By Kim Jong-nam
People tend to make comparison-based judgments about whatever happens around them. However, these judgments are intrinsically subjective and often based on personal experiences. This fact means that we are not always free to choose what is right and desirable. Instead, we tend to tilt toward what looks the best to us, and in doing so, put up big obstacles to creating a diverse and inclusive culture. I'd like to talk about my observations over the course of forty leadership workshops with three companies.
I asked 650 team leaders the following four questions: 1) Which teammate do you praise the most? 2) Which teammate do you communicate with most comfortably? 3) Which teammate do you talk with the most about their career development plans? 4) Which teammate's past are you the most familiar with? More than 70 percent of them said that they had one or two teammates who came to mind repeatedly. The leaders had justifiable reasons for this, saying that these teammates were more capable, more personally close to them and more communicative. Often, the leaders and these teammates had known each other for a relatively long period of time. This situation makes sense; they are, after all, human beings. However, when I asked how they would feel if they were in a situation in which they were less favored by their executives, they answered unanimously that it would cause problems in their work, in their relationship with the executive and even in the trust between them.
It is these types of behaviors that prevent diverse cultures from flourishing. Many leaders do not notice that there are some teammates whom they have been favoring or, conversely, excluding. Sometimes, they even believe that their biased behaviors are correct, because of some of the subordinates' insufficient abilities or weaker relationships. Some leaders responded to me, "Is it so bad for leaders to judge people on their merits?" (including their merits in relationship building and productivity). They are in an unconscious quagmire because they believe that what comes so naturally to them specifically must be correct. Bias frequently occurs when we have strong instincts and prejudices. When pushed to dig deeper, most of the leaders admitted the consequences their predilections caused: psychological distancing as well as communication and collaboration problems with the less-favored teammates.
After the leaders became aware of these issues, they became willing to think about possible solutions. Here are some examples from what they came up with: 1) Motivation is important; thus, finding and praising teammates' strengths and recognizing even small accomplishments will go a long way. 2) Coaching, mentoring and solving problems together can help the excluded teammates learn more and feel a sense of belonging. Excluded teammates should be offered opportunities that will help them be more confident and to prove their own capabilities. 3) Having conversations, be they personal or about business, will help these teammates feel included. These conversations will also allow team leaders to understand teammates' individual personalities and strengths, as well as to create a sense of closeness or sympathy, especially if meetings are regular. It is essential for leaders to be humane and empathetic if they are to gain the trust of these alienated teammates. 4) Creating rules with which leaders can self-regulate (such as "meetings should be held when everyone is participating") will help them get rid of their biases. What is important is that leaders must learn that, even though they consider them "justifiable," their tilts have been creating leadership problems. Who follows leaders who rarely motivate, coach or communicate?
During discussions in our workshops, leaders repeatedly pointed out that, as human beings, it was natural that they were subject to biases and thus behaved based on unconscious instincts rather than on thoughtful decision-making. They also emphasized that these behaviors were unintentional and not meant to harm their teammates. Given this aspect, team leaders tended to think that these behaviors were not so bad. However, when these excuses became fossilized in their minds, their ability to make sound judgments weakened, and they repeated the same behaviors without being able to question themselves. They may not realize that some teammates have stopped trying their best in their work and in their relationships with their team leaders, precisely because of the team leader's fixed attitude. These idle judgments become biases that harden more and more to the point that they cause some leaders to hate these teammates and in the worst cases, deliberately to mistreat them. That is why this type of position-exchanging thought experiment helps them understand why what is desirable for team leaders must take precedence over the biases that seem instinctive for human beings.
All of leaders' behaviors bring about consequences. That is, leaders' behaviors create cues that have an impact on their groups' psychologies and attitudes. Thus, leaders need to understand that their favoritism will also cause certain types of responses ― good or bad. If not, leaders' unconscious biases will create marginalized groups and will lower the effectiveness of their leadership. Leaders should pursue what is right instead of what is convenient.
