Listen to this article:
Abstract: Having a diverse, inclusive, and equitable workplace has become an important priority for many organizations today, however, diversity alone does not guarantee inclusion or equity as unconscious biases like affinity bias can undermine efforts if left unchecked. Affinity bias refers to the tendency to form stronger connections and have more positive feelings towards others similar in attributes, stemming from cognitive processes that view similarity as trustworthy, commonly impacting opportunities in organizations. It persists due to forces like homophily naturally gravitating towards similarity, unconscious biases operating below awareness, lack of diversity allowing similarity as default, conformity pressures, and more apprehension evaluating dissimilar others. If unaddressed, negative impacts include less diverse pipelines and leadership over time, inequitable experiences and outcomes, lower innovation and problem-solving, and loss of talent. Research shows affinity bias can be overcome through intentional efforts across organizational levels including designing fair structures and systems like instituting consistent talent criteria, unconscious bias training, diverse interview panels and anonymous screening, as well as enhancing diverse social networks through mentoring, sponsorship, and networking programs, providing ongoing DEI learning delivered to all employees on topics related to identity, privilege and inclusion, and modeling inclusive behaviors through KPIs and goals linked to diversity accountability in performance reviews, challenging exclusionary behaviors, and appointing C-level oversight. A case study demonstrates how one firm systematically addressed affinity bias threatening diversity goals through training, anonymous assessments, consultant evaluation, a new sponsorship program, and ongoing learning with leadership commitment and reporting that narrowed representation gaps and improved inclusion within two years. Leaders must recognize affinity bias and commit to fair processes and empowering connections to build truly inclusive cultures reflecting society.
Having a diverse, inclusive, and equitable workplace has become an important priority for many organizations today. Leaders recognize the business value that diverse perspectives and experiences can bring. However, diversity alone does not guarantee inclusion or equity. In fact, without awareness, biases that impact decision making can undermine even the most well-intentioned diversity efforts. One such bias is affinity bias - the preference we have for people who are similar to us.
Today we will explore what affinity bias is, why it persists, and its negative impacts if left unchecked.
What is Affinity Bias?
Affinity bias refers to the tendency humans have to form stronger connections and have more positive feelings towards others who are similar to them in terms of attributes like gender, age, culture or experiences (McDonald & Westphal, 2013). This "liking" for similarity stems from cognitive processes that lead us to perceive similarity as a sign of trustworthiness. From an evolutionary perspective, forming bonds with similar others provided survival advantages (Byrne, 1971).
In organizations, affinity bias commonly occurs when hiring, promoting, mentoring or developing employees. For example, male leaders may be more likely to mentor and sponsor other men (Ely et al., 2011). Researchers have found affinity bias exists across a variety of identity dimensions including gender, race, orientation, background and more (McDonald et al., 2018; McDonald, 2011). Importantly, affinity bias is often unconscious or implicit. People are generally unaware of the operation and influence of this bias on their decision making (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
Why Does Affinity Bias Persist?
There are a few reasons why affinity bias, despite good intentions, persists in organizational contexts:
Homophily: The psychological drive for homophily, or "birds of a feather flock together", means humans naturally gravitate towards similarity (McPherson et al., 2001). Affinity for similarity is reinforced through our social networks and environments.
Unconscious biases: As noted, affinity bias operates implicitly below conscious awareness. We are often blind to biases that favor in-groups over out-groups (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
Lack of diversity: When there is little diversity within leadership or a workgroup, there are fewer opportunities to connect with dissimilar others. Similarity becomes the default (Schwab et al., 2015).
Conformity pressures: The need to conform and gain social acceptance from one's peers can pressure individuals towards favoring similar others (Asch, 1956).
Evaluation apprehension: Judging or evaluating dissimilar others induces more uncertainty and apprehension compared to similar others (Heilman, 2012).
Unless actively mitigated, these psychological and social factors will ensure affinity bias persists. Awareness of why it exists is crucial to overcoming it.
Negative Impacts of Unchecked Affinity Bias
Some specific negative consequences of affinity bias in organizations include:
Less diverse pipelines and leadership: If similar others are consistently favored for opportunities, diversity will stagnate and the representation of minority groups will not improve over time (McDonald, 2011).
Inequitable experiences and outcomes: Out-groups will be less likely to receive crucial development experiences like mentoring, sponsors, or high visibility assignments (Ely et al., 2011). This perpetuates inequitable career trajectories and outcomes.
Lower innovation and problem-solving: Diverse teams that include varying perspectives outperform homogeneous groups on measures of innovation, problem-solving, and decision making (Phillips, 2014). Affinity bias hinders realization of these benefits.
Loss of talent: When inequitable treatment is noticed, high performing minority employees may become dissatisfied and seek opportunities elsewhere (Roberts et al., 2020). This results in loss of talent, knowledge and relationships.
Legal/reputational risks: Persistent affinity bias could rise to allegations of discrimination, impacting an organization’s legal standing, perception as an employer of choice and brand reputation.
Clearly, affinity bias poses serious threats that leaders must address to achieve diversity, equity and inclusion goals. The costs of inaction are too high.
Strategies for Mitigating Affinity Bias
Research demonstrates affinity bias can be overcome through intentional efforts at multiple levels of an organization (Chang et al., 2019). Some key strategies include:
Design structures and systems that promote fairness:
Institutionalize fair and consistent criteria for talent processes like hiring, reviews or promotion. Use quantitative assessments.
