Start Learning About Conformity Bias to Stop Conforming

Picture this: you’re standing in front of an elevator. You send a text message, putting your phone away once you hear the familiar ding! The low creak of doors sliding open follows. You look up, ready to step inside, but—

Everyone is facing the back of the elevator.

Okay, you think. This is weird.

What do you do? Get in the elevator like normal, becoming the only person to face the front? Or do you get the elevator and face the back, like everyone else?

I don’t know about you, but I think I’d face the back! After all, most of us aren’t particularly keen on sticking out like a sore thumb. If you agree that you’d do the same, fear not: for better or worse, to conform is human, and everyone else who participated in this Candid Camera TV experiment also found themselves facing the back of the elevator to avoid standing out from the crowd.

I’ve talked about conformity before on this blog, such as when I explored three tips to manage conformity bias. But today, we’re going to delve further into six types of conformity and how they affect us, because we often don’t realize how many ways the world encourages us to conform! Shall we begin?

1. Imitation

When I took my first sales course early in my career, my instructor taught us about something called “mirroring.” They explained that to more effectively connect with a potential client, we should be intentional about moving our body to parallel their movements. To do so would increase the trust between ourselves and the client; after all, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”

Allow me to be honest: after my instructor finished explaining, I still did not understand the significance of this technique. That is, until I bought my first car. As I discussed the merits of the vehicle with the salesperson, I noticed that they were imitating my behavior! If I shifted my weight from my right to my left foot, they did the same. If I gestured outward, they copied the gesture, too! The salesperson was utilizing a type of conformity we simply call imitation, or the mimicking of body language, in order to connect with me and increase the likelihood of me buying their car. Pretty strategic, huh? Next time you’re preparing to make a big purchase, watch closely! Your salesperson might imitate you, too.

2. Informational Conformity

Today is the big day—in T-minus two hours, you have the interview for your dream job. There’s only one problem: what should you wear? When in doubt, your best friend has your back. You call them up and they immediately recommend the perfect get-up, allowing you to look professional while feeling totally comfortable.

This inclination to trust someone who we believe has accurate information on a subject is known as informational conformity. We trust our friend’s recommendation about what to wear for the interview because we believe their taste and assessment of our style to be accurate. Wearing their chosen outfit becomes “the right thing to do.” As this example demonstrates, informational conformity isn’t inherently a bad thing. It usually refers to a person lacking knowledge or certainty on a particular subject, therefore they look to an individual or group for guidance. Of course, it’s important to remember that a bit of skepticism is also healthy. When we’re at the doctor, informational conformity tells us to trust their expertise when they diagnose us, and that we should therefore conform to their advice. But if we still feel something isn’t right, it is better to push back against that instinct for conformity and instead voice our concerns! While there’s no shame in trusting others, we must trust ourselves, too.

3. Normative Conformity

You’re at a work function to celebrate the successful establishment of a partnership between your organization and another business. Everyone is laughing and chatting, glasses of champagne and wine in hand. When a server comes over to offer yourself and your friend a drink, you take one with a nod and cheerful thanks. Your friend accepts a drink, too, though more slowly.

After a while, you notice that your friend has hardly sipped from their glass.

“Are you okay?” you ask, concerned.

“Hm?”

“Your drink.”

They glance down at their glass. “Oh. Yeah, wine isn’t really my thing.”

You tilt your head in confusion. “Then why’d you get a glass?”

Your friend hesitates, then shrugs. “Everyone else was drinking. It’d be weird if I wasn’t, wouldn’t it?”

This example demonstrates a type of conformity many of us are familiar with: normative conformity. Normative conformity might also be described as conforming to social norms, typically for fear of rejection or exclusion from a group. The above example is unconscious, where the friend was not forced to drink, but simply felt pressured to because their coworkers all were. More serious instances of normative conformity can be classified as peer pressure, where there is an articulated threat or warning against a person to conform, or else. It’s therefore worth noting that normative conformity can certainly be dangerous, such as people becoming regular smokers after they started smoking to “fit in,” not because they truly wanted to smoke.

4. Majority Influence (Compliance)

Exciting news: today you are participating in an experiment! You and a group of individuals are taken into a plain room, where you are sat down in a semicircle before a board. The facilitator explains that you will be shown a line on one card, and your task is to decide which line on a second card is the same length. Ready? Here are the cards:

The correct answer is unmistakably Line 1, you decide. Unfortunately, you’re the final chair in the semicircle, so you will be last to report your response. The facilitator points at the first participant.

“Line 2,” they say, confidently.

You blink. What?

The next participant: “Line 2.”

Okay, now you’re getting concerned. It’s Line 1, isn’t it?

“Line 2,” the third participant says, and so do all the rest until it is finally your turn to speak.

Maybe… Maybe it isn’t Line 1?

If you choose to say Line 2, don’t feel bad! What I have just described here is the Asch experiment, originally conducted in the 1950s. The original results: 76% of the 123 participants gave at least one incorrect response when it was their turn; overall, 37% of responses were wholly conforming. This experiment thus demonstrates the power of majority influence, a type of conformity we might also describe as compliance. In other words, we conform to the opinion of the majority publicly, though we might disagree with them privately, because their sheer number means a) we don’t want to challenge them and b) we wonder if they are actually correct. But what’s the importance of this conformity outside of lines and experiments?

The answer is obvious but important: every time we walk out the door, our opinions are shaped by those of the majority. Be it fashion trends seen as we scroll through Instagram or politics blaring at us from TV, the more we see something repeated, the more we may come to question any dissenting opinions we hold. This herd mentality is risky, as it can suppress diversity of thought and reinforce oppressive ideals. But much like normative conformity, awareness is key to challenging the power of majority influence: knowing that we’re susceptible to majority influence allows us to catch ourselves before falling in too deep. And like informational conformity, too, it is also crucial to trust ourselves! When we find ourselves doing something because everyone else is doing it, we must learn to stop and ask, Is this something I want to do? Is this something I am comfortable with? And if the answer is No, trust your gut!

5. Minority Influence

Let’s dive into another study! You and five others are sitting in a room. You’ve all been instructed to identify the color of a slide before you. Going around the circle, there is consistency: you and three other participants echo the same sentiment that this slide is blue. But what’s an experiment without a little disruption?

Participant 5 shakes their head. “No, it’s green.”

Participant 6 confirms: “Definitely green.”

You and the other participants brush them off. Four of you against two of them—the majority must be in the right.

But Participants 5 and 6 keep at it. New slides are shown, all the same blue, but Participants 5 and 6 insist they’re green. Eventually, you exchange a glance with Participant 3 on your left. Could… Could it be green after all?

What I’ve just described here is a simplified version of an experiment by social scientist Serge Moscovici that examined a type of conformity known as minority influence. How can this be? you may be wondering. How can there be both majority and minority influence? Think of it this way: majority influence relates to the size of the majority, where their overwhelming scale causes us to reason that if everyone else is thinking or doing a certain thing, they must be right. With minority influence, it is the unanimity and consistency of the minority that allows them to influence the opinion of the majority. Although the experiment I have described shows minority influence in a more staged manner, minority influence is crucial to maintaining diversity of thought in our world. It’d be pretty boring if we all behaved exactly the same all the time, wouldn’t it? Hence why it is important for us to listen to opinions that differ from our own, especially if those opinions are ones that challenge the accepted status quo. In short, the power of the minority encourages creativity and facilitates social change!

6. Obedience

“Obedience”? What’s obedience doing on a list about conformity? It’s not so wrong to obey instructions, is it?

In 1963, Professor Stanley Milgram conducted a social experiment to test the limits of obedience. He recruited 40 participants, all of whom were told they were partaking in a study designed to improve learning. Participants were told to administer test questions to a group of “learners” and to shock them with different levels of voltage if they answered incorrectly, with highest voltage being a whopping 450 volts. Unbeknownst to the participants, the learners were all confederates with Milgram and received no actual shocks.

Every time the learners answered incorrectly, the participants obediently shocked them. Even as the voltage increased in 15-volt increments and learners began crying about heart trouble, pleading for help, and begging the participants to stop, the majority of participants continued to shock the learners whenever they were told to do so. In fact, 65% of participants continued shocking at the maximum voltage, to the point where the learner became unresponsive.

The power of authority is frightening, isn’t it? What compels us to follow orders even when those orders conflict with our personal beliefs in what we know to be right or good?

Although this example represents an extreme case, obedience is a type of conformity that we should all be aware of. In some ways, we might think of obedience as the formal version of normative conformity: rather than conforming because we think we should do so, we conform because we are told to do so, often by an authority figure.

Now, I’m not saying we all should stage a coup in our workplaces! Rather, I hope to encourage us to think over the instructions we receive from our superiors, be it at work or in a place of worship or any other situation that involves a type of hierarchy. If we instinctively agree with a set of instructions we receive, we should reflect upon why instead of unquestioningly obeying. Obedience is important, yes, but not to the point of suppressing individual reactions.

And there we have it! Six types of conformity and how they shape our daily lives. Of course, informational conformity may be telling you to trust my breakdown of these definitions because you believe that I possess accurate knowledge. If in doubt, try searching up these types of conformity yourself!

(Most definitions sourced from “The Many Varieties of Conformity,” a chapter in Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International H5P Edition, unless otherwise linked.)

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Thrive in Every Economic Trend with DEI

Nowadays, concerns of an upcoming recession are impossible to avoid. Many organizations are taking preventative measures to protect themselves when this economic downturn ultimately hits. Recessions can be frightening, no doubt, but every economic low will eventually soar into an economic high, and a business may even find themself thriving like they never have before. But how do we first make it through these difficult economic times?

Let’s begin with a story.

A business owner was faced with the threat of an economic recession. For her organization to survive, she knew she would have to cut costs. She narrowed her options down to two: lay off 20% of her staff, or implement a 20% pay cut across the company. Neither option was favorable, so the owner brought the choice to her staff. I know it will be difficult either way, she said, but I want everyone to feel included in this decision.

Her team decided that instead of forcing a fifth of their company to shoulder the entirety of the economic suffering, they would all take a 20% pay cut. The long-term goals of the organization would be better served by valuing their people and by maintaining trust—trust between members of the team, and trust between the team and the business owner.

Today, companies are faced with similarly difficult decisions. For an organization to survive an economic recession, costs must be cut. The trick, however, is to modify company budgets “with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.” In the process of this trimming, it is of the utmost importance that organizations consider the welfare and feedback of everyone on their team. Admittedly, small and mid-sized organizations can more directly access individual opinions, while a larger organization may not be able to sit down with every employee. Nonetheless, the message communicated must remain the same: the business values their employees, and they are investing in the best future for all of them.

But what does this have to do with DEI?

As of late, DEI budgets have been among the first costs slashed within organizations in their attempts to brace themselves for an economic recession. The message communicated by these cuts, however, is the opposite of what a business should seek to show their staff. Many employees were concerned from initial implementation of DEI that such efforts were superficial, and that DEI would ultimately not be part of an organization’s long-term goals. Immediately slicing DEI budgets can be a realization of that fear, and it may decrease trust between organizational leaders and their staff, particularly people from underrepresented groups, as the business is communicating that they don’t value their staff enough to ensure everyone feels welcome and included.