Kim Jong-nam is the founding CEO of META (www.imeta.co.kr) and a global organizational development consultant who works both virtually and in person.
 |
I asked 650 team leaders the following four questions: 1) Which teammate do you praise the most? 2) Which teammate do you communicate with most comfortably? 3) Which teammate do you talk with the most about their career development plans? 4) Which teammate's past are you the most familiar with? More than 70 percent of them said that they had one or two teammates who came to mind repeatedly. The leaders had justifiable reasons for this, saying that these teammates were more capable, more personally close to them and more communicative. Often, the leaders and these teammates had known each other for a relatively long period of time. This situation makes sense; they are, after all, human beings. However, when I asked how they would feel if they were in a situation in which they were less favored by their executives, they answered unanimously that it would cause problems in their work, in their relationship with the executive and even in the trust between them.
It is these types of behaviors that prevent diverse cultures from flourishing. Many leaders do not notice that there are some teammates whom they have been favoring or, conversely, excluding. Sometimes, they even believe that their biased behaviors are correct, because of some of the subordinates' insufficient abilities or weaker relationships. Some leaders responded to me, "Is it so bad for leaders to judge people on their merits?" (including their merits in relationship building and productivity). They are in an unconscious quagmire because they believe that what comes so naturally to them specifically must be correct. Bias frequently occurs when we have strong instincts and prejudices. When pushed to dig deeper, most of the leaders admitted the consequences their predilections caused: psychological distancing as well as communication and collaboration problems with the less-favored teammates.
After the leaders became aware of these issues, they became willing to think about possible solutions. Here are some examples from what they came up with: 1) Motivation is important; thus, finding and praising teammates' strengths and recognizing even small accomplishments will go a long way. 2) Coaching, mentoring and solving problems together can help the excluded teammates learn more and feel a sense of belonging. Excluded teammates should be offered opportunities that will help them be more confident and to prove their own capabilities. 3) Having conversations, be they personal or about business, will help these teammates feel included. These conversations will also allow team leaders to understand teammates' individual personalities and strengths, as well as to create a sense of closeness or sympathy, especially if meetings are regular. It is essential for leaders to be humane and empathetic if they are to gain the trust of these alienated teammates. 4) Creating rules with which leaders can self-regulate (such as "meetings should be held when everyone is participating") will help them get rid of their biases. What is important is that leaders must learn that, even though they consider them "justifiable," their tilts have been creating leadership problems. Who follows leaders who rarely motivate, coach or communicate?
During discussions in our workshops, leaders repeatedly pointed out that, as human beings, it was natural that they were subject to biases and thus behaved based on unconscious instincts rather than on thoughtful decision-making. They also emphasized that these behaviors were unintentional and not meant to harm their teammates. Given this aspect, team leaders tended to think that these behaviors were not so bad. However, when these excuses became fossilized in their minds, their ability to make sound judgments weakened, and they repeated the same behaviors without being able to question themselves. They may not realize that some teammates have stopped trying their best in their work and in their relationships with their team leaders, precisely because of the team leader's fixed attitude. These idle judgments become biases that harden more and more to the point that they cause some leaders to hate these teammates and in the worst cases, deliberately to mistreat them. That is why this type of position-exchanging thought experiment helps them understand why what is desirable for team leaders must take precedence over the biases that seem instinctive for human beings.
All of leaders' behaviors bring about consequences. That is, leaders' behaviors create cues that have an impact on their groups' psychologies and attitudes. Thus, leaders need to understand that their favoritism will also cause certain types of responses ― good or bad. If not, leaders' unconscious biases will create marginalized groups and will lower the effectiveness of their leadership. Leaders should pursue what is right instead of what is convenient.
Kim Jong-nam is the founding CEO of META (www.imeta.co.kr) and a global organizational development consultant who works both virtually and in person.
