The Absence of Malice

Unconscious biases are attitudes and stereotypes accumulated throughout life that can influence our decision making, particularly when something must be decided quickly (system 1 thinking (Kahneman, 2011)). These biases often lead to inaccurate assessments based on faulty rationale. Unchecked, unconscious bias can result in limiting creativity, diversity, and inclusivity in the workplace. Unconscious bias can also affect collaboration between employees and prevent innovation and productivity.?(The HR Source, 2018)

?

…You know, biases are the stories we make up about people before we know who they actually are. (Myers, 2014)

?

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is a quote often attributed to consultant and writer Peter Drucker[1] , a business school favourite; whereas there is little evidence to support him as the author. However, google the quote and his name comes up. True is what everyone believes it is, regardless of the facts, a confirmation bias.

?

Culture consists of three dimensions; assumptions, values and artefacts. Assumptions are widely held, ingrained subconscious views of human nature and social relationships that are taken for granted. Values represent preferences for alternative outcomes as well as means of achieving those outcomes. Artefacts are the more solid or physical representation of culture that includes rituals, slogans, traditions and myths. Schein (1985) cited by (Schein & Schein, 2017, pp. 17-29)

?

So, simply having a strategy that the organisation is working towards for staff engagement and empowerment isn’t enough. The culture must support this journey and work to protect it, on its way. However, the status quo is already well protected given that the “Confirmation Bias (the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information that aligns with our preconceived opinions)” and “affinity Bias (favour people who we feel we have a connection or similarity to)” (The HR Source, 2018) works with the cultural assumptions to create the what we say and what we do discontinuity.

?

Those who report that they have been subject to discriminatory behaviour, may say that there is a cognitive dissonance[2] in the organisation between its stated values (implicit and explicit) and how “some” staff are treated (they know the difference between a trip and a kick - Oliver Wendell Holmes[3] ). That the council is very good at “technical” changes (incorporating a new skill or capability) but struggles with “adaptive” changes; an “adaptive” change “can only be met by [a] transforming mindset” Heifetz (1994) cited by (Kegan & Lahey, 2009).

?

The way information does or does not flow through an organisation – what people “send,” to whom they send it, how they receive or attend to what flows to them – is an obviously crucial feature of how any system works (Kegan & Lahey, 2009)

?

A person who is challenged with this internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and seeks to reduce the cognitive dissonance by pointing to external factors to justify their behaviour, thereby avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance. Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. People inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they want to believe, regardless of the evidence in front of them.?(Festinger, 1957)

?

Gender equality is surrounded by behavioural inconsistencies, cognitive dissonance. What is more, society justifies this behaviour with commonplace sayings such as it’s cultural, that’s the way things are, and it happens everywhere, amongst others, which demotivate others from asserting themselves.?(Lopez-Fernandez & Atristain-Suarez, 2017)

?

In the end, staff affected by these issues highlighted in this paper hope that the decision makers will pause before responding to the issues and engage their system two thinking, their slow deliberative thinking system (Kahneman, 2011) that allows them to process rationally the points made, rather than allowing their emotional thinking to feel attacked and therefore attack (Peters, 2012). In the emotional response state, it is too easy for those who feel attacked to demand the “corpus delicti[4] ”, rather than accept that the circumstantial evidence is a good enough basis for action. That said, “everyone needs to give people a minute to get there”. In effect, not everyone gets a concept immediately and we all need to give people time to get that idea, including ourselves as reader and responder.

?

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” —Maya Angelou

?

In dealing with these issues, the majority and minority groups need to engage in perspective taking, seeing the issue from the other persons point of view.? However, for the majority position, this can be done from a relative position of safety. Whereas, for those who have issues with the prevailing culture, they risk at the minimum, their reputation, possibly their working relationships and at the extreme end of the scale, their position. Although “…25% of victims and 20% of witnesses…will leave their jobs…most of the afflicted hunker down and take it. Many people are stuck…for financial reasons – they have no escape” (Sutton, 2007). People don’t want to “rock the boat”; whether perception or real, there is a fear that raising the issue will result in a detriment, with no way of formally handling the situation without things getting worse!

?

