A Research Paper By Jen Harris, Bias Coach, UNITED KINGDOM
How to Address Bias to Positively Impact DEIB in the Workplace
The global annual spend on DEIB efforts is forecasted to increase to US$ 28.9 billion by 2030 (Global Industry Analysts Inc)[1]. Such investment brings the fantastic potential to positively improve DEIB in our workplace. However, to achieve real and sustained change this investment should be spent on meaningful and well-thought-out approaches. Whilst highlighting the past and reviewing the current situation of bias-centered programs executed in the workplace, this paper explores how to address bias to positively impact DEIB in the workplace.
But First… Why Should We Care?
Evidence of widespread inequality in the workplace is well documented. Most research is the systemic racism, sexism, and sexual orientation discrimination that is identified in every country across the globe. The impacts of this can be devastating to individuals ranging from exclusion to harassment and anything in between, but beyond a moral standpoint that everyone should be granted fair treatment and a sense of safety, why should we care about DEIB in our workplace?
The answer: it is more joyous and advantageous for individuals, organisations and the planet.
We are seeing increasing evidence that improved DEIB in organizations produces a range of benefits such as: gaining top talent, improving employee satisfaction, and increasing returns (Dame Vivian Hunt, 2015)[2]. Expanded to a societal level, research shows that countries with higher equality levels host: less crime, higher education, increased creativity, and contain happier healthier human beings(Dorling, 2017)[3]. On the flip side inequality breeds ‘crime, disease and environmental degradation’(UN, 2017)[4].
What Is Bias and How Does It Affect DEIB in the Workplace?
Bias is an inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way that is considered to be unfair (OxfordLanguages, 2023)[5]. This becomes problematic when used to make a judgment or decision about an individual that impacts our interaction with them and hinders opportunities.
Within the workplace, bias can lead to decisions being made on inaccurate assumptions, which multiplied results in an inequitable workplace. One such example can be found in studies investigating credit for success and blame for failures across the (binary) genders. Studies consistently show that women are assigned less credit and more blame, and furthermore, women often do not recognize when the credit is owed to them (Heilman, 2012)[6]. A further example can be found in the phenomena of self-selection bias: where certain individuals think they can’t or won’t be a leader so take themselves out of the race, meaning they are not seen nor considered for a professional development path, even if they have the skills, talent, and ability(Epitropaki, 2018)[7].
Wider evidence for the negative effects of bias on DEIB in the workplace can be found in the numerous studies focused on hiring decisions (e.g.(Eva Derous, 2018)[8],(Kufahl, 2014)[9]), promotion behaviors (e.g. (Behdin Nowrouzi, 2015)[10])and employee retention (e.g.(Kvasny, 2004)[11]).
Where Are We Today?
Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, sought to eradicate inequalities, ‘more people in more countries had more opportunities to break the shackles of poverty, class, caste and gender’. However, the pandemic of 2020 demonstrated persisting inequalities and has notably created greater age, gender, and racial inequalities(Bachelet, 2021)[12]. Despite overtly expressed bias decreasing (e.g. (Rosette 2022)24andthe public regarding this issue as progressing, research is showing that the bias and subsequent negative impacts on minority groups are largely unchanging(e.g.(Quillian, 2017)[13]. The fact remains that minority groups are still sitting with the disadvantages and DEIB figures remain largely the same as 20 years ago.
What Has Been Done?
Training on diversity in the workplace can be traced back to the 1960s. Since then, it has morphed several times to arrive at what we see today. With its origins coming from a need to abide by new laws on compliance to avoid litigation(see equal employment laws and affirmative action), the focus of this diversity training moved into ‘how to assimilate minorities into the work culture’, through a focus on sensitivity and acceptance’ and into inclusion for business success that we recognize today(Anand, 2008)[14]. Since the 1990s and the birth of the Implicit association test (IAT) in 1998, bias has become the foundation of the majority of diversity training.
Diversity training (a.k.a. Bias training, Unconscious bias training, etc.)come in a variety of formats with varying content, and whilst there is some evidence that diversity training can increase awareness, overall, we are seeing that these efforts remain largely ineffective at producing changes in behavior (e.g. (Doyin Atewologun, 2018)[15], e.g.(Tu˘gba Metinyurt, 2021)[16]or producing more diversity in the workplace (Mckinsey&Company, 2017)[17]. And whilst people can answer with reduced bias on a questionnaire after training, the positive effects rarely last more than two days, with evidence going further to suggest that bias training can even activate bias (Kalev, 2016)[18].
Case Study |Google
A case study example of this can be found with Google. Google hired its first diversity head back in 2005 and launched its first diversity training in 2013. Since 2014 they have been offering money to various organizations to offer a solution. However, the gender and racial figures reported for 2014 (Bock, 2014)[19] remains largely the same as those reported for 2022 (Google, 2023)[20].
Why Hasn’t This Worked?
The reason for failure is a source of varying opinions and contention.
Findings from Anand and Winter’s11review of corporate diversity training indicate reasons for failure are due to: the appearance of the training as a tick-box exercise only, short contact in delivery, lack of follow-through; and using an internal person. This training, conclude Anand and Winter, has left participants feeling confused about how they should interpret the information received and without any tools for change, often leading to negative conclusions such as ‘white men are villains’, or ‘minorities are too sensitive’.
