Muslim women’s workplace

experiences: implications for

strategic diversity initiatives
Terrie C. Reeves
Department of Business Administration,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina,
USA
Arlise P. McKinney
Department of Management and Decision Sciences,
Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina, USA, and
Laila Azam
Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine Muslim women’s decisions to wear headscarves,
known as hijab, in the workplace. The decision to wear hijab may result in a stigmatized identity, so
the paper also aims to examine perceived or experienced discrimination and impact on
employment outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – Using qualitative methodology to capture nuances, the study
was based on demographic responses and semi-structured interview questions by 79 Muslim
women physicians and other healthcare professionals.
Findings – The paper finds that many factors influenced their decisions, but Muslim women had
a wide variety of views in terms of the hijab and adherence to Islamic precepts. Those who wear hijab
reported negative experiences of intolerance and discrimination. The decision to wear hijab was
subsequently associated with perceived discrimination that would limit one’s employment
opportunities.
Practical implications – Religion is one diversity categorization that can be invisible yet still has a
significant impact on workers and their engagement in the workplace. Organizations engaged in
strategic diversity initiatives may need to better understand specific nuances of diversity concerning
religious expression and the potential psychological toll hiding those expressions may have on
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
workers. The paper’s findings have implications for personnel selection, training, and managing International Journal
interpersonal relationships in the workplace. Vol. 32 No. 1, 2013
Originality/value – Religious expression is an under-studied workplace diversity facet, especially pp. 49-67
Ⓒ Emerald Group Publishing Limited
when disclosing religion is a choice that may result in being stigmatized. There has been research on 2040-7149
workplace treatment of Muslims and the influences of spirituality, but no research that examined DOI 10.1108/02610151311305614
the decision to wear hijab and the associated workplace consequences.
Keywords Religious expression, Diversity initiatives, Perceived discrimination, Stigmas, Muslims,
Interpersonal discrimination, Islam, Women, Discrimination, Workplace, Religion
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
As the workplace becomes increasingly global, there has been a heightened awareness
of diversity management issues that extend beyond the demographic characteristics of
race, gender, and age to include consideration of additional characteristics such as
religion. In the USA, religion is protected from workplace discrimination by Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an
applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs (US Equal
EDI Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011a). Moreover, the law requires
32,1 employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and
practices, unless there is a business necessity reason that such accommodation
would otherwise interfere with business operations. Thus, an employer must not
only prevent discrimination but must also reasonably accommodate an employee’s
religious beliefs and practices. In addition to other practices, many religions include
50 certain attire or adornment as an expression of faith. In the current study, we
focussed on Muslim
women because of the recent debate in Europe and the USA about the appropriateness
of wearing the headscarf in schools and at work (Giddens, 2004). We specifically
examined Muslim women and their decision to wear attire, known as the hijab,
associated with their religion in the workplace. We sought to learn more about
the decision processes and workplace outcomes in response to the religious expression.
We begin with a review of organizational diversity initiatives with a particular focus on
diversity climate and then address research on religion in the workplace. We also
review the literature on stigma as a pretext for negative treatment and interpersonal
discrimination as it relates to the experiences of Muslim women in the US workforce.

Organizational strategic responses to diversity

Organizational diversity management initiatives have included the implementation
of practices and policies that attract talent and empower employees to excel, but they
also include the removal of barriers that may hinder progress. Increased workplace
diversity in terms of race, gender, age, disability, and religion has sparked research
and social programs designed to understand the challenges represented by these
differences and to develop strategies for effectively managing groups in the
workplace (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Konrad, 2003). Diversity representations reflect an
organization’s efforts in attaining its desired diversity demographic characteristics
(e.g. number of women and racial-ethnic minorities) and in minimizing incidents
of diversity discrimination (Goldman et al., 2006; Ployhart and Holtz, 2008).
However, research has consistently shown that increased diversity representation
does not create productive work environments in which employees share
information and experiences that enhance outcomes for all employees and that
diversity climate may be the key for creating inclusive work environments (Kossek et
al., 1996; Konrad, 2003; McKay and Avery, 2005).
Specifically, there has been significant research on how facets of diversity climate
impact diverse members in studies examining stereotypical attitudes in regard to
gender (Wood, 2008) and barriers to advancement attributed to glass ceilings and
concrete walls (Cocchiara et al., 2006). Additionally, recent complaints of religious
discrimination in the USA have escalated such that it represented the largest
percentage increase for the fiscal year ending 2011, with many of the cases associated
with being Muslim (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011b). Thus,
women in general and particularly Muslim women have reported greater challenges
for attaining fair and equal treatment and a work climate that is inclusive. These
reports highlight a need for organizations to evaluate diversity climate and
address areas where both policies and interpersonal interactions represent the
need for more education, awareness, and attention to the climate of inclusion in the
work environment.
Diversity climate refers to an individual employee’s perceptions of the inclusiveness
of his or her organizational context, which are affected by varying group
memberships in the workplace (e.g. gender and ethnicity), and diversity attitudes
are the extent to
which the individual employee values differences and supports organizational efforts
to maximize and manage diverse members (Roberson, 2006). While diversity Muslim women’s
representations often have a legal context, diversity climate is far more subjective workplace
and becomes one of the many facets to manage in organizational contexts. Research experiences
on diversity has examined both individual and organizational level attitudes and
perceptions concerning diversity and also organizational strategic approaches to
diversity management (Konrad, 2003; Kossek et al., 1996; Roberson, 2006). Diversity 51
climate has been associated with important organizational outcomes including
turnover intentions (Stewart et al., 2011), productivity (McKay et al., 2009), and
organizational commitment and attachment (Kaplan et al., 2011). As noted by
Herdman and McMillan-Capehart (2010), diversity climate was found to be an
important indicator of employee experiences within a firm and the effectiveness of
diversity initiatives. Collectively these studies examined diversity climate through
the lens of the employees’ experiences in the workplace and found that the level of
inclusiveness in their workgroups influenced organizational commitment and tur
nover intentions. We extend the examination of diversity climate in this study by
examining religious expression and its impact on the attitudes and interactions
experienced by organizational members that may or may not reflect the inclusive
environments espoused by management.

