Allyship is gaining popularity as a tool to combat discrimination. We developed and tested a novel allyship positive psychology intervention (PPI). Importantly, we examined observers’ perceptions of intervention effectiveness given that observers represent the majority in many settings. Study 1 (N = 787) tested an intervention that highlighted a female employee’s identity-related strengths following a discrimination episode. Compared to communicating an organization’s diversity policy or confronting the transgressor, highlighting the target’s identity-related strengths was rated higher in terms of inclusion and vitality engendered in the target. Mediation analyses indicated that highlighting strengths was perceived as boosting the target’s vitality by signaling the ally’s sincerity and prompting inclusion. In Study 2 (N = 802), amongst various types of identity-related strengths, highlighting the target’s psychological and intellectual capital was as effective as highlighting all types of identity-related strengths combined, due to perceived sincerity. Thus, this research offers a quick, actionable and non-confrontational allyship PPI.

As witnesses to workplace sexism, male leaders have the opportunity to leverage both their relative social privilege as men and authority as leaders to enact allyship. However, allyship is fraught. Expression of indignation may be viewed by observers as unprofessional, yet a muted response may lead observers to question their motives for allyship. Further, allyship that does not hit the mark may have a ripple effect on observers' perceptions of the leader‐ally, victim, transgressor, and organization. Thus, the present research (1) examined whether emotion expression during allyship influences observers' motive inferences of the leader‐ally, (2) examined whether emotion expression influences favorability of the leader‐ally, and (3) explored how a leader‐ally's emotional (or not) allyship behavior influences observers' perceptions of the victim, transgressor, and organization. Study 1 (n = 298) showed that prejudice confrontation accompanied by anger or sadness (vs. not) is associated with intrinsic motive inferences of the leader‐ally, and anger is seen as more appropriate and sincere when confronting prejudice. Study 2 (n = 112) showed that the leader‐ally was viewed as more favorable when prejudice confrontation was accompanied by anger (vs. not) because the leader‐ally was perceived as more sincere. Finally, qualitative data from thought‐listings across both studies showed that leader‐allies' anger expression was associated with greater calls for accountability of the transgressor and more positive impressions of the organization. However, anger expression also wrought highly polarized responses toward the victim, consisting of both support and victim‐blaming. Thus, authentic but measured emotion expression during confrontation is recommended.

The mission of positive psychology is to explore and build wellbeing in the lives of individuals the world over; however, like all theoretical frameworks, its evolution propels researchers and practitioners into increasingly complex issues. Developments in the field promote a broader view on wellbeing, focusing on culture, religion, social interactions, and climate action. Global issues have encouraged the need for a systemic view of wellbeing that is beyond the remit of individuals and extends to organizations, governments and societies alike. In short, the time has come for a global, contextual and systemic understanding of wellbeing. Here, we address the development of these frameworks and three emerging areas as examples of their utility; namely, climate change, egalitarianism as an aid to inter-group relations, and the need for purposeful non-Western views of wellbeing.

Allyship is gaining popularity as a tool to combat discrimination. We developed and tested a novel allyship positive psychology intervention (PPI). Importantly, we examined observers’ perceptions of intervention effectiveness given that observers represent the majority in many settings. Study 1 (N = 787) tested an intervention that highlighted a female employee’s identity-related strengths following a discrimination episode. Compared to communicating an organization’s diversity policy or confronting the transgressor, highlighting the target’s identity-related strengths was rated higher in terms of inclusion and vitality engendered in the target. Mediation analyses indicated that highlighting strengths was perceived as boosting the target’s vitality by signaling the ally’s sincerity and prompting inclusion. In Study 2 (N = 802), amongst various types of identity-related strengths, highlighting the target’s psychological and intellectual capital was as effective as highlighting all types of identity-related strengths combined, due to perceived sincerity. Thus, this research offers a quick, actionable and non-confrontational allyship PPI.

In the current U.S. socio-political climate, leaders are expected to be adept at confronting prejudice and stepping up as allies for marginalized groups. Leaders' emotions and social considerations can be critical in motivating or hindering allyship enactment. To explore this nascent area, this chapter offers a selective review of the research on emotion management in organizations and the role of emotions in leader-employee relationships, particularly when leaders serve as allies to marginalized group employees. Next, qualitative findings are presented from a secondary data analysis of an interview study conducted with exceptional leader-allies that explore: 1) negative emotions experienced by leader-allies in a prejudice context, 2) leader-allies' self-presentation concerns when expressing emotions in public versus private, 3) leader-allies' relational concerns about the consequences of confrontation, and 4) their plans for future emotion regulation. Finally, implications of the role of emotion and social regulation among leader-allies in prejudice confrontation are discussed.