Kalev and Dobbin’s (2018)[21] literature review support these findings and goes a step further to reveal evidence that diversity training can trigger stereotypes (“Try not thinking of elephants”), give false confidence about success linking to complacency about peoples own biases, and makes white individuals feel excluded, which reduces their support for diversity.
A large school of thought is that biases are largely learned. Being born a clean slate, our bias will be layered into our neurotic pathways based on our life experience. Within the workplace we have encountered certain groups dominating roles, thus creating a world view of the learned experience of whom is suitable. This theory is supported by several studies that found, to put it bluntly, being a leader in Western culture is associated with male and whiteness (e.g. (Rosette, 2022)[22], (Heilman, 2012)[23]). A short-contact education does not change people nor the bias they have learned in a lifetime of “media exposure and real-world experience”(Kalev, 2018)23.
Another popular area of research, centered on information processing (heuristics) offers that bias is caused by limitations of our brain’s processing power. In a work culture where we are overloaded, this would result in a breeding ground for bias-leading decisions and could explain why we see persistent bias in decision-making. Similarly, the theory of limited attention holds that people can only focus on a limited number of things, resulting in important information being missed. Related to the busy workplace, when choosing a new hire or selecting an employee for promotion, one might be more likely to notice and remember supporting information that fits their bias to make a comfortable decision faster (also see confirmation bias).
Social theories on in-group dynamics offer that whilst individuals are not comfortable with the notion they discriminate against a group or type of individual, in-group favoritism, helping someone you know for example with a new business connection, feels good. Thus, we need to tackle the deeper level of thinking – Who is in their ingroup? And why? -to assess how bias impacts prior decision-making, such as with this example of network building, something that fast and generic training cannot address.
A more disruptive argument is the idea that an issue cannot be solved by the people who have created it. This school of thought claims the solution needs to come from minority groups, not in diversity programs built by those in privilege (Liesch, 2020)[24]. Whilst I agree this angle has merits, it is my belief that everyone needs to be in an open and aware state of mind for change to occur. This view is supported by La ‘Wana Harris (Harris, 2019)[25]who argues that for DEIB programs to work, those with power need to use their power to allow others to access it, and those in power must understand they are not a risk with the implementation of DEIB, and we (those running programs) must support the leaders through this shift.
In summary, current offers of diversity training fail as they are short-term, generic, and do not tackle the deeper level of bias that impacts end decisions. The little impact they have is short-lived and forgotten and can even act to embolden bias. This could be in part due to the nature of the human brain, such as processes abilities, and learned behavior, that have not been addressed in training. So… what can we do?
The B.I.A.S Coaching Model
The B.I.A.S coaching model is a four-step process to unveil bias and build pathways to new behaviors. Through these steps, the client is invited to become aware of their held bise(es), identity the impact, accept the reality, and shift their behavior. The main premise of the model is that bias is the driving cause of the inequity that we see and experience in our places of work.
This model offers a unique approach that focuses on a private individual level, coupled with relevant group training, which is expanded to include business approaches and cultural strategy for wider change and development, and psychological theories for a wider understanding of brain functioning.
The model centers attention on those in current power positions on a continuous basis from a place of compassion and understanding. With ongoing consistent support, the participants are offered a space to build awareness and accountability, notice bias in thought and action, and develop strategies for a real and sustained change in behavior.
The key differentiator of this approach is the continued deep dive into the individual. Following the B.I.A.S model an individual is nurtured and left with no misunderstandings that have been seen with the application of blanket approaches.
Tackling Bias in the Workplace
Current data shows us that diversity is lacking in every industry in every country. Tackling bias in the workplace needs a full 360 approach to individuals and their uniquely held biases. Current approaches are not working and the experience of lived inequity in the workplace persists. The B.I.A.S coaching model offers an approach for real and sustained change to individually held biases and subsequent behavior. It offers a deep dive through awareness and acceptance, and into strategies for behavior change. Pathing the way for more opportunities for people and businesses.
References
[1]Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) World Market Report
[2]Why diversity matters
[3]The London School of Economics and political science,
[4]Equality: Why it Matters,
[5]Bias definition, Oxford Languages
[6]Gender stereotypes and workplace bias
[7]Self-selection Bias in Leadership: Improving Leadership Research and Practice
[8]When your resume is (not) turning you down: Modelling ethnic bias in resume screening
[9]Marital Status, Gender, and Sexual Orientation: Implications for Employment Hiring Decisions
[10]Weight Bias in the Workplace: A Literature Review
[11]Recruitment is Never Enough: Retention of Women and Minorities in the IT Workplace
[12]Equality is at the heart of human rights, OHCHR, 2021
[13]Hiring Discrimination Against Black Americans Hasn’t Declined in 25 Years
[14]A Retrospective View of Corporate Diversity Training from 1964 to the Present
[15]Unconscious bias training: An assessment of the evidence for effectiveness
[16]A systematic review of Interventions to address workplace bias: What we know, what We Don't, and Lessons Learned
[17]Focusing on what works for workplace diversity
[18]Why Diversity Programs Fail
[19]Getting to work on diversity at Google
[20]2022 Diversity Annual Report*Other segmentations were not reported in 2014
[21]Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work?
[22]Are Leaders Still Presumed White by Default? Racial Bias in Leader Categorization Revisited
[23] Gender stereotypes and workplace bias, Heilman
[24]The Problem With Unconscious Bias Training
[25]Diversity Beyond Lip Service: A Coaching Guide for Challenging Bias