Your Unconscious Bias Trainings Keep Failing Because You’re Not Addressing Systemic Oppression

It seems like every other day the headlines are marred with stories of companies adopting unconscious bias trainings to overcome issues of racism, prejudice, bias and discrimination. Unconscious bias trainings have become the cure-all for every diversity-related ailment that organizations are facing but why after all the?money expended , inequities continue to persist in today’s workplaces? The?focus ?of unconscious bias training is typically on helping individuals understand and recognize their own unconscious and intrinsic biases and suggesting behaviors to mitigate the preconceptions we are prone to. What unconscious bias trainings don’t account for are the?systemic and structural issues ?(SSI) that allow biases to be perpetuated in the workplace. These are the unfair policies, the differences in opportunities and inequitable treatment that allow bias to persist. While it is equally as important for individuals to be aware of their own blind spots and stereotypes and how these impact behaviors and decision-making, unconscious bias training and diversity and inclusion workshops should?also?address these SSIs that are insidious and allow bias to manifest at a greater level. What are some of these SSIs and how can organizations deconstruct these oppressive systems to make for a more inclusive and equitable workplace?

1.????Exclusive and hostile work environments. Being able to unpack and recognize our own biases can be instrumental in?reducing ?these unconscious biases we each possess but if the organization fosters a hostile work environment and does not address microaggressions and counterproductive workplace behaviors, this is creating fertile ground for structural oppression to continue. When employees share experiences of inequitable treatment, how is that situation dealt with? What systems are then put in place to prevent these SSIs from continuing? This is an especially pertinent question if employees are complaining en masse about a particular issue or the company suffers from high turnover—the SSIs are likely to blame. If there are consistent claims of inequities being expressed by employees, there should be concrete actions that follow to rectify these issues (workshops and trainings, for example) and then policies should be put in place to prevent these issues from happening in the future.

2.????Similar-to-me bias. The?similar-to-me bias ?is the phenomenon of individuals favoring others who are like them. Some dub this as?affinity bias . This becomes problematic in many ways in the workplace. If individuals have a propensity to favor others who are like them, this will widen the gap of inequality and result in more instances of, for example, males hiring and promoting other males. During an unconscious bias training, an individual may become aware of this preference that they have toward candidates or employees that are like them but if systems and structures are in place that allow hiring, promotion and pay based on my subjective criteria, this further maintains structural bias. To address these structurally bias systems, employers should ensure that hiring and promotion evaluations are based on objective variables and that multiple people have a hand in assessing each candidate or employee to lessen the effects of the similar-to-me bias. Ensuring a diverse search and evaluation committee can also be helpful.

3.????The network gap. A recently published?CNBC article ?discussed how important professional networks are becoming when it comes to securing a job. The article indicates that somewhere between 50-80% of jobs are secured by networking. Most people in today’s job market must leverage their network and ‘who they know’ in order to even get their foot in the door. Given the increased importance of these social networks, it’s imperative to understand how our networks can further drive inequality. “From the zip code a child is born into, to the postsecondary education institution (or lack thereof) that she attends, to her first (and second, and third) job, every experience an individual has impacts the professional connections within her reach,” the?article ?indicates. This was glaringly evident in the?college admission cheating scandal ?that occurred earlier this year. It is likely that the reason why these parents went to extreme lengths to help their children cheat their way into elite institutions is because of this understanding of the vast power that one’s network can hold. With the majority of new hires being made based on one’s network, this widens the network gap. To address this issue, companies should reconsider hiring based on the more traditional model (assessing the candidates who apply online) and should be leery of hiring?solely?based on employee referrals. The challenge is that typically employees have first-hand knowledge of open positions within the company and they can encourage their connections to apply, as well as sharing what specific skills and abilities the company is seeking. To account for this, companies should create objective methods to evaluate candidates and there should be blind systems in place to mitigate bias (removing names and gender-identifiers from applications, for example). Lastly, diversifying the pools in which candidates are sourced from can help level the playing field and make the hiring process more equitable.

4.????Structural racism. Structural racism is?defined ?as “the complex system by which racism is developed, maintained and protected.” As much as you try to create an equitable workplace, if employees do not understand?white privilege ?and the many ways it manifests in the workplace, systemic oppression will continue. Many employees may have lived an experience where their race was not the focal point of their life and for them, understanding what white privilege is and how it is conceptualized can be challenging. Education can be one of the greatest tools to deconstructing structural racism. With an understanding of white privilege, organizational leaders should assess policies and procedures to evaluate whether any of them perpetuate racial inequities. An example would be a company that has a grooming/appearance policy that inadvertently disadvantages employees with kinkier hair and more Afrocentric hairstyles. A policy that prohibits employees from wearing certain hairstyles could cause?disparate impact . Understanding how practices and policies that were once deemed as acceptable may be causing and continuing inequities can help spark the necessary shift to deconstruct these oppressive systems.??

This article was originally published in 2019 in Forbes .

About The Pink Elephant newsletter:

The Pink Elephant newsletter is a weekly LinkedIn newsletter designed to stimulate critical and relevant dialogue that centers around topics of race and racial equity. The newsletter is curated by Janice Gassam Asare, Ph.D . who is a writer, speaker, consultant, educator, and self-proclaimed foodie. Janice is the host of the Dirty Diversity podcast, where she explores diversity, equity and inclusion in more detail. Dr. Janice’s work is centered around the dismantling of oppressive systems while amplifying the voices and needs of the most marginalized folks. If you are seeking guidance around diversity, equity, and inclusion in your workplace, visit her website to learn more about services that can be tailored to your specific needs. If you enjoyed this newsletter, please share with others you feel would gain value from it.