When an organization is faced with an economic recession and is considering cutting costs by eliminating DEI, there are three questions they should ask themselves:

1. Why is DEI considered a “cost” if it is truly part of our long-term vision (or is it just a box to tick off)?

2. How will a reduced focus on DEI impact trust within our teams, especially members from underrepresented groups?

3. How can we use DEI to increase our competitive advantage during an economic downturn?

There are a multitude of reasons why cutting DEI budgets is not the most effective strategy to ensure an organization survives an economic recession. For one, many organizations have used DEI initiatives within PR tactics for multiple years now, including statements on their websites and social media. To eliminate these efforts can make a company appear disingenuous, as it would appear that DEI is not a core value of their organization despite how they claimed it to be. As such, “[t]o decrease or even eliminate DEI risks reputational damage that will be difficult to repair down the road.” In other words, jumping the gun and cutting DEI can easily create the impression that creating an environment of inclusion for all employees was not a long-term goal for the organization and was merely a superficial box to check off. The result? Decreased trust between leaders and their team members, which will do a company no favors as they try to band together and survive difficult economic times.

Additionally, recent research suggests that DEI actually helps businesses survive recessions. Forbes reports that “‘companies with consistently inclusive workplaces thrived before, during, and after the Great Recession [of 2007-2009], earning a 4x annualized return.’” In simpler terms, companies that prioritized inclusion not only survived an economic recession but in fact thrived during it. Furthermore, “[w]hile the S&P 500 suffered a 35.5 percent decline in stock performance from 2007-2009, companies whose key employee groups had very positive experiences posted a remarkable 14.4 percent gain.” And this isn’t all! Accenture recently reported that “companies are missing out on $1.05 trillion when they are not being more inclusive,” suggesting not only that DEI itself is economically beneficial, but the lack of DEI is economically detrimental and can harm a business.

Those are a lot of numbers, but the message is clear: DEI means investing in one’s team, trusting one’s team, and reinforcing the value of one’s team. As a result, DEI can help an organization prosper during economic downturns and beyond! DEI fosters creativity and innovation; DEI helps companies make better decisions; DEI gives organizations greater access to new markets; and ultimately, “75% of inclusive companies exceed their financial target goals.”

I once had someone approach me before I gave a speech on DEI to tell me that DEI actually meant “DIE. He sincerely believed DEI would spell the death of any organization that implemented it. But as these statistics reveal, the opposite is true: DEI helps organizations retain life, both financially and within the hearts of everyone on their team.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

The Exclusive Impact of Being "The Only"

Have you ever experienced being “the only” person in a room? And I don’t mean literally, though I suspect we’ve all experienced that, too. Rather, have you ever felt like you were surrounded by people who simply didn’t understand you, or who didn’t connect with you? I would bet that most of us here have experienced this quiet social isolation. As a result, many of us can understand and empathize with this particular workplace phenomenon: being the “Only.”

Also known as tokenism, being the Only refers to being the only person of a marginalized group(s) in a workplace. As the description suggests, being the Only is an isolating experience, and it has both physical and psychological consequences on a person’s health. Unfortunately, there is low awareness of these negative effects. One 2021 study, for example, found that “78% of… respondents sa[id] they face[d] greater scrutiny [in the workplace] because of their race, yet… [only] 29% of white respondents… believe[d] this to be so.” Worst of all, this phenomenon is not new! A study from 1995 examined the effect of this workplace isolation on Black employees in the U.S., and many of the results remain consistent between then and today.

Manifestation of the “Only” Phenomenon

While the manifestation of being the Only can vary depending on the person, their workplace, and other site-specific factors, research across multiple decades has determined that certain stressors are common across the board for people who find themselves as the Only. Let’s walk through the overarching trends from these studies:

Firstly, there is performance pressure. Research reveals that people who are the only employee of their race, gender, sexuality, etc. experience additional pressure to succeed, where they often have to overachieve in order to be considered on equal ground with their coworkers of the dominant social group(s). And yet, the same study concluded an Only must reach these above-average accomplishments without calling “excessive” attention to themself—an impossible double bind. Ultimately, psychologist Jo Eckler explains that an Only becomes subjected to intense scrutiny and invisibility, where their achievements are hyper-examined and simultaneously ignored.

Another commonality research has found in the Only’s experiences is boundary heightening. The Only phenomenon leads to social exclusion, usually unintentional, where the “differences” between an Only and their majority coworkers are inscribed through “jokes,” interruptions, a lack of invitations to work-related activities, etc. As a result, an Only becomes forced to expect this social isolation, leading to heightened personal boundaries.

A third stressor seen in being the Only is role entrapment. Research shows that an Only often finds themself defined by stereotypes for their respective racial group(s), gender, sexuality, etc., which can lead to a distortion of individuality and personal identity. Furthermore, this phenomenon can cause an Only to be rendered a stand-in for their entire community. The only Black man in a workplace, for example, becomes expected to speak for every Black person in the country.

In terms of workplace opportunities, research found that being the Only means a person has “less access to supportive mentors and sponsors” in their organization, as well as decreased “access to career-development and financial opportunities.” This continued isolation within one’s work environment compounds the stressors we have already described.

The simple descriptions I provided of these overarching issues already alludes to just how disorienting being the Only can be. A more in-depth approach, however, is required to fully recognize the physical and psychological consequences of being the Only in an organization, including how these consequences feed into each other.

Physical and Psychological Effects

Research shows that “‘onlies’ — the only woman, the only LGBTQ[+] person, the only woman of color — are [more likely] to experience subtle forms of bias” in the workplace. Consider this shocking statistical comparison from the same study: “About 64% percent of all women reported they experienced microaggressions at work. That number jumped to nearly 90% when women frequently found themselves in ‘only’ situations.” Rather horrifying, isn’t it? Although this comparison is specific to women’s experiences, it still reveals how being an Only puts a person at greater risk of a harmful work environment. All of the following are physical and psychological consequences of being an Only:

• Intense bodily fatigue

• Greater likelihood of being mistaken for lower-level positions (e.g. people of color are assumed to be waitstaff, women are assumed to be secretaries, etc.)

• Having their competence and authority doubted

• Feelings of embarrassment, frustration, and overall emotional drainage

• Extreme physical and emotional burnout

• Feelings of other-ness

• Intense emotional isolation

• Feelings of guilt and shame

Because of these negative consequences, people who are an Only are “1.5x more likely to think about leaving their jobs” than those who do not experience this consistent workplace isolation.

Certain experiences of being an Only are more exclusive to specific identities, too. Black people who are the Only, for example, often find themselves forced to code-switch, where they are expected to “leave their cultural language, style, or demeanor at the door to better fit in with their white counterparts,” which leads to increased stress and anxiety. Queer men and women who are the Only often don’t feel comfortable or safe speaking to their coworkers about themselves or their lives outside of work. Consider the following graph about women’s experiences as the Only from the 2021 Women in the Workplace study:

In short, there is no doubt that being the Only is a physically and psychologically draining experience. For those of us seeking to make our workplaces more inclusive and welcoming to all people, we must do everything in our power to prevent people of color, women, the queer community, people with disabilities, and individuals from all marginalized communities from experiencing this damaging isolation. Fortunately, there is a simple solution: facilitate diverse hiring.

The benefits to diversifying one’s workforce are countless, including increased business results, a rise in creativity and innovation, and attracting new hires—a positive feedback loop! I have written extensively on diverse hiring in the past, including tips to succeed at diverse hiring as well as a step-by-step checklist to diverse hiring, all of which can help an organization bring the Only phenomenon to an end. Remember, diverse hiring does not equate to “unqualified” hiring; it simply means “hiring based on merit with special care taken to ensure procedures are free from biases related to a candidate’s age, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics that are unrelated to their job performance.”

At the end of the day, preventing a person from experiencing the isolation and exhaustion of being an Only simply means we must ensure they are not the only or one of the only people from their community in a workplace. By doing so, we help allow all of our employees to find coworkers they can connect and empathize with in more ways than one. Simple as that!

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Can We Learn From Other Generations?

Today’s workplace is unique, as it is rich not only with racial, gender, and ethnic diversity but also because it consists mainly of four different generations: Baby Boomers (late 50s to late 70s), Generation X (early 40s to mid-50s), Millennials (late 20s to early 40s), and Gen Z (elementary age to mid-20s). When most of us think of “diversity,” generational diversity may not be our go-to example, but the range of ideas and experience that comes with each age group is as instrumental to creating a productive workplace as any other element of diversity. There are numerous areas in which younger and senior generations can learn from one another, so today we will explore a few of these infinite learning possibilities!

First and foremost, it is crucial to acknowledge that speaking about the four different generations involves the risk of generalizations. As such, I want to put forth that my commentary is based on my own experience with and research regarding workplace generational diversity; nothing I say is meant to be the “final word” on how a person of any generation presents themself, what information they hold, or what skills they possess. Everyone is different! This blog will thus focus on some overall, but not exclusive, trends within each generation.

Additionally, although these four groups encompass a variety of ages and experiences, the generations are not as “different” as some may cite them to be. It might be more accurate to say that the differences between each generation are not “innate” but instead born of their diversity in experiences, experiences that are all shaped within an individual and their unique circumstances. Many of us overestimate generational differences! In fact, research suggests that both younger and senior employees believe other generations view them more negatively than these generations actually do. This instinct toward negativity can result in poorer workplace interactions, which is something all organizations want to avoid. By recognizing how generational differences vary and are not guaranteed labels that absolutely apply to every person within a given age range, the more easily we can learn from each other.

From Baby Boomers & Gen X to Millennials & Gen Z

For the most part, many individuals of senior generations (Baby Boomers, Gen X) have been in the workplace longer than individuals of younger generations (Millennials, Gen Z). As a result, these additional years of experience grant them insight into various difficulties that a person may encounter during their work life which younger generations simply may not have come across yet. For example, individuals in senior generations are often more familiar with working through economic recessions, meaning they might be able to provide financial guidance to younger workers, such as profitable but safe ways to save for retirement. These additional years of work experience also mean senior generations can typically provide practical advice to younger generations for managing their workloads: delegating one’s assignments, reframing their commitments, and knowing when to pull back versus when to push forward.

Furthermore, because senior generations have typically been in the workplace—or multiple workplaces—longer than younger generations, they may have also seen more change in their work environments than younger generations. Consequently, they may be able to advise younger generations on interpersonal skills, such as the many intricacies of face-to-face communication, as well as the importance of loyalty and perseverance, even when it feels like the ground is falling out from under one’s feet. With their extensive work experience, senior workers are also in a better position to retrospectively discuss what they regret in their careers. For many, they regret not what they did but what they didn’t do—such wisdom may prove invaluable to any number of younger employees.

From Millennials & Gen Z to Baby Boomers & Gen X

Perhaps the best thing about generational differences is that they are a two-way street—for all Millennials and Gen Z can learn from Baby Boomers and Gen X, there is just as much Baby Boomers and Gen X can learn from these younger generations, too! For starters, Millennials and Generation Z have grown up in the age of technology. That immersion has given many of them valuable insight into the nuances of tech, including access to and communication through various technological and online platforms—insight that can be beneficially shared with senior generations. Similarly, younger generations tend to have greater experience with social media cultivation, such as building one’s reputation online, which is also information they can share with interested parties of older age. And in addition to growing up in a period of technological change, younger generations also tend to (though do not always) have more recent educational experience than senior generations. This observation is not to claim any generation is “more intelligent” than another, but rather to simply acknowledge that information evolves with time, and it is never a bad thing to engage with the benefits of recent educational developments.