Provide unconscious bias training to all those involved in talent processes. Train hiring managers on mitigating affinity bias.
Consider using diverse interview panels and keeping applicant identifiers like name and photo anonymous until final stages.
Audit all talent systems, processes and outcomes regularly for equity. Intervene wherever inequities are found.
Enhance diverse social networks:
Implement mentoring, sponsorship and networking programs to create connections across identity groups. Incent participation.
Host “affinity and allyship” programs for underrepresented groups and those who advocate for them.
Promote opportunities for informal connections across differences, like diverse company activities.
Train yourself and others through DEI learning:
Provide ongoing learning for all employees on topics like identity, privilege and advancing inclusion. Case studies make the work real.
Ask senior leaders to participate in immersive experiences to truly understand DEI challenges from others' perspectives.
Engage external consultants to evaluate culture and push the organization's comfort zone. New lenses are needed.
Lead and model inclusive behaviors:
Institutionlize KPIs, metrics and goals related to diversity, equity and inclusion in all leaders’ performance reviews and compensation.
Challenge exclusionary or biased behaviors and comments immediately and respectfully.
Appoint a C-Suite leader responsible for stewarding the vision and oversight of DEI strategies. Allocate real resources.
Regularly highlight exemplars across differences of inclusive leadership and contributions.
These multifaceted strategies can help overcome affinity bias when combined with ongoing evaluation, learning and refinement. While challenging, leadership commitment is key.
Case Study: Mitigating Affinity Bias at a Financial Services Firm
One large financial services firm faced similar representation gaps and inequities, threatening their ambitious diversity targets. An internal evaluation revealed affinity bias as a root cause. Leaders took a systematic approach to address it:
All people managers were trained on unconscious/implicit biases and how to mitigate affinity bias in talent processes. New decision criteria were introduced.
Diverse interview panels, blind resume screening and quantitative assessments were instituted company-wide for major talent decisions.
External DEI consultants evaluated firm culture, talent data and interviewed underrepresented employees to surface barriers.
A new sponsorship program connected high potentials across gender and ethnic groups with senior allies. Participation was formally recognized.
Learning programs were launched to enhance cultural competencies firm-wide and host "crucial conversations" to candidly discuss inclusion.
Leadership made diversity a core part of their brand promise. Outcomes were regularly reported and underperformance addressed.
Within two years, representation gaps narrowed significantly. Employee surveys showed greater inclusion. Minority retention also improved as equitable experiences increased. By addressing affinity bias head-on, with sustained commitment, this firm advanced their diversity goals.
Conclusion
As the threats posed by unchecked affinity bias are serious, leaders must take proactive steps to mitigate it. A holistic, multifaceted approach is needed that addresses causes both individual and systemic. While not easy work, overcoming affinity bias is key to fulfilling diversity, equity and inclusion promises - and reaping proven business benefits. Leaders who make reducing bias through fair structures and empowering connections across differences a priority will succeed in building truly inclusive cultures where all talents thrive. Now is the time for organizations to recognize affinity bias and take meaningful action to counter it. The commitment will pay off through a diversity of voices, perspectives and outcomes that reflect the diversity of our society.
References
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R. W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Grant, A. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7778–7783. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816076116
Ely, R. J., McKenna, D., & Collins, S. K. (2011). Getting serious about diversity: Enough already with the business case. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/resources/pdfs/comm/pwc/23059_ANNOTATED_HBR.pdf
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
McDonald, M. L. (2011). The nature and limits of social relations in professional service firms. Organization Science, 22, 1608-1633. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0656
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2013). Access denied: Low mentoring of women and minority first‐time directors and its negative effects on appointments to additional boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1169-1198. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0230
McDonald, S., Lin, N., & Ao, D. (2018). Networks of opportunity: Gender, race, and job leads. Social Problems, 65(3), 373-393. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx033
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Phillips, K. W. (2014). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American, 311(4), 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1014-42
Roberts, L. M., Mayo, A. J., Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Beating the odds: Culturally aligned identity negotiations of Black professionals in White spaces. Academy of Management Journal, 63(6), 1760-1784. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1477
Schwab, S. J., Elia, J. P., & Corcoran, P. B. (2015). Affinity bias and physician-patient similarity: A potential barrier to person-centered care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(12), 1756-1762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3453-3
Additional Reading
Westover, J. H. (2024). Optimizing Organizations: Reinvention through People, Adapted Mindsets, and the Dynamics of Change. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.3
Westover, J. H. (2024). Reinventing Leadership: People-Centered Strategies for Empowering Organizational Change. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.4
Westover, J. H. (2024). Cultivating Engagement: Mastering Inclusive Leadership, Culture Change, and Data-Informed Decision Making. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.5
Westover, J. H. (2024). Energizing Innovation: Inspiring Peak Performance through Talent, Culture, and Growth. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.6
Westover, J. H. (2024). Championing Performance: Aligning Organizational and Employee Trust, Purpose, and Well-Being. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.7
Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Workforce Evolution: Strategies for Adapting to Changing Human Capital Needs. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.8
Westover, J. H. (2024). Navigating Change: Keys to Organizational Agility, Innovation, and Impact. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.11
Westover, J. H. (2024). Inspiring Purpose: Leading People and Unlocking Human Capacity in the Workplace. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.12
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Affinity Bias: An Overlook Threat to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Efforts. Human Capital Leadership Review, 15(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.15.2.13
