DEI - what it is and what it's not : what does bias look like?

DEI - what it is and what it's not : what does bias look like?

One of the hardest things for everyone - whether you are actively working on diversity, equity and inclusion or merely navigating it - is to understand what bias looks like. To be clear, sometimes bias is desperately easy to spot, even if it is difficult to discuss. A person, for instance, may claim they have "nothing against" someone, but have objections based on personal beliefs or preferences that are often globalised as a truth (i.e. instead of perceiving them as a personal decision, they are portrayed as a fact, because this way, these beliefs are not isolated but act both as an unquestionable matter the opposition to which should be unthinkable and a bond, an act of belonging, to the wider platform or body this person feels they belong to); in those circumstances, many HR and DEI officers, managers, colleagues and others often find themselves stuck in being unable to somehow find a way to discuss the matter to find a sufficiently adaptive solution for it. Ironically, that in itself ends up acting as a form of confirmation not only of the beliefs of the person in question, but also their actions/reactions and their use of what is a coping strategy at best and a fallacy at worst as a response when challenged, because most fail to point out that many others who do, in fact, hold many similar beliefs, do not express the same bias to the person in question. Others, again, can simply state their objections and stick to them, without ever wishing to mask them as something else or having any wish for conversation.

Let's get one thing straight immediately - it is highly unlikely that we will ever completely erase bias, nor is it realistic to think that we should. There is very little sense in repeatedly trying to convince someone entrenched in a belief that their belief is wrong, because, often, both their identity and other parts of their beliefs are inextricably linked with that belief, and changing it can seem threatening and impossible to them, because we are essentially asking them to change their very identity. In cases where the bias does not in any way or form influence anybody at the office, a client or anyone else associated with the business, my suggestion is to let it be, because pressure can, in fact, make matters worse. The point of DEI is to create a space where everyone feels welcome; but the crux of the issue when trying to achieve that is that too often, this results in pressures from all kinds of directions that aim at challenging beliefs and self of others to mould it to what we think is best for them and ourselves. That, in itself, is not inclusive, and if anything, I find it to be harmful. What an office should be is a space where everyone's talent can be shown off fully because we are not busy code switching instead, or fearing for our (physical and emotional) safety; it is a place where we thrive and help the business and colleagues thrive by respecting each other as we are. That is what authenticity at work should mean. It does not, however, mean that everyone should become a mini-me of anyone's idea of perfect human... wherever that idea is coming from and whatever it entails.

This isn't to say that we should allow bias to influence work and work relations. I put that in bold for a reason - because it's the main takeaway of why we have and try to develop DEI efforts. What bias should not do is :

  • create an environment in which people actively fear to be themselves
  • create odd hierarchies among colleagues and leaders according to preferential treatment of someone or exclusion of another
  • allow for bullying, sneering and hurtful or dangerous behaviour, towards anyone, for any reason
  • cost the office talent because talent is diverse by default, but people who belong to minorities feel unsafe or side-lined to the point where they seek to leave quickly.

What DEI is not is :

  • a mode of thinking that looks the same for everyone; instead, it is a key to unlocking potential by helping create a safe and inclusive environment, whichever way that needs to be done (remains adaptive)
  • a reflection of anyone's beliefs, personal convictions, traditions, societal behaviours, cultural beliefs, religious beliefs or ideology
  • a one-size-fit-all policy that can catch all wrongdoing and is always right
  • a way for someone to exercise control over things that personally bother them.

Both of these little "don't" lists are equally important. The reason why is simple - we humans can feel uncomfortable for many reasons. But for the first time in history, we think that promoting equality and inclusion can serve to iron out kinks in our disagreements and interpersonal issues, while often enforcing it as a blanket policy more typical of autocracy. Yes, Marge over at finance department is a grump. And no, she doesn't like you. And yes, that's annoying. But unless Marge uses her time at the office to deliberately, clearly and maliciously stress you out, or attack you in any way, physically or emotionally, for an aspect of your self, from your haircut down to your age, education, colour, race, immigration status, gender, sexual orientation or anything else including the tv shows you hate, she is just an unpleasant person, and you are perfectly allowed not to like dealing with her, but the problem cannot and should not be solved by trying to throw Marge under the DEI wheel. In this case, DEI becomes a judge, jury and executioner, and no tool for promoting equality should ever be used to dole out punishment.

