Search results

This chapter reviews previous research on allyship: non-minority individuals who choose to support minorities while working to end discrimination and prejudice. In particular, the focus of this chapter is on how allyship applies to the workplace. We argue that allyship can be a diversity management tool to help reduce workplace discrimination.

To explore this topic, we conducted a literature review on allyship in the workplace and synthesized previous research together. We examined research from both organizational and non-organizational settings.

Our review of previous literature is divided into three sections. First, we discuss what all entails allyship, including knowledge, communication, and, in particular, action. Next, we discuss the many outcomes previous research suggests comes from allyship (including benefits to other individuals, benefits to the overall culture, and benefits to the ally him or herself). Finally, we conclude with a discussion of who is likely to become an ally as well as the journey a person goes through to become a true ally.

This chapter can be useful for practitioners who wish to promote allyship within his or her workplace. Organizations that want to strengthen their diversity and inclusion climate can consider developing ally training programs and promoting ally culture. Additionally, this chapter can be useful for researchers who wish to study the topic. Currently, there is a dearth of research on allyship specifically within the workplace; this chapter can help future researchers identify areas for empirical exploration.

Purpose: To examine empirical patterns of participation of allied groups in disability protests from 1970 to 2016 in the United States.

Methods/approach: Uses event history to analyze 1,268 cases of disability protests quantitatively. Internal and external allied groups and types of individual protestors are analyzed over the entire period and by decade.

Findings: Multiple impairment, single issue organizations were a more common type of “internal” ally than were either single impairment, multiple issue organizations or multiple impairment, multiple issue (truly cross-disability) organizations. External ally groups with a wide range of concerns were less common than internal ally groups but were most represented during the 1990s. Veterans groups were the most common type of external ally, while parents were the most common type of individual allies.

Implications/values: Two topics need more attention: How ally participation in disability protests compares to that in protests in other social movements, and what types of changes over time emerge. Explanations relating to movement trajectories and other social movement characteristics are presented, and the need for a more nuanced conceptualization of protest allies is discussed.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is the fastest-growing disability in the US; despite years of federal policy aimed at enhancing employment outcomes for this population, these outcomes remain limited. Little is known about the allyship strategies used to support job seekers with ASD to communicate with potential employers. The current study assesses self-advocates with ASD and supporters of people with ASD (e.g., family members, caregivers, employment specialists, vocational rehabilitation professionals) about the advocacy strategies they have implemented during the hiring process to enhance communication with employers. Study participants rated the effectiveness of the strategies that others may use, as well as the strategies they have used when seeking employment for an open position. Finally, a variety of psychological variables (e.g., self-determination, self-advocacy, global self-esteem, mentorship, incivility) were measured that are suspected to influence the use of these strategies in seeking employment. Findings inform effective support and advocacy strategies as well as ways that varying psychological variables predict the use of these strategies, informing personalization of interventions and supports for self-advocates and allies.

The paper attempts to examine the effect of multiple brand alliances using a portfolio diversification approach.

The paper reports the findings of a four‐level, single factor design study in which 149 randomly assigned participants were exposed to a product concept description for a new product in conjunction with: no ally (control), one ally, three homogeneous allies, and three heterogeneous allies.

Results support previous findings in the literature with regard to the effect of a single brand alliance. However, no support was found for the proposition that consumer evaluations of an unknown focal brand, when three well‐known heterogeneous allies are present, will be higher than when either one well‐known ally is present or three well‐known homogeneous allies are present.

Consistent with previous published research and despite diversifying the brand allies; it is impossible to conclude that multiple brand allies provide increased evaluations, relative to a single ally, for a previously unknown brand. More research is necessary regarding when and why multiple allies might be beneficial.

As the use of multiple brand alliances proliferates in the marketplace, it is important to understand the effect of such strategies on consumers' evaluations. The paper contributes to this growing body of research by investigating the effect of multiple brand alliances using a portfolio diversification approach.

Although allies have been shown to be effective at helping to ignite positive change for marginalized groups, the literature on ally identity development is fragmented.

