The Intersectional Gap: Where Workplace Equity Falls Short (in Partnership with Schnel Hanson)
- 3 days ago
- 9 min read
Schnel Hanson is a Chartered HR Practitioner (MCIPD), a qualified educator (PGCE), an executive coach, and a PhD researcher exploring women’s occupational wellbeing and leadership journeys. As our Professional Women’s Group (PWG) co-chair, Schnel brings with her a wealth of expertise in corporate HR, leadership development, and organisational wellbeing.
Schnel has collaborated with Dress for Success Greater London for a series of articles, bringing her knowledge, passion, and expert-led insights to the project. We first explored the motherhood penalty; now, we are looking at intersectionality, and the compounded inequality that racially minoritised women face in the workplace.
Intersectional Disadvantage is Measurable and Significant
For many organisations, progress on workplace equality is measured in broad terms: more women in leadership, more ethnically diverse hiring, more inclusive policies. On the surface, this suggests meaningful change, and it’s true that things are moving in the right direction.
But these gains are not being felt equally. For racially minoritised women, the workplace is still shaped by compounded inequality, where gender and race intersect to create distinct and persistent barriers.
Workplace discrimination is often framed as isolated or exceptional. In reality, it is systemic and, for racially minoritised women, it is significantly more prevalent. According to one report, 75% of women of colour said they had experienced one or more forms of racism at work, with 27% having suffered racial slurs.[1]
In the same report, 61% of women of colour, compared to 44% of white women, said they had changed something about themselves – such as their language, topics of conversation, their hairstyle, their name, or what they eat at work – ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a bit’ to “fit in”. This process of ‘mental gymnastics’ starts early in their working lives, with respondents calling it a ‘constant guessing game’ of code switching. And this happens at every stage, with racially minoritised women having to navigate processes where they are indirectly and directly facing discrimination.
These experiences range from overt discrimination to more subtle, everyday behaviours or micro-aggressions. This might include being interrupted or overlooked in meetings, having ideas ignored or credited by others, or facing higher levels of scrutiny and different standards. Collectively, these moments shape careers.
'Intersectionality isn’t an abstract concept,' says Schnel. 'It’s lived, daily, and cumulative. In my own doctoral research into women’s occupational wellbeing, and in the many conversations I have had with women across sectors, a consistent theme emerges: racially minoritised women do not experience gender discrimination and racial discrimination as two separate things. They experience them simultaneously, in one body, in one moment. Kémberle Crenshaw’s foundational work on intersectionality showed us that when we ignore these overlapping identities, the people most affected by multiple forms of oppression become invisible within the very systems designed to protect them (Crenshaw, 1989). That invisibility has real consequences – for confidence, for careers, and for health. Research consistently links workplace discrimination with poorer psychological wellbeing, including higher rates of burnout, anxiety, and disengagement (Pascoe and Smart Richman, 2009). When we fail to name and address intersectional discrimination, we are not merely falling short of best practice – we are causing harm.'
Barriers to Career Progression
Racially minoritised women are being locked out of career progression. The ‘broken ladder’ described by the Fawcett Society highlights how barriers appear at multiple stages of a career, showing up as fewer promotions, less access to high-visibility projects, and being overlooked for leadership pathways. In the aforementioned report, 28% of women of colour, compared with 19% of white women, said that a manager had blocked their progression at work; 42% reported being overlooked for a promotion, despite receiving good feedback. Schnel told us:
'The long-term impact of discriminatory practices on career progression cannot be overstated. When a woman of colour is passed over for promotion despite strong performance, the message she receives is not simply ‘not this time’ – it is ‘you do not belong here at this level.’ Over time, these experiences accumulate into what researchers describe as a ‘chilly climate’ (Hall and Sandler, 1982), an environment in which underrepresented employees feel unwelcome, unsupported, and unable to advance. Bandura’s social cognitive theory tells us that self-efficacy, our belief in our own capacity to succeed, is shaped significantly by the environments in which we operate (Bandura, 1997). When the environment consistently signals exclusion, women internalise self-doubt that does not belong to them. Organisations lose exceptional talent. Society loses the leadership it so desperately needs. The cost is not only individual – it is institutional.'
