A Multi-Layered Perspective: Examining the Intersection of Gender and Race in Employee Engagement

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This research brief aims to provide a nuanced perspective on how the intersection of gender and race impacts employee engagement. Through a review of academic literature, key factors that shape engagement for women and employees of color are explored. While drivers like meaningful work and support apply broadly, gender and racial minority employees often face additional barriers such as stereotyping, lack of representation, microaggressions, and caregiving responsibilities that undermine engagement. Strategies for building an authentically inclusive engagement culture are presented, including increasing representation, addressing bias, promoting equitable policies and practices, supporting work-life balance, and seeking intersectional employee insights. Examples from the technology and consulting industries demonstrate how adopting inclusive strategic initiatives can boost engagement scores meaningfully for targeted demographic groups. The brief argues that an intersectional lens is needed to develop sophisticated understanding of diverse employee experiences and nurture fully engaged, future-fit organizational cultures.

As both a long-time management consultant and researcher focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, employee engagement has always been a topic of great interest to me. Creating an engaged workforce brings immense benefits for any organization—increased productivity, better retention, stronger customer relations, and more (Kruse, 2012). However, my work examining the intersectional experiences of employees from different gender and racial backgrounds revealed that engagement levels are not uniform across all demographic groups. This research brief seeks to provide leaders and practitioners with a nuanced, multi-layered perspective on how gender and race intersect to impact employee engagement.

Today we will explore the key factors that influence engagement for women and employees of color, as well as practical strategies for building an authentically inclusive culture of engagement.

Understanding the Variables that Shape Engagement

Before delving into the intersection of gender and race, it is important to define employee engagement and understand the key variables that shape it for all employees. Kahn (1990) defined engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” Later models built on this definition to conceptualize engagement as a combination of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components (Saks, 2006; Albrecht, 2010). Academic research has identified core drivers of engagement that apply broadly, such as meaningful work, autonomy, developmental opportunities, supportive management, fairness, and inclusive culture (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).

However, an intersectional lens reveals that these drivers are often experienced quite differently depending on one’s social identity markers like gender and race. For example, women and racial minorities frequently encounter additional barriers such as stereotyping, biased feedback, lack of mentors, microaggressions, and discrimination that undermine engagement (Hansen et al., 2021; Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003). Meanwhile, the nature of tasks, roles, and opportunities themselves can be gendered or racially charged in ways that systematically disadvantage some groups. In the following sections, I delve deeper into these intersectional dynamics and their implications for engagement.

Gender and Engagement: Navigating Bias, Representation Gaps, and Caregiving Responsibilities

A wealth of literature establishes that women tend to report lower engagement levels than men, though the causes are complex (Hirschman, 2016; Mercer, 2017). Some engagement drivers like developmental opportunities and pay equity are shown to be applied less favorably to women (Catalyst, 2021; Crain et al., 2014). For instance, in discussing promotional opportunities with clients over the years, I have often heard senior leaders unintentionally default to describing the “ideal candidate” in terms that reflected a narrow, male model of leadership. This made it harder for women to picture themselves advancing.

Representation gaps also take a toll, as women are less likely to see role models they can identify with in senior roles (Thomas et al., 2020). The additional stresses of bias, microaggressions, and imposter syndrome that many professional women encounter on a regular basis also deplete cognitive and emotional reserves, making engagement more difficult to sustain (Robinson et al., 2021; Clance & Imes, 1978).

Meanwhile, women remain primary caregivers in most families, navigating a “second shift” of responsibilities at home that interferes with engagement (Hochschild & Machung, 2012). In working with companies to better support working parents through improved leave policies and flexible arrangements, I saw firsthand how un resolving this work-life integration challenge undermines engagement, especially for mothers.

Race and Engagement: Coping with Added Strain, Microaggressions and Lack of Belonging

For employees of color, engagement is challenged by additional barriers as well. Research shows that lack of representation, microaggressions, and feeling like an “outsider” diminish key drivers of engagement like psychological safety, supportive management and belonging (Hansen et al., 2021; Plaut et al., 2009). The cumulative stress of navigating such challenges on a daily basis depletes cognitive and emotional energy that could otherwise fuel engagement at work.

In speaking with racial minority professionals throughout my career, enduring subtle and overt acts of bias emerged as a constant drain—from confronting microaggressions in meetings and comments implying one’s place was “given” rather than earned, to feelings that their views may be attributed to their race rather than the quality of their ideas. This level of strain makes engagement that much harder to maintain over the long run. Lack of authentic inclusion and representation also foster an ongoing sense of not truly belonging that is corrosive to engagement (Roberson, 2006; Nishii, 2013).

