By Kim Jong-nam
Many companies believe that exploring unconscious bias in the workplace can be helpful for improving diversity and inclusion, because such prejudices can inhibit the promotion of diverse perspectives and consequently hinder the growth of diverse talents. However, there are many different problems that companies will have to tackle in order to fully explore this rich topic. First and foremost is the one that we will be looking at today: what is and isn't bias.
When asked if they have ever been biased in some way, most of the managers I have come across have admitted that they have. However, when questioned about the scenarios in which this bias occurred, their answers varied. Furthermore, during discussions about whether or not a certain phenomenon was the result of bias, discussion groups tended to be split on what they thought, despite the fact that we had all heard the same information! Some participants made the point that in order to fully understand if some judgments or decisions are biased, we need more background and context. However, it may be true that situations can still be ambiguous even when all of the facts are known.
This may even be true when managers have reason to believe that they are not biased ― if they see themselves as having acted based on concrete previous experience, for example. Because "unconscious bias" (or implicit bias) is often defined as?"prejudice or unsupported judgments in favor of or against one thing, person, or group as compared to another," people tend to think that having rational reasons as to why they think certain things means that their judgments must be unbiased and fair. However, some situations truly are difficult. Here are three different kinds of situations in which ambiguity is most likely to come into play.
First, many managers think that they cannot be biased when they are choosing which subordinates are most trustworthy or reliable for a project or task, because they believe that they already know which ones are most dependable. Subordinates who have proven to be credible and trustworthy are seen as obvious choices for new projects or tasks. Many managers share the opinion that this is not bias, because they are merely using their own personal experience. However, there can still be bias, because even the process of building trust can be subject to favoritism.
Second, many managers also think that valuing meritocracy will eliminate bias. It is true that using quantitative performance results allows less room for flaws in decision-making. If what's required for a certain job is well-defined, looking at these job descriptions can help managers stay objective. Of course, this approach may mean that the same person is chosen over and over again. Managers believe that since there is clear evidence that these people are deserving, this is not the result of bias. However, bias can still exist in a meritocracy, because "merit" can be evaluated differently based on which abilities a particular manager finds most important. Additionally, evaluation also can be subjective and limited based on what performance indicator is used to rate achievements. Thus, an intended meritocracy can contain bias depending on which abilities each manager is seeking.
Third, managers believe they are entitled to choose the most positive, enthusiastic and committed individuals to work with. Many mangers agree that subordinates who are negative and critical will not do as good a job. Therefore, a manger bypassing a negative subordinate in favor of a more positive peer is natural. Managers strongly believe that they are entirely justified in providing better opportunities to more positive and engaged employees. By the same token, when some employees act only in their own interest and are reluctant to take on difficult or poorly compensated work, many managers may begin to exclude them from future opportunities for career advancement. However, there can still be bias because of the vicious cycle here: managers won't give employees who behave in a negative way any opportunities because of their behavior. But perhaps these employees behave negatively because they haven't been given opportunities. This chicken-or-the-egg causality dilemma is one that managers should always keep in mind.
There may be many other occasions when it is difficult to tell which decisions resulted from bias and which did not. Human beings have a tendency to regard the status quo as being trustworthy and reliable. However, evaluating a person's trustworthiness, merit and personality is intrinsically subjective. Because of this, different managers may have different opinions about the same people, because they have different standards and perspectives. Unconscious bias is damaging, because it will deprive some people of the opportunity to prove themselves. This is not bad just for these individuals, but for managers, teams and organizations.
In order to prevent this from happening, managers should continually question themselves to ensure they are being fair.
Kim Jong-nam is the founding CEO of META (www.imeta.co.kr) and a global organizational development consultant.
 |
When asked if they have ever been biased in some way, most of the managers I have come across have admitted that they have. However, when questioned about the scenarios in which this bias occurred, their answers varied. Furthermore, during discussions about whether or not a certain phenomenon was the result of bias, discussion groups tended to be split on what they thought, despite the fact that we had all heard the same information! Some participants made the point that in order to fully understand if some judgments or decisions are biased, we need more background and context. However, it may be true that situations can still be ambiguous even when all of the facts are known.
This may even be true when managers have reason to believe that they are not biased ― if they see themselves as having acted based on concrete previous experience, for example. Because "unconscious bias" (or implicit bias) is often defined as?"prejudice or unsupported judgments in favor of or against one thing, person, or group as compared to another," people tend to think that having rational reasons as to why they think certain things means that their judgments must be unbiased and fair. However, some situations truly are difficult. Here are three different kinds of situations in which ambiguity is most likely to come into play.
First, many managers think that they cannot be biased when they are choosing which subordinates are most trustworthy or reliable for a project or task, because they believe that they already know which ones are most dependable. Subordinates who have proven to be credible and trustworthy are seen as obvious choices for new projects or tasks. Many managers share the opinion that this is not bias, because they are merely using their own personal experience. However, there can still be bias, because even the process of building trust can be subject to favoritism.
Second, many managers also think that valuing meritocracy will eliminate bias. It is true that using quantitative performance results allows less room for flaws in decision-making. If what's required for a certain job is well-defined, looking at these job descriptions can help managers stay objective. Of course, this approach may mean that the same person is chosen over and over again. Managers believe that since there is clear evidence that these people are deserving, this is not the result of bias. However, bias can still exist in a meritocracy, because "merit" can be evaluated differently based on which abilities a particular manager finds most important. Additionally, evaluation also can be subjective and limited based on what performance indicator is used to rate achievements. Thus, an intended meritocracy can contain bias depending on which abilities each manager is seeking.
Third, managers believe they are entitled to choose the most positive, enthusiastic and committed individuals to work with. Many mangers agree that subordinates who are negative and critical will not do as good a job. Therefore, a manger bypassing a negative subordinate in favor of a more positive peer is natural. Managers strongly believe that they are entirely justified in providing better opportunities to more positive and engaged employees. By the same token, when some employees act only in their own interest and are reluctant to take on difficult or poorly compensated work, many managers may begin to exclude them from future opportunities for career advancement. However, there can still be bias because of the vicious cycle here: managers won't give employees who behave in a negative way any opportunities because of their behavior. But perhaps these employees behave negatively because they haven't been given opportunities. This chicken-or-the-egg causality dilemma is one that managers should always keep in mind.
There may be many other occasions when it is difficult to tell which decisions resulted from bias and which did not. Human beings have a tendency to regard the status quo as being trustworthy and reliable. However, evaluating a person's trustworthiness, merit and personality is intrinsically subjective. Because of this, different managers may have different opinions about the same people, because they have different standards and perspectives. Unconscious bias is damaging, because it will deprive some people of the opportunity to prove themselves. This is not bad just for these individuals, but for managers, teams and organizations.
In order to prevent this from happening, managers should continually question themselves to ensure they are being fair.
Kim Jong-nam is the founding CEO of META (www.imeta.co.kr) and a global organizational development consultant.
