O
ON TOPIC
hen Starbucks hit the
news last year by closing
8,000 of its shops to
c o n d u c t d i ve r s i t y
training after the arrest of two black
men for ‘trespassing’ at one of its
branches in Philadelphia, debates
around the effectiveness of its four-
hour bias training went mainstream.
While some praised the company
for taking racism seriously, others
condemned the move as anything
from an ill-conceived management
box-ticking exercise to a publicity
stunt. But one thing was clear:
this was a very public airing of
concerns around the effectiveness
of unconscious bias training
(UBT) as a tool for tackling
workplace exclusion.
The prejudice in the Starbucks
case may have been an extreme
example with extreme outcomes,
but bias, whether explicit (conscious)
or implicit (unconscious), can
blight organisations of all types
and sizes. Unconscious bias, which
equates to the inherent attitudes
and stereotypes that influence
our understanding, actions and
decisions, is considered particularly
challenging, as we are not always
aware of these.
In the workplace, where we have
to make daily judgements about
working relationships, it’s easy to
see how bias might get in the way of
diverse and inclusive cultures.
This matters. More than ever,
we have evidence that a diverse
workforce is not just positive in its
own right, but an important driver
of organisational reputation and
growth. McKinsey’s 2018 Delivering
through Diversity report showed
that more gender-diverse boards
can improve performance by 21%;
for ethnically diverse boards, the
figure rises to 35%. The imperative
to ‘do something’ in this space has
become more compelling. For many
organisations, tackling unconscious
bias with UBT has become a
cost-effective, convenient response.
Fundamentally, UBT is designed
to do three things: make people
aware of their biases, often using
a diagnostic such as the Harvard
W
48 //
Future Talent
Mandated
or badly
delivered
training can
backfire,
actively
reinforcing
stereotypes
Implicit Association Test (IAT);
provide tools and techniques to
adjust automatic ways of thinking
and, as result, modify behaviour to
reduce bias. But does it work?
The jury is still out. Academics
have debated its effectiveness
for years. A 2018 report from
the Equality and Human Rights
Commission found a “mixed
picture”: UBT might help to raise
awareness of implicit bias, but there
was only “limited” evidence that it
changes behaviour.
The positive effects of UBT can
be transitory and easily forgotten.
In the worst cases, mandated or
badly delivered training can backfire,
actively reinforcing stereotypes by
making people feel that, because
bias is universal, it’s somehow
inevitable, or provoking a backlash
from people who feel defensive
about being seen as sexist or
racist. For minority group members,
raising awareness of difference can
also heighten feelings of alienation.
Increasing awareness around bias
is clearly not without its challenges.
Another criticism is that UBT
is inevitably focused on individual
behaviour rather than broader
organisational culture. Add to this
heated debates about the reliability
of tools such as IAT and the fact
that UBT is not aimed at tackling
explicit bias (the main culprit in the
Starbucks debacle) and the case
against it grows damning.
ut let’s think critically
about what we’re asking
UBT to do. According to
Tracey Groves, CEO of
Intelligent Ethics, tackling bias is
about “unlearning often centuries-
old attitudes, societal norms and
behaviour. That’s why UBT can be
so uncomfortable and why
unconscious bias is so hard
to unpick”.
B
Gender blindness vs gender awareness
The idea that increasing awareness of difference can reinforce bias and
stereotyping was tested in 2017 by two Columbia Business School academics.
Their studies found that gender blindness, which downplays gender differences,
was a better strategy for increasing women’s confidence at work than gender
awareness, which emphasises differences and celebrates perceived female
qualities such as warmth and sensitivity.
This was especially true in male-dominated environments and at
management level. The focus on awareness tended to reinforce stereotypes
around women’s behaviour and job roles, while gender blindness was more
effective in boosting confidence without negatively impacting on men.