Religion in the workplace

While religion is protected from employment discrimination in the USA, it is often
quite unclear how the law is to be applied, or what inclusive workforce practices
allow for religious expression. Cromwell (1997, p. 169) argued that religion can be
problematic because unlike other characteristics (e.g. race, gender, national origin,
disability, etc.), it is “an acquired property consisting of a set of beliefs that can be
dynamic in nature.” Other than disability, it is the only protected basis that may
require accommodations in workplace practice to avoid intentional or unintentional
discrimination. In this paper, we examined Muslim women and their choice to wear
the hijab as an expression of their religious persuasion, the associated stigma they
might encounter as a result, and specifically whether they experienced
discrimination in the workplace. The hijab covers the hair, neck, and shoulders and
is traditionally an expression of Islamic modesty (Syed, 2010). As Khosravi (2012)
noted, veils or headscarves are a woman’s most conspicuous signifier of Muslim
religious identity.
Islam is the second largest religion in the world and the population of Muslims in
the USA is expected to double by the year 2030 (Pew Research Center, Forum on
Religion and Public Life, 2011). In the period following the events of September 11,
2011, Muslim Americans reported the highest number of claims of discrimination
because the Islamic faith was so closely related to the acts of religious
extremists. Discrimination complaints ranged from overt (e.g. name calling and
intimidation) to covert (e.g. not being served, avoiding eye contact, and prolonged
stares; Barkdull et al., 2011). Prior studies have examined court cases involving
complaints of religious discrimination in the USA and found instances of intolerance
and refusal to accommodate, particularly with Muslims in the workplace (Ball and
Haque, 2003; Mujtaba and Cavico, 2012).
This study contributes to the literature of managing diversity and inclusive
workplaces but is distinctly different from research that examines inclusion based on
ethnic minority workplace experiences (Dawson, 2006; Van Laer and Janssens, 2011)
and cultural discrimination (Cromwell, 1997). In these studies, experiences of
EDI discrimination were associated with visible aspects of diversity that could not
32,1 be hidden. In contrast to other diversity aspects, religious persuasion is not a stable
demographic categorization but, instead, is an aspect of diversity that can be
malleable, expressive, and hidden. Although prior research has examined the role of
religion, spirituality, and faith in the psychological and physical health of patients in
healthcare (King and Crowther, 2004; Liu and Robertson, 2011; Strauss and Sawyerr,
52 2009), we could find no studies that examined these practices for employees in the
healthcare profession. In these studies, religion and spirituality was an important
determinant of trust and disclosure in the caregiver-patient relationship, a critical
aspect of job performance. Only one study examined employment discrimination in
healthcare but it focussed on age and gender, not on religion or religious expression
(Ozcan et al., 2011). Thus, this study is timely in examining the religious aspect
of diversity and its impact on the perceived employment outcomes on Muslim
women employed in healthcare settings.

Stigma
Stigma is a phenomenon often studied in diversity contexts as an explanation for
some of the experiences of women and ethnic minorities in social and employment
contexts. Stigmas are personal characteristics labeled as flaws within a certain social
contexts (Ragins, 2008), and a person with a stigmatizing characteristic is viewed as
being in a separate, stereotypical group of lower status (Link and Phelan, 2001).
According to Goffman (1963), “stigma is an attribute that discredits an individual,
reducing him or her from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (p. 3).
Stigmas may be linked to appearance, behavior, or group membership and have
been found to be linked to poor mental health, physical illness, and reduced access
to housing, education, and jobs (Gee et al., 2006; Major and O’Brien, 2005). Groups
with stigmatized identities include minority race (O’Hara et al., 2012), gender (Crocker et
al., 1991), sexual orientation (Ragins, 2008), weight/obesity (King et al., 2006), and
Muslim women (Ryan, 2011). Collectively, these studies reveal that stigmatizing of
individuals or groups results in outcomes that negatively affect both their psychological
well-being and employment outcomes.
A substantial body of research has addressed the issue of disclosure and
demonstrated the negative consequences accruing to a stigmatized individual (Clair
et al., 2005; Cottrell and Neuberg, 2005; Crocker et al., 1991; Beals et al., 2009; Goff et al.,
2008; Halperin et al., 2007), so many people try to avoid being stigmatized. The issue
of concealment is particularly germane for invisible identities like sexual orientation,
mental illness, and religion (Beals et al., 2009; Beatty and Kirby, 2006; Ragins, 2008),
where the decision to disclose is often tempered by concerns of discriminatory
practices or exclusion. Prior studies have shown the psychological strain of
withholding one’s identity or passing to avoid being stigmatized (Goffman, 1963;
Ragins, 2008; Smart and Wegner, 1999). Concealing a stigmatized identity has been
shown to lead to inner turmoil that can affect one’s mental life (Smart and Wegner,
1999). Ragins (2008) noted that fear of disclosure was often associated with threatened
job loss. Clair et al. (2005) concluded that positive experiences resulting from disclosure
will lead employees to reveal their social identities while negative experiences
were more likely to generate passive behaviors that hide invisible identities. It is
these experiences resulting from stigmatized identities that are believed to be
associated with diversity climate and performance in the workplace and impacted
the important outcomes such as commitment and turnover intentions.
The stigma of religion
Unlike race, gender, weight, or certain disabilities, religion can be an invisible
Muslim women’s
social identity. The invisibility allows an individual to control the likelihood of workplace
being stigmatized by his or her choice to disclose what would otherwise remain experiences
hidden. The stigmas associated with being a Muslim and with the religion, Islam,
were certainly heightened after the events of 9/11 and other recent events around the
world where the Islamic religion has been intricately associated with religious 53
extremists (Ball and Haque, 2003; Ryan, 2011). Major and O’Brien (2005) identified four
mechanisms of stigmatization:
(1) negative treatment and discrimination;
(2) expectancy confirmation processes;
(3) automatic stereotype activation; and
(4) identity threat processes.