On the other hand, there is learning to recognise that sometimes, clashes in opinions cannot be resolved. This is, in my opinion, another problem with current DEI efforts - too often, we either feel quickly indignant about everything, willing to "correct" whatever behaviour bothers us as if it was actually valid to do so, and we ourselves could never be at fault (eg ascribing Marge a hate motive that she doesn't have - she is simply a grump who acts this way towards everyone), or we feel that it is somehow wrong not to try to extend a hand to someone who really does not want it in hectic attempts to find a way to get along. Humanity isn't that neat. Sometimes, we are biased when we think others are. Sometimes things annoy us for very little reason. Sometimes, parting ways is the best solution for all - if someone at the company really cannot see eye to eye for any reasons, on any number of things, DEI included, then perhaps it is best for that person to seek out another job somewhere they will feel better. It is not our job to make everyone happy, or everyone see the world exactly as we do. It is our job to make life and work safe and accepting for everyone. In cases where office culture fails to appeal for any reasons, leaving or giving the employee notice (depending which side of the situation you find yourself on) actually makes perfect sense, and should not be microanalysed and pondered over. I certainly would not stay at any company that I felt unhappy at, or at least would not stay any longer than I absolutely had to; and I certainly would never suggest to anyone, a client or their team member, to do otherwise.

Of all bias problems, dealing with implicit bias is the most difficult, for two reasons - firstly, it's difficult to spot, and secondly, it's even more difficult to address and prove, often because we learn biases very early on, and they become not only entrenched in all our social and cultural interactions, they are also often constantly reaffirmed by the circles we move in, deliberately and otherwise. So how do we work around this? How does one notice implicit bias and how can we address it?

No alt text provided for this image


The job of DEI is to provide psychological safety at work. That should not mean that everyone should see exactly eye to eye with us - sometimes, we have to work with people we wouldn't be friends with, and that's ok too.


Recently, I had a conversation with someone about hybrid work. They were noticing that their boss allows work from home to the men, but immediately expresses dislike when a woman wants to work from home. Despite several male team members having been proven less than reliable in the past and the women having managed superbly during the pandemic, this divide in gender seems to be sticking. Further conversation revealed other small acts of gender bias (including some microaggressions that are generally aimed at the women, but not at men, which seem to stem from perceptions of efficacy) in what is actually otherwise quite a varied team.

This, likely, is an implicitly held gender bias. Given what I got to know from the conversation, it is likely that the boss holds implicit beliefs learned in childhood and repeated through societal behaviours that act as confirmation of them over and over again which makes them believe that women, when given the distance from a supervising eye, would probably deal with children, cook or do any number of other things when they should be working. Regardless of constantly being taught otherwise by their team, they seem to be unable to adapt to the situation, adjust their belief and experience trust in their female team members to the same extent as in their male team members. Nor do the bad experiences with the men teach them to perhaps have a discussion about efficacy with them; the bias template, so to speak, overrides learning from experience... the adaptive learning, as learning on the go vs held beliefs helps us deal with situations in real time as they unfold, as well as store away important information about similar situation for the future. The reason this happens is that social and other group behaviour tends towards template learning - creating rules and boxes of how we are supposed to act and feel in situations that those may be difficult to stretch over at best and impossible to use at worst.

In any actual bias situation that ends up affecting us vs where bias is merely noticed (eg you are being bullied by Greg from the other office over your identity vs you just know Greg doesn't as such like people like you but has always been professional and polite to you and others like you that you know at the office), it creates strain. In that conversation, I heard that the female members of the team felt disenfranchised and annoyed at the continued distrust as well as their inability to change the situation by exhibiting high level of professionalism. Several supposedly felt despondent and ended up going out the other way... bothering to do only as much as was necessary for them to still be professional, but no longer striving to exceed expectations, as they felt their energy was wasted and unappreciated. In turns, highly likely, their boss, if they noticed them doing so, now feels validated in their distrust, because confirmation bias rules supreme above all others, and pattern seeking walks hand in hand with it - the women growing despondent are confirming their belief that female workers are less capable and trustworthy, and their template belief, if you want, prompts seeking out confirmations of the reason for its existence.

There is no one easy solution for this, because everyone is different. But the reason why I chose to start this article with discussing what DEI efforts are not is that I see more and more people making the mistakes I have enumerated above rather than look at real problems, often because it is easier and more obvious to focus on, well, obvious things rather than on aspects of DEI that most definitely influence how (well) we work and fit in at the office, how (well) we trust our teams, other members and leadership, and how we as an individual as well as we as a team or leadership solve problems. We will most likely never get along with everyone the way we think we ought to - and that's ok. We will likely always have someone who will feel better if they go work for someone else, and whose departure may make others happy - including the new team they joined. That's ok too. The world is far too complex a place to make a semblance of paradise of it... but what we certainly can do is address real issues rather than those that irritate us every now and then.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了