Conclusion

If you have read this far, then you know that we as individuals do indeed have the power to overcome bias. You also know that we all have bias and that it’s completely normal. That said, what happens when a critical mass of thoughtful individuals actively addresses interpersonal bias? One would think that if enough of us made a change for the better, we would experience a seismic shift in cross-cultural relations. Some recent analysis of historical US census data seems to demonstrate the power of this claim as it reviewed racial housing segregation in American cities in the early twentieth century. A Washington Post article, “White flight began a lot earlier than we thought,”¹ summarized this research and came to this conclusion (emphasis added):

The suburbs we know today effectively didn’t exist at the time [early twentieth century], so whites were leaving these neighborhoods for other neighborhoods in the city. That makes this earlier form of white flight even more striking; their new homes didn’t necessarily have lower taxes or better school districts, factors that complicated the motivations of later generations of whites. The accumulation of all those individual decisions is an important part of explaining why segregation took root in places like Baltimore, Philadelphia and Chicago. . . .

What happened, however, was that these individual choices became embedded in the institutions that were created in later decades, reinforcing racial segregation through redlining and federal lending programs, the GI Bill’s unequal racial application, and many other policies. It becomes clear, then, that while individual actions have an enormous and measurable impact, over time systems are built up to the point that the collective actions of individuals may never be able to reach the tipping point of creating systemic change.

The problem with the tipping point for bias is that we have collectively created countless interconnected national and global systems that function because of, not in spite of, institutional bias. Institutional bias is partly responsible for the resistance some people exhibit when bias and privilege emerge in conversation. Why on earth would the people who benefit most from biased systems want to encourage change in favor of equity? Bias and equity have a public relations problem, much like the term “diversity.”

As diversity practitioners, we fight an ongoing uphill battle against the negative stigma associated with diversity. People believe diversity is a dirty word, or that the implications of addressing diversity include adverse publicity, litigation, or creating a fear-based “politically correct” culture where everyone walks on eggshells. No one wants to poke the diversity bear. The status quo seems superior to openness, transparency, and authentic inclusion. The same is true of bias and equity, only when we consider these, people often worry that it is a zero-sum game. If everyone has equitable access to resources and opportunities, then my opportunities will be reduced. This is a very shortsighted approach for all of the reasons detailed in the previous chapters. Diversity has been consistently proven to be advantageous to systems. Companies with more diverse boards of directors outperform companies with homogeneous boards. The fear of equity and inclusion is unfounded. Once more of us have built authentic relationships across difference, we will have new insight and motivation into establishing unbiased systems that benefit everyone—not just folks like us.

What’s next? Addressing bias in systems.

Did you know that dropping one letter from your name on your résumé can get you more returned calls from employers? At least if that one letter makes your name sound more white. A widely circulated story chronicled the story of a man, José, who, frustrated with a lack of attention from prospective employers, changed his name to Joe but kept everything else on his résumé the same.² The callbacks came within a week.

The information in this book applies not only to individuals, but also on a larger scale to organizations, governments, and other institutions. Homogeneity stifles creativity. Practically speaking, Overcoming Bias also applies to the workplace. If leaders allow their bias to go unchecked, preferential treatment can fuel costly lawsuits when protected categories, like race or gender, are involved.

Organizations are in-groups, and they should be massively inclusive. The more diverse and inclusive they are, the more appealing they are to high-potential talent and diverse demographics. It’s important to recognize that leaders have the power to cultivate this inclusiveness by addressing bias within their organizations and institutions. They must create space for the expansion of in-groups and for nurturing authentic relationships across difference. Leaders should ask themselves:

1. Who are my organization’s current friends?

2. Do we have clear avenues for in-group expansion?

3. What in-groups dominate my organization?

Organizational leaders frequently ask us how to expand their networks and target markets. Here is what we suggest:

Professional associations frequently have several minority equivalents. Find them and send employees to join, speak, and network. Better yet, go yourself.

Expand the list of minority vendors your company sources for goods and services.

Attend job fairs at community colleges and historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

Join the minority chambers of commerce (Asian, Latino, African American).

Sponsor events hosted by marginalized demographics (women’s conferences, LGBT events, disability awareness campaigns).

Ask how you can help these organizations meet their respective missions.

So where do we go from here? Now is when we open our eyes to all of the bias that exists and persists within the systems all around us. We have a moral imperative to understand the origins of institutional bias, how it has evolved or devolved, and how we can create stronger, better, less biased systems. Bias is a fractal concept; it operates from the smallest scale of the individual perspective, to one-on-one relationships, to family systems and organizational structures and on up through governments and global relations. Our next task is to reevaluate the system at every level and determine who among us has the influence and locus of control to effect systemic changes. We, the authors, argue that every single one of us has influence on the system. Now we need to find out how to use that influence to move everyone forward.