Related to periods of changing technology and evolving education, younger generations have also grown up surrounded by diversity. In fact, Generation Z themselves are “more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation.” As a result, younger generations tend to have greater “knowledge of different cultural touchstones,” meaning they are usually more confident in their ability to expand their diverse networks and combat issues of homogeneity. Do not misunderstand this observation as implying senior generations are incapable of recognizing the benefits of diversity! Rather, younger generations are often more familiar with harnessing diversity because many of them have been doing so since Day 1, allowing them to provide practical guidance to senior generations on these matters.

Younger generations have also grown up in an age where work-life balance has become a greater priority. They recognize that success is important, but they simultaneously believe that success should not come at the expense of their physical and mental health or of their relationships with friends and family. In other words, if a job demands more than a person is able to fairly give, younger generations can recognize that it’s okay to seek employment elsewhere. As aforementioned, senior generations can provide advice on the importance of loyalty to one’s workplace, but the flipside of loyalty can be an unhealthy commitment. Younger generations are therefore able to advise senior generations on prioritizing oneself as a person, not as merely an employee.

At the end of the day, it is crucial we recognize that generational differences are a blessing, not a curse, and that we do not have to see “difference” as “division.” As this blog explores, generational differences can offer advice born from a plethora of experiences, all of which are shaped by the individual themself, regardless of how old they are. Liane Davey puts it well: “It’s time to stop using the generations as an excuse for the distance among us and start really communicating to bring us all closer together.” An excellent point, and truth be told, we can take her wise words a step further—don’t they apply to every aspect of diversity, too?

So, what are we waiting for? There’s still so much we have to learn from one another!

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

DEI Best Practices For Board of Directors (Part 1)

In recent years, DEI initiatives have transformed from “nice-to-have” into “must-have” elements of an organization’s strategy, and this positive progress cannot be overemphasized. But although DEI initiatives require support from all levels of an organization, boards of directors may be uncertain about how to become involved in DEI, especially as many may not see themselves as directly linked to these initiatives. Fortunately, there is one linkage that facilitates extensive opportunities for boards of directors to support DEI: the connection between a board of directors and their CEO.

First and foremost, boards of directors and CEOs should work together to define their organization’s vision for DEI, because only then can they together incorporate that vision into the overall business strategy. For example, the board of directors from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute developed a resolution that established diversity, equity, and inclusion as core values of their organization. But beyond these early efforts, boards of directors are also in the perfect position to hold CEOs accountable for their implementation of DEI initiatives. This blog is the first of three on the subject, and today we will explore how boards of directors can hold their CEOs accountable for diversity.

A crucial starting point is for boards of directors to ensure CEOs are tracking the demographic statistics (gender, race, veteran status, disability, etc.) of employees at all levels of the organization. Reviewing the organization’s EEO-1 filing is often a good first step, but ideally a more comprehensive set of data should be collected. Hanneke Faber, president of Europe for Unilever, puts it well: “‘You get what you measure…. you need to know how many minority employees you have and at what levels in your company; you need to set a goal to improve it, and you need to talk about it every quarter.’” As simplistic as this step may seem, the importance of possessing accurate statistics about an organization’s demographics cannot be overstated.

Once these statistics are in hand, boards of directors should ensure CEOs are overseeing the comparison of this data to both the demographics of the organization’s surrounding community and those of the customers the organization serves. From there, target goals can be put into development. For example, if the community has an Asian population of 17% but the organization only employs 3%, this lack of ethnic diversity can be precisely identified. Furthermore, the organization’s demographics should also be compared to such statistics of other organizations within and outside of one’s industry that are leading in DEI (assuming that data is available for public perusal).

Not only should boards of directors confirm CEOs are tracking static employee demographics, but they should also ensure CEOs are tracking hiring demographics (e.g. of women, people of color, disabled people, LGBTQ+ people, etc.) to determine that diversity initiatives are being implemented so as to produce tangible results. For example, the board of directors might check to see if CEOs are requiring that talent be sourced from diverse locations, such as historically Black colleges and universities, as well as building talent pipelines by offering internships to high schools/universities with higher percentages of underrepresented groups. A positive model to look to in this respect might be General Lester Lyles, the former chairman of the USAA board of directors, who championed the necessity “‘that people… of all backgrounds have an opportunity’” to be represented in every level of an organization. The search for talent is thus a significant stepping stone toward this goal. When it comes to hiring, boards of directors should similarly check to see if their organization has a policy in place that “requir[es] more than one diverse candidate [be considered] for each open position… throughout the company” and moreover that this policy is being implemented. Through the incorporation of these strategies, the board of directors (and their CEO) will ideally see improvement in diverse hiring from their organization.

Not only should boards of directors be aware of and involved in diversity initiatives for their organization, but the more open they are regarding these initiatives, the greater trust they can build with their community. Billie Williamson, director at Kraton Corporation, Cushman & Wakefield, and Pentair, argued that when boards of directors are public with diversity, it “‘sends a very clear message [about] what’s important to the company.’” As such, boards of directors should ensure CEOs are transparent about their organization’s diversity statistics and initiatives, both to employees and to the general public.

Together with their CEOs, boards of directors should also highlight their commitment to diversity “in communications to shareholders, in public appearances, in interviews and conference presentations, and informally in networking and professional conversations” as well as other applicable communications, including the organization’s website. Furthermore, boards of directors should confirm that their CEOs compare how other organizations within their respective industries describe their commitment to diversity, as knowing this presentation may shape the board’s and CEO’s desired description. In a similar vein, boards of directors should ensure CEOs look into the diversity policies and strategies of community partners and vendors, because there should be a standard the organization expects to maintain: simply put, a strong commitment to diversity is a non-negotiable requirement for partnership.

At the end of the day, boards of directors should be provided information every meeting about the status of diversity initiatives, demographic statistics, etc. for their organization because the board of directors is an instrumental component of ensuring an organization’s successful commitment to DEI. In this blog, we hope to have provided straightforward, tangible ways boards of directors can reach out to their CEOs regarding diversity, and we hope you’ll return for our following assessments on how boards of directors can hold CEOs accountable for equity and inclusion, too.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

DEI Best Practices For Board of Directors (Part 2)

“Diversity” and “inclusion” are words gaining more and more significance by the day in the corporate workplace, but when people speak of DEI initiatives, the “E” sometimes falls by the wayside. However, the equity of diversity, equity, and inclusion is instrumental not only unto itself but also in ensuring that the diversity and inclusion elements of DEI themselves are successful! As a result, this blog is a follow-up to our article on how boards of directors can hold CEOs accountable for diversity. So, let’s jump right in!

After the board of directors has worked with their CEO to define their organization’s vision for DEI and ensured a thorough, enforceable commitment from the CEO to diversity, equity becomes the next critical step. First and foremost, boards of directors should confirm CEOs require that their team conduct pay equity studies, i.e. the comparison of salaries within a specific level of an organization to determine if there are pay disparities to be investigated. For example, if a woman and a man have both had the same job in an organization for the same number of years, but the woman is being paid less, that discrepancy should be looked into and redressed. Similarly, the board of directors should ensure CEOs are tracking inter-level pay studies. These studies compare workloads and salaries between various levels of an organization to determine if someone at a “lower” level is performing the same work as someone at a “higher” level and should thus be promoted to fairly compensate for their labor.

Another important element of equity that boards of directors should hold CEOs accountable for confirming if CEOs are seeking partnerships with organizations led by underrepresented groups and supporting the leadership of women, people of color, disabled individuals, etc. in the surrounding community. While there is also an evident connection to diversity in this task, the reason it has been included in this article about equity is that these acts of partnership and support create opportunities for equity. Equity involves equal access, and as a result, reaching out to organizations led by marginalized groups is a crucial first step to remedying the access denied to them in the past. Patricia Karam, CEO and founder of Mission Recruit, emphasizes the need to enlist diverse vendors, establish diverse partnerships, etc. in order for an organization’s environment to be truly equitable; the support provided by boards of directors for these measures therefore cannot be overstated.

Boards of directors should also ensure CEOs are repeatedly tracking equity surveys, as it is only through the repetition of these surveys that comparisons can be made and long-term progress analyzed. Important surveys to oversee include examining the percentage of employees who believe they have equitable opportunities for advancement. Knowing how employees themselves perceive their opportunities is critical not only because it can illuminate disparities in items like promotion, but also because equity is deeply connected to accessibility, and thus information on and expectations for advancement must be made accessible to all. Similarly, the board of directors should confirm their CEO is tracking surveys that examine the percentage of employees “who feel their compensation (pay and benefits) is fair for their role, experience, and industry standards.” Paralleling the significance of pay equity studies, these surveys not only aid in identifying concrete pay gaps, but they can shed light onto the perceived reasons why these gaps exist, thus opening up areas for investigation and improvement by management. For example, if disabled employees are being paid less than their able-bodied coworkers, and they believe it is because of reasons [x] and [y], concrete redress in those areas can begin.

At the end of the day, when it comes to equity, Paula Bellizia, president of Brazil for Microsoft Corp., believes that “‘[y]ou can’t take your eye off the ball, or people continue to accommodate past behaviors and prevent progress.’” Boards of directors should be provided updates every meeting about the status of equity analyses within their organization, because only then can a genuine commitment to the equity component of DEI be seen at all levels. In this blog, we hope to have provided straightforward ways boards of directors can reach out to their CEOs regarding equity. We hope you’ll return for our following assessment on how boards of directors can hold CEOs accountable for inclusion, and check out our previous article on accountability for diversity, too!

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

DEI Best Practices For Board of Directors (Part 3)

Diversity, equity, and inclusion. In our previous two blogs, we have reviewed the many ways boards of directors can hold their CEOs accountable for diversity and equity, which leaves but one category left: inclusion. Of the three, inclusion can be the most difficult to monitor, because unlike diversity and equity, there are not as many quantitative statistics associated with this element of DEI. Nonetheless, there are still some quantitative as well as numerous qualitative elements that boards of directors can, should, and must confirm their CEOs are overseeing when it comes to inclusion. No reason to delay—let’s walk through each task!

Once the board of directors has both worked with their CEO to define their organization’s vision for DEI and ensured a thorough, enforceable commitment from the CEO to diversity and equity, keeping track of how inclusive the workplace environment is of the utmost importance. To begin, boards of directors should confirm CEOs are requiring that their HR team and/or hiring managers regularly seek feedback from diverse employees who are leaving the organization. Moreover, they should ensure the collected responses are compared over time. For example: let’s say these surveys reveal many Hispanic employees were initially leaving because of reason [x]. A few months later, after appropriate DEI initiatives have been implemented to address reason [x], retention of Hispanic employees has increased. The same surveys are again conducted, demonstrating that the Hispanic who are now leaving are more likely to leave because of reason [y]. The progressive cycle repeats: such surveys can precisely identify issues of exclusion and thus allow for the development of strategies to increase inclusion, helping ensure the retention of diverse employees. Terrence Duddy, senior independent director for both Hammerson plc and Debenhams plc, puts it succinctly: “‘The data from these people as to why they are leaving may unlock the issues in a way that the data from those who stay cannot,’” meaning there is no reason for boards of directors to not ensure their CEOs are overseeing such measures.

Another step toward inclusion that boards of directors can take is confirming their CEOs are staying informed on mentoring and sponsorship opportunities for underrepresented groups—what those opportunities are, who is leading them, and how effective they are proving to be. Mentoring and sponsorship are invaluable in fostering inclusive environments because they help ensure diverse employees know they have someone looking out for them within the organization. This task for boards of directors is especially important when taken together with the aforementioned retention surveys, because—for example—if mentorship and sponsorship programs are being offered to disabled employees, but disabled employees are still leaving the organization at higher rates than nondisabled employees, the board of directors and their CEO can recognize that these programs must be reworked.

