The Latest Challenger Disaster: When we repeatedly fail to challenge (c)overt bias

“You’re obviously very technical”, said Rob.  

“Thank you. But why do you say that?” I asked with some degree of (well, actually considerable) surprise in my voice.

“Well, you just seem to know your way around technology” said the editor of my new speaker reel. Now, I wrestled years ago with Sony Vegas ahead of my son’s Bar Mitzvah as I desperately wanted to make him a slide show but looking at all the equipment around me yesterday, I knew in that moment that iMovie would have been a challenge too.  

Rob clearly believed in my tech prowess as I said I’d try to retrieve my “shot list” spreadsheet from The Cloud; and yes, I’ve come a long way in the last few years as I have very intentionally sought to build preference in left brain thinking (to balance my passion for the right!).

I troubleshoot lots of complex technical issues on the computer (like how to create a new email signature) with my secret weapon (YouTube how to videos).

Without wanting to show off, I export QIF files using my online banking app to my accounts team to keep track of business expenses.  

I even had a breakthrough recently by investigating a possible port number for the outgoing mail server on my MacBook Pro (one of the true loves of my life apart from my family and a few significant others) to finally enable me to send emails when I’m interstate and overseas without having to dial into Webmail.

Now many of you will have worked out by now… I ain’t that technical!             Not compared to someone who cuts code, builds their own computer or monitors the progress of space shuttle launches.

But in the editing suite yesterday, amidst jump cuts and backing track selections and studio close-ups and periodic lamentation about the vision of my blow waved air that seemed to be collapsing on set by the frame, Rob got me thinking.

How easy is it for us to take a small shred of evidence or a brief moment of observation and infer things (albeit sometimes complimentary things) about others?

That’s what we do when we stereotype. And is it always complimentary? Not so much.

Having listened to a podcast on this story, I can only deduce that’s what must have happened in America when white police in Tennessee saw an African American riding across a bridge at night with a nine year old white boy balanced on his handlebar. They were sure they were on to something when they made the cyclist sit on the ground with his feet in the gutter while the boy was interviewed separately so that he could admit without coercion and collusion that the motives of his black adult companion were no good. They were dubious when the boy said Cleve was dating his mother and became hysterical when he realised the police insinuated in their questions that perhaps Cleve was molesting the boy because the boy did not want Cleve arrested again just for hanging around with a white boy. The police meant well. Their "crime" was surely a simple example of pattern recognition based on prior policing experience mixed with a dollop of unconscious bias and perhaps even a hint of racism.

The primitive ability we have to make decisions on a shred of data is why some women (and men) have their hair dyed every few weeks to ensure there is never any grey showing that would remind their executive boss they are over 50.

It is why many people now truncate their work history on LinkedIn so they can’t look as if they have 30 years’ worth of valuable experience.

And while I blogged recently about unscrupulous recruiters and will not rehash the same post, it is why some candidates are being invited enthusiastically for interviews and then find the recruiter cools considerably towards them in the first few minutes of the interview. Now of course most employers won’t even know about the systemic discrimination going on. They can conveniently hide behind the recruiter's seemingly youthful shortlist. Better not to ask any questions because a shred of data contained in the answer might prove very uncomfortable.  

It is why some people are made spontaneously redundant, regardless of merit, because they are perceived to have been just too loyal with the outgoing manager to be perceived as willing to commit to someone else. I see. So now it's a crime to get on well with people. 

It is even why, in my opinion Adam Ladell who sings pleasantly but is no Jordan Smith (The Voice UK) did so well on The Voice this season. Because having a significant challenge (in his case Tourette’s syndrome) meant we made an automatic assumption he probably couldn’t perform and certainly wouldn’t be able to suppress his tics whilst doing so. If we hadn’t defined him by his Tourette’s, only one aspect of this delightful young man, would anyone even have been as inspired as so many people claim to have been? He is courageous and I do believe he came on the show to make a point and to inspire others. He’s well and truly done that.

But what’s the aim of the hair dying applicant? To get a job. To put food on the table. To enjoy the psychological fruits of meaningful work and the important social benefits of employment that are denied anyone on the basis of a single attribute – be it gender, sexuality, religion, age or any other protected attribute that is elevated beyond reason and any semblance of ethics only to be used as the sole criterion for acceptance or rejection.

The new challenger disaster in my opinion is the absence of challenge to overt bias in ourselves and others. We're so focused on big data in 2016. What are we doing to stop small data sets from wreaking havoc on fairness, justice and the diversity payoff?

It did feel nice to be told yesterday I was technically savvy. But what singular judgment will we make about someone today and what will be the myriad of outworkings of such selective attention?