How to Consciously Disrupt Bias 1/3: Identifying it

Research (1) has consistently shown that diverse teams outperformed homogenous teams, showed more commitment, had better problem-solving capacity, came up with more innovative solutions and benefitted from collective intelligence. Despite knowing this, spending generous budgets on training (or none!), consultancies and ways around it - organisations seem to struggle when it comes to identifying and eliminating bias.

Firstly, we need to accept that “eliminate” in itself is not a viable target. As we discussed in our previous article “Minding the (Punishment) Gap ” (2), unconscious bias is deeply ingrained in our minds as an evolutionary survival instinct and to eliminate that would involve A LOT of heavy conscious work. Therefore, a better or more practical way of handling this would be to interrupt or disrupt the bias.

Secondly, when we say majority or minority, please do not assume the traditional categories by genders or ethnicities only, as bias can exist beyond these categories. While someone might be a majority in a certain industry or company, they could be “underrepresented” or an “other” in another and this is where leaders, HR and recruitment need to ensure that the employee’s journey and integration are inclusive for all. Bias can also exist outside this criterion; for example based on appearance or halo effect bias.

In this article series, we aim to shed light on different types of bias, how to identify it if you are not affected by it, and proven and tried measures gathered from researches, findings and first hand experiences to disrupt biases and enable a more inclusive employee journey and work place! In this first article, we will look at identifying types of bias even for those not directly affected by it; while in the following article (Link to follow), we will look at ways to disrupt it.

The B word:

First, let’s reflect on what unconscious or conscious bias may look like - some examples may include (Joan C. Williams et al. (3)):

1. Tightrope: Narrower accepted “other’s” behaviour compared to one’s own group
2. Favourism: Trusting certain individuals with bigger or better opportunities
3. Prove it again: having to prove oneself more than homogenous group members have to
4. Maternal (or paternal) wall: certain groups (initiated with mothers in mind) have their commitment & competence questioned
5. Tug of war: Arising divisions due to “others” within the same minority having different strategies for assimilating with the dominant group (or refusing to do so)
6. And the most commonly discussed; gender & racial bias which reflect stereotyping or affinity bias, confirmation bias and horns effect.

Unfortunately, while these exist in many places, they can be further exacerbated in group cultures and work environments due to institutional barriers and subtle dynamics.

Would walking around with the above in mind mean that we will be able to recognise bias and disrupt it? Not really, as we need to take a deeper dive and if we ourselves are not affected by the bias, it is very hard to recognise or respond to.

While subtle dynamics (also known as micro-inequities) might seem trivial; they tend to be accumulative and are the main reason women and “others” leave their jobs regardless of seniority in the organisation. These get more accumulative and worse the more minority categories the person is in (e.g. a female, who is also from a minor ethnicity, who is also neurodivergent and in a same gender relationship would be much worse off in a non-inclusive organisation than an ethnic majority female).

This is portrayed in Lean In and McKinsey & Company’s Women in the Workplace ?report (2022) which continues to show a strong message and emphasized how women with traditionally marginalized identities continue to have worse experiences as shown by the figures below.

Subtle dynamics may include (6):

• Presentation: using words like “head hunting” or “penetrating the market” or “subordinate” or other masculine or culturally or ethnically excluding terms
• Isolation: decisions made excluding the person they would affect or who would need to take ownership of the outcome
• Slights: ideas of a person ignored or brushed off or disabled rather than enabled or labelled (e.g. “too rough” or “not-mature” or “too emotional” or “go write a 5000 word essay of how we can make this work” (which is not actually read or actioned)
• Recognition: losing credit for ideas, not being thanked or acknowledged while others are, need to consistently validate credentials
• Stereotype threats: The fear of emphasising negative stereotypes about an identity category to which one belongs. A brilliant social experiment covered by (7) Aronson J et al (1999; When White Men Can’t do Maths) demonstrates the impact of communicating a message with stereotype. In the example, Caucasian students were told they have “a maths test” and scored much higher compared to when they were told they have “a maths test to assess how Asians are better at maths than white students”.

How do I know if my team members are subjected to subtle dynamics & stereotype threats?

Not pleasant nor obvious; but here are some signs to look out for in your victims:

• Not speaking up in certain meetings
• Reluctant to take the lead or steps down from such positions
• Harsh about their work & discount their performance, giving credit to others
• Do not respect their own rest time / time off
• Constantly “connected” even when they don’t need to be (during weekends, holidays, out of working hours etc.)

Some of the above behaviours can be attributed to lack of confidence or experience. However, if this is the same person you interviewed and has done other jobs similar to this; the above are coping and masking mechanisms that even the most experienced people will show when dynamics and threats trigger them.

Now, we need to acknowledge and accept these can be unconscious and while some managers are brilliant, that does not guarantee they will also be aware of bias happening to others in their team, their own biases or be bias disrupters themselves, as it is unconscious and can go undetected in most cases.

Adopting a New Mindset

Before we look at ways to disrupt bias in our next article, I would like to introduce a different mindset! When we see bias, it should not just be about “who” is biased; as with mistakes, we should not be placing all the weight and blame on one person but should think of “why” and “how” did it happen. That way, we ensure that it is not a single person bearing the weight the system or organisation allowed and we ensure that the “why” and “how” it occurred are not repeatable with others in the organisation or in other situations in the future.

With the above in mind and having explored ways of understanding and identify bias, the second part of this article; “How to Consciously Disrupt Bias 2/3: Hiring” (coming soon!) will share some pitfalls, checkpoints and frameworks for more inclusive hiring.

(1)???https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

(2)???https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/minding-punishment-gap-joulie-gindi-msc-

(3)???https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3917&context=hastings_law_journal

(4)???https://biasinterrupters.org/

(5)???Bert & M et al (2004), Are Emily & Greg More Employable than Lakisha & Jamal? A field Experiment on Labour Market Discrimination. The American Economic Review 94 (4), 991 – 1013

(6)???Linux Foundation and The National Center for Women in IT course (LFC101: The Inclusive Speaker – available free on the Linux Foundation website)

Aronson J et al (1999) When White Men Can’t do Maths: Necessary and sufficient factors in Stereotype threats: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35: 29-46