Now, here’s the trickiest part: measuring the overall environment of inclusion within the workplace. Such a task is not as simple as the previous two means by which boards of directors can hold CEOs accountable for inclusion, but it is just as important for successful implementation of DEI across an organization. As a starting point, Deloitte offers some general guidelines for boards of directors to monitor inclusion within their organization:

These guidelines, however, are just that—guidelines! They are not the be-all, end-all of examining inclusion. In terms of concrete action, such as the “metrics” Deloitte mentions, boards of directors should ensure their CEOs are requiring that their team repeatedly perform inclusion surveys. The Gartner Inclusion Index is one option that can be employed for the development of questions that effectively measure inclusion. Similarly, these surveys might seek to determine the percentage of employees “who believe they are treated fairly and with respect in the workplace,” with demographic elements noted. For example, if 74% of female employees report that they don’t believe they are being treated with respect, and they identify this unfair behavior as a result of reasons [x], [y], and [z], then such survey results should send up a red flag for a conversation to be had between the board of directors and their CEO over those issues. In addition to this collection and analysis of inclusion surveys, boards of directors should confirm their CEOs are overseeing the organization of focus groups; monitoring the development of means by which exclusionary behaviors (e.g. microaggressions) can be reported (e.g. an online system, a DEI committee, etc.); and so on and so forth, as all of these strategies contribute to a more inclusive environment.

Last but certainly not least, boards of directors should also hold their CEOs accountable for their own inclusive behavior. Within employee surveys, there can be questions regarding how or if the CEO embodies certain traits of inclusive leadership, such as commitment, courage, cognizance, curiosity, cultural intelligence, and collaboration. Additional questions should inquire about the CEO’s commitment to DEI and the overall organization’s commitment to DEI. With this information, boards of directors can better evaluate the next necessary steps for ensuring their organization is one that fosters inclusion across all levels. The board of directors of YW Boston have voiced their dedication to an inclusive environment; Wendy Foster, a member of the board, succinctly observed that “‘[t]o have the greatest impact, boards have to “walk the talk” and do the work!’”

As with diversity and equity, boards of directors should be provided updates every meeting about the status of inclusion initiatives and surveys within their organization, especially because inclusion often presents additional difficulties to measure. Ultimately, the need for boards of directors to become more involved in DEI is imminent. With the three articles we have developed on how CEOs can be held accountable for diversity, equity, and inclusion, we hope to have provided straightforward, effective ways boards of directors can reach out to their CEOs regarding these topics. When all levels of an organization play their part, a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive future will shine over the horizon.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Have Fun With DEI: Five Team-Building Activities

Diversity and inclusion are instrumental parts of every workplace. Proper understanding and implementation of DEI leads to increased productivity, a positive workplace culture, and more! But as with many initiatives, we are always looking for ways to make this educational process more fun. As such, I have compiled a list of five DEI team-building activities for the workplace that can be conducted with any level of employees, from new recruits to leadership teams. Let’s jump right in, shall we?

1. My Fullest Name

This activity is a great icebreaker. In small groups, allow everyone to share the story of their full name: who gave it to them and why, any nicknames they have and why, the linguistic and/or ethnic origins of their name, and so on. Through this sharing, people have an opportunity to both express their own cultural heritage and learn more about the cultural heritage of others, which may lead to conversations about the importance of naming in various cultures. It may even spark curiosity about one’s own name, such as if one doesn’t know the linguistic origins! As a result, this activity is a simple but fun way to bring people together. The only point to note is that if transgender employees are participating, they are in no way expected to provide their deadname; the name they go by is their “fullest name.”

2. What’s Shaped Me

Similar to the previous activity, this DEI exercise is one based upon sharing. Each individual will think of three—or whatever number is most appropriate for the group at hand—moments from their lives that they believe were significant in shaping their identity. For example, a definitive moment that shaped my identity was when I moved to the US, because that move is what made me an immigrant. It has shaped how I view my opportunities, my environment, and the world itself. Each person will record their chosen moments on sticky notes and post them in the designated location, such as on a whiteboard. Afterwards, participants have the opportunity to explain each moment (to the extent they are comfortable), allowing for discussions of how these moments differ between each participant and why.

3. “I Am, But I Am Not”

This activity is a powerful and engaging way to discuss stereotypes. To participate, each individual fills out five different statements using this framework: “I am [x], but I am not [x].” The crucial element of this activity, of course, is that the two parts of the sentence people fill in should be related. Typically, the first part should be a reflection of an element of one’s identity, and the second part is a consequential stereotype. For example: “I am disabled, but I am not helpless.” This activity is often a personal one, as it requires reflection on the stereotypes that have harmed us and that other participants may believe (whether they’re aware of such or not). Nonetheless, this exercise is a powerful tool for constructive conversations about DEI in an engaging, nontraditional format.

4. Privilege Monopoly

We all know how competitive Monopoly can get, and this version takes it to the maximum (in an educational fashion, promise)! This activity can be played with any version of the Monopoly board game, as it is identical to a typical game of Monopoly—with one major exception. Before the game begins, assign random advantages (privileges) and disadvantages (discrimination) to various players. Some potential advantages include: one person gets double pay each time they reach GO; one person is given a set of three properties off the bat; and one person does not have to pay luxury tax. Some potential disadvantages include: start one player in jail so they lose their first three turns; one person gets only half pay each time they reach GO; and one person has to pay double luxury tax. What this activity demonstrates is the operation of privilege with a system—a microcosm of our own society, as it were, including the benefits of extensive financial resources and the struggles of surviving when we don’t have such privileges.

5. Poker Face

Last but certainly not least, this activity also demonstrates a microcosm of social privilege, only on a smaller—and less intense—scale than Privilege Monopoly. In this exercise, all participants should be given a playing card, but they cannot look at it. Instead, they need to place their cards on their head (perhaps with a headband or skin-safe adhesives) with the value facing outward, that way everyone can see what card they have except themself. Afterwards, instruct participants to interact with people based on the value of their card. For example, a King of Hearts has a higher value than a Three of Spades, meaning people would flock to the person with the King of Hearts. In essence, the higher the number, the closer participants want to be, and the lower the number, the further they want to be. This activity thus explores how society values some people more than others, which will ideally foster a conversation about privilege and how they manifest as “invisible” advantages and disadvantages (“invisible” in the sense that no one knew what card they had, meaning they didn’t know ahead of time what privilege or lack thereof they were being afforded).

So there we have it! Five DEI team-building activities that allow us to approach conversations of privilege, stereotypes, diversity, multiculturalism, and more, all in entertaining, engaging ways. You know, I think I’m in the mood for a game of Privilege Monopoly—anyone want to join me?

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

What Does Artificial Intelligence has to do with Unconscious Bias?

More and more organizations are incorporating AI into their systems, from facial recognition software to healthcare allocation and everything in-between. And while perhaps AI has allowed certain organizational practices to operate more smoothly, we must remember that human-created AI software inevitably reflects human flaws, including our unconscious biases. Let’s look at a few examples:

1. Amazon and Gender Bias

In the past, Amazon created not one but two different AI systems, both of which were created to assess résumé submissions. A seemingly innocent application, both of these AIs taught themselves gender bias. Historically speaking, the tech industry has been dominated by men. Although demographics have been changing in recent years, the AI was “trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in résumés submitted to the company over a 10-year period,” the majority of which came from men. Because of this historical gender imbalance, the AI began “penaliz[ing] résumés that included the word ‘women’s,’ as in ‘women’s chess club captain,’” pushing their applications lower on the hiring chain. It also demoted candidates who attended all-women colleges.

Amazon’s second AI had a similar issue, also born from the historical gender imbalance in the tech industry: “the technology favored candidates who described themselves using verbs more commonly found on male engineers’ resumes, such as ‘executed’ and ‘captured.’” In short, a historically higher number of résumés from men led these AIs to teach themselves that résumés from women were flawed. Bizarre, isn’t it? Although such consequences were unintentional, these software systems were programmed by humans and thus incorporated the unconscious gender bias of humans into their workings.

2. AI and Racial Bias

One of the most prolific issues afflicting AI systems is unconscious racial bias. The list of examples feels neverending, but two of the most life-threatening instances of AI’s unwitting racial bias appeared in systems that calculated prison recidivism and healthcare allocation.

“Recidivism” refers to the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend. An AI created by Northpointe, Inc. was meant to assess how likely an incarcerated person would become a recidivist, but the software was unwittingly underlain by racial bias. The program misclassified Black defendants as “higher risk” recidivists at twice the rate of white defendants; misclassified white defendants who did reoffend as “low risk” at nearly twice the rate of Black defendants; and “even when controlling for prior crimes, future recidivism, age, and gender,” the system falsely determined that “[B]lack defendants were 45 percent more likely to be assigned higher risk scores than white defendants.” Again, this bias was wholly unintentional! But we must remember that the lack of intent does not negate the harm this software facilitated by perpetuating misleading stereotypes of Black violence.

AI racial bias also manifested in a healthcare allocation system. Researchers from UC Berkeley discovered that an AI allocating care to 200 million people was assigning lower-risk scores to people in the Black community, despite that Black patients were “statistically more likely to have comorbid conditions and thus… experience[d] higher levels of risk” related to health issues. The consequence? Black patients were receiving lower standards of care, which decreased their access to necessary treatments and ultimately risked their lives. When we think of healthcare and medicine, our first association should be life-saving treatment, not higher risk of death.

3. Facial Recognition and Misgendering

Numerous studies have been dedicated to how AI recognition systems can result in racial profiling, but we must consider that gender- and sexuality-based discrimination walks right alongside it. AI recognition systems work with simplistic assumptions to “determine” a person’s gender, which can leave individuals more vulnerable to transphobia and gender-based discrimination, regardless of if they are transgender or not. How? Well, keep in mind that AI “uses information such as… whether or not a person wears makeup, or the shape of their jawline or cheekbones,” and so forth to “determine” that person’s gender. However, basic logic tells us a person with a more square jawline, for example, is not necessarily going to be a man. As a result, the issue of AI technology misgendering a person affects both transgender and cisgender people. Additionally, AI facial recognition operates on a binary: man or woman. This dichotomy erases many nonbinary identities, especially people who do not see themselves on male-female spectrum at all.

While this type of software can and has been used on a broad social level, such as security cameras or other forms of identificatory practices, this type of gender- and sexuality-based bias perpetrated by AI can harm people on more personal levels, too. Giggle, for example, is a “girls-only” social media/networking app where to register, people must upload a selfie that is evaluated by an AI called Kairos to determine if they are “actually” a girl. This software not only risks excluding trans women, but it also risks excluding cisgender women who don’t wear makeup or who don’t appear “traditionally” feminine in other ways, either. As a result, AI recognition software perpetuates unconscious gender bias born from the understanding of “gender” as male/female. In doing so, it harms not only the LGBTQ+ community but also anyone who does not appear “traditionally” masculine or feminine, including many cisgender people.

What Now?