Organisations often report progress on gender diversity yet are less successful when it comes to ethnic diversity at senior levels. In workplaces across the UK, women of colour are missing in positions of leadership. Despite improvements in boardroom gender diversity over the past ten years, research from WB Directors found that less than 1% of the top boardroom roles were held by women of colour, and only 13% are held by women overall.[2]
'Representation at leadership level is not a nice-to-have, it is a strategic and moral imperative,' Schnel explains. 'When racially minoritised women are absent from positions of power, the decisions made in those rooms are necessarily incomplete. They reflect the experiences, assumptions, and blind spots of a homogenous group. The business case for diversity has been well established – McKinsey’s research demonstrates that organisations in the top quartile for ethnic diversity are significantly more likely to outperform their peers financially (McKinsey and Company, 2023). But beyond the commercial argument lies something more fundamental: women of colour who see themselves reflected in leadership do not simply feel inspired, they recalibrate what they believe is possible for themselves. Role modelling shapes identity and aspiration. The absence of visible diverse leaders is not a neutral gap; it is a structural signal that certain people are not expected to lead. That signal must be actively dismantled.'
The Ethnicity Pay Gap
Much attention has been given to both the gender pay gap and ethnicity pay gaps in the UK. But, for racially minoritised women, these are not separate issues – they are layered.
Research from McKinsey & Company shows that Black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are among the lowest-paid groups in the UK workforce. In some sectors, Black women earn over 20-30% less per hour than white men, even when accounting for role and experience.[3]
Over time, this affects, not just earnings, but also financial security, career mobility, and long-term wealth accumulation. Schnel says:
'The ethnicity pay gap is one of the clearest indicators of systemic disadvantage in our labour market, and for racially minoritised women it is compounded by the gender pay gap in ways that are rarely captured in isolation. When we talk about pay equity, we must be precise about who we are talking about, because the data reveals staggering disparities between groups that broad averages obscure entirely. Research examining intersectional pay penalties has found that Black African women, Pakistani women, and Bangladeshi women face particularly acute disadvantage, reflecting the layering of racial and gendered labour market exclusions (Longhi and Brynin, 2017). The financial impact extends far beyond the monthly payslip. Pay gaps compound over a lifetime: they affect pension contributions, property ownership, access to credit, and the ability to build intergenerational wealth. What appears to be a wage disparity in one moment is, in reality, a structural wealth gap in the making. Mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting is long overdue, and organisations must go further, using disaggregated data to understand which specific communities are most affected and why.'
Why Workplace Equity Efforts Fall Short
Despite increased focus on diversity and inclusion, many organisations struggle to address intersectional disadvantage effectively.
Initiatives often focus on gender or ethnicity, but not both together. This means they tend to benefit those closest to the majority within each group. Policies that are designed around an “average employee” fail to reflect the complexity of real experiences, and they can miss those facing the greatest barriers as a result.
Aggregated data can also mask disparities, making it difficult to see who amongst specific groups is being left behind.
How Organisations Can Address Intersectional Inequality in the Workplace
It’s clear that more needs to be done to support those with multiple barriers to professional development. Addressing intersectional inequality doesn’t require entirely new frameworks, but it does require a shift in focus.
1: Measure what matters
Track outcomes across combined identities, not just single categories. This includes pay, promotion, retention. Without this, gaps remain invisible.
'Diversity targets only work when they are designed with intersectionality in mind,' says Schnel. 'A headline gender target that increases the number of women in senior roles without specifying which women is not progress, it is the illusion of progress. Organisations must commit to disaggregated data collection and analysis, tracking outcomes across combined identity categories including race, gender, disability status, and socioeconomic background. The Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) offers a useful lens here: when we understand the specific demands placed on different groups, including the cognitive and emotional labour of navigating discrimination, we can design resources and interventions that are genuinely fit for purpose. Intersectional diversity strategies are not more complicated; they are more honest. And that honesty is the foundation upon which meaningful change is built.'