We draw from developmental, contextual, and identity theories to review the existing literature and focus squarely on the ally experience, resulting in a synthesized process-based conceptualization of ally identity development.

At each stage, we discuss intrapersonal experiences individuals are likely to have internally, interpersonal experiences that are likely to occur with others, and catalysts for progression to subsequent stages. In doing so, we outline the multilevel factors that influence and are influenced by ally development in hopes of identifying what motivates or dissuades individuals from becoming more active allies.

We provide practitioners and scholars with a deeper understanding of the organizational and societal benefits associated with allyship behaviors, as well as tools for increasing their presence within organizations.

Institutional actors are critical allies for grassroots movements, but few studies have examined their effects and variations within the non-democratic context. This chapter argues that while institutional allies are heavily constrained and unlikely to give open endorsement to grassroot activists, some institutional activists indirectly facilitate movement mobilization and favorable outcomes in the process of advancing their own political agendas. Drawing upon in-depth interviews conducted in 2008 and 2012, I illustrate this argument by examining the Anti-PX Movement – a landmark grassroots environmental movement against a chemical plant – in Xiamen, China. I find that the environmental institutional actors were constrained and divided, yet some still fostered opportunities for movement mobilization and in turn exploited the opportunity created by the protesters to pursue their policy interests, thus facilitating positive movement outcomes. As long as the claims are not politically subversive to the authoritarian rule, this type of tacit and tactical interaction between institutional activists within the state and grassroot activists on the street is conducive to promoting progressive policy changes.

This paper aims to assess the effects of explicit partner brand mentions (as opposed to a mere partnership mention) in communications by brand allies on consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for an innovation, as mediated by the perceived relational embeddedness of the allies and their respective perceived corporate credibility. In Study 1, the authors investigate the effects of (reciprocal) explicit brand mentions by both allies (as opposed to by a single ally) and further test whether explicit brand mentions moderate spillover effects from the ally. In Study 2, the authors investigate the effect of reciprocity of explicit brand mentions and whether this is moderated by a company’s experience.

The authors conduct two online experiments. Study 1 (N = 216) is a four-level between-subjects experiment (single communication by Partner A with explicit brand mention, single communication by Partner B with explicit brand mention, explicit brand mentions by both allies and mere partnership mention by both allies) where participants judge a social alliance related to a new tablet. Study 2 (N = 376) builds upon these findings in a 4 (explicit brand mentions by both allies; mere partnership mention by both allies; explicit brand mention by Partner A, mere partnership mention by Partner B; explicit brand mention by partner B, mere partnership mention by Partner A) × 2 (Partner A experience: established vs startup) between-subjects experimental design for a co-created battery.

Spillover effects from one ally to the other are stronger with explicit brand mentions than with a mere partnership mention. There is no added value of two allies communicating over one, provided that both partners explicitly mention their partner brand. However, when allies do communicate separately, it is crucial that an explicit brand mention is reciprocated. This effect is explained by an increase in the perceived relational embeddedness of the partners, which in turn positively influences their corporate credibility. This effect does not differ depending on a company’s experience.

This research is one of the first to study effects of how a brand alliance is communicated and extends previous studies on the effects of communication about brand and co-creation alliances by demonstrating that communications moderate spillover effects, that brand mention reciprocity is crucial, and by introducing the concept of perceived relational embeddedness.

This chapter explores the concept of allyship in social justice struggles. It provides a road map for self-reflection as well as acquisition of skills necessary for effective allyship. It describes appropriate roles for allies in dismantling systems and structures that protect the privilege of the majority in various contexts – privilege often unseen, unacknowledged and/or actively denied. This chapter will examine unique roles of allies in exposing, challenging, and dismantling privilege and white supremacy. Concrete examples of benefits that have accrued to white Americans through privilege – both conscious and unconscious, are assessed. The reader will be encouraged to explore personal areas of privilege and marginalization and acknowledge multidimensional identities (race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, etc.) of individuals and unique lived experiences. Those seeking authentic positions of allyship are challenged to root out embedded privilege/white supremacy through direct action.