Have you ever heard a comment at work that, on the surface, seemed harmless, perhaps even complimentary, but left you with an unsettling feeling? Maybe it was a passing remark about how ‘well-spoken’ a colleague of color was, or a quip implying a woman was ‘bossy’ for taking charge. These seemingly small exchanges, often dismissed as ‘just a joke’ or innocent observations, are far from benign; they are what we call microaggressions, and their impact in the workplace is anything but minor. For those who experience this constant, demoralizing drumbeat of subtle slights, these moments are not only unfunny but deeply damaging.
Microaggressions are real, and their effects on mental and physical health, as well as emotional well-being, are well-documented. They are subtle expressions of discrimination that permeate our daily lives, whether at school, in social settings, or, crucially, within our professional environments. The factual information highlights that a lifetime of encountering these veiled prejudices can lead to reduced mental and physical health, alongside increased emotional challenges. It’s a stark reminder that what some consider a trifle, others experience as a significant, chronic burden.
So, what exactly *is* a microaggression? The concept itself dates back to 1969, pioneered by psychiatrist and Harvard University Emeritus Professor Chester M. Pierce. He originally defined them in the context of the everyday racism faced by Black Americans, observing that these blows were “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and non-verbal,” and crucially, “delivered incessantly over a person’s lifetime.” Later, psychologist Derald Wing Sue expanded this definition, describing microaggressions as “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” While often subtle and non-verbal, they can absolutely be verbal, differing from macroaggressions simply in what society currently condones. Given their pervasive nature and the difficulty in calling them out, the cumulative effect of these seemingly small remarks is undeniably profound. Let’s delve into some common workplace microaggressions that are often uttered without a second thought, but carry significant weight and perpetuate harmful biases.
![“She [does something] like a man.”](https://www.inclusiveemployers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/microaggression-at-work-scaled.jpg)
1. **“She [does something] like a man.”** This seemingly innocuous phrase, often intended as a compliment, is actually a deeply entrenched microaggression that reinforces harmful gender stereotypes. Whether it’s used to describe someone who “makes decisions like a man” or “is bossy like a man,” this statement inherently relies on sweeping, gender-based generalities. Its underlying message is that certain positive traits, such as assertiveness, competence, or strength, are inherently masculine, thereby implying that women are naturally inferior or less capable in these areas. It subtly suggests that for a woman to exhibit these qualities, she must be deviating from her ‘natural’ feminine state and adopting a male one.
This kind of language, even if unintentional, diminishes a woman’s inherent abilities and contributions. It creates a workplace culture where female leadership or strong performance is seen as an anomaly rather than a norm. Imagine hearing this comment repeatedly throughout your career; it sends a constant message that your competence is not a reflection of your own skill, but rather an exception to what is expected of your gender. This can lead to internalized biases and feelings of inadequacy, making it harder for women to assert themselves authentically.
Furthermore, this microaggression perpetuates the idea that there is a singular, male standard for success, and that women must conform to it to be recognized. It ignores the diverse strengths and leadership styles that women bring to the table, stifling innovation and inclusivity. For an empowering and action-oriented workplace, it’s crucial to acknowledge and appreciate individuals’ strengths without resorting to outdated, gendered comparisons that undermine half of the workforce.
2. **“You’re a credit to your [race/people/team].”** On the surface, this comment might sound like a high compliment, a recognition of someone’s outstanding performance or character. However, upon closer inspection, “You’re a credit to your [race/people/team]” is a classic example of a microaggression that carries a significant burden and communicates an underlying bias. The core issue lies in the implicit assumption it makes: that the individual’s excellent performance is an unexpected deviation from the norm of their entire group, rather than a testament to their own individual capabilities and hard work.
This statement suggests surprise, implying that if someone who holds a particular identity performs well, it is unique or remarkable. It imposes upon that individual the impossible task of representing an entire group of people, rather than allowing them to simply be themselves. No single person can or should carry the weight of an entire race, culture, or community. Such a comment can make the recipient feel like a token, highlighted not just for their accomplishments, but for their identity in relation to those accomplishments, fostering a sense of being ‘othered’ within the workplace.
The cumulative effect of being seen as a representative of your entire group, rather than just an individual contributor, can be incredibly isolating. It places undue pressure on individuals from marginalized backgrounds, making them feel as though their every move is under scrutiny, and that their performance reflects not just on them, but on everyone who shares their identity. This constant pressure can be demoralizing, hindering genuine connection and fostering an environment where individuals feel constantly on display, rather than truly integrated.
3. **“You’re so well-spoken.”** This seemingly complimentary remark is a pervasive microaggression, particularly aimed at people of color, and it carries deeply problematic underlying assumptions. While it might appear to be a simple acknowledgment of clear communication, “You’re so well-spoken” often implies an unspoken expectation: that the person addressing you anticipated you would speak unprofessionally, with a strong accent, or even with less education. It’s frequently leveled at people of color by White individuals who have subconsciously or intentionally made a racist or ethnically discriminatory assumption about their immigrant status, socioeconomic background, or educational attainment.