…The Shylock paradox is, for minorities, that, by using or enforcing the written rules to enforce fairness, the use of the rule can be used as grounds for punishment, creating unfairness. In essence, for BAME [Black, Asian and minority ethnic] staff, who take out a grievance against their manager, they can find that their legitimate complaint is not only not upheld but, the fact that they have taken out the complaint a cause of further bad treatment.?(Gibbs, 2018)

Therefore, raising these issues, from the position of those affected, is challenging but mostly exhausting; there is a sense that through raising the issue, something terrible will happen to them, and they will end up in an unwinnable confrontation again, which is a sort of double victimisation. “..fear, and its first cousin, distrust, remain pervasive problems in today’s supposedly enlighten workplaces”?(Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). They therefore are resigned to “corporate appeasement” (Sutton, 2007), rather than confrontation with the organisation.

?

That said, perhaps the most challenging and overwhelming emotion is just resignation; with a sense of why are we to be the cannon fodder for the guns of the organisation, with the staff survey acting as the thanatourism[5] of the organisation’s decision makers.

?

…the vast majority … refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms. I can no longer engage with the gulf of an emotional disconnect that white people display when a person of colour articulates their experience.

This emotional disconnect is the conclusion of living a life oblivious to the fact that their skin colour is the norm and all others deviate from it. At best, white people have been taught not to mention that people of colour are “different” in case it offends us. They truly believe that the experiences of their life as a result of their skin colour can and should be universal. I just can’t engage with the bewilderment and the defensiveness as they try to grapple with the fact that not everyone experiences the world in the way that they do.” (Eddo-Lodge, 2017)

?

Is it a truism that age is the only social category, with identified subgroups, that everyone transitions through? “By contrast only certain subgroups in the workforce suffer race and gender discrimination”. Manfred & Vickers (2009) cited by (Hedge & Borman, 2012) In fact in some countries the argument for a mandatory retirement age is that people should retire at some point to give younger people a chance to have access to better jobs .

?

People may be discriminated against because of their age. Young people may experience age discrimination by being belittled, passed over for jobs or being paid poor wages just because they are young, and older people may be denied jobs or refused work because an employer believes they are too old. (UNISON - the Public Sector Union, n.d.)

?

Everyone has had the chance to be young and recount the benefits of being young, but does that mean that they are more understanding of what it is to be young in an organisation? By contrast, “Women of a certain age tend to feel invisible. In the workplace they have to fight to remain relevant, to have their ideas heard, despite the fact that [they are] proven managers“?(Feldt, 2019). So, is there a sweet spot where your age excludes you from discrimination?

?

…From the findings, 34–45–year olds are the least affected group, coming out relatively unscathed when it came to?this type of discrimination.?However, over half (57.1%) of under 18s revealed that they often feel they aren’t being taken seriously at work because of their age.??

What’s more, over three quarters (76%) of 25-34–year olds have experienced?age discrimination?at work. The main reason for this was that they were considered ‘too young’?to fulfil the responsibilities of the role in question.?

In fact, the overwhelming majority (88.9%) of 45-54-year olds said that they have faced discrimination at work for being ‘too old’. One in five (20.2%) stated this was because they were told they are too stuck in their ways.?

Going by this data,?it would appear that many?[staff], young and old, feel they only have a short grace period in their career in which they will be taken seriously and not turned down for roles or promotion for being too young or old.?(Larkin, 2020)

Seeing others being taken seriously and given a voice in the organisation can be a source of marginalisation; being there but not being seen to be there.

?

Our social world is unstable and dynamic: Social comparison information helps us make senses of where we fit in an any point. The way that we come to understand how well we are doing is by looking at others. As a result, we have an insatiable appetite for social comparison information. (Galinsky & Schweitzer, 2015)

?

Of course, these notions extend far beyond race, age or gender, this is a sense a question of in-groups and out-groups, a type of? “…common-enemy identity [management], whose practitioners succumb to the great untruth of Us Versus Them”?(Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018, p. 200). In groups get to wield power over out groups. Most people are fluid within the organisation’s boundaries, being moved between the two. In one setting being powerful and minutes later, being powerless. For some, the in-group eludes them completely.?

?

The most powerful tool for the in-group is the “…devastating intellectual put down” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000)

?