Specifically, negative treatment and discrimination were the acts that directly affect
the social status, psychological well-being, and physical health of the stigmatized
individual.
Stigmatized individuals will likely experience negative treatment and
discrimination in the workplace (King et al., 2006; Singletary and Hebl, 2009).
Interpersonal discrimination, one form of negative treatment, refers to
discriminating interactions between individuals within a workgroup (Karlsen and
Nazroo, 2002). Interpersonal discrimination can be overt (e.g. being treated rudely or
threatened) and/or subtle (e.g. being ignored or watched closely) and both the
frequency and severity of these incidents will likely shape negative employee
experiences and perceptions of organizational climate. Research examining other
diverse groups has shown that interpersonal discrimination negatively affects
women (Priola and Brannan, 2009) and ethnic minorities (Dawson, 2006), and results
in a number of important psychological and employment outcomes (Krings and
Olivares, 2007; Van Laer and Janssens, 2011). Little is known from the perspective of
the impacted employee about discrimination experiences based on religious
expression in the workplace; however, prior research has provided some insight into
the outcomes experienced by Muslims.
In a study of treatment discrimination and its effects, Rippy and Newman (2006)
found complaints of verbal harassment, unfair employment practices, job
termination or denial of employment, and denial of religious accommodations
among others by Muslim job applicants. The consequences of these actions resulted in
the same aversive psychological symptoms of anxiety commonly found in race-based
discrimination. Several studies have also found adverse effects for Muslims in the
workplace including negative impact on hiring decisions based on their
name/religion (King and Ahmad, 2010), unfavorable judgment compared to whites in
hiring decisions, salary assignments, and future career progression (Park et al.,
2009), and stereotyping and biases associated with their of religion and national
origin (Mujtaba and Cavico, 2012). These studies reveal that Muslims have legitimate
concerns about fair and equal treatment in the US workplace. Allen and Nielsen
(2002) further added that Muslim women may be more vulnerable when wearing
the hijab results in disclosure of their religion. We extend this research by examining
the lived experiences that are hypothesized to precede the employment outcomes.
EDI In this study, we were interested in the process of negative treatment accorded to
32,1 stigmatized individuals and the consequence of exclusion from or disengagement
in the workplace. There is extensive literature about people who exhibit bias by
stigmatizing others, but the stigmatized individuals’ perceptions, cognitive processes,
and beliefs are less studied (Crocker and Major, 2003; Miller et al., 2004). In the current
study, we examine the workplace experiences of Muslim women and the associated
54 consequences for those who chose to disclose their religious identity by wearing
hijab
in the workplace in the USA. Specifically, we sought to examine the likelihood of
stigma and the associated interpersonal discrimination among Muslim women in the
US workforce who chose to disclose religious preference by wearing the hijab. We
wanted to capture the women’s personal perceptions in their own words to provide
a richer disclosure of their workplace experiences.

Methods
Participants
Participants for this study were identified as females who were members of two US
healthcare professional organizations for Muslims. We solicited participation with
posters and personal invitations at several meetings of the organizations and the
women were contacted individually via e-mail and/or phone to ask for their
voluntary participation. All participants were Muslim professional women already
familiar with Islam and hijab. Each was introduced to the study and informed of its
purpose, which was to better understand perceived and/or experienced
discrimination associated with wearing hijab in the workplace. The final sample
consisted of 79 women who agreed to participate in all aspects of the study.
We sought to examine treatment issues in the current study with Muslim women in
the healthcare industry. We chose the healthcare industry for two reasons:
(1) health care is one of the fastest growing industries in large part due to the
projected needs of aging Baby Boomers (US Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2010); and
(2) the representation of women in this occupation is also growing where
women outnumber men in graduate programs, including traditionally male-
dominated disciplines in medicine and other health professional programs
(American Council on Education, 2008).
Procedure
Data were gathered on demographic and background characteristics and on hijab
status followed by semi-structured interview questions which were used to capture
perceptions about hijab and the decision to wear it in the workplace. Participant
responses were captured electronically via a web-based survey system, which imposed
no specific time limit for completion. Participants were allowed to take as long as
they wished to answer all questions and to provide feedback on the qualitative
sections. The survey questions included demographic characteristic categorical
questions, dichotomous questions, and also semi-structured interview questions in
an effort to capture the following information: the choice of Muslim women to wear or
not wear hijab in the workplace and the associated work outcomes, both perceived
and experienced.
In the quantitative assessment, participants were asked several direct questions
beginning with the questions of primary interest in this study, with the first being,
“do you wear hijab?” This was dichotomously scored for yes/no responses. Two
additional questions, also dichotomously scored for yes/no responses were, “I have Muslim women’s
witnessed discrimination” and “I have personally experienced discrimination.” workplace
Participants were also asked to respond to the following semi-structured interview experiences
questions and any additional information about their experiences that they would
like to share with the researchers:
(1) Tell us whether you wear hijab at work; please share your thoughts on why you 55
do or do not wear hijab?
(2) Can you tell me about any positive or negative experiences you have
encountered based on being Muslim?
Analysis
The demographic characteristics and participant responses of the 79 participants
were analyzed using counts and percentages. We used the Frequency and Crosstabs
functions in SPSS to determine the number of women who chose to wear hijab
among those who responded to qualitative questions, and to determine the
demographic characteristics of hijabis compared to non-hijabis. Following
Dawson’s (2006) and Priola and Brannan’s (2009) frameworks, which used
interviews to examine the workplace experiences of African-Americans and women,
respectively, data from the semi-structured interview questions were grouped into
recurring themes. We captured the responses to the semi-structured interview
questions and grouped them based on the major themes that emerged from the
participant responses. The expressions of experience were evaluated to examine
religious tolerance, perceived and experienced discrimination, and choice to engage in
religious expression within the organizational environment.
Results
A total of 119 women responded to the quantitative sections of the questionnaire
providing demographic information and hijabi status, with 79 women participating in
the qualitative sections intended to capture their perceptions and workplace
experiences. In Table I, we report the demographic characteristics of the sample
based on hijabis and non-hijabis to include professional status, regions of employment,
organization type, current position, highest education completed, and hours worked
per week. As shown in Table I, 44 percent of the participants wear hijab in the
workplace. Among non-physicians, 51 percent chose to wear hijab, while only about
a third of physicians chose to wear hijab. A total of 37 percent of the women were
from the Midwest where roughly 45 percent wore hijab. Although only 36 percent of
western women reported wearing hijab, in the other regions of the country the
percent of hijabis and non-hijabis was about equal. Of the women working in
clinical care, 77 percent reported wearing hijab.
About 20 percent of all respondents reported experiencing discrimination
(e.g. “patients declined treatment from me because of my religion or culture”) and
about 30 percent reported witnessing discrimination (e.g. “I witnessed
discrimination against colleagues”). Among ¼ hijabis (n 35), 62 percent reported
experienced discrimination and/or witnessed discrimination, whereas among¼non-
hijabis (n 44), 41 percent of women reported witnessed and/or experienced
discrimination. Where the finding of experienced or witnessed discrimination was
equally represented among hijabis, non-hijabis witnessed more discrimination than
actually experienced it. We learned more about the workplace experiences of
Muslim women from the
 EDI
32,1 Yes
Wears hijab?
No Total n ¼ 79 (%)

Professional status
Non-physician 25 23 48 (62.3)
Physician 10 19 29 (37.7)
56 No response 0 0 0 (0.0)
Respondents’ regions of employment
North east 9 10 19 (24.7)
South east 3 4 7 (9.1)
Midwest 13 16 29 (37.7)
West 5 9 14 (18.2)
No response 5 3 8 (10.4)
Employing organization type
Hospital or medical center 9 11 20 (26.0)
Integrated system or HMO 4 7 11 (14.3)
Military 0 2 2 (2.6)
Research or educational 4 12 16 (20.8)
Other 14 10 24 (31.2)
No response 4 0 4 (5.2)
Current position
Management 1 9 10 (13)
Clinical care 10 3 13 (16.9)
LT, home, or mental health care 2 3 5 (6.5)
Educational or residency training 3 10 13 (16.9)
No response 19 17 36 (46.8)
Highest education completed
Baccalaureate or less 10 7 17 (22.1)
Post baccalaureate or masters degree 12 13 25 (32.5)
Professional degree 10 19 29 (37.7)
Doctoral degree 3 3 6 (7.8)
No response 0 0 2 (2.6)
Table I.
Demographic Hours worked (mean ¼ 50 h/week)
40 h or less per week 19 16 35 (45.5)
characteristics of the 41-60 h per week 10 11 21 (27.3)
sample (percentages may 61-75 h per week 4 4 8 (10.4)
not total 100 percent More than 75 h per week 1 10 11 (14.3)
due to rounding) No response 1 1 2 (2.6)

qualitative responses that revealed several emerging themes which included:

perceptions of hijab in Islam, perceived and experienced discrimination, and overall
experiences of Muslims wearing hijab in the workplace. Each of these themes reflected
a need to better understand the exercise of religious freedom in the USA and the
need to teach tolerance to address perceptions of Islam.

Perceptions of hijab in Islam

When participants discussed why they did not wear hijab, an unexpectedly large range
of variability was revealed in regard to Muslim women’s beliefs about the
relationship of hijab to Islamic precepts, scriptures, and/or practices. This wide
variability was reflected in the following comments taken directly from the women’s
written responses:
I have my own personal expression of modesty and identify as a Muslimah. Hijab does not
define my concept of Islam/practicing Muslim.
 It is not in my culture to do so (wear hijab) and also I don’t believe it’s the only route to
modesty in Islam. Muslim women’s
workplace
I do not feel culturally tied to the tradition of wearing hijab in daily life.
experiences
Hijab consists of modest behavior in lowering the gaze, guarding the private parts, and
avoiding showing off by modest dress.

I don’t completely believe in hijab. I believe in honesty, modesty, and humility but since I have
57
been disillusioned by people in hijab I prefer not to wear one.

Hijab is a grey area and I don’t believe such a burden should be placed on women.

I think it is a personal choice after reviewing the Qur’an and Sunna to mentally accept to wear
hijab,

(there is) no mention of it (hijab) in the Qur’an,

I do dress conservatively but I do not wear the headscarf.

I do not believe the hijab is a requirement in Islam.

Dressing modestly is mentioned, but not covering of the head.

I don’t feel comfortable wearing it.

I just feel uncomfortable in it.

It is an illusion of modesty, sometimes falsely.

The surprisingly wide variation among Muslim women in their beliefs about the
meaning of hijab was, for the most part, based on the women’s personal religious or
scriptural beliefs. However, several responses mention disillusion about Muslim
women, i.e. themselves. This variation was not evident based on dichotomous
questions or quantitative data and it would likely not have been discovered without the
qualitative approach used in this study.

Perceived or experienced discrimination?

Even among women who believed that the hijab should be worn for Muslim
modesty, many said that the consequences of wearing it may be negative. For these
women, the decision not to wear hijab in the workplace was influenced much more
by the consequences than by their interpretation of Islamic precepts. Often, workplace
issues were specifically mentioned. For example, we found the following from those
who choose not to wear hijab:
It (wearing hijab) is a challenge in today’s society.

It was very nerve-wracking as I knew many of my patients would not like a covered woman
in their home. I finally decided to wear my scarf tied in the back rather than wearing it the
correct way and since then, I have had no negative comments.

I don’t wear hijab in my current job because after searching for a position for over a year,
I found that as soon as I took off the hijab, I was hired!
EDI It would be hard for me to wear hijab and be able to concentrate at work [y] I think I am not
32,1 ready for that kind of rejection.

Afraid of judgment and hostility both from within Muslim community, employers/school, and
family. I hate that it has become such a lightning rod as far as who people think you are or
what you stand for.
58 Personally, lack of courage.

I may not be strong enough to take the risks of wearing hijab.

I am a convert to Islam and do not yet feel ready to make a change in my external
presentation since I began my professional relationship without wearing hijab. It takes time
to change one’s identity and plan on wearing hijab when I feel psychologically and
emotionally strong enough to handle situations and events that change brings about.

It seemed to create a barrier [y] I was told that it was creating a barrier between
other colleagues and patients.

I don’t wear hijab because I feel that it just makes things harder in a society that may not
always be understanding.

It is an act that requires great courage and I applaud those who wear hijab.

I am afraid of discrimination by my employer, co-workers, and patients.

I don’t want to stand out or be singled out.

I actually was afraid to wear hijab at a VA hospital in a suburban area.

