Toward bias-free leadership: your association wins when you identify and snuff out your biases.

BEA, A BLACK WOMAN, IS IN CHARGE OF MINORITY ISSUES at her association. Although things are better now, when she first took the job, many of Bea's colleagues were worried about offending her and therefore hesitated to ask even the simplest questions about diversity.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

At another association, Mike knew that Lisa wasn't succeeding as his convention manager. Despite her short-comings, however, he couldn't bring himself to give her negative feedback. Later Mike confessed that he held back because he didn't want to hurt Lisa's feelings.

Although two other candidates were clearly better qualified for a position at a nonprofit organization, Susan hired Roger anyway. After all, she reasoned, he must have an awfully tough time being confined to a wheelchair; therefore he deserved a break.

When an association position requiring extensive community contact became available. Henry first thought of promoting George, a young black man who did research for the organization. Henry changed his mind, however, when he realized that the job was apt to expose George to the painful reality of racism. "Why put him in that position?" he thought.

Bea's colleagues as well as Mike, Susan, and Henry--all of whom are based on real-life association professionals--are nice people. Not one would be considered racist, sexist, or even a little bit mean. They are, however, each afflicted with a particularly destructive attitude problem, one that I have labeled guerilla bias. The scary thing about this kind of bias is that, like the guerilla warrior who hides within stands of lush foliage, it is concealed behind good intentions, kind words, and ostensibly thoughtful acts. Even the target of a guerilla bias can be unaware of its existence.

Another defining feature of guerilla bias is that it is based on the perverse premise that all women, emerging groups (previously called minorities), people with disabilities, and others who are outside of the so-called majority population are to some degree fragile, quick to explode, and in need of special treatment. Bea's colleagues, for instance, clearly believed that she was too sensitive not to be offended by an innocent question about her very area of expertise.

This sort of special treatment is illustrated by the notorious Jayson Blair, former reporter for The New York Times and the most public victim of guerilla bias to date. Blair, who has admitted to plagiarism and other unethical journalistic practices, allegedly was given pass after pass by his superiors, who supposedly believed that he was incapable of taking the same level of criticism or of being held to the same high standards as those of his colleagues. This display of pseudo-compassion may seem on the surface to have been a diversity-friendly approach; however, if true, it was in fact a prime example of holding an individual to a lower standard solely because of the color of his skin. If that isn't bias, I don't know what is.

The price of guerilla bias

Manifested in behaviors ranging from a reluctance to coach a black employee for fear of accidentally doing something that appears racist to excessive accommodation of cultural differences during key negotiations, guerilla bias has done more to distort our leadership decisions than many more diagnosable and, therefore, eradicable strains of the disease. Here are some common examples of how guerilla biases can hurt your organization:

Loss of valuable employees. Lisa, for example, eventually realized that Mike was not going to give her the feedback that she needed to succeed; therefore, she quit so that she could build a successful career at another association.

Interference with open communication. Fellow managers at Bea's association were so busy assuming that she was hypersensitive that they failed to get the information they needed to move the organization's diversity efforts forward.

Damage to your reputation. Roger failed miserably. He failed not because he was in a wheelchair but because he simply wasn't qualified for the job. Eventually, the association was forced to let him go, and Susan's superiors became unhappy with her apparent poor judgment.

Precursor to more prejudice and discrimination. Although we don't know for certain the impact of Roger's poor performance on his colleagues, the practice of hiring an under-qualified person solely because of his or her special status is a surefire way of nurturing previously held biases about the capabilities of particular groups. This phenomenon became all too clear in the Jayson Blair case. Other African--American journalists reported that as soon as the story broke, their colleagues viewed them with increased suspicion.

Damage to careers and relationships.

Henry's bias cost both him and George dearly. Not only did George miss out on an important opportunity for advancement and professional growth, but also when he learned that Henry had not consulted him in his decision, he understandably felt patronized. It took months for them to mend their relationship.

The vision renewal process

In light of the havoc that biases can wreak, it is fortunate that we can do something about them. After all, we are not born biased; no bias gene rides on our chromosomes. Bias is learned. It is an acquired habit of thought rooted in fear and fueled by conditioning. Likewise, as I have learned in my 25 years of consulting on diversity issues, it can also be unacquired and deconditioned.

