3 Workplace Biases Inclusive Leaders Can Reduce Right Now

[ad_1]

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

As an inclusive leader, here’s one thing you can remember amidst the swirling controversies around diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI): It’s always legal and a good idea to understand and reduce bias in the workplace. Consider this functional definition of bias as “actions that produce advantage for some people or ideas and disadvantage for other people or ideas.”

Sociologists have identified dozens of types of bias, and all are worth understanding. But right now, there are three particular biases that cry out for reduction:

From win-lose to competition and collaboration
From diversity vs. merit to differences as qualifications
From DEI uniformity to respectful conflict resolution

1. From the win-lose bias (or zero-sum beliefs) to competition and collaboration

Research shows that those who have more to lose are more likely to adopt win-lose biases. A current wave of loss aversion can be seen in the assumption that undocumented immigrants take the jobs of American-born people, in the argument that equality and equity are not compatible and in the presumption that learning about human differences is inherently discriminatory.

Inclusive leaders recognize this tendency to win-lose but do not accept its dominance. And the way forward is not to blithely assure people that it’s all really win-win. While there are synergies and “rising tides that lift all boats,” it is not effective or truthful to counter win-lose narratives with simplistic “we all can win” platitudes.

Why not? Because there are winners and losers in corporate life. Some people get the project assignment, some don’t. Some earn a larger bonus, some receive performance improvement plans. Some get the promotion, some don’t. We compete, and that’s okay, as long as it drives excellence and is fairly practiced (no small feat). Inclusive leaders acknowledge the challenge and opportunity in both competition and collaboration, on their teams and with customers.

As an inclusive leader, are you talking out loud about how competition and collaboration co-exist as success factors, specifically to counter the win-lose bias?

2. From the diversity vs. merit bias to differences as qualifications

Another well-worn bias on the loose is diversity vs. merit — the reality that those who differ in identities from established “norms” face persistent doubt that they are “qualified” and that they deserve or earned the job or assignment. The current shorthand for this bias is “they are a diversity hire.”

Inclusive leaders diagnose and respond to this bias efficiently because presumed and ill-defined “merit” hurts the organization.

The diversity vs. merit bias reinforces that “different is bad,” when the research is clear that well-managed diverse teams innovate and produce more than homogeneous teams.
This bias fuels the internalized self-doubt of those who are “different.” Such an impact causes some to avoid applying for positions and can isolate the “only ones” who try to produce and advance in such low-performing environments. Know this: Claims of merit and meritocracy are not credible among those whose parents taught them “you have to work twice as hard to get half as far.”
One of the most troubling expressions of this bias shows in performance appraisals. To be specific, Black and Hispanic employees may receive lower performance ratings than they have earned. This can impact their work assignments, compensation, productivity, promotion and eventually their retention.

As a corrective, inclusive leaders can define “merit” in a more rational way. Merit is the demonstrated and rewarded pattern of high performance, in a combination of individual effort, team success and positive results.

The Society for Human Resource Management puts it another way: “Merit-based frameworks prioritize inclusivity and belonging, ensuring that everyone has the chance to contribute, develop, and succeed, shifting the focus from traditional measures of ‘most qualified’ to fostering environments where all talents can be discovered, nurtured, and valued.”

Inclusive leaders know that talent is distributed relatively evenly across populations. The way forward with equitable hiring is to focus on the market availability of the mix of talent, which is not discrimination. Thoughtful, fair-minded leaders don’t need quotas or targets or any other representational method that runs the risk of unfair preference when applied to individuals.

When we are positioned to compete for our fair share of market-available talent across relevant identity points, it brings “excellence” and “well-qualified” into focus. We steer away from bias inclined toward or against anyone primarily on the basis of their identities, so we can direct our decision-making toward competing for the mix of talent we need to succeed.

When it comes to development opportunities and advancement, rather than diversity vs. merit, we can move toward differences as qualifications. In this construct, diversity may include aspects of identity like race and gender, when, for example, the HR team is composed only of women. The new discipline is to analyze the relevance of any identity point and consider all manner of distinct abilities and transferable skills in the definition of qualifications.

One of my favorite examples: The tech company that always has a sentence in a management promotion announcement explaining how the rising person is skilled as an inclusive leader. When the promoted person is a white man, announcing his inclusive leadership capabilities sends three important messages: 1) all leaders are expected to lead inclusively, 2) white men observing the announcement discover that white men can also be rewarded for leading inclusively, and 3) it rightly pressures the rising leader to get even better as an inclusive leader.

Many DEI leaders have missed a key theme in this meritocracy mess. To focus on merit and qualifications is not only a risk for bias — it’s also vital to excellence in the organization. We should not abandon the pursuit of quality because the idea of merit has been used to abuse. So, we don’t shy away from the discussion of qualifications, but instead we reduce how bias creeps into decisions via assumptions of merit, and we join our colleagues in committing to what is truly meritorious in past and expected performance.

Inclusive leaders need to get clear about merit and meritocracy in their own minds, understand the coded bias of this language for many and then redefine diversity vs. merit to differences as qualifications.

3. From DEI uniformity to respectful conflict resolution

There is no question that inclusion has fallen short of including many, and I say that as a white guy who has been developing inclusive leaders for more than 40 years. To the degree that leaders claiming to be inclusive have permitted DEI to operate coercively, perhaps pushback can be seen as a reaction to being pushed.

When we evaluate the current controversies around DEI, we can see the aversion to losing in the win-lose frame. Inclusion fails anytime the tone of an interaction, program or policy comes across as “It’s our turn now, you’ve had your run, so sit down and be quiet.” When white men worry about their white son’s opportunities, responding only with data to counter the concern is tone deaf and uncaring. There’s fear to unpack, and scared colleagues to care about.

I realize it’s easy for me, as a person with much accumulated advantage, to point out the problems with “It’s our turn now.” However, as inclusive leaders, we have a decision to make: Are we going to coerce or influence? The recent election offers up the data: Requiring uniform acceptance of a progressive DEI agenda is not working, and it’s unscalable.

Inclusive leaders now must open the door to anyone feeling excluded by inclusion, marginalized by equity work or stereotyped by “diversity.” This opportunity calls us to depressurize DEI by connecting it to the company’s core values, by equipping colleagues to try on how inclusion helps them succeed and by inviting people in but not mandating this learning.

Obliging employees to “get with the program” is not scalable, but it does fuel conflict. So, it’s also time to tune up policies and practices around conflict resolution. The years ahead will be filled with opportunities to equip your culture to identify and resolve conflict driven by differences. Two vital resources to support this:

Inclusive leaders, right now, are finding the courage to reduce bias in their organizations. Be one of them. It’s a powerful moment to lead your teams beyond: