Research led by IDS Graduate Fellow and Wisconsin School of Business PhD candidate Alexis Avery uncovers how historical biases around skin tone continue to shape workplace experiences, particularly in the assignment of hazardous tasks. Avery finds that managers draw on these biases when deciding who is best suited for dangerous work, leaving darker-skinned employees disproportionately exposed to risk without receiving additional pay.
People with darker skin report, on average, lower levels of well-being than lighter-skinned individuals, even within the same racial group. Past research has shown that they receive harsher criminal punishment, less fair treatment in classrooms, and are more likely to be subject to housing segregation, for example. While the United States has a long history of overt discrimination based on skin color, findings from Avery’s studies show that these processes of job assignment within organizations are more subtle. Unlike layoffs or Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) cases that attract attention, the selection of darker-skinned employees for more dangerous work often goes unreported, which can mask the physical and psychological toll of the higher risk roles on these workers.
Avery conducted two studies. In the first, she measured the skin tone of 15,000 NCAA football players, through human and AI ratings of their profile pictures. She observed that darker-skinned athletes were more likely to be assigned to positions with a high likelihood of concussion. In her second study, she used national archival data to show that darker-skinned individuals are disproportionately sorted into more hazardous work environments. Avery found that this pattern of sorting is more pronounced in the American South, which she explains may be due in part to greater entrenchment of social processes, values, and beliefs that are passed down across generations.
“Darker-skinned employees are not only less likely to be hired or fairly paid, they also often work in harsher conditions without fair compensation. And these disparities extend far beyond physically demanding jobs; they cut across occupations. We cannot assume that people within the same racial group experience the workplace in the same way,” explains Avery.
This work, which was supported by an Institute for Diversity Science Seed Grant and completed in collaboration with IDS affiliate Jirs Meuris, offers important contributions. Avery assessed skin tone using a custom-developed algorithm and she validated the algorithm’s classifications through human ratings (three per photo, totaling around 45,000 ratings). These studies also demonstrate that selection into more hazardous roles is at least in part based on management decision-making and not the preferences of employees themselves.
Avery says that this research calls for organizational leaders to adopt more inclusive decision-making when it comes to the way they assign tasks. She also says that we should look at how factors beyond race alone might impact the way that employees are sorted into roles. Avery says, “My hope is that by bringing empirical attention to these disparities, this line of work can help inform future organizational practices and policy interventions that move us toward greater equity.”