It was especially interesting to find that for Muslim women in this study, it was
perceived intolerance or discrimination, and not experienced discrimination that
affected their decision to wear hijab. Prior research has shown that stigmatized
individuals reported mental health effects from both perceived and experienced
discrimination (Gee et al., 2006). Similarly, we sought to examine any behaviors such as
anxiety, fear, depression, or isolation that may have resulted from perceived or
experienced discrimination from the Muslim women in this study. The responses
from our sample should thus be of interest to organizations that seek to embrace all
forms of diversity in that most of the respondents expressed some level of worry of
fear about disclosing religious persuasion and the potential consequences in the
workplace. Organizations may not be aware that suppression of desired religious
expression in the workplace creates psychological stressors that may impact
engagement within the workplace.

Workplace experiences when wearing hijab

As we wanted to learn more about discriminatory experiences associated with wearing
hijab, we asked the participants to discuss positive or negative experiences they might
have encountered as Muslims. This question elicited the experiences, but in addition,
respondents began to address the causal factors that resulted in such experiences as
follows:
Positive:
Someone at work asked me about Islam and I was able to answer her questions and show her
how I cover my hair.
 I am better able to communicate with patients from the same religion and ethnic background.
Muslim women’s
I am able to provide better care to my Muslim patients. workplace
When I have needed to pray, others at the hospital have always been supportive.
experiences
I think some patients take me more seriously because I look more “wholesome”

After 9/11, people were concerned about me being harassed in general.

59
Negative:
A lot of recruiters require us to go out for drinks and sometimes it’s hard to be the only
one around who does not drink alcohol.

Patients, mostly the elderly, express disgust that I became a Muslim.

Sometimes I have gotten distant feelings and actions when someone found out I was
Muslim

I was told by the manager that she hoped that I did not think I could work in her store with
that “rag” on my head.

After 9/11, all of sudden I found myself being reprimanded and written up for things I have
been doing for years and as a result I watched a lot of people get fired.

My former supervisor was Jewish and she joked about the tension that exists between
Muslims and Jews.

Some people react negatively when they find out that I am a Muslim and they are
surprised because I am White. No one seems to have an open mind about White people
and diversity.

Socially, I feel stifled by the culture of drinking and each outing seems to focus on alcohol,
which makes me less prone to participate.

I was asked NOT to encourage fellow sisters to wear hijab.

People ask me if I feel subservient to my husband or men in general, which makes me wonder
if they think I can’t handle a management position.

After 9/11, I sometimes felt embarrassed to admit I was Muslim.

The Muslim women in our study experienced more negative than positive interactions
and consequences when wearing hijab in the workplace. Many participants felt the
negative reactions were due to portrayals of Muslims in US media in their references
to 9/11 and the war against terrorism. They felt that the media invoked more fear
and false perceptions and only in rare cases did they fault the person making the
negative comment.

Discussion
We found that many women chose to disclose that they were Muslim and to experience
any possible consequences of stigmatization, intolerance, or discrimination.
Roughly 30-40 percent of Muslim women in the USA wear hijab (Ahmed, 2011a),
thus we found it surprising that a greater proportion of the study participants chose
to subject themselves to possible stigmatization. This finding may be partially due to
EDI self-selection bias among women who wear hijab as participants in this study.
32,1 However, there are at least two other reasons to explain why this group of highly
educated women might choose to wear hijab. Ahmed (2011a) has suggested that
wearing hijab does not represent a step toward repression for US Muslim women,
unlike the situation of women in predominately Muslim countries (Syed, 2010). Instead
for US women, wearing hijab represents a step toward a new Islamic activism
60 focussed on social justice of all sorts in all situations, not just equality for Muslim
women (Ahmed, 2011a). Another possible reason suggested by the literature is that
perhaps wearing hijab represents greater freedom for these Muslim women in that it
demonstrates to parents and co-religious members that the woman wearing the
hijab has conservative mores. Thus, wearing hijab would allow her more freedom of
movement in public spaces (Ahmed, 2011b), while at the same time allowing
her to express her complete autonomous identity (Williams and Vashi, 2007).
Both of these reasons were supported by the participants’ comments and the
underlying themes found in those comments.
The first theme involved varying beliefs about requirements for wearing hijab
based on the Qur’an or other Islamic precepts or practices[1]. Although the
variability in beliefs surprised us, our surprise may demonstrate the general lack of
knowledge among most US citizens and organizations about Islamic beliefs and
practices. It also illustrated the ease with which people can be categorized into
stereotyped groups. Given the wide range of variability in religious beliefs and
expressions among non-Muslims in the USA, we should not have been surprised to
find similar variation among Muslims. It is unlikely within any religious group for
all members to have uniform beliefs, thus, organizations can learn that this also
holds true for Muslim women.
The second theme that emerged was about prejudice, discrimination, or barriers
in the workplace due to wearing hijab. Respondents reflected about experiences
with hiring difficulties, prejudice or discrimination, and fear. It was notable in the
respondent’s comments that most experiences occurred in society at large and were not
exclusively associated with the workplace. Even without mentioning discrimination
per se, many women reported they felt uncomfortable wearing hijab in the
workplace, or they talked about lacking the courage, confidence, or strength
required to wear hijab. This level of discomfort may be likely to carry over into
negative workplace engagement. Especially in the life-or-death circumstances often
encountered in healthcare organizations, negatively engaged workers may become
liabilities to their employers when healthcare issues are overlooked or not fully
explored.
The third theme to emerge reflected both positive and negative experiences in
the workplace attributed to being Muslim, and may provide further insight for
organizations seeking to create and/or maintain a diverse and inclusive work climate.
The positive experiences described by our participants also revealed that members
of diverse groups may be best suited to enhancing cultural awareness among
organizational members. Participants reported the pleasure involved in explaining
Islamic beliefs and practices to co-workers to enhance their understandings of Islam.
These conversations originated as co-workers inquired about wearing the hijab and
what it means for the individual. Organizations may be able to increase inclusiveness
by encouraging Muslim women to actively discuss their religion and to wear attire that
makes them comfortable. The negative experiences described revealed the problems
people experience when they believe they are or will be stigmatized. While very few
participants reported actual instances of discrimination, many respondents believed
that discriminatory consequences might result if they were to disclose that they
were Muslim by wearing hijab. Muslim women’s
The fact that many of the women’s employing organizations had hired women workplace
who wear hijab might represent highly beneficial change toward more inclusive experiences
workplaces in US healthcare organizations. A 2009 New York Times poll showed
that US Muslims are thriving and that “American Muslim women, contrary to
stereotype, are more likely than American Muslim men to have college and post- 61
graduate degrees. They are more highly educated than women in every other religious
group except Jews. American Muslim women also report incomes more nearly equal
to men, compared with women and men of other faiths” (Goodstein, 2009, p. 11).
Organizations may be missing out on the benefits that could accrue from religious
diversity and its inclusion in workplace diversity initiatives (Reeves and Azam, 2012).
Healthcare organizations that pay particular attention to increasing possibilities
for positive experiences among Islamic women may find that those experiences
translated into positive experiences and better compliance among Islamic patients.
The women’s positive comments support this suggestion.

