Why Losing Unconscious Bias Training Could Be a Good Thing for DEI

This article discusses the difference between individual and organizational biases, and shows why the latter are much more likely to impact the satisfaction of employees and the overall success of the organization.

The 2020 murder of George Floyd heightened corporate sensitivity to racism and unconscious bias. Soon after, unconscious bias training became the dominant DEI program in corporate America, with billions spent annually.

The popularity of this type of training was already waning in the past year because of mounting evidence of its limited effectiveness and its potential for causing backlash; the recent executive orders against DEI have effectively eliminated it. However, rather than seeing this as a problem, it can be seen as an opportunity to focus on a different kind of bias that has been largely overlooked: organizational biases.

Defining organizational biases

There are many kinds of unconscious bias, all of which can be classified as individual biases—that is, biases in how an individual thinks or behaves. These biases impact workplace DEI primarily through interpersonal interactions. Examples include an executive who is uncomfortable mentoring women, a recruiter who dismisses candidates from community colleges, a manager who assigns better projects to younger employees, or an employee who uses racial slurs against a coworker.

However, many other biases operate at the organizational level rather than the individual level. These biases typically manifest through policies, processes, or best practices. This article describes organizational biases, provides examples, and explains why they can have a much greater impact on workplace DEI than individual biases.

Like individual biases, organizational biases are not always visible—even when pointed out. Consider four common examples:

·????? A policy to recruit only candidates from Ivy League schools.

·????? Holding team meetings early in the morning or late in the day.

·????? Relying on informal or unstructured performance reviews.

·????? Fostering a culture of meritocracy.

The first two examples describe policies or practices that are overtly biased. Recruiting exclusively from Ivy League schools favors socioeconomically advantaged groups, making the process inherently biased (and a poor business decision). Likewise, scheduling meetings at the start or end of the day disproportionately affects employees with caregiving responsibilities, particularly women.

More concerning, however, are the invisible organizational biases in the latter two examples. Unstructured performance reviews may seem neutral but are a well-documented source of inequities, as they allow the personal biases of reviewers to influence outcomes. Meritocracy, though often seen as fair, is flawed because someone must define what constitutes superior performance—introducing the risk that those criteria reflect conscious or unconscious biases.

Why organizational biases are more harmful than individual biases

The examples above make one thing clear: organizational biases are especially harmful because they affect large numbers of people. Referring to the four examples above:

·????? The first impacts all job candidates who did not attend a top school.

·????? The second affects employees with caregiving responsibilities, primarily women.

·????? The third influences any employee whose traits differ from those conducting the review.

·????? The fourth impacts everyone who does not fit the mold prescribed by leadership.

Organizational biases are especially insidious in homogeneous leadership teams, where they often go unnoticed. For instance, a white male leader with an Ivy League degree may unconsciously favor candidates with similar educational backgrounds. In a homogeneous leadership team, such bias may go unnoticed and become ingrained as an organizational norm. In contrast, diverse leadership teams are more likely to recognize and challenge these biases before they become systemic.

Similarly, a male-dominated company may see 8:30 a.m. all-hands meetings as efficient, overlooking their impact on caregivers. Leaders may not recognize the inconvenience and then wonder why women's retention rates are lower.

Organizational biases can also stem from policy omissions or the absence of necessary processes. For example, most companies have policies spelling out what constitutes acceptable workplace conduct. Yet, many companies lack safe, anonymous reporting systems or clear enforcement policies, especially for problems caused by senior employees or “toxic rock stars.” Thus, organizational biases can stem from both omissions (failure to enforce policies) and absence (lack of reporting mechanisms) of adequate policies.

A real-world example of organization vs. individual biases

Three years ago the State of California brought a lawsuit against Tesla for racial discrimination, not long after Tesla had lost another racial discrimination lawsuit. When this lawsuit became known, much of the media coverage focused on managers and other individuals who exhibited inappropriate workplace behaviors at Tesla factories. According to the article linked above, Tesla has attempted to deflect blame by saying that “Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct.”

This kind of statement highlights the problem of focusing on individual biases instead of organizational biases. The statement makes it clear that Tesla believes that the problem lies with the individuals who behave inappropriately, rather than recognizing the impact of organizational biases that result when the company fails to discourage such individual events from occurring in the first place, or to take swift and decisive action when such events are reported. Had Tesla recognized the importance of organizational biases—and taken action to mitigate them—they could have significantly improved the lives of many of their employees, and saved tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Tesla is not alone—many companies have lost millions due to lawsuits arising from workplace misconduct. Too often, organizations fail to recognize that responsibility lies with the company, not just individual employees. Businesses must acknowledge and address organizational biases because they are far more likely to negatively impact workplace culture and outcomes.

The business case for addressing organizational biases

There is also a compelling business reason for companies to focus on organizational biases: because they are more damaging than individual biases, addressing even a few of them can have a significant positive impact. Identifying and eliminating organizational biases can lead to substantial gains in employee satisfaction, retention, and overall business performance.

The good news: organizations can systematically identify and mitigate biases. A future post will explore this further.

An earlier version of this blog appeared in Forbes on March 17, 2022.

About the author: Paolo Gaudiano

With degrees in aerospace engineering and neuroscience, Paolo jokes that he had already done rocket science and brain surgery before facing a really complex problem: convincing business leaders they can make more money by creating more inclusive organizations.

Paolo is founder of DEI tech company Aleria and the research nonprofit ARC. A former tenured professor, he is an adjunct at NYU and chair of the annual D&I Research Conference.

Paolo is a sought-after speaker, and author of the award-winning book Measuring Inclusion. He has received numerous awards for his work, including a Moonshot House Fellowship from the Kravis Center for Social Impact.

If you would like to invite Paolo to deliver a compelling, engaging presentation to your next leadership meeting, offsite, class, or conference, or if you'd like to learn more about Measuring Inclusion for your organization, please fill out our contact form and someone from the Aleria team will get back to you.