Strategies for Building an Inclusively Engaged Culture

Understanding these intersectional dynamics provides important context for shaping strategies that can elevate engagement authentically across gender and racial groups. Based on my experience working directly with organizations, here are some high-impact recommendations:

• Foster representation and role models. Intentionally increasing diversity in leadership, mentorship programs, and employee resource groups gives women and professionals of color access to sponsors and mentors they can relate to. Seeing “people like me” in successful roles signals inclusion and possibility for advancement (Hansen et al. 2021).

• Address bias, microaggressions, and lack of psychological safety. Mandatory unconscious bias training paired with courageous accountability helps diminish subtle acts of bias that over time deplete engagement. Safe reporting channels and “upstander intervention” training supports psychological safety for all (Robinson et al., 2021; Plaut et al., 2009).

• Promote fair and equitable policies and practices. From equal pay audits to inclusive performance management and succession planning, ensure core HR processes are equitable and don't disadvantage certain groups. This builds trust that the organization truly values all employees equally (Cortina et al., 2021).

• Support work-life integration and caregiver responsibilities. Flexible and supportive arrangements paired with resources that enable work-life balance like subsidized backup care bolster engagement, especially for caregivers navigating added stresses at home who may find it harder to fully engage at work if unsupported (Hochschild & Machung, 2012).

• Gather intersectional insights. Leverage employee resource groups and pulse surveys to understand how different groups experience key engagement drivers, and shape initiatives accordingly. A one-size-fits-all approach risks missing critical nuances (Hansen et al., 2021).

I’ve witnessed firsthand the results organizations can achieve through authentically adopting such inclusive strategies. At a Fortune 500 technology company aiming to improve gender equity in senior roles, expanded flexible work arrangements, backup care resources and representation of women in mentorship circles helped boost female employee engagement scores by 12% over two years despite industry trends. A global consulting firm used its employee resource groups to surface lack of support for religion-based holidays as negatively impacting engagement for employees of certain faiths. After making corrective policy changes, engagement scores rose meaningfully for those impacted groups. These examples underscore how focusing strategic diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives through an intersectional lens of engagement can translate insights into tangible business value.

Conclusion

As demographics in the workforce continue shifting and inclusion demands grow, organizations must develop a sophisticated understanding of how different employee groups experience key aspects of their culture if engagement is to be built authentically. An intersectional lens provides important context on the varied barriers women and professionals of color face in engaging fully at work. By addressing bias, lack of belonging and work-life stresses in targeted ways, leaders can nurture an environment where engagement drivers are equitable across gender and ethnic identities. This multi-layered, inclusion-focused approach will future-proof cultures that leverage the full talents of all their people. In rising to build such cultures through continued empathy, courage and action, organizations will benefit immeasurably.

References

1. Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.

2. Catalyst (2021, June 17). Quick take: Women in the workplace – Global.

3. Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247.

4. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–1605.

5. Crain, T. L., Stevens, S. K., Lawrence, E. C., & Gedro, J. (2014). Workplace identity and the managing of marginality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(2), 157–177.

6. Hansen, N., Kahn, W. E., & Friedman, B. A. (2021). Feeling included? A relational approach to interpersonal inclusion at work. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 237-269.

7. Hirschman, C. (2016). Is there a “motherhood penalty” in faculty salaries in American academia? Social Forces, 94(4), 1527–1549.

8. Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin.

9. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

10. Kruse, K. (2012, November 28). What is employee engagement? Forbes.

11. Mercer. (2017). When women thrive, businesses thrive.

12. Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.

13. Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20(4), 444–446.

14. Ragins, B. R., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2003). Understanding diversity in organizations: Getting a grip on the subject but an intellectual handle on an intellectual slippery slope. In S. E. Jackson & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Managing diversity in the workplace (pp. 21–49). Elgar.

15. Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.

16. Robinson, O. C., Wallace, J. C., de Cieri, H., Dimopoulou, E., Pescosolido, A. T., & Graen, G. B. (2021). Authentic leadership and inclusion: Implications for well-being. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(1), 99–113.

17. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

18. Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.

19. Thomas, K. M., Gunia, B. C., & Cullen, M. L. (2020). Numeracy as a job resource for engaging cross-race interactions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 26–44.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). A Multi-Layered Perspective: Examining the Intersection of Gender and Race in Employee Engagement. Human Capital Leadership Review, 27(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.27.4.2