Conclusions and implications for strategic diversity initiatives

For this study, we drew on the employment discrimination and stigma literature to
examine the experiences of Muslim women in the US workforce, but their
experiences also inform diversity research. Prior research has examined stigmas
associated with race, gender, disability, and sexual preference, and several
comprehensive reviews of diversity research have tended to focus on the various
ways in which diversity constructs were conceptualized (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Nkomo
and Stewart, 2007), but few have examined religious expressions and disclosure in
the workplace and the associated impact on the employee and their employment
outcomes. The comments of women who chose not to wear hijab support the stigma
literature and our expectation that wearing hijab exposed the women to more
negative outcomes and impacted their decisions to disclose religious affiliation.
However, the study’s findings also highlight an additional dimension to diversity
climate, religion, which has received less attention than race and gender issues in prior
research. At the least, our study suggests that organizations need to be cognizant of
inadvertent stigmatization and discrimination due to religion. Additionally, this study
recommends that organizations take the initiative to create workplaces in which
disclosure of hidden characteristics like religion are encouraged and in which
employees may reap the benefits in attaining inclusive work environments. If
women want to wear hijab in the workplace and suffer no negative consequences
as a result, they may be more engaged employees and they may better serve clients
who are, in turn, happier clients. Dass and Parker (1999) identified four ways that
organizations approach diversity management practices within the organization.
These approaches serve as a useful typology for understanding how organizations
integrate diversity representations and diversity climate practices, and can be
applied to assess organizational responses to diversity in the workplace. The
typology identified both the strategic perspective and the associated strategic
responses for organizations seeking to improve and build inclusive work
environments. It also includes possible organizational outcomes. Specifically Dass
and Parker (1999) classified organizations as representatives of one of the four
perspectives (resistance, fairness, access, or learning) based on how they have
approached diversity, the diverse groups of interest in the organization, their responses
to diversity, and the expected outcomes of diversity.
EDI The resistance perspective is used by organizations that believe diversity is not a
32,1 problem for the organization. For these organizations, maintaining the status quo
is the only outcome of interest. The major strategic response is to manipulate the
system to insure maintenance of the existing system, and if challenged, any response
to diversity is merely reactive (Dass and Parker, 1999). Some of the women in our
study spoke about organizations that might fall into this category, but the majority
62 did not. The fairness approach to diversity is more legalistic with a focus on
making
decisions that minimize the likelihood of discriminatory lawsuits (Dass and Parker,
1999; Roehling and Wright, 2006). In firms using this approach, diversity
management practices are defensive (e.g. diversity practices target women and
minorities to the exclusion of other members). These strategies reflect an approach
to enlarging diversity representations and generally address specific groups rather
than organizational members as whole. Conceptually, it is suggested that these
strategies result in a backlash against women and minorities and may create
diversity climates that are hostile and unfriendly (Dass and Parker, 1999). Several
women spoke of the challenges they faced in wearing hijab in the workplace and of
the hostility. It is these consequences that organizations must seek to avoid when
attempting to creative diversity climates that would be inclusive of Muslim women.
In contrast, the access and learning approaches to diversity focus on promoting or
affirming differences, whether they are legally protected or not, and view diversity
as a source of competitive advantage (Dass and Parker, 1999). Competitive
advantage may arise from the demographics of the workforce and/or the customer
base, or from the long-term learning produced as a result of diverse viewpoints.
These approaches may be more effectively managed when firms provide a balanced
focus on minimizing risks and maximizing rewards that increased workforce diversity
provides (Roehling and Wright, 2006). Firms that employ access approaches
emphasize the economic reasons for incorporating diversity and proactively pursue
strategies for diversity enlargement to tap into diverse markets, employees, and
customers. Similarly, firms that adopt the learning approach seek multiple objectives
from diversity including efficiency, innovation, customer satisfaction, employee
development, and social responsibility. Both the access and learning perspectives are
more likely to consider diversity climate and engage in strategies that create positive
diversity experiences for all members. Our respondents’ mention of their ability to
better serve and communicate with patients demonstrates some of the benefits that
may be available to organizations that have adopted access or leaning approaches
to diversity.
Many organizations have been proactive, using diversity audits that assess the
current environment and making appropriate changes so that espoused
commitments to diversity were reflected in strategic organizational initiatives to
facilitate inclusive work environments. Our study represents a first step toward
understanding how organizations might better be accommodative and proactive in
dealing with religious diversity. Religious expression is a facet of diversity that has
been considered less in diversity audits or other diversity initiatives than race and
gender. However, as our study has shown, perceptions about disclosing religious
affiliation can have an impact on workplace experiences.
Given that Islam is the second largest religion in the world and growing in
representations in the workplace, surprisingly little is known about its practices and
how it affects both personal and work lives of those who adhere to the faith (Ball
and Haque, 2003). One of the most interesting portrayals in this study from the
workers’ experiences was that Islam was misunderstood by many of their co-
workers.
As diversity initiatives continue to be the focus in organizations, a truly proactive
stance would foster open dialogue about differences and how they can be appreciated Muslim women’s
and practice tolerance of these differences. Roberson (2006) noted that diversity is workplace
distinctly different from inclusion. The former is focussed on representations and experiences
the latter focussed on specific practices that create positive diversity climates for all.
Inclusion practices are those that pay attention to the experiences of workers. When
they are proactively addressed, they will enhance diversity climate by creating 63
inclusive cultures that enhance organizational commitment and reduce turnover
(McKay et al., 2009). Our findings from the experiences of women in the current
study highlight the importance of including religion in examinations of diversity
climate for creating inclusive work cultures.
Future research is needed about the workplace outcomes associated with open
expression or with fear to disclose religious affiliation to aid organizations in being
strategic in their diversity initiatives. The current study is an important first step
but additional research is needed. In this study, we examined the experiences of
workers who represent a relatively small cross-section of the US population. While,
most studies of diversity climate and creating inclusive cultures are conducted within
a single organization oriented to provide specific initiatives (Kossek et al., 1996;
McKay et al., 2009), we need generalizable results to better inform other organizations.
What can be gleaned from the current qualitative study is that future research is
needed to understand religious diversity and to explore ways in which it cannot only
be accommodated as legally required but also be appreciated without expecting
assimilation. With increasing globalization of the workplace and the likelihood of
increased workplace religious diversity, organizations would be better served to be
proactive in addressing religious expression and its impact on diversity climate.
Note
1. There is a relatively large literature that discusses both the exact English meaning and the
meaning in context of the Qur’anic verses often cited as the basis for wearing hijab, but no
consensus has been reached. Moreover, whether or not wearing hijab is enjoined by the
Qur’an is not the topic of this paper. We merely observe that some Muslim women choose to
wear hijab in the workplace and some make the opposite choice. In addition, while this paper
discusses workplace factors that may influence a woman’s choice about wearing hijab in the
workplace, we do not claim that workplace factors are the sole reasons for that choice.