The following seven-step vision renewal process is based on this principle of unaquiring--or losing--the habit. By moving through these steps, we gain the knowledge and motivation necessary to shove our biases aside and begin to see the people around us more accurately.

1. Become mindful of your biases. All biases, even the most subconscious ones, periodically toss up a clue to their presence in the form of a thought. These thoughts are the knee-jerk assumptions that arise when encountering someone different from ourselves. Your task is to make a mental note of this first thought, a whiff of smoke drifting up from an as yet unidentified bias. Once you've identified your bias, you can proceed with the process of eliminating it from your thinking and decision making.

Assume, for example, that you are interviewing candidates for a tech position. On the first day of interviews, in walks a young man of Asian ancestry. Into your mind pops a thought that goes something like this: "I'll bet he will be great at the job--after all, Asians are great with computers." A thought like this is hardly a sign of a cruel or demeaning bias, but it is a bias nonetheless and one that can readily interfere with your ability to make the right hiring decision.

2. Assess the alleged benefits of your biases. Although biases are destructive, one reason that we cling to them is that they contain what psychologists call secondary gains. Your task in this step is to figure out the secondary gains that accompany the biases you identified in step one. To help you do this, look for the alleged benefits that most often accompany bias:

* relief of guilt:

* protection of status; and

* protection from loss.

The secondary gain, for example, that both Mike and Henry receive from their guerilla biases is that they can feel like nice guys who would never put anyone, including Lisa and George, in an awkward or uncomfortable position.

3. Identify which biases are doing the most harm. Just as battlefield medics put injured soldiers through triage to establish who needs treatment first, we need to examine our biases to identify which ones most urgently require attention. This is done by balancing the benefits you explored in step two against the harm your bias is apt to bring to the workplace. (See sidebar, "Attacking Guerilla Biases," on page 62 for various examples of how bias creeps into the workplace.)

4. Dissect your bias. Now that you have seen how destructive biases can be, the next step is to examine the logic on which they are based. This process will reveal their weak foundations and increase your ability to shove these distorted assumptions aside when they come to mind. The most important part of this dissection process is to ask yourself: Was the original source of my bias reliable? In most cases, the answer will be no. You might, for example, discover that your bias grew from the repeated messages of a frightened parent, rumor, or a form of media that often distorts the truth. Perhaps your distorted thinking was triggered by a bad experience with the group in question. Although experience has its virtues, when it comes to the formation of bias, you will be surprised at how unreliable it can be. This is because what experience teaches us about an individual or a group can be grossly distorted by the presence of intense emotion, the trickery of selffulfilling prophecy, or the filter of expectation.

5. Identify common kinship groups. This step consists of redefining our kinship groups so that they include those toward whom we hold a bias. A kinship group refers to any population that shares a self-ascribed or externally ascribed category that sets it apart from others. This characteristic might be disability, race, gender, age, or any other of dozens of human dimensions. The virtue in the concept of kinship groups is that it allows each of us to belong to many groups at once. It also--and this is the best part--enables us to broaden our group to include many populations that we previously thought of as different from ourselves. This broadening of our kinship group essentially reclassifies people from them to us. When this happens, bias is reduced because we automatically treat those whom we think of as like us more fairly.

Here are just a few ways to create these common kinship groups:

* Identify common goals.

* Identify common values.

* Identify shared emotions.

* Identify shared experiences.

Although we are all familiar with the process of identifying common goals and common values, the notion of identifying shared emotions and experiences is new to many of us. What I am talking about here is a practical application of what we usually refer to as empathy. This automatically creates a new kinship group, which is defined by a shared emotion. Susan, for example, might have reduced her bias toward Roger by examining the times in her life when she, like him, had been patronized because of the group to which she belongs. Admittedly, her experience as a woman probably has not been as extreme as Roger's experience being wheelchairbound, but she could at least identify a taste of the discomfort that he has likely felt often. And that taste might have been enough to transform him from the category of them to the category of us and from an object of bias to someone who she could look upon with respect.

6. Shove your biases aside. Once we have laid the proper foundation, shoving biases aside when they come to mind becomes a mechanical act of habit and will. It is a simple matter of being aware of the thought (step one), knowing that the destruction wreaked by the bias far outweighs the benefits (steps two and three), and having established that it rests on a weak foundation of logic (step four).

