Unconscious bias (UB) – snap judgments based on race, gender or other stereotypes – can show up in how organisations treat customers and employees or even potential employees during the hiring process. A UK study found that similarly qualified applicants with common Pakistani or Nigerian names needed to send out 60 per cent more applications to receive the same number of callbacks as those with stereotypically British names.
Some companies, such as Three Ireland, have introduced mandatory UB training across the organisation in order to tackle the issue. However, while rigorous UB programmes have helped develop more empathetic and diverse workplaces, there are sceptics who would argue that conventional UB training isn’t working and, in some cases, may do more harm than good.
According to a report by Francesca Gino and Katherine Coffman in the Harvard Business Review, “some studies have revealed that the training can backfire”.
The report elaborates: “Sending the message that biases are involuntary and widespread – beyond our control, in other words – can make people feel they’re unavoidable and lead to more discrimination”.
Why an SSE Airtricity energy audit was a game changer for Aran Woollen Mills on its net-zero journey
Getting solid legal advice early in your company’s journey is invaluable
Water pollution has no one cause but many small steps and working together can bring great change
Empowering women in pharma: MSD Ireland’s commitment to supporting diverse leadership
The UK Civil Service decided to phase out unconscious bias training in 2020, citing a review of 492 studies, involving more than 87,000 participants, which found changes to unconscious bias measures were not associated with changes in behaviour and in some cases actually exacerbated biases. In the UK a backlash developed against charities and the Crown estate, accusing them of wasting money on UB training.
According to Gino and Coffman, effective UB training is about more than simply increasing awareness; it must teach people to manage their biases, change their behaviour and, crucially, track their progress. They cite Microsoft’s UB training programme – which is freely available online – as one that is both rigorous and effective, inspiring other companies, such as Starbucks, to take their lead from it. Microsoft measures the effectiveness of the training and holds itself accountable by publishing demographic employment data in publicly available diversity and inclusion reports each year.
But should it be mandatory? Gino and Coffman’s findings showed that many organisations, worried about a backlash, make UB training voluntary. As a result, it tends to only be embraced by people who are already familiar with the concept and interested in reducing it – a good reason, one might say, to make it mandatory, if the people who may most need it are those least likely to partake.
So perhaps ultimately the answer is yes, it should be mandatory – but only if it’s good.
At Three Ireland, diversity, inclusion and belonging training is mandatory for all employees, forming an integral part of the onboarding process.
“Recognising that we all have unconscious biases that are often unintentional and being able to reflect on these is key to promoting inclusivity and belonging at Three,” says Priyanka Jaiswal, director at Three Ireland and Three UK. “In addition to that, for our leaders we focus on developing inclusive leadership skills as a key part of our leadership development programmes.”
Jaiswal agrees that training is only part of the picture and that continuous action in all areas of the organisation is needed to back up and underpin it.
“Training is only one element of overcoming unconscious bias; it needs to go hand in hand with actions to support it,” says Jaiswal. “Over the past number of years, we have introduced many initiatives, policies and ways of working to make Three a more equitable and inclusive place to work.”
These include the introduction of pregnancy loss and fertility policies; embedding hybrid and flexible working to support employees who need such facility; introducing gender-neutral language and balanced interview panels in recruitment; and continuous review of processes and training to minimise space for bias, she adds.
This chimes with a study published in Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the American Psychological Association, which analysed more than 40 years of research into diversity training evaluation and found that, while many of the diversity training programmes fell short, successful diversity training showed greater positive effects when it was complemented by other diversity initiatives, targeted to both awareness and skills development, and conducted over a significant period of time.
Ultimately, what’s good for people is good for the business as a whole, Jaiswal says.
“We believe that being diverse and inclusive, with a strong sense of belonging, is not only the right thing to do but that it makes us a stronger and better business,” she adds.
Dr Maeve Houlihan, associate dean and associate professor of management at UCD Lochlann Quinn School of Business, is not convinced that making UB training mandatory is necessarily helpful – but, again, it all depends on the implementation.
“The intention of ‘mandatory’ is a message of commitment – we believe in this and we are backing it,” she says. “However, it doesn’t take a deep knowledge of The Office to know how painful training programmes of any kind can feel if they are not well stewarded – particularly if there is any inconsistency between an organisation’s values and actual practice.”
Houlihan advises that if a company chooses the mandatory training route, “it is essential that this is led from the top and management engagement is visible and vocal, and the follow through in terms of actions demonstrable”.
“We do need to expose our judgments to challenge,” she says. “The best way to do that is through practices like counterpoint, and asking each other to set out our interpretations; asking for whys. But not only at the level of the individual; it is critical the organisation is asking these questions of itself at a cultural level. Publishing numbers; mapping data; pushing for change.”