The issue here is the surprise embedded within the ‘compliment.’ It suggests that the speaker views articulate speech from a person of color as an exception, rather than the norm. This perpetuates a harmful stereotype that certain racial or ethnic groups are inherently less intelligent or less capable of eloquent expression. It forces the recipient to question if their competence is genuinely recognized, or if they are simply being praised for defying a biased expectation. The sting comes from the implication that their race or background should dictate their speaking ability, a notion that is both demeaning and discriminatory.
For someone who hears this comment repeatedly, it can be incredibly frustrating and disheartening. It’s a constant reminder that they are being judged not just on their words, but on preconceived notions tied to their identity. This can contribute to feelings of being constantly evaluated, undermining confidence and a sense of belonging in the workplace. To truly foster an inclusive environment, we must acknowledge and appreciate communication skills without attaching them to biased assumptions about a person’s background. Everyone deserves to be recognized for their abilities without the implicit suggestion that their intelligence or articulation is a surprising anomaly.
4. **“You’re so brave.”** When directed at individuals with disabilities, the comment “You’re so brave” is a classic example of a patronizing microaggression. While it might seem kind and well-intentioned, it is inherently condescending and reveals a profound misunderstanding of the lived experience of people with disabilities. This remark implies that merely existing, or engaging in entirely normal and healthy activities, requires extraordinary courage. It suggests that individuals are “brave” simply for navigating daily life, for being in public, or for maintaining a positive attitude in the face of their condition.
People with disabilities are not seeking pity, nor do they want to be viewed as objects for inspiration. This kind of commentary often falls into the trap of ‘inspiration porn,’ where individuals’ lives are sensationalized to make able-bodied people feel good or motivated. It reduces a person’s multifaceted identity and experiences down to their disability, overlooking their professional skills, personality, and contributions beyond their physical or cognitive differences. It’s a constant reminder that they are seen through the lens of their disability first, rather than as a whole, capable human being participating in society.
Imagine the cumulative impact of hearing this over and over: it can be deeply demoralizing. It suggests that performing everyday tasks or pursuing a career despite a disability is an act of heroism, rather than simply living one’s life. This can lead to feelings of being perpetually ‘othered’ and highlighted for something that is simply their reality. A truly inclusive workplace celebrates the full spectrum of human experience and contribution, recognizing individuals for their abilities and efforts, not for merely existing with a disability. It’s time to move beyond seeing bravery in daily existence and instead focus on creating equitable environments where everyone can thrive without being subjected to such reductive ‘compliments’.
5. **“You’re so exotic.”**This seemingly flattering declaration, often delivered with a hint of curiosity, is a microaggression that is fundamentally an act of objectification, particularly aimed at people of color. While it might sound like a compliment on the surface, its underlying message is deeply problematic: it categorizes an individual as being outside the ‘norm,’ transforming them into an interesting curiosity rather than a respected colleague. The use of phrases like “spicy,” “chocolate,” or “caramel” to describe a person’s appearance further sexualizes and dehumanizes, which is egregiously inappropriate in a professional setting.
This language reduces a person’s multifaceted identity to their appearance, implying they exist for the visual consumption or amusement of others. It strips away their individuality and professional accomplishments, replacing it with a singular, often fetishized, characteristic. For someone who hears this comment, it creates a constant feeling of being ‘othered,’ of standing out not for their skills or ideas, but for their perceived foreignness or difference. This can be profoundly isolating, making it difficult to feel genuinely integrated and valued within the team.
Moreover, the ‘exotic’ label suggests that non-European features or cultural dress are unusual, rather than simply part of the rich tapestry of human diversity. It perpetuates a narrow view of what is considered ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable,’ inadvertently signaling to individuals from diverse backgrounds that they are exceptions to the rule. True appreciation of diversity celebrates every individual’s unique qualities without reducing them to a spectacle or an object for scrutiny; it means valuing their presence as a natural and integral part of the workplace fabric.
6. **“Can I touch your [hair/turban/hijab/wheelchair/skin]?”**This question, no matter how politely phrased or well-intentioned, is a pervasive microaggression that exemplifies a form of tokenism. It implies that a person’s physical feature, style of dress, or mobility aid is so extraordinary or unfamiliar that it warrants physical interaction or explicit permission. By asking to touch something intimately connected to an individual’s identity or daily life, you are inadvertently singling them out and highlighting their ‘otherness’ within the workplace.
Such a request communicates a lack of understanding regarding personal boundaries and professional etiquette. The factual information clearly states that “nothing about a person’s physical features, dress, or equipment requires that you touch it.” Beyond emergency situations, there are very few scenarios in an office where physical touch between colleagues is appropriate or expected. If you feel the need to ask permission, it’s a strong indicator that the action itself is not a natural or respectful part of professional conduct.
For the recipient, this can be incredibly disorienting and uncomfortable. It forces them into a position where they must either grant an unwelcome request or risk appearing ungracious. This kind of interaction can make individuals feel like an exhibit, or that their personal space and autonomy are up for public discussion, simply because they are the “only one in the office sporting that feature.” This constant spotlight can lead to feelings of isolation and alienation, making the workplace feel less safe and less inclusive.
An inclusive environment thrives on respect for personal space and boundaries. Rather than fixating on perceived differences or curiosities, our focus should remain on professional interactions and collaboration. We must shift from viewing these unique aspects as objects of curiosity to understanding them as integral, respected parts of an individual’s identity, no more or less remarkable than any other personal characteristic.