AI is an exciting realm full of opportunity, I won’t deny that. AI may also one day be able to make the world an easier, more accessible place for people of all identities and abilities. All the same, artificial intelligence remains artificial. It is created by humans, meaning the likelihood of AI being free from human bias anytime soon is low. In other words, when we see AI being incorporated into levels of any organization, from the corporate world to healthcare, we must always keep in mind the human biases these artificial softwares may unintentionally perpetuate.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Tips For Managing Unconscious Bias in Healthcare

In this blog, we will explore unconscious biases in healthcare, reviewing not only statistical disparities but also individual patient treatment, what specific biases impact healthcare professionals, and how healthcare professionals can address these biases. We have a lot to cover, so let’s get started!

Biases in Healthcare

All people experience unconscious bias, meaning it should come as no surprise to acknowledge that healthcare professionals, too, experience various forms of bias. Unconscious bias in particular is most likely to surface “when someone is tired, busy, under pressure, carrying a high cognitive load (a lot on their mind), or when decisions must be made with incomplete or ambiguous information,” meaning healthcare workers, who often work in high-stress environments where the life and well-being of their patients depend on them, are perhaps even more vulnerable to expressing unconscious bias. This commentary is not to suggest healthcare professionals are “more” biased than the general population, but rather that their work can involve split-second decisions, and these decisions might unwittingly rely on implicit stereotypes.

For example, a medical team was struggling to diagnose a child experiencing difficulty breathing. No matter how long they agonized over the x-rays, they couldn’t determine what was afflicting the child. Another doctor, however, not on the medical team, happened to pass by and see the x-rays, immediately declaring that the patient had cystic fibrosis. Why did the medical team struggle to diagnose the child? Because the child was Black, and cystic fibrosis was a “white disease.” This diagnostic struggle was not deliberate and ill-intentioned, but rather a result of unconscious racial bias.

Biases in healthcare go beyond racial forms of unconscious bias, however. Many healthcare professionals struggle with confirmation bias, best understood as “[s]eeking and accepting only information that confirms a diagnosis rather than information that refutes a diagnosis,” which may increase the risk of misdiagnosis if a physician already has a set conclusion in mind. A 2020 study of nurses’ cognitive and perceptual bias, for example, found that as many as 63% of nurses exhibited confirmation bias when treating patients.

Additionally, healthcare professionals also struggle with anchoring bias, i.e. the risk of relying too heavily on the first pieces or most major pieces of information told to them about their patient’s condition. A devastating example of anchoring bias was in 2000, when a 15-year-old boy passed away because attending nurses “interpreted the lack of a blood pressure reading as a faulty blood pressure cuff instead of hypovolemic shock.”

 Attribution bias, defined as “the tendency to explain a person’s behavior by referring to their character rather than any situational factor,” also poses difficulty for healthcare professionals. For example, a physician may handwave an overweight patient’s shortness of breath as a product of their weight instead of considering other possible diagnoses.

While these biases are perhaps the most prevalent among the healthcare profession, the National Library of Medicine offers a detailed breakdown of numerous potential biases that can affect healthcare providers. They name the bias, define it, and give a practical example of the bias’s manifestation in medical diagnostics. This breakdown is an excellent resource for anyone seeking further detail!

So, we know healthcare professionals struggle with biases as much as the rest of us. After all, they and we are only human! But how do these biases affect patient care on an individual level?

Individual Effects of Bias in Healthcare

The International Journal for Human Caring first offers some insight into how bias can affect patient care. For one, unconscious bias can impact the warmth and friendliness a practitioner demonstrates to a patient (including facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice), which ultimately impacts how welcome a patient feels in a healthcare environment. In a negative scenario, bias may result in the patient feeling unwelcome and uncomfortable in an environment ostensibly supposed to help them feel better! Bias among healthcare professionals can also affect how much attention a healthcare provider gives patients and even what rooms patients are put in, which may cause a patient to be both emotionally and physically isolated from their caretakers.

Lamar University further assesses that biases among healthcare professionals can result in:

• Rushed or inadequate patient assessments

• Concerns and questions that are not taken seriously or fully addressed

• Less time devoted to patient care

• Incorrect diagnoses

• Inappropriate treatment plans

• Lack of patient follow-up, especially after discharge

In short, on an individual level, unconscious bias can cause medical practitioners to feel detached from their patients and their patients to feel neglected and lacking true care. Consequently, patients who experience discrimination and disengagement from their healthcare providers often delay getting prescriptions and medical care; may use preventative services at lower rates; are less likely to adhere to recommendations from their healthcare providers; and are overall more likely to miss medical appointments. In worst-case scenarios, bias in the medical field has led to dismal health disparities across marginalized communities and even patient death.

Community-Wide Effects of Bias in Healthcare

Healthcare providers treat patients across all communities. From a positive perspective, this gives healthcare providers a rather unique opportunity to be exposed to the innate diversity of the world. A negative consequence, however, is that unconscious bias within the medical field extends across this widespread treatment, resulting in poorer care often being afforded to those most vulnerable.

Racial Discrimination

Racial disparities are one of the most discussed forms of bias amongst medical professionals, and for good reason: unconscious racial bias has resulted in poorer medical treatment across the board for communities of color. A 2016 assessment found that white patients were more likely to be recommended for bypass surgery than Black patients, the reason being that physicians assumed “their Black patients were not as well educated and so would not take part in the necessary physical activity after surgery.” A 2015 study from the World Surgery Journal found that Black patients receiving “major oncological surgeries were more likely to experience post-operative complications, in-hospital mortality, blood transfusions, and prolonged hospital stay.”

Even more frightening is the fact that though these studies are from the mid-2010s, unconscious racial bias still impacts healthcare for communities of color today. In October of 2021, an indigenous woman in Canada died from excess fluid in her lungs because the attending doctors and nurses assumed she was addicted to drugs and suffering from withdrawal (despite having no foundation for this assumption). They sedated her instead of conducting proper examinations when she complained of heart palpitations. The patient had a history of diabetes and cardiomyopathy, meaning her complaints should have warranted immediate testing, but anti-indigenous bias caused her concerns to be disregarded and unfounded racial stereotypes applied to her health, ultimately leading to her death.

Gender-Based Discrimination

Another highly studied form of bias amongst healthcare professionals is gender bias. Given that more than half the world’s population consists of people who identify as women, such attention is appropriate! Truth be told, we might be able to pull aside any woman on the street, ask her if her medical provider has ever disregarded her health concerns, and the answer is heartbreakingly likely to be “yes.” A 2018 review found that health professionals are more likely to dismiss chronic pain in women than in men, for example, because providers are more likely to assume a woman patient is too emotional, too sensitive, and even too time-consuming to deal with than a male patient.

In a terrifying near-tragedy, one husband found himself at a total loss of what to do when doctors and nurses would not take the severe abdominal pain of his wife seriously, declaring her preliminary diagnosis of kidney stones as fact instead of conducting a thorough examination. What was actually wrong? She had an ovarian torsion, a surgical emergency. Medical negligence nearly cost this patient her life because her providers continually dismissed her pain on the basis of her gender.

Additional Forms of Discrimination

Race and gender, though perhaps the most prevalent factors that underlie unconscious bias in the medical field, are not the be-all, end-all of bias among healthcare professionals. On the axis of sexuality, a 2015 study found that “[h]eterosexual [medical] providers’ implicit preferences always favored heterosexual over lesbian and gay people.” Additionally, a 2019 study found that “more than 80% of medical students had an implicit bias against lesbian and gay people.” When it comes to age, a 2017 study discovered that medical professionals were more likely to assume that older patients would be “unwilling to receive treatment; offensive; helpless; [and] demanding” during diagnostic processes.

Ableism is also a significant bias that affects healthcare providers, as a 2020 study found that over 83% of medical practitioners implicitly preferred people without disabilities over people with disabilities. Many providers also assume that disability is an inherent negative in a person’s life. Furthermore, too many medical facilities still struggle with accessibility, such as if certain equipment cannot be adjusted for a person in a wheelchair. Healthcare practitioners are also not immune to unconscious class bias, as a 2017 study found that providers view patients from lower socioeconomic status as less intelligent, less independent, more irresponsible, more irrational, and less “likely to comply with medical advice or return for follow-up treatments.”

These statistics are frightening, yes. But does that mean combating unconscious bias in healthcare is an impossible fight? Not at all! Because of the high-stakes environments that healthcare providers work in every day, it is of the utmost importance that we break down specific strategies medical professionals can implement on an individual level to address the issue of bias. Let’s waste no time!

Addressing Bias in Healthcare

First and foremost, the National Library of Medicine offers a simple checklist for making smart, unbiased clinical decisions:

1. Consider whether data are truly relevant, rather than just salient.

2. Did I consider causes besides the obvious ones?

3. How did I reach my diagnosis?

4. Did a patient or colleague suggest the diagnosis?

5. Did I ask questions that would disprove, rather than confirm, my current hypothesis?

6. Have I been interrupted or distracted while caring for this patient?

7. Is this a patient I do not like or like too much for any reason?

8. Am I stereotyping the patient or presentation?

9. Remember that [we] are wrong more often than [we] think!

These questions are a perfect guideline for helping any medical provider take a step back and reevaluate their gut reactions, particularly in situations where a split-second decision is not required for the patient’s care.

Once these strategies are under a provider’s belt, the American Journal of Nursing offers more nuanced techniques for combating implicit bias in healthcare. Though each strategy is framed through the lens of nursing, they are not limited to nurses and can be utilized by any type of healthcare professional. Let’s look at the strategies below:

As we might expect, each technique calls for a pause, reflection, and empathy, allowing any healthcare professional to better understand their patient’s wants and concerns. Although these strategies require more time to master, any medical provider can testify that the happiness of their patients is worth the effort.

Lastly, an efficient rule of thumb to address bias in the medical field: “Flip it to test it.” What does this mean? Let’s walk through an example!

In 2018, a woman went to her doctor, describing issues of shortness of breath and high heart rate. She had a history of blood clots, so she didn’t want to risk not getting checked out. However, multiple doctors who saw her said her abnormally high blood pressure was because she was overweight and too stressed, and each doctor sent her home. Her condition worsened, and eventually a final doctor discovered the true diagnosis: the patient’s kidneys were shutting down. The woman got treatment in time, but fatphobia and sexism intersected and almost wrote her a death sentence. But what does this have to do with “flip it to test it”?

If those doctors had paused and asked themselves, “‘[W]ould I be sending a skinny man home with this blood pressure or would I investigate?’ [the patient] would (most likely) have gotten treatment much sooner.” In other words, when in doubt, reverse the situation and see if that impacts the treatment plan! While this “rule” is not hard and fast, and treatments inevitably vary based on the individual patient, “flip it to test it” is still an efficient way to take a step back and consider how bias might be affecting medical care.

So there we have it! An exploration of bias among healthcare providers, the individual impact of biased care, the community-wide manifestation of these biases, and how healthcare professionals might go about addressing their bias. As depressing as it can be to confront health disparities among marginalized populations, this emotional response speaks to the importance of such a conversation. Healthcare can be a life-or-death situation, and combating bias within healthcare is therefore one positive way to help ensure life-saving care will prevail in the end.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Uncover Unconscious Bias in the Medical Field

“Unconscious bias.” Many of us have heard of this term before, and in essence, all “unconscious bias” refers to are the biases that an individual holds that they are not aware of. Most importantly, each and every human being holds bias of some kind, meaning we are never alone in our journeys to combat unconscious bias. Of course, the universality of unconscious bias makes it no less acceptable, and it is imperative we take action to eliminate unconscious bias from all fields of life, such as the healthcare system.