References
Ahmed, L. (2011a), A Quiet Revolution: The Veil’s Resurgence, from the Middle East to America,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT and London.
Ahmed, L. (2011b), “Reinventing the veil”, Financial Times.
Allen, C. and Nielsen, J.S. (2002), Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September
2001, European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna.
American Council on Education (2008), “College students today: a national portrait”, available at:
www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section¼Search&section¼reports2&template¼/CM/
ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID¼10469 (accessed August 30, 2012).
Ball, C. and Haque, A. (2003), “Diversity in religious practice: implications of Islamic values in
the public workplace”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 315-30.
Barkdull, C., Khaja, K., Queiro-Tajalli, I., Swart, A., Cunningham, D. and Dennis, S. (2011),
“EXperiences of Muslims in four western countries post-9/11”, Affilia: Journal of Women
and Social Work, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 139-53.
EDI Beals, K.P., Peplau, L.A. and Gable, S.L. (2009), “Stigma management and well-being: the role
32,1 of perceived social support, emotional processing, and suppression”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 867-79.
Beatty, J.E. and Kirby, S.L. (2006), “Beyond the legal environment: how stigma influences
invisible identity groups in the workplace”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
64 Clair, J.A., Beatty, J.E. and MacLean, T.L. (2005), “Out of sight but not out of mind: managing
invisible social identities in the workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 78-95.
Cocchiara, F., Bell, M.P. and Berry, D.P. (2006), “Latinas and black women: key factors for
a growing proportion of the US workforce”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 272-84.
Cottrell, C.A. and Neuberg, S.L. (2005), “Different emotional reactions to different groups: a
sociofunctional threat-based approach to ‘prejudice’ ”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 770-89.
Crocker, J. and Major, B. (2003), “The self-protective properties of stigma: evolution of a
modern classic”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 14 Nos 3-4, pp. 232-7.
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M. and Major, B. (1991), “Social stigma: the affective consequences of
attributional ambiguity”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 218-
28.
Cromwell, J.B. (1997), “Cultural discrimination: the reasonable accommodation of religion in
the workplace”, Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 155-72.
Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1999), “Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance
to learning”, The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 68-
80.
Dawson, G. (2006), “Partial inclusion and biculturalism of African Americans”, Equal
Opportunities International, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 433-49.
DiTomaso, N., Post, C. and Parks-Yancy, R. (2007), “Workforce diversity and inequality: power,
status, and numbers”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 473-501.
Gee, G.C., Ryan, A., Laflamme, D.J. and Holt, J. (2006), “Self-reported discrimination and
mental health status among African descendants, Mexican Americans, and other Latinos
in the New Hampshire REACH 2010 initiative: the added dimension of immigration”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 No. 10, pp. 1821-7.
Giddens, A. (2004), “Beneath the hijab: a woman”, New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 9-11.
Goff, P.A., Steele, C.M. and Davies, P.G. (2008), “The space between us: stereotype threat
and distance in interracial contexts”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 94
No. 1, pp. 91-107.
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Simon & Schuster, Inc,
New York, NY.
Goldman, B.M., Gutek, B.A., Stein, J.H. and Lewis, K. (2006), “Employment discrimination in
organizations: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 786-830.
Goodstein, L. (2009), “Poll finds US Muslims thriving, but not content”, New York Times,
March 2, p. 11.
Halperin, E., Pedahzur, A. and Canetti-Nisim, D. (2007), “Psychoeconomic approaches to the
study of hostile attitudes toward minority groups: a study among Israeli Jews”, Social
Science Quarterly, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 177-98.
Herdman, A.O. and McMillan-Capehart, A. (2010), “Establishing a diversity program is not
enough: exploring the determinants of diversity climate”, Journal of Business
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Kaplan, D.M., Wiley, J.W. and Maertz, C.P. Jr (2011), “The role of calculative attachment in the
relationship between diversity climate and retention”, Human Resource Management, Muslim women’s
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 271-87. workplace
Karlsen, S. and Nazroo, J.Y. (2002), “Relation between racial discrimination, social class, and experiences
health among ethnic minority groups”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 4,
pp. 624-31.
Khosravi, S. (2012), “White masks/Muslim names: immigrants and name-changing in Sweden”,
Race and Class, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 65-80. 65
King, E.B. and Ahmad, A.S. (2010), “An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination
toward Muslim job applicants”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 881-906.
King, E.B., Shapiro, J.R., Hebl, M.R., Singletary, S.L. and Turner, S. (2006), “The stigma of
obesity in customer service: a mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences
of interpersonal discrimination”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3,
pp. 579-93.
King, J.E. and Crowther, M.R. (2004), “The measurement of religiosity and spirituality:
examples and issues from psychology”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Konrad, A.M. (2003), “Defining the domain of workplace diversity scholarship”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Kossek, E.F., Zonia, S.C. and Young, W. (1996), “The limitations of organizational demography:
can diversity climate be enhanced in the absence of teamwork?”, in Ruderman, M.N.,
Hughes-James, M.W. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Selected Research on Work Team Diversity,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 121-50.
Krings, F. and Olivares, J. (2007), “At the doorstep to employment: discrimination against
immigrants as a function of applicant ethnicity, job type, and raters’ prejudice”,
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 406-17.
Link, B.G. and Phelan, J.C. (2001), “Conceptualizing stigma”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.
27 No. 1, pp. 363-85.