2: Fix progression pathways
Audit and keep track of who is getting promoted and who is given leadership opportunities. Make sure opportunities exist for racially minoritised employees, and ensure pathways to progression remain clear and consistent, and are applied fairly. Schnel explains:
'Pathways to progression must be audited not merely for their existence, but for their accessibility. Many organisations have formal promotion processes that are, on paper, fair and meritocratic. In practice, they are riddled with informal gatekeeping, sponsorship networks, visibility opportunities, and ‘culture fit’ judgements that systematically disadvantage racially minoritised women. Research on structural racism in organisations highlights how informal processes can perpetuate exclusion, even in the absence of overt discriminatory intent (Acker, 2006). HR practitioners and leaders must ask uncomfortable questions: who is being put forward for stretch assignments? Who is being introduced to senior stakeholders? Whose development is being actively invested in? When we follow the data honestly, patterns of exclusion become impossible to ignore – and that is precisely where the work of fixing progression must begin.'
3: Address everyday bias
Focus on the day-to-day experienced that shape careers. Foster an inclusive working environment and meeting practices, with fair recognition of contributions. And ensure management and leadership teams are aware of biases and intersectional barriers.
4: Centre lived experience
Create space to listen to racially minoritised women, and act on what is heard. Policies are more effective when informed by those who are directly affected.
'Policies designed without the input of those they are intended to serve will always fall short. Centring lived experience is not a tokenistic exercise, it is a methodological and ethical commitment,' Schnel told us. 'In research, we refer to this as epistemic justice: the recognition that those who have direct experience of a phenomenon hold a form of knowledge that cannot be replicated by demographic data alone (Fricker, 2007). In organisational practice, it means creating genuine channels for racially minoritised women to speak, and critically, it means listening with the intention to act. Too often, organisations engage in consultative processes that are performative. Women share their experiences, report after report is commissioned, and little changes. Trust is rebuilt through consistent, evidenced action – not through more focus groups.'
5: Build accountability
Move beyond intent to measurable outcomes by setting clear organisational goals, tracking progress, and holding leadership teams accountable. Schnel says:
'Accountability is where intent becomes integrity. Organisations can articulate the most aspirational diversity and inclusion commitments imaginable and without accountability mechanisms, those commitments are merely words. Genuine accountability requires clear, measurable goals that are publicly stated and transparently reported; it requires leadership remuneration to be linked to progress on intersectional equity outcomes; and it requires the courage to acknowledge when progress is not happening and to course-correct rather than obscure. There is a significant difference between compliance-driven diversity practice and values-driven equity leadership. The former asks: ‘What do we need to be seen to do?’ The latter asks: ‘Who are we failing, and what will we do differently?’ That shift in question is the shift in culture that racially minoritised women have been waiting for. The organisations that are prepared to ask it honestly are the ones that will lead the next generation of truly equitable workplaces.'
Redefining Equity
Inequality doesn’t operate in siloes, and neither should the solutions. If workplace equity only works for those closest to the majority, it isn’t equity at all. Real progress begins when we look more closely at the compounded inequalities people face and commit to providing opportunities for all women.
References (Schnel Hanson contributions)
Acker, J. (2006) ‘Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organisations’, Gender & Society, 20(4), pp. 441–464.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007) ‘The job demands-resources model: State of the art’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309–328.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167.
Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, R.M. and Sandler, B.R. (1982) The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Longhi, S. and Brynin, M. (2017) The Ethnicity Pay Gap. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
McKinsey & Company (2023) Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters. New York: McKinsey & Company.
Pascoe, E.A. and Smart Richman, L. (2009) ‘Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review’, Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), pp. 531–554.