Although the idea of bias in the medical system may be difficult to grasp since healthcare providers are legally prohibited from discriminating against their patients, we must remember that unconscious bias is exactly that—unconscious. For example, a doctor might outwardly support the queer community, yet assume that their woman patient who is sexually active has a male partner. In other words, the disparities that arise for marginalized groups in healthcare treatment are often unintentional, and although the provided example is a comparatively minor one, that makes these biases no less dangerous. Let’s take a look at three categories:

1. Racial and ethnic disparities

Through reviews of several hundred empirical studies, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) determined that Black Americans are particularly vulnerable to racialized healthcare disparities. Compared to white Americans, they are less likely to receive certain necessary surgeries (organ transplants, knee and hip replacements, cardiac surgeries, etc.) and are more likely to undergo certain unnecessary, or rather, preventable surgeries (diabetic amputations, castration for prostate cancer, etc.). A study by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey found that people of color—especially Black Americans—are less likely to be prescribed pain medications, such as opioids, for the same diseases and injuries as white people. The Journal of Internal Medicine also reported that Black patients are more likely to be labelled as “less cooperative” than white patients. This research is supported by the IOM’s findings that patients of color may be more likely to convey mistrust towards their medical providers or refuse treatment because of discriminatory interactions rooted in unconscious bias that they had with medical practitioners in the past.

Despite the severity of the above information, perhaps this is the most damning statistic of all: as determined by the IOM, the overall Black mortality rate is 60% higher than that of whites. Such a discrepancy is terrifying and speaks to the imminent need to combat unconscious bias in the medical field. Simply put, there is no question that racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare exist, and moreover that they can be deadly. Worst of all, they are not the only discriminatory discrepancies.

2. LGBTQ+ disparities

An analysis of queer populations in the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report as well as several other studies has revealed the prevalence of anti-queer discrimination in healthcare. About 30% of LGBTQ+ individuals have delayed care—both imminent and preventative—because of disrespect and discrimination from their providers. One in five transgender individuals have been outright refused care by doctors or other medical practitioners because of their gender, with trans people of color being more likely than white trans people to experience this refusal. A 2010 study found that a third of lesbian women avoid medical care, such as delaying necessary appointments like Pap screenings, because they fear anti-gay discrimination. Some research suggests that unconscious anti-queer bias can run so deep as to negatively impact the healthcare of children who have gay parents. Overall, LGBTQ+ communities also have less access to insurance and healthcare than cisgender, heterosexual populations. As a result of this restricted access, compounded by anti-queer discrimination, they find themselves at higher risk of certain cancers, diseases, and more. Like racial and ethnic disparities, there is no question that queer disparities in healthcare exist because of unconscious bias and that the need to take action against them is imminent.

3. Weight-based disparities

Few people deny that obesity can be a physiological health risk. However, we must also acknowledge that being obese can have dire consequences on a person’s mental health because of the discrimination (and the stress of this discrimination) that comes with being overweight. For example, stereotypes held against overweight individuals by medical providers, nurses, and the general public include but are not limited to: lazy, lacking in self-control, unsuccessful, unintelligent, and dishonest. Obesity gets written off as the fault of the overweight individual, i.e. that they are too lazy to exercise and eat healthy, when in reality the causes of weight gain are far more complicated. For example, obesity can be caused by other health conditions. It can also result from poverty (e.g. poorer people are often unable to afford healthier foods—as items like fresh fruits and vegetables tend to be more expensive—or they may live in food deserts, where these healthy items are outright unavailable to them). Simply put, a person’s weight is almost never an exclusive result of how much they exercise or eat.

Despite the inherent nuance that is therefore required to discuss obesity, the statistics of weight-based disparities in the medical field present a dismal reality. According to various studies headed by Cambridge and the University of Washington, weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by 66% in recent years; 53% of overweight women report rude or inappropriate comments from their healthcare providers; and overall, obese patients report regular disrespect from their medical practitioners, causing them to be more likely to avoid routine care (e.g. cancer screenings). The Rudd Center found that 31% of nurses did not want to attend to overweight patients, and 24% of nurses outright admitted that overweight patients “repulsed them.” In other words, we don’t have to go far to find stories about overweight individuals who have their pain dismissed by doctors who choose to attribute any problems their obese patients present as being an exclusive result of their weight instead of conducting appropriate examinations⁠—unconscious bias at work. Similarly, if an obese patient is struggling to lose weight, unconscious bias can lead doctors to blame this struggle on the patients’ supposed laziness or insist that the patients simply aren’t trying hard enough rather than investigating what other factors might be at play.

So, what can we do? And why does this matter to the corporate workplace?

Fortunately, there are numerous steps that can be taken to address racial, ethnic, queer, weight-based, and numerous other disparities in the medical field. Some steps are a matter of practicality, such as providing armless chairs and larger examinations gowns to better accommodate obese people in the medical locale, but these solutions must also be accompanied by more rigorous institutional change. Best of all, many of these institutional changes to combat unconscious healthcare discrimination are also applicable to other organized workplaces, including those of business and the corporate world.

The first step, as always, is education. Medical providers must be made aware that unconscious bias exists in the medical field and that healthcare disparities occur because of unconscious bias, often despite practitioners’ good intentions. Following this introductory step, medical providers should then be informed of their own unconscious biases, such as by taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test (IAT), which has tests that examine bias in race, sexuality, disability, weight, religion, and more. Similarly, cross-cultural education should be made available to medical practitioners, as knowing more about different cultures will help practitioners develop a more diverse, accessible approach to medicine for all their patients. The application of such education to the business world is self-evident: the more educated we are about unconscious bias in our workplaces, the more we can do to address and even prevent it, and the better we can embrace our diverse employees and clients.

Beyond education, communication is also critical to combating unconscious bias in the medical field. First and foremost, researchers emphasize that trust must be established between the patient and the provider, such as using the Berlin and Fowkes LEARN model:

This model emphasizes the need for active and empathetic listening by the practitioner. For example, medical providers should ask patients open-ended questions and neither interrupt nor directly contradict their patient’s experiences while a patient speaks. Practitioners should also ask if their patients have any specific concerns. Moreover, medical providers must keep in mind their patients’ access to healthcare, e.g. if the patient has to take time off or arrange specific transportation to come to the doctor. In a similar vein, this type of empathetic communication is also critical to the corporate workplace, as it can help ensure diverse employees feel included and heard in their efforts toward the organization as a whole.

Speaking of the overall organization, education and communication must be accompanied by policy changes to address disparities in the medical field, such as revising regulations to acknowledge how healthcare plans often become disrupted along socioeconomic lines. These types of policy change should also be applied to the medical workplace itself. One way to determine the changes needed is to get a feel for the organizational culture of the respective medical location (hospital, doctor’s office, etc.). Organizational culture can be thought of as the unconscious biases of a collective group that unwittingly maintain a biased status quo. Conducting anonymous surveys of current and former medical employees to find out what issues they presently face as well as the issues that made people leave can provide clarification about what realms of bias need to be addressed first. The application of this strategy to the corporate workplace is therefore straightforward, as non-medical organizations, too, should get a feel for the unconscious biases within their organizational culture through items like surveys in order to better address and even eliminate these biases.

Unconscious bias in the medical field is an active threat to marginalized populations, as access to appropriate healthcare can be a life or death situation. Although this grave reality makes the task of combating these health disparities all the more intimidating, we cannot allow ourselves to back down. If making the world a better, safer place can be accomplished through strategies as straightforward as education, communication, and policy changes, then I say there’s no reason we cannot begin today.

Much to think about.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Fostering Inclusive Dialogue

The ever increasing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the workplace comes with an expectation that we as individuals should know how to participate in and encourage inclusive conversations. ‘But that’s overwhelming!’ some of us might fret. ‘I want to get this right, but where should I start?’ Fear not—terrifying as this communication may seem, fostering inclusive dialogue is a task any of us can accomplish, whether we’re experts in D&I or just dipping our toes in the water for the first time.

In this blog, I will offer straightforward advice on how to hold inclusive conversations, from internal self-reflection to tips on what we should avoid. I will also have a special section specifically dedicated to responding to microaggressions, as a culture of inclusion means one of welcome and respect for all, which microaggressions actively work against. That’s a lot to cover, so let’s dive right in!

To foster inclusive dialogue, here are some strategies to keep in mind and apply where appropriate:

What to Ask Ourselves

• In conversations with others, how many times do I speak? For how long? Am I dominating the conversation?

• Am I inviting others to share their insight?

• In what ways does my presence contribute to the sense of safety within this group, such as how comfortable someone else feels to voice their opinion around me?

• Am I being respectful to other participants by validating and appreciating the different experiences they have shared during this conversation?

• Have I been clear about my own boundaries? Am I respecting the boundaries of others regarding what they feel comfortable disclosing?

What to Say to and Ask Others

• I encourage you to correct me when I make a mistake.

• I’m not the right audience for this subject.

• Based on what you have told me, I believe we share [x].

• Based on what you have told me, I believe we have different perspectives on [x].

• I don’t think we’re at a point of mutual understanding yet. How can we get there?

• What do you mean when you say [x]?

• I struggle to hold that sentiment because I believe [x].

• Would you mind walking me through your thought process regarding [x]?

What to Avoid

• Only halfway listening to a conversation.

• Dominating a conversation.

• Overplaying the “devil’s advocate (conversations will inevitably stall if someone tries to argue or counter too much).

• Asserting that our opinions = facts.

• Disregarding the assumptions and mental shortcuts in our own thinking.

• Being silent in the presence of a rude or irresponsible comment (see the microaggressions section at the end of this article!).

Engaging in Inclusive Conversations

• REMEMBER: Communication is a constant! Verbal, nonverbal—from our words to our bodies, we are always saying something.

• Begin where others currently are, not where we want or think they “should” be.

• Be curious!

• But when we ask questions, listen to the responses we receive to learn, not to have a debate.

• Know that we can only speak for ourselves and our own experiences.

• Reflect on the information we are hearing to avoid distorting someone’s words. (Never be afraid to double-check for understanding.)

• Last but not least, pay attention to how others react to our statements. Invite them to challenge our perspectives, helping us all grow!

Though engaging in inclusive conversations may seem like an intimidating prospect, the truth is that fostering inclusive dialogue is a skill like any other. The more we do it, the better we’ll get! And I believe there is little more important than the intentional acts of checking ourselves, self-reflecting, and searching for ways to implement inclusion in every aspect of our lives.

But what do we do when someone, intentionally or not, seeks to hinder our inclusive conversations through the insertion of microaggressions?

All of us have likely been in a situation where we have witnessed a microaggression. During those situations, perhaps we didn’t know what to do, what to say, or how to react. And that hesitancy is understandable! Microaggressions bring discomfort, but if we don’t resolve those tensions, our efforts toward fostering inclusive dialogue will grind to a halt before we have traveled very far. Fortunately, today we’re going to review 12 simple strategies on how we can respond to microaggressions. Let’s dive right in!

1. Remind the individual about organizational policy.

“Maybe you didn’t know, but comments like that are against the code of conduct.”

2. Ask the individual for clarification.

“Could you explain what you meant when you said she’s too pretty to be an engineer?”

3. Present a lack of understanding, such as in response to a rude joke.

“I must be missing something. Why is this funny?”

4. Apply humor.

“‘He plays like a girl’? Like Simone Biles? Venus Williams? Billie Jean King? You’ve gotta be more specific!”