…at a large financial institution we studied, people scored points by criticising others’ ideas in meetings. This behaviour was particularly likely to occur in front of senior managers, as junior executives sought status by appearing to be smart through critiquing the ideas of their peers, something that diminish the status of the victim and increase their own status… pessimism sounds profound, optimism sounds superficial”?(Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000, p. 45)

Being shamed in this way, strikes at the core of the person’s being

Shame is the real killer of all the emotions that human beings can feel, it is one of the most toxic to health and happiness … shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of … belonging. Shame hits us so powerfully because it conveys a message about our fundamental acceptability as human beings and in basic survival terms if the tribe rejects you, you die - Brown, B. (2007) cited by (Cabane, 2012)

The strong homophilous[6] nature of the majority group, can draw into sharp relief? Age, Gender and ethnic background differences, which in and of itself? can seem to be a particular characteristic basis that in many work settings can see people being moved into “out groups” - an affinity Bias. If birds of a feather flock together, those with differences, can themselves feel that they are held apart from the group.

So, taking these negative elements together, is there a strong sense of the problem statement; is the corporate blind spot, really a corporate black hole? The presence of a black hole can only be inferred through its interaction with other matter; gravity’s silhouette remains. However, its friction forms some of the brightest objects in the universe. So, what can be inferred from these hot spot elements highlighted thus far? The primary artefact we are considering is, staff’s System 1 thinking (“System 1 operates automatically and quickly with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control” (Kahneman, 2011)).

Forget your emotional intelligence (EI) and let your amygdala do the talking: Act on feelings and impulses, and don’t filter what you signal, say or do. Don’t let pesky things like social constraints or norms get in the way.?(McKee, 2015)

Other artefacts are the effects of confirmation, and affinity biases, the impacts of cognitive dissonance between the stated explicit and “ingrained subconscious views”?(Schein & Schein, 2017), of the implicit values of the organisation. Taken together with victims not feeling safe, that by-standers feel unable or unwilling to step in, and the “us versus them” context. Further that the “them” in this context, the victims, seek appeasement rather than confrontation. What does this look like? “…Glaucon [7] was right and that we care more about looking good than about truly being good”. (Haidt, 2012)

The antonym of victim is bully, therefore could it be said that this is the real issue, the black hole?

ACAS defines bullying as behaviour from a person or group that’s unwanted and makes the victim feel uncomfortable, including feeling frightened (‘intimidated’), less respected or put down (‘degraded’), they’re made fun of and it makes them feel uncomfortable (‘humiliated’), upset (insulted or ‘offended’). Examples of bullying in the workplace could include someone spreading false rumours about the person, someone keeps putting the person down in meetings, [etc.]. By law, it’s harassment when bullying or unwanted behaviour is about any ‘protected characteristic’.?(ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), n.d.)

The difference between bullying and performance management, in the eyes of the law, is legitimate management intent. Is there a legitimate management objective that needs to be achieved and does the staff member understand this and has the capability to achieve this? Could it be said that the behaviour being complained about could be considered to be reasonable and therefore legitimate? The battle of ideas in a meeting and robust testing of these through the percussive force (rather than the merits) of the argument has always delivered the right outcome.

An argument could be made that the reporters of discrimination are simply putting forward their perception of what is going on, and the reality is somewhat different. Could it be said that these staff are the poor performers, struggling to fit in or just troublemakers. After all, the council is high performing, has a committed workforce and has high resident satisfaction. “there’s a list of things that make you like people and there’s a list of things that make a group effective, and they are very different things”. Robert Sutton cited by (Gallo, 2013) If 28% of staff were demoralised or if discrimination was so widespread, then wouldn’t the organisation be drowning in formal processes like grievances and employment tribunals? Mark Twain once said that “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

Of course, the trickiest issue is one of interpersonal styles and organisational “fit”. We can’t like everyone but “People liking each other is not a necessary component to organizational success,” Ben Dattner, cited by (Gallo, 2013)

… what about irritating direct reports? What should you do if the person you manage drives you crazy? …what do you do when it’s an interpersonal issue… must you learn to like every member of your team? It’s neither possible — nor even ideal — to build a team comprised entirely of people you’d invite to a backyard barbecue.?(Gallo, 2013)

Ultimately, could it be said that staff have to get on with managers, rather than managers ensuring that they get on with everyone? In the work relationship is the real core not bullying but in power and managing conflict? “Power, and authority are often used interchangeably…authority is the right to exercise power”?(Open University, 1994)

Positional power is the power vested in an individual or group by virtue of their role or position in an organization, Resource power is control over any scarce resource, Social power is your social connections; placed in the wider network of social relationships, and finally Expert power, your perceived expertise in a particular task or issue at hand (Open University, 1994)

