5 Myths of Implicit Bias Training
Implicit bias is a term circulating organizations like wildfire—and for good reason. Shaped over our lifetimes, implicit bias is related to associations we make about people as a function of their race, gender, age, and other attributes, and it has profound implications for how we interact with others—and the decisions we make in the workplace. As our collective awareness of implicit bias grows, so too has the demand for workshops and related experiences that address it.
I have developed and facilitated workshops on bias awareness and reduction for nearly 30 years, and while I’m mostly encouraged by the recent surge in demand, I am also cautious. Implicit bias training should come with a warning—there is no such thing as a quick fix.
Organizations that want to increase their collective awareness of implicit bias and the conditions that lead to it are certainly on the right track, as are those seeking best practices and strategies to minimize the impact of implicit bias on decision making. On the flip side, however, the mythology that surrounds the purpose and outcomes of implicit bias trainings can limit their success.
Here are five common myths that can set unreasonable expectations and thwart progress.
Implicit bias training works for all. There is no simple fix for bias, and certainly no fix that works the same for everyone. The rate of change depends on each participant’s level of self-awareness and commitment to bias reduction. Individuals differ on these dimensions, and it’s fair to say it’s complicated. Someone’s degree of bias may also differ simultaneously on different dimensions—one may have a great degree of awareness with regard to gender bias but lack the same level of sensitivity when it comes to race bias or other areas.
Education can eradicate bias. I have witnessed remarkable change and systemic improvements as a result of implicit bias training. However, education is not a panacea. We navigate our modern world with the ingrained mentality of Stone Age hunter-gatherers, whose lives often depended upon quick associations and judgments. According to evolutionary psychology, we are hard-wired for hierarchy and stereotype and still demonstrate the traits of early homo sapiens. That is unlikely to reverse course any time soon—or as the result of one brief training experience.
Implicit bias educators do not need specialized training. As the desire to combat discrimination through training has exponentially grown, many individuals and groups have come forward in describing themselves as experts in the area, purporting to help transform the culture and demographic makeup of work and educational settings. Unfortunately, the efficacy of the trainers and the training is not always demonstrated. Successful trainings require a baseline of research on bias, stereotyping, and its impact; skill in processing difficult dialogues and conversations; and an understanding of nuance—knowing when and how to provide challenge and support are crucial to fostering awareness. Inexperienced facilitators can unintentionally shut down conversations by putting participants on the defensive, not providing enough support, or encouraging feelings of shame, for example. Perhaps most important, possessing self-awareness of one’s own biases and triggers is crucial to managing challenging questions and interactions in workshop discussions. These skills often take years to hone.
Smart people will just get it. The myth that intelligent people will be quick to understand and implement best practices is prevalent among those who are highly accomplished and who themselves tend to be quick learners. Such individuals have learned to rely on their strong cognitive thinking skills. Ironically, these individuals are often asked to make quick decisions with little information, a recipe for potential bias. Relatedly, notions around bias and intelligence often get conflated; studies show that intellectual intelligence, or cognitive ability, does not seem to impact one’s degree of bias.
Providing strategies and best practices is sufficient. Many businesses just want to know “what to do.” They want to cut to the chase and get right to the practice. While understandable, knowing the basis for interventions and strategies is important to sustaining change. The tools for performing surgery, for example, are not enough—a surgeon must have deep knowledge about physiology, anatomy, and medical conditions. Similarly, workplace conditions and company policies, procedures, and employee composition must be considered when deciding how best to confront implicit bias in an organization.
In their haste to “solve” issues of implicit bias in the workplace, many organizations rush to believe that one workshop is the remedy for inequitable policies and practices. While implicit bias workshops and related training certainly have their place, it is unrealistic to believe that such education and training will lead to eradication of bias.
What organizations can and should hope for as result of such work, however, is an increase in self-awareness among participants, a concerted effort to identify conditions under which bias is most likely to occur, and the implementation of strategies to minimize its effects. Because implicit bias is a deep-seated habit of the mind, intentional and directed effort at combating it is necessary for change to occur.
I have seen great progress and heard wonderful stories of change. However, organizations seeking transformation should understand that there is no quick fix for workplace bias and that this work requires an experienced and data driven educator. Anyone claiming otherwise is unlikely to be an ideal partner for their journey.