5. Remind the individual they know better.

“Oh, please. I know you’re too smart to say something so unfounded.”

6. Appeal to the individual’s principles.

“I know you really care about promoting respect in this office. Those comments about her weight, though, undermine your goals.”

7. Challenge stereotypes, such as offering alternate perspectives.

“In my experience, most young people don’t have their hands glued to their phone, especially when it comes to serious matters.”

8. Express your own feelings.

“I feel isolated and ignored when you brush off my comments during board meetings, especially as the only Black woman in the room. I appreciate that you start giving me a chance to speak.”

9. Encourage empathy, such as asking the individual how they might feel if a similar comment/action was directed toward them.

“They’ve asked to be called Mona. How would you feel if someone kept calling you ‘Jesse’ instead of ‘Alex’ even when you asked them not to?”

10. Separate intent and impact.

“I know you didn’t mean it this way, but you joking about Shun needing to work for IT instead of HR was hurtful because that’s not what he studied to do.”

11. Share your own process with the individual.

“I noticed that you refused to introduce yourself with your pronouns. I used to not see the point, either, but then I learned that stating our pronouns is an easy tactic to ensure others know how to refer to us in our preferred way.”

12. Remind the individual “what’s in it for them,” such as explaining how diversity and inclusion are beneficial for everyone.

“The world is full of all kinds of people! When better to learn how to navigate and appreciate those differences than right now?”

And there we have it! 12 straightforward ways to respond to microaggressions, because a fundamental element of fostering inclusive dialogue is defusing tensions before they can combust, and countering microaggressions therefore becomes a crucial part. An inclusive conversation will fail from the start if we allow subtle comments that reinforce bias and stereotypes to go unchecked.

All of us are now aware of practical tips we can apply to any conversation to help foster inclusive dialogue, from questions to ask ourselves to strategies for addressing microaggressions. That’s right—engaging in inclusive conversations is a goal well within our reach!

(Adapted from the University of Illinois and from the University of Oregon’s School of Law.)

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Diverse Hiring Checklist

1. How to Write the Job Description

• Arguably the most important part of the process; it is the act of opening the doors to diverse candidates

• Ask oneself, “Does the job posting avoid words that might discourage women, people of color, and other members of underrepresented groups from applying?” (source)

• Avoid gendered language

  • Here are a list of examples of masculine- and feminine-coded language to consider when writing a job description

  • There are several tools one can use to detect gendered language in a job description: Gender Bias Decoder; Textio; Gender Decoder

  • Use gender neutral pronouns, such as “they” or “you”

  • General rules of thumb: avoid aggressive language (e.g. “crush”) and superlatives (e.g. “superior”)

• Avoid requiring “[x] years of experience,” which can exclude younger applicants; instead, specify the specific skill required (e.g. knowledge of social media) (source)

• Avoid unnecessary dress requirements, e.g. disallowing head coverings can dissuade people from many religious backgrounds from applying (source)

• Outline the organization’s benefits

  • Ask oneself, “Does your company have an official mission statement? How about a stance on diversity and inclusion? What do your benefits packages look like? Do you offer parental leave? Paid family sick leave?” (source)

  • Also include employee opportunities, such as mentorship programs

• Provide the organization’s DEI statement

2. How to Advertise the Job

• Demonstrate the organization’s existing diversity (source; source)

  • On the organization’s website, social media, etc. include photos of diverse employees as well as make their personal stories available for candidates to access (could be a drop-down tab on the website)

• Here is a list of 25 diverse job boards where one can advertise the position; includes boards for people of color, women, queer people, disabled people, veterans, older people, and people with criminal records

• Connect with diverse organizations, such as HBCUs, groups dedicated to a diverse cause (e.g. an organization for women of color in tech), as well as “nontraditional” organizations, such as rehabilitation centers (source)

3. How to Put Together the Hiring Committee

• Ensure those involved in the hiring process have completed implicit/unconscious bias training; for example, Harvard offers its Implicit Association Test (IAT), which one can use to get a better understanding of the biases they currently hold

  • The Harvard Business Review also offers a breakdown of effective unconscious bias training for those uncertain where to begin

• Ensure the hiring committee is itself diverse, with at least three people from different backgrounds involved at each step of the process (source)

  • By putting together a diverse hiring committee, one has already taken a critical step to ensure biases will be questioned and privilege considered during the hiring process because the different backgrounds of the committee members will be able to “catch” one another

• Ask oneself, “Has the hiring committee carefully and thoughtfully discussed the criteria for screening applicants and come to a shared agreement about how criteria will be applied?” (source)

  • In other words, make sure the hiring committee is on the same page; simple but critical

4. How to Undergo the Hiring Process

• Conduct a blind résumé review (source; source)

  • Exclude items such as name, gender, age, race, education history, years of experience, photos, etc.

  • Allows for the closest possible scenario of “merit-based” assessment

• Always be willing to reconsider the “necessity” of certain degrees

  • Ask oneself if a level of education is truly required for a position; for example, does a candidate truly need a master’s degree, or would a bachelor’s provide them with the appropriate knowledge?

  • Ask oneself if a specific degree is truly required for a position; certain majors are often dominated by certain genders (with higher-paying degrees more often dominated by men), and thus a specific degree requirement may limit the applicant pool

• Ask all candidates the same interview questions in the same order to allow for more direct comparisons between candidates (source)

5. How to Evaluate Candidates

• It goes without saying, but evaluate all candidates using the same criteria

  • The University of Washington’s HR department provides two different candidate evaluation form templates to help ensure candidates are evaluated fairly, equitably, and with minimal influence of bias (for example, assessing the adaptability of the candidate, how prepared they presented themself as, etc.): Template 1 & Template 2

• What to consider during the evaluation process:

  • Members of the hiring committee should be on the same page about what constitutes a given rating (e.g. on a scale of 1 to 5, the difference between a 3 and 4, etc.); moreover, they should hold each other accountable to remain consistent in how they provide ratings

  • “Discuss multiple ways candidates can meet or demonstrate the criteria,” i.e. no rating should be limited to the presentation of only one trait

  • Keep in mind one’s implicit biases, e.g. determined by Harvard’s IAT, such as by asking oneself why one supports one candidate but excludes another

  • Discuss a candidate’s strengths first, i.e. what skills they as an individual could bring to the organization

  • Do not let numerical ratings be the sole deciding factor

• “Select the candidate that is most qualified for the role. Most qualified does not automatically mean the candidate who is most formally educated or with the most years of experience. It also does not mean the candidate with the overall highest score. The most qualified is the candidate who is able [to] demonstrate they meet or exceed the criteria for the role, and who may also bring a different cultural perspective or unique expertise to the position and department.” (source)

• When offering a job, ask oneself, “Has the committee attempted to ensure that new hires from underrepresented groups are not offered less pay or less prestigious titles for the same work?” (source)

Other Tools:

• This website provides an editable checklist for undergoing a diverse hiring process; for example, it includes a section to write the relevant job description, evaluate the organization’s diversity statistics, and so on. In other words, it’s a way to lay out much of the information discussed above in a way specific to one’s organization.

Measuring Progress in DEI

It is one thing for an organization to implement diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It is another thing for an organization’s DEI initiatives to be successful. As such, companies should make the effort to analyze the metrics of their DEI initiatives in order to ensure these initiatives are working. In other words, they must assess that their workplace environments are indeed becoming more diverse and feel more inclusive to those employed. While this may seem like an overwhelming task, tracking these metrics can be broken down into manageable steps. Let’s take them one at a time:

1. Consistency with DEI Training

To begin, we must start with the obvious. A company can only be successful with DEI initiatives if they actually implement the training. This step is easy to track, as companies should record each time they do DEI training and ensure all employees at all levels participate, from upper management and leadership positions to workers at lower levels. Furthermore, DEI initiatives are not a “one and done” scenario. These issues require review and in-depth understanding, and as such demand revisiting.

2. Measuring Diversity: Analyzing the Demographics

In this step, quantitative data becomes prominent, as there are several subsets of information that companies should keep track of to ensure they are successfully creating diverse work environments. The overarching theme of this step is simple: measure employees of underrepresented groups—people of color, women, people with disability, the queer community, etc.—overall in comparison to majority groups. If there are disproportionately fewer Black, Hispanic, Asian, and indigenous employees compared to white employees, or disproportionately fewer women to men, that is a sign the DEI initiatives in place are lackluster in their effectiveness. Companies can and should break down this data further:

1. Diversity in new hires

2. Diversity in leadership positions (organizations cannot claim to value true diversity if they are only willing to implement it at lower levels)

3. Diversity in promotions (organizations must ensure they providing opportunities equally to all groups)

4. Diversity in retention

The last point is particularly crucial, as DEI initiatives are only effective if they are maintained. Who is leaving the company? Are people of color, women, and queer individuals choosing to seek work elsewhere at disproportionately higher rates than people from majority groups? If so, that is a sign a company’s DEI initiatives are falling flat and require rethinking.

Overall, keeping track of diversity is a matter of recording and analyzing the demographics of minority groups versus majority groups within employment records. If the numbers steadily improve, then it is fair to conclude the DEI initiatives are effective and the organization at hand is creating a diverse environment.

3. Effectiveness: Equitable Pay

As of 2021, Black women only make $0.63 to non-Hispanic white men’s $1, and this is only one example of many wage gaps that persist across the United States. Women, people of color, queer individuals, disabled individuals, and especially people who fall within multiple groups are typically paid less than an able-bodied, cisgender, heterosexual white man. While this gap is not always deliberate, organizations must pay attention to their wages and ensure they are fair. For example, a company might consider analyzing the average monthly paycheck for each minority group. After doing so, they can determine if any group is being paid substantially less or substantially more than others and make adjustments accordingly.

4. Measuring Inclusion: Data Behind a Feeling

Inclusion is the trickiest of DEI initiatives to evaluate, because how can a company really know if they are making their employees feel included in the workplace? Fortunately, there is a simple place to start: ask them, and ask them regularly.

Surveys are a fantastic tool for measuring the inclusivity of a workplace, but only when conducted repeatedly. By using the same questions, companies can compare the results of current surveys to previous ones and determine if their efforts at workplace inclusivity are improving. It is one thing to recognize the value of a survey measuring inclusion, however; it is another thing to make one.

Aleria offers 9 Categories of Inclusion that present an excellent basis for a survey on workplace inclusivity:

These same categories are explored further by Forbes. The Gartner Inclusion Index also has seven statements that form the basis of its assessment of inclusion, ranging from fair treatment to a sense of belonging. In other words, there are numerous tools available for companies to develop a survey that measures inclusivity. By doing so, companies can both assess on an individual basis and analyze as a whole who feels most included in their workplace and why. From there, specific areas can be pinpointed for improvement in future DEI initiatives. For example, an organization may be strong in ensuring trust between employees but struggle with making all employees feel equally heard by people in higher positions. By repeating these surveys on a regular basis, it is easy for a company to track if they are heading in the right direction.

While inclusion is largely based on qualitative information because it is about an individual’s feeling, there is also quantitative data involved. Looking back at step 3, an important subset was “diversity in retention.” Turnover rates are not only reflective of demographic diversity but also an environment’s inclusivity; if a workplace is not generating a sense of inclusion for minority groups, then people from those groups are more likely to leave and find different work. There are also new analytics tools and technologies that can help assess inclusion in a workplace; for example, organizational network analysis, or ONA. ONA uses company data to produce a visual map that demonstrates connections within an employee network, both the number of those connections and how strong they are. A workplace might use ONA and realize all the connections their Hispanic employees possess occur at lower levels, suggesting their company lacks Hispanic connections within higher positions. In other words, their company has not succeeded in creating an inclusive environment for people of color at all levels.