Liu, C.H. and Robertson, P.J. (2011), “Spirituality in the workplace: theory and measurement”,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
McKay, P.F. and Avery, D.R. (2005), “Warning! Diversity recruitment could backfire”, Journal
of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 330-6.
McKay, P.F., Avery, D.R. and Morris, M.A. (2009), “A tale of two climates: diversity climate
from subordinates’ and managers’ perspectives and their role in store unit sales
performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 767-91.
Major, B. and O’Brien, L.T. (2005), “The social psychology of stigma”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 393-421.
Miller, D.A., Smith, E.R. and Mackie, D.M. (2004), “Effects of intergroup contact and political
predispositions on prejudice: role of intergroup emotions”, Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 221-37.
Mujtaba, B.G. and Cavico, F.J. (2012), “Discriminatory practices against Muslims in the American
workplace”, Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 98-117.
Nkomo, S.M. and Stewart, M.M. (2007), “Diverse identities in organizations”, in Clegg, S.R.,
Hardy, C., Nord, W.R. and Lawrence, T. (Eds), The Handbook of Organization Studies,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 520-40.
O’Hara, R.E., Gibbons, F.X., Weng, C.Y., Gerrard, M. and Simons, R.L. (2012), “Perceived racial
discrimination as a barrier to college enrollment for African Americans”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
EDI Ozcan, K., Ozkara, B. and Kizildag, D. (2011), “Discrimination in health care industry: a research
32,1 on public hospitals”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Park, J., Malachi, E., Sternin, O. and Tevet, R. (2009), “Subtle bias against Muslim job
applicants in personnel decisions”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 9,
pp. 2174-90.
66 Pew Research Center, Forum on Religion and Public Life (2011), The Future of the Global
Muslim Population, Pew Research Center, Forum on Religion and Public Life,
Washington, DC.
Ployhart, R.E. and Holtz, B.C. (2008), “The diversity-validity dilemma: strategies for reducing
racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 152-72.
Priola, V. and Brannan, M.J. (2009), “Between a rock and a hard place: exploring women’s
experience of participation and progress in managerial careers”, Equal Opportunities
International, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 378-97.
Ragins, B.R. (2008), “Disclosure disconnects: antecedents and consequences of disclosing
invisible stigmas across life domains”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 194-215.
Reeves, T.C. and Azam, L. (2012), “To wear hijab or not: Muslim women’s perceptions of their
healthcare workplaces”, Journal of Business Diversity, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 41-59.
Rippy, A.E. and Newman, E. (2006), “Perceived religious discrimination and its relationship to
anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans”, Journal of Muslim Mental Health, Vol.
1 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Roberson, Q.M. (2006), “Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations”,
Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 212-36.
Roehling, M.V. and Wright, P.M. (2006), “Organizationally sensible versus legal-centric approaches
to employment decisions”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 605-27.
Ryan, L. (2011), “Muslim women negotiating collective stigmatization: we’re just normal people”,
Sociology, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1045-60.
Singletary, S.L. and Hebl, M.R. (2009), “Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal
discrimination: the effectiveness of acknowledgements, increased positivity, and
individuating information”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 797-805.
Smart, L. and Wegner, D.M. (1999), “Covering up what can’t be seen: concealable stigma and
mental control”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 474-86.
Stewart, R., Volpone, S.D., Avery, D.R. and McKay, P. (2011), “You support diversity, but are
you ethical? EXamining the interactive effects of diversity and ethical climate
perceptions on turnover intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 581-
93.
Strauss, J.P. and Sawyerr, O.O. (2009), “Religiosity and attitudes toward diversity: a potential
workplace conflict?”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2626-50.
Syed, J. (2010), “An historical perspective on Islamic modesty and its implications for female
employment”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 150-66.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), “Projections overview”, available at: www.bls.gov/ooh/
about/projections-overview.htm (accessed August 30, 2011).
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2011a), Laws and Guidance, Vol. 2011 USA
Government, Washington, DC.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2011b), Statistics, USA Government,
Washington, DC.
Van Laer, K. and Janssens, M. (2011), “Ethnic minority professionals’ experiences with subtle
discrimination in the workplace”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 1203-27.
Williams, R.H. and Vashi, G. (2007), “Hijab and American Muslim women: creating the space
for autonomous selves”, Sociology of Religion, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 269-87. Muslim women’s
Wood, G. (2008), “Gender stereotypical attitudes: past, present and future influences on women’s workplace
career advancement”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 613-28. experiences
About the authors
Terrie C. Reeves (PhD – University of Alabama, Birmingham) is currently an Associate
Professor
67
of Business Administration at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, where she teaches
Strategic Management and Health Care Management in the Bryan School of Business and
Economics. Her research interests include professionals in healthcare and international
health services.
Arlise P. McKinney (PhD – Virginia Tech) is currently an Assistant Professor of Management
and Decision Sciences in the E. Craig Wall Sr College of Business Administration at Coastal
Carolina University, where she teaches Human Resource Management, Organizational
Behavior, and Fundamentals of Management. McKinney’s research interests include
workplace diversity with a specific focus on employment equity in personnel selection,
diversity climate and inclusion, and construct measurement and validation. Arlise P. McKinney
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: amckinney@coastal.edu
Laila Azam is the Admitting Manager at Froedtert Hospital, which is affiliated with the
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She received her MBA with a Healthcare
Management concentration from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.