: Atheoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and con-sequences of affective experiences at work. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 18: 1–74.

Whitehouse, H., Jong, J., Buhrmester, M. D., Gomez, A., Bastian,B., Kavanagh, C. M., Newson, M., Matthews, M., Lanman,J., McKay, R., & Gavrilets, S. 2017. The evolution of ex-treme cooperation via shared dysphoric experiences.Scientific Reports, 7: 44292–44302.

Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. 2014. The ties that bind us.Current Anthropology, 55: 674–695.

Williams, D. R., & Williams-Morris, R. 2000. Racism andmental health: The African American experience. Eth-nicity & Health, 5: 243–268.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C., III. 1998. Demography anddiversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of re-search. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77–140.

Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. H. 1993. The corporate closet: Theprofessional lives of gay men in America. New York: FreePress.

Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. 2003. Ifeel for us: The impact of categorization and identificationon emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of So-cial Psychology, 42: 533–549.


Zajonc, R. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need noinferences. American Psychologist, 35: 151–175.

Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. 2007. Minority employees engagingwith (diversity) management: An analysis of control,agency, andmicro-emancipation. Journal of ManagementStudies, 44: 1371–1397.

Zech, E., & Rime, B. 2005. Is talking about an emotional ex-perience helpful? Effects on emotional recovery andperceived benefits. Clinical Psychology and Psychother-apy, 12: 270–287.

Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2003. Interruptive events and teamknowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49: 514–528.

Angelica Leigh ([email protected]) is a Ph.D. candidate at the Kenan-FlaglerBusiness School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research explores thedynamic nature of diversity in organizations, including the influence of societal contextand external events on individual’s identification, emotions, and behavior at work.

Shimul Melwani ([email protected]) is an associate professor of organizationalbehavior at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill. She received her Ph.D. from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Her research interests include emotions, interpersonal dynamics, and creativity.


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

#BLACKEMPLOYEESMATTER: MEGA-THREATS ... - Angelica...

Documents

Transcript of #BLACKEMPLOYEESMATTER: MEGA-THREATS ... - Angelica...