Gender inequity persists as one of the most complex and pervasive challenges facing organizations today. While most companies have explicit diversity, equity and inclusion policies and initiatives aimed at eliminating bias and promoting fairness, subtle yet powerful unconscious biases continue to undermine these efforts and stall progress.
Today we will examine social science research on implicit social cognition to better understand why unconscious gender biases are so difficult to overcome, even for well-meaning leaders seeking to build truly inclusive workplaces.
Unconscious Biases
A substantial and growing body of research has established that implicit biases - prejudices and stereotypes outside of conscious awareness and control - profoundly influence how we perceive and evaluate others (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Several key findings shed light on why unconscious biases related to gender persist so stubbornly:
Deeply ingrained associations. Implicit biases develop early in life through extensive cultural exposure that associates some social groups with certain traits more than others. This conditioning leaves deeply ingrained mental associations that are difficult to consciously counteract (Nosek et al., 2007).
Automatic, unconscious processing. Implicit biases operate automatically through fast, unconscious thought that relies more on associations than deliberate reasoning. This makes them challenging to recognize and correct for, even with training or conscious awareness of one's biases (Carnes et al., 2015).
Dissociation from explicit beliefs. While people may consciously reject gender stereotypes, their implicit associations often do not fully align. Unconscious biases can still influence reactions, decisions and behaviors counter to one's stated values and beliefs (Devine et al., 2012).
Universal prevalence. Studies consistently find that both women and men exhibit implicit gender biases that associate leadership more with men than women. These biases exist even among those working in gender equitable fields or who identify as feminist (Rudman & Glick, 2001).
This research makes clear that implicit social biases cannot simply be overcome through conscious awareness, policies, or good intentions alone. Their unconscious, pervasive nature necessitates targeted interventions at both the individual and systemic level.
Lingering Biases in the Workplace
Gender biases profoundly shape workplace experiences and outcomes in subtle yet significant ways. Some examples of how unconscious biases persist in organizations include:
Hiring & Promotions
Identically qualified male and female candidates are often evaluated more favorably when gender cues are ambiguous. Biases disadvantage women when gender becomes salient (Steinpreis et al., 1999).
Male leaders are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt for their potential and fit for senior roles, while women must consistently prove themselves across lengthy careers to be seriously considered (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Performance Evaluations
Women are more likely to have their competence and commitment questioned early in their careers in a way that impacts evaluations and feedback, holding them to higher standards than men in similar roles (Heilman, 1983).
Studies find women receive more critical feedback on areas like communication style (being "too aggressive" versus "assertive") that do not actually relate to job performance (Rudman & Glick, 1999).
Career Development & Mentorship
Women face more barriers in securing high-profile assignments, sponsors and developmental relationships needed to gain critical experiences to advance to C-Suite roles (Ely et al., 2011).
Subtle biases influence perceptions of who will be successful and a good "cultural fit" for senior leadership, disadvantaging women from gaining full support and opportunity (Kanter, 1977).
These biases persist in all industries and workplaces due to their unconscious and systemic nature. While most leaders aim to curb bias, addressing implicit stereotypes requires targeted strategies beyond diversity trainings alone.
Strategies for Overcoming Lingering Biases
A growing body of research offers evidence-based strategies that can mitigate implicit biases - if implemented consistently and systematically over time. Some key recommendations for organizational practitioners include:
Focus on Individual Awareness & Accountability
Provide unconscious bias trainings that honestly discuss implicit social cognition research and the universal prevalence of biases. Help individuals recognize biases may influence them.
Encourage perspective-taking to build understanding of different lived experiences. Exercises that put participants in others' shoes can help counteract biases (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).
Promote Inclusive Leadership from the Top
Senior leaders must actively, visibly and consistently champion inclusion through transparent commitment of time and resources over the long-term.
Accountability structures that track representation goals and merit-based outcomes by gender help maintain focus and flag where biases may be at play systemically.
Institutionalize Equitable Systems & Processes
Implement structured interviews and evaluations to reduce subjectivity and ensure equal opportunities based on job-relevant criteria alone (Uhlmann & Cohen, 2007).
Provide sponsorship programs pairing high-potential employees from underrepresented groups with advocates to navigate career barriers due to biases (Camanho et al., 2016).
Foster Allies & Role Models
Highlight success stories of women and other underrepresented groups in visible leadership roles to counter unconscious associations between gender and competence/leadership (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004).
Engage managers of all genders as allies committed to advocating for fair processes, representation and sponsorship within their teams (Kalev et al., 2006).
These multi-pronged strategies work in concert to shift cultural norms, perceptions and day-to-day practices over the long run. With sustained focus, organizations can overcome the lingering biases that unconsciously persist despite good intentions.
Conclusion
Gender inequity continues challenging organizations due partly to the profound yet subtle influence of unconscious biases we all possess. While explicit policies have come a long way, implicit biases rooted deep in our social conditioning undermine progress in subtle yet meaningful ways. This sheds light on why disparities persist even among companies striving toward equity and inclusion. Strategically addressing implicit biases requires targeted, evidence-based strategies incorporated systematically at both an individual and institutional level over an extended period. Leaders committed to overcoming lingering biases can implement comprehensive approaches, measure impact, and maintain focus to create truly inclusive workforces where all talent can thrive regardless of gender. By recognizing the powerful yet unseen barriers still at play, practitioners gain insight and tools to promote lasting cultural shifts that curb bias and its effects on outcomes.
References
Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., & Sheridan, J. (2015). Promoting institutional change through peer education. Academic Medicine, 90(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000526
Camanho, P., Downton, M., & Lataiwish, G. (2016). Sponsorship Effectiveness in Career Advancement. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-07-2015-0050
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474-493. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0046
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
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. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic books.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., Olson, K. R., Chugh, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7-8), 509-528. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018839203698
Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). "I think it, therefore it's true": Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.07.001
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.
Opmerkingen