Racism or Implicit Bias? The Importance of Intent

Since the horrendous death of George Floyd we have heard about systemic racism quite a bit. The term tends to polarize as some argue it exists and that the system, as well as nearly everyone in it, is racist. Others suggest there is no such thing as systemic racism, and they, as individuals, certainly are not racist. Anytime a concept elicits such polar opposite responses, it probably means that the concept lacks clear definition. The importance of construct definition tends to be one of the first things we learn as young researchers, otherwise we may be using the same vocabulary but different dictionaries. So, with this post I seek to create a typology of what people might consider racism. My goal is to provide leaders in all types of organizations clearer definitions of the problem, which should result in more effective solutions.  

In terms of a general treatment of racism, I will refer to it in the typical disparate treatment view, in that it entails treating people differently based on their race. However, within disparate treatment, the idea is that if evidence exists that people are being treated differently, we assume the organization intends to do so. However, the idea of intent may distinguish among the different reasons that people are treated differently. I suggest that individuals using the term might be referring to four different manifestations of how an individual might treat another individual based on race. One must understand the cause of treating people differently if one hopes to effectively solve for that problem.  

1. Inferiority/Superiority – This view entails a belief that one race is superior to another (e.g. white supremacists). I believe most people think of this view when the think of racism. I would bet that few, if any, senior executives are like this, and so they rightly get defensive when told that all (or most) white people are racist. Someone who holds such wretched beliefs requires a massive change of heart. And while in a free nation it may not be illegal to believe as such (although probably illegal to engage in some actions based on those beliefs) those holding such beliefs should be exited immediately. They will be a cancer to the culture of the organization and at some point will likely create legal risk.
2. Probabalistic Stereotypes – This form stems from the fact that human beings have developed pattern-recognition skills to enable us to make decisions without full information. The social psychologists Kahneman and Tversky pointed out how we use “decision heuristics,” i.e., shortcuts when we do not have complete information. Thus, we can develop views of an entire racial group based on observations of a sample. For instance, suppose a law enforcement officer works in an area where a high percent of the violent crime is committed by people driving pickup trucks. When they see someone driving a pickup truck, their stereotype kicks in and they may suspect him of criminal behavior. At first glance that might seem reasonable, BUT what if only 5% of the people driving pickup trucks actually commit violent crimes? The officer then misattributes characteristics to 95% of the population because s/he “ignores the base rate.” The solution here is to teach people to be aware of the stereotypes and to learn how to overcome them when interacting with individuals of any given race. 
3. Unfamiliarity – We often treat people differently because we are just unfamiliar with them and do not really know how to act. If I don’t know any people of a particular race (or religion, or sexual preference, etc.), when I meet someone of that race I don’t know how I’m supposed to act. So I may act strangely or I may just try to avoid them. It doesn’t mean I think badly or less of them, just that the lack of knowledge makes it a difficult situation for me. In an organizational setting we must add in that I may feel confident that I can use cues developed over time to predict future behavior or performance among people like me or that I am used to working with, but I am far less likely to feel confident in predicting future behavior or performance of someone unlike me or with whom I am unfamiliar. Thus, I may feel more confident in making the decision for someone like me because I think I can predict how they will perform. Again, the bias stems not from intent nor from beliefs about the relative superiority/inferiority of one race compared to another, but it still leads to treating people differently. One short term solution firms have created is to require diverse promotion slates so that leaders must at least consider those it would be easier to pass over. At least over the course of an interview one may become familiar enough to feel confident in hiring someone that would have been looked over absent the interview. The longer-term solution however is relationships…when I get to know more people of a different race, I get more comfortable dealing with them and can embrace rather than avoid them. As I’ve written before, providing structures and processes that enable and promote building relationships across racial lines can effectively knock down the barriers of unfamiliarity. 
4. Lack of Empathy – One of the good things emerging from the George Floyd tragedy is that it served to educate many white Americans to the differential experiences of black Americans. White Americans do not get pulled over by the police for “driving while white.” White Americans have far less concern or fear when pulled over by law enforcement. White Americans have far fewer eyes on them when shopping in retail stores. And because they have only their experiences for context, they assume that everyone shares those experiences. As a result, they often have little understanding of or empathy for those who have different experiences. For instance, one of my pastors recently shared how his college roommate invited the pastor’s girlfriend (now wife) to sing in his church. When they arrived, the white congregants would not go in the building if she was to sing. I have never been part of a church where anything like this has, or even could, happen, so it would never have crossed my mind that someone would be treated this way. Yet it is an experience that has forever impacted him. Empathy requires going beyond sympathy. I know as a white American, I watched the George Floyd video and thought it was horrendous, and I could feel sympathy for him and his family. But many black Americans experienced it differently. I thought “how could this happen” whereas my black friends thought “this could happen to me, or my brother/husband/father.” This is where open conversations within organizations can provide valuable platforms for sharing different experiences. The goal has to be to both understand and empathize with the experiences of others. 

If all of these descriptions fall under the term “racism,” then no one of any race can ever claim to be free of racism. However, while all four are wrong, lead to hurting others, and need to be dealt with, I would only consider the first type to be true racism in terms of a vile belief system. The other three seem to be a function of human nature and human experience and they are endemic to all human beings of all races. These are what many would refer to as “implicit bias,” i.e., biases we exhibit without even being aware they are at work in our decisions. 

I would also suggest that calling all four racism will actually serve non-productive ends as people’s defense mechanisms may cause them to tune out. A few years ago, a CHRO I worked with told me she had proposed implicit bias training for the organization, starting with the top executives. Some of the executives responded “Oh, so we’re all closet racists?” Needless to say, that effort did not meet with success. If someone feels strongly that they are not racist (believing in the inferiority of other races) but someone tells them they are, then that person will simply stop listening. But if we tell people that we all have unconscious biases that impact our decisions and our goal is to identify those biases, the defensiveness may not emerge. This is why I have suggested that companies conducting implicit bias training should not begin in the context of race, but in the larger context of decision making. Taking people though a series of decision exercises that expose how the human mind can be influenced by the “framing” of information demonstrates how decision biases can influence decisions without us being aware of them. Once that “a-ha!” comes, shifting the discussion to showing how the same biases can impact organizational decisions become less about accusations of racism and more about avoiding the biases that disproportionately impact people of other races. 

Racism is ugly and to intentionally discriminate against someone on the basis of race (or a number of other categories) is abhorrent. All the unintentional ways we might discriminate are also wrong, and also need to be stopped, but calling them racism may impede our ability to have a productive dialogue about how to stop them.