Power cuts across identity-group [8] discrimination and can pull focus on to any other defining categorisation that allows in-groups to be favoured and out groups to be marginalised. Therefore, within the marginalised, they can experience the feelings of those whose race, gender and age are more easily discerned.

leaders are aware that organizations can create their own unique patterns of dominance and subordination based on the presumed superiority and entitlement of some groups over others. It is not uncommon, for instance, to find organizations in which one functional area considers itself better than another. Members of the presumed inferior group frequently describe the organization in the very terms used by those who experience identity-group discrimination. Regardless of the source of the oppression, the result is diminished performance and commitment from employees.?(Thomas & Ely, 1996)

In the concept of Power distance, how one response to power in day to day interactions is encoded into the culture of the organisation, and defines the accepted hierarchical gap between those of high power and low power (Hofstede, n.d.). What is clear is that based on the culture’s power distance norms, getting your status wrong or being perceived to get this wrong transgresses the norm and therefore can lead to real or perceived punishment.

Playing high, means having or establishing status over others, playing low is deferring to someone of greater status. You will get into big trouble if you play high when status norms say that you shouldn’t. When power is unclear people play just one level down from where they think they are, to ensure that they aren’t overstepping the mark. (Gruenfeld, 2013).

However, what happens when you think that you have expert or positional power and you play high but are perceived by the group to have overstepped the mark? Is there a limit to “the range of acceptable behaviours that you are allowed to exhibit?”.? When you have lots of power and are therefore high status, your range is very wide. You have and are given a lot of leeway in how you behave. But when you lack power or are perceived to have low status, your range narrows. You have very little leeway. With your range narrowed, if you are too assertive, you get punished. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961) cited by (Galinsky, 2016). However, if you don’t speak up, you get ignored and go unnoticed.? This is the low-power double bind. Catalyst (2007) cited by (Galinsky, 2016).

People with “protected characteristics” have traditionally had their range of acceptable behaviours severely restricted and have been excessively punished for acting outside of this range. Assumptions, values and artefacts of cultures, must be addressed in order that the organisation’s attitudes and stereotypes, accumulated throughout its history, aligns with the objectives it sets itself.

The Equalities act seeks to address biases by getting decision makers to think deeply about the issues and seek to change. An adaptive change that seeks to change the organisation, for good, rather than a technical change that “…activate bias rather than stamp[s] it out … people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy... ‘try to coerce me to do X,Y or Z and I'll do the opposite just to prove that I'm my own person’…” (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016)

You know that workforce diversity is smart business: It opens markets, lifts morale, and enhances productivity. So why do most diversity initiatives backfire—heightening tensions and hindering corporate performance? Many of us simply hire employees with diverse backgrounds—then await the payoff. We don’t enable employees’ differences to transform how our organization does work. When employees use their differences to shape new goals, processes, leadership approaches, and teams, they bring more of themselves to work. They feel more committed to their jobs—and their companies grow. How to activate this virtuous cycle? Transcend two existing diversity paradigms: assimilation - “we’re all the same” or differentiation - “we celebrate differences”. Adopt a new paradigm – integration that enables employees’ differences to matter.?(Thomas & Ely, 1996)

“When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them. Where they speak out for the privileges of a puny group, I shall shout for the rights of all mankind.” Dr. Pauli Murray[9]

The absence of malice – AXYZ Council’s culture regarding diversity

Kevin M. Gibbs,?MSc,?PgCert,?CMgr?FCMI, FBSC?

Faculty of Business & Society,?University of South Wales,?Pontypridd, UK?

[1] Peter F Drucker November 19, 1909 – November 11, 2005) was an Austrian-born American management consultant, educator, and author, whose writings contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation.

[2] cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three

[3] Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932, and as Acting Chief Justice of the United States in January–February 1930.

[4] concrete evidence of a crime, such as a corpse.

[5] Tourism involving travel to sites associated with death and suffering.

[6] Homophily refers to the tendency for people to have (non-negative) ties with people who are similar to themselves in socially significant ways.

[7] Glaucon, son of Ariston, was an ancient Athenian and the philosopher Plato's older brother.

[8] Social identity groups are based on the physical, social, and mental characteristics of individuals. They are sometimes obvious and clear, sometimes not obvious and unclear, often self-claimed and frequently ascribed by others.

[9] Anna Pauline "Pauli" Murray (1910–1985) was an American civil rights activist who became a lawyer, a women's rights activist, Episcopal priest, and author