If you make an honest effort at practicing the previous steps, step six will come automatically. (If it doesn't, see step seven.) It is fortunate that this process is so mechanical, because the benefits of step six go far beyond the ability to see clearly one individual on one occasion. Bias-free vision has a cumulative effect. Because it allows us to see people accurately, we suddenly find ourselves meeting more individuals who do not conform to our biases. As experiences of seeing people as they really are accumulate, the balance between past biases and real life begins to tip in favor of accuracy, and the bias begins to fade.

7. Beware the bias revival. Biases, like all unhealthy attitudes, have a perverse way of lying in wait for an opportunity to re-exert their influence on our lives. They might, for example, reappear when we meet someone who conforms to our bias or when a negative event occurs that involves the group in question. When you observe a bias returning, try reminding yourself that any one incident applies only to the specific individual involved.

Go back through other experiences with the group, and see how many people you have encountered who do not conform to your bias. Return to step six and run the bias through the dissection processes one more time.

The beauty of this seven-step process is that it is relatively straight-forward and therefore can be passed on to your entire staff--whether it be through meetings, workshops, or what have you--so that they can also make changes, thus ultimately transforming your entire organizational culture.

The power to change

No one is blameless when it comes to bias. Sure, some biases are launched from greater heights by the more powerful people and, therefore, hit their targets with greater force. But ultimately, bias is bias. No one group's bigotry is different from any other group's bigotry. Those who believe that biases are an intrinsic part of human nature (whatever that is) also believe that they are impossible to eradicate. In fact, every time I hear the phrase human nature or the statement, We're only human, my hackles go up. To say that an attitude is only human implies that to be human is to be incapable of change: it connotes that there's not a darn thing we can do to improve our attitudes or ourselves.

I am more optimistic than that. Through awareness, knowledge, and old-fashioned effort, we can, at the very least, reduce our biases to the point that they have a minimal influence on our lives and work. We are, in short, more than capable of acquiring the skills of bias-free leadership. Once we reach this goal, not only will we treat team members with increased respect, but also we will have gained the powerful skill of seeing people not as broad categories of human beings but as whole and complete individuals replete with strengths, weaknesses, and all points in between. Executives who make a habit of such practices will ultimately hire and manage more comfortable, productive team members.

RELATED ARTICLE: ATTACKING GUERILLA BIASES

Although biases of all descriptions continue to hamper the productivity and success of a wide variety of organizations, it is the guerilla biases--concealed behind seemingly thoughtful acts and kindly attitudes--that are the most destructive.

Fortunately, biases can be greatly reduced, if not completely eradicated. A key to accomplishing this is to ration your energies by focusing first on those biases that interfere most with your ability to lead effectively. The best way to do this is to survey your various responsibilities, think back to your experiences in executing those tasks, and ask yourself some critical questions. Here are some questions to consider:

* Has a bias ever prevented me from successfully negotiating a contract? A bias, for example, could have caused you to assume that someone with whom you were negotiating would be deeply hurt were you to negotiate forcefully.

* Has a bias ever interfered with the development of successful member recruitment strategies? We sometimes assume that all members of a group will respond to the same recruitment strategy.

* Has a bias ever led me to hold certain people to a lower standard of performance?

* Has a bias ever led me to hire someone who was not qualified for the job?

* Has a bias ever interfered with the completion of a successful cross-cultural business arrangement?

* Has a bias ever caused me to show disrespect to a member or employee?

* Has a bias ever compromised my ability to think creatively about fundraising strategies? You might, for example, have generalized about the willingness or capability of certain populations to donate.

* Has a bias ever led me to misinterpret the needs of diverse members?

* Has a bias ever interfered with my ability to communicate effectively with my staff? One particular manager in the corporate sector had difficulty understanding the accents of several of her immigrant employees. Rather than work with them to improve communication, she pretended that she understood them, which significantly limited their ability to contribute.

The potential price of bias is too great to ignore. If your answer to any of these questions is yes, it is time to get on with the task of improving your bias-free leadership skills.

Sondra Thiederman holds a doctorate in cross-cultural studies from the University of California Los Angeles and is a speaker and author on diversity, bias reduction, and cross-cultural issues. The material in this article was adapted with permission from her book Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace (2003, Dearborn Trade Publishing). E-mail: [e-mail].