Those ‘little jokes’ and put downs have big impact and wider implications
Gordon Allport, a social psychologist, developed a scale of prejudice in 1954 to explain how small acts of discursive aggression and exclusion can lead to large-scale atrocities, like the Holocaust. The scale starts with antilocution—hate speech and derogatory comments—which, when unchecked, progresses to avoidance, discrimination, physical aggression, and eventually, genocide.
While Allport’s scale explains the rise of harmful behaviours in society, we can identify ways that the scale shows up in various behavioural patterns in the workplace.
Unchecked exclusionary behaviour in professional environments leads to toxic cultures, which is one of the key drivers behind the ‘Great Resignation’—or more accurately, the ‘Great Rejection’. People aren’t leaving the work their organisation does; they are rejecting the environments in which they are expected to perform.
One specific type of behaviour that is prevalent in workplaces is the occurrence of microaggressions—subtle, often unintentional discriminatory comments or actions—which disproportionately affect marginalized groups, such as women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals. These behaviors create an environment where people feel undervalued and hesitant to contribute fully, leading to lower productivity and creativity within teams. Microaggressions are associated with slower career progression for those who experience them, reinforcing feelings of exclusion and limiting opportunities for advancement.
In workplaces, the scale looks like this:
Stage 1 is similar to Allport’s scale in society. While we don’t have hate speech in workplaces, we do experience verbal othering, such as microaggressions like “Where are you really from?” and “You must be the diversity hire.” Jokes and banter often create in-groups and out-groups, reinforcing social hierarchies.
If no one calls out exclusionary language and microaggressions, the workplace moves into Stage 2: avoidance. People may not be invited to speak in meetings, their insights are ignored, and they are excluded from discussions or social activities. This exclusion is noticeable and distinct from simple disagreements or differing opinions during debates.
Unchecked avoidance leads to Stage 3: purposeful othering. Colleagues are intentionally left out of meetings or projects where their input would add value. This is often justified with comments like, “I don’t think they’ll add anything here,” or “Maybe we shouldn’t promote her; she just got married and will probably go on maternity leave soon.”
You must be the diversity hire.
When purposeful othering becomes part of workplace culture, it leads to Stage 4: systemic undermining. Here, organisational norms and unwritten rules determine who is in and who is out. Promotions or opportunities may depend on factors like someone’s social network or shared hobbies (e.g., playing golf), and pub culture can exclude those with family responsibilities or who don’t drink alcohol.
Systemic undermining often results in Stage 5: constructive dismissal. In this stage, the environment becomes so toxic and exclusionary that people feel they have no choice but to leave. Many try to adapt, hoping things will improve, but some may start questioning their own abilities, leading to imposter syndrome. While success can still happen in these environments, it comes at a high cost—employee churn, reduced performance, and damage to individuals’ wellbeing.
This is why the inclusion narrative needs to be tied directly to performance. Inclusion isn’t just about being nice; it’s about creating an environment where everyone feels that they can bring their best selves to work, and contribute to the organisation’s goals. When people experience exclusion in the workplace, the effort required to maintain performance becomes unsustainable over time.
Where do you think your organisation is on this scale?