As with analyzing diversity demographics, the key to assessing inclusion is to do it over and over, continuously comparing current results with previous ones. Only then can true growth be recognized and specific areas targeted for improvement.

5. Transparency: Publishing Results

While this final step is arguably more optional, transparency in itself can go a long way in making a company more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. For one, publishing DEI results informs prospective applicants and current employees that efforts are being made towards improvement. It also demonstrates how effective those efforts are. Moreover, transparency suggests that an organization recognizes their own fallibility—humility is a virtue, after all. Most importantly, DEI initiatives are always evolving to meet new expectations. Because of this constant flux, a company being open about changes is an encouraging sign to individuals seeking to work in truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments.

As you can see, measuring DEI metrics is only overwhelming if we let it be. Breaking the process down allows for easier management of information as well as for more accurate collection and analysis of data. If organizations put in the work to ensure their DEI initiatives are successful, thus creating a work environment that is truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive, then it is only a matter of time before they—and their employees—reap the benefits of these efforts.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Biases: Nature or Nurture?

“Nature vs Nurture” is an age-old debate, especially when it comes to the subject of human bias. Are we born prejudiced, or do we develop prejudices over time based on the environments we are exposed to? Truth be told:

It’s complicated.

Psychology Professor Laura Lauksta phrases it well: “[The question is not] is it nature or is it nurture that contributes to development… the question is how do they contribute? How can we understand how nature and nurture work together to drive development forward?”

To recognize how nature and nurture can simultaneously influence human bias, it helps to first understand them separately.

Let’s start with “nature,” otherwise known as our genetics. Numerous studies have confirmed that humans are genetically predisposed to certain traits, and while most of us think of those traits to be mostly physical, that is not always the case. Yes, genetic factors can make us more likely to be tall or more likely to inherit certain illnesses, but they can also influence our political attitudes, how much TV we watch, and even likelihood of divorce. Everything is steeped in genetics. While political stances have been cited in the past as almost solely coming from a person’s parents, research suggests that “the shared family environment has little to no lasting effect on personality and intelligence.” Now, that statement is a hefty assertion, but nonetheless our genetics play a greater role in many of our decisions than most of us are aware of.

That said, genetic predisposition does not equate to inevitability. So let’s discuss “nurture,” otherwise known as our environment(s). While infants comprehend more than most of us think they can within a few months to a year, research suggests that different social biases emerge at different points in a child’s life. The linked study found that racial bias, for example, “emerge[s] between 2.5 and 5 years of age and do[es] not affect social preferences in infancy.” Language bias (preferring people who speak the same language/share the same accent) develops earliest within a year, followed by gender bias (preferring same-gender friends) around 3 years of age. In other words, these prejudices are, to some extent, learned. They are “nurtured” from specific social environments as well as social hierarchies and are not solely attributable to genetic predisposition.

So how are nature and nurture connected? One way to approach their duality is that “nurture” can serve to either enhance or suppress “nature.” For example, “Two recent studies have identified single genes that are respectively associated with violence and depression, but have also shown that their effects are manifested only with particular histories of stressful experience.” Although a person may have genetic predisposition to particular mental illnesses, their environment may make that mental illness easier or more difficult to deal with. A simpler example is that a person may be born tall. In theory, that gives them a “natural” advantage in basketball. But that person can only become a good basketball player if they “nurture” their abilities. As such, nature and nurture are deeply intertwined in cultivating human biases, talents, and much more to the point where it is near-impossible to examine one without analyzing the role of the other.

Of course, what do we do with this information? Humans are genetically and environmentally predisposed to certain traits, both good and bad, so how do we address the negatives? Ultimately, it comes down to choice.

It helps to think of nature and nurture as filters that influence our biases. A cisgender, asexual Black woman experiences different “filters” than a transgender, bisexual Asian man, and thus they cultivate different perspectives. Once we are more aware of our negative biases, we can choose to work against them and to do better.

One study about racial and gender preferences conducted on 3-month-old white infants revealed that exposure to different races can go a long way in shaping and changing bias, as demonstrated by this excerpt:

“[A]fter being shown videos of a white man and a Black man addressing them in a positive manner, babies still preferred the own-race face at test, but interestingly, attention to the Black face reliably increased in comparison to a no-exposure baseline group.”

In other words, active exposure to diverse environments can help combat biases. For infants and young kids, that means parents choosing to encourage their children to play with kids of different races and genders. As we get older, fighting bias becomes a task we take upon ourselves. We must choose to immerse ourselves in diversity, not for the sake of appearances, but to learn. “Nature” and “nurture” only control our biases when we ourselves choose not to address them. Psychologist Steven Pinker summarizes it well:

“Political equality, for example, does not hinge on a dogma that people are innately indistinguishable, but on a commitment to treat them as individuals in spheres such as education and the criminal justice system. Social progress does not require that the mind be free of ignoble motives, only that it have other motives (such as the emotion of empathy and cognitive faculties that can learn from history) that can counteract them.”

So let’s take some time today to examine our unconscious biases. From there, we can begin our journeys of rejecting the doctrine that nature and nurture alone control who we are. We can choose to be better.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

5 Tips to Engage Gen Z

The newest members in today’s workplace are those of Generation Z. The general consensus places this generation as beginning in 1997 and ending around 2012, meaning as of 2022, the oldest of Gen Z are 25 (fairly fresh into the workforce, or perhaps still in college) and the youngest are only 10 (near the end of elementary school).

Despite their youth, Gen Z is a confident bunch, and it would be remiss of those of us commanding the workforce to dismiss their skill and grit. Gen Z knows what they want and, more importantly, they know what they deserve. This blog will thus review five straightforward ways to engage Gen Z in the workplace!

1. Create a Fitting Culture

In this period of economic flux, a global climate crisis, and institutional injustice, Gen Z values security and stability in the workplace above almost all else. Ensuring they feel aligned with the corporate culture is critical for hiring and retaining them. For example, Gen Z is the only generation currently in the workplace that has grown up surrounded by technology, hence why 91% say that a company’s technological sophistication will impact their decision to accept a job offer. In other words, it is imperative that a company’s culture demonstrates value and knowledge of modern technology to better connect with Gen Z.

2. Offer Opportunities for Growth

Gen Z may be willing to start at the bottom level of an organization, but like many of us, they aren’t willing to stay there! An employer must show interest in the career development of their Gen Z employees, including through opportunities like mentorship and sponsorship. Gen Z can be competitive, so there is a fine line we must walk of encouraging their intuition without feeding into unnecessary aggression, but when the end result is the chance to harness their inventive spirits, finding this balance is well worth it.

3. Contribute to the Community

The average employee of Gen Z does not want to work solely for an organization’s bottom line. One of the most notable characteristics of this generation is how much they care for others, including a willingness to accept diversity in ways we cannot deny us older generations have struggled with in the past. In fact, 30% of Gen Z would take a 10-20% pay cut to work for a company with a mission they care about. Do not mistake me as advising anyone to reduce Gen Z’s salaries! Rather, I seek to emphasize that many of Gen Z want to contribute to the greater good of their community and beyond, and it is of the utmost importance that employers support them in these desires.

4. Value Diversity and Inclusion

As established, Gen Z cares deeply for their communities, and they are incredibly accepting of others. This acceptance extends into DEI initiatives—they desire a workplace that embraces the value of diversity and inclusion, and it is in those environments where they flourish. In fact, Gen Z themselves “are more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation,” which only further illustrates just how important diversity and inclusion are to engaging Gen Z in the workplace.

5. Give Them a Voice

At the end of the day, Gen Z values a manager that not only encourages them to share their opinions but ensures they feel heard and recognized. After all, it is one thing to let a person talk—it is another matter to truly listen to them. Gen Z are realists as much as they are optimists, and giving them an opportunity to share their thoughts on an issue will help lead to practical solutions. “We’re going to change the world!” they boldly claim, and if we are willing to step back, let them have their voice, and listen closely to what they have to say, I think we’ll all come to see exactly how Gen Z intends to make our world a better place.

And there we have it! Five straightforward strategies to engage Generation Z. Of course, these tips are all easier said than done—what do you say we follow in the footsteps of Gen Z and walk the talk ourselves?

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

3 Tips For Managing Conformity Bias

There are over a hundred types of bias in our world, and today we’re going to examine a particularly pervasive one: conformity bias, also known as the bandwagon effect. As the name suggests, this bias involves “jumping on the bandwagon,” i.e. when we choose to do something not because we personally agree but rather because everyone else is doing it. Here’s a classic example: let’s say I’m at a restaurant, and I’d like to order dessert, but the three friends I’m eating with all refuse. As a result, I refuse, too, not because I decided I don’t actually want that delicious slice of chocolate cake, but because everyone else turned it down!

See what I mean? Conformity bias is one we have all experienced. Unfortunately, this bias can manifest in far more serious situations than deciding dessert at a restaurant—we need look no further than our own workplaces. As a result, in this blog I will break down three straightforward tips for helping us manage conformity bias during organizational meetings.

1. The boss should wait to share their opinion(s) until everyone else has spoken.

Now, this advice may seem a little counterproductive! After all, shouldn’t the leader lead by example and kick off a meeting with some straightforward discussion? In an ideal world, such a strategy makes perfect sense. But our world is not ideal, and it is up to us to counter bias whenever possible. When the boss speaks first, their position of authority often unwittingly conveys the notion that they must be correct, which creates conformity bias—everyone agrees with the boss not just because they’re the boss, but because everyone else is agreeing! (We can see here how the bandwagon effect is highly cyclical.) As a result, the boss should allow all other attendees of the meeting to share their opinions first, demonstrating that conflicting ideas are not only acceptable but necessary for a productive conversation.

2. Develop a simultaneous voting process.

Last but certainly not least, the matter of voting during a meeting is one that cannot be pushed under the rug! Because conformity bias often produces a false unanimity of opinions, eliminating this bias from matters of decision is of the utmost importance. Fortunately, there is a simple solution: develop a simultaneous voting process! My recommendation is the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system. When conducting a vote, don’t have one person speak their piece at a time, as this strategy is more likely to lead to individuals voicing a vote not because they agree, but because they don’t want to disagree. Instead, have all meeting attendees give either a thumbs up (yes) or a thumbs down (no) at the same time! This simple tactic helps ensure no one is unduly influenced by others’ opinions.

3. Appoint someone to be the “critic.”

We might also call this position the “devil’s advocate,” but such a moniker is not quite accurate, as it has a negative connotation most of us would prefer to avoid. As in the previous tip, we must recognize that discussion of different perspectives is necessary for a productive meeting, and appointing a critic allows for exactly that. The critic is someone who challenges ideas offered, though do note that “challenge” does not mean they denigrate, reject, or otherwise disparage said ideas. Rather, we might think of the critic as someone who asks why—why do we believe [x] is a better strategy than [y]? Why don’t we believe [q] will be as successful a partner as [p]? By having someone in the meeting who regularly challenges ideas, we can foster a more nuanced discussion of whatever subject is at hand, allowing us to move from our fast brains to our slow brains. In doing so, we will think more rationally instead of merely following the crowd—or should I say “jumping on the bandwagon”?

And there we have it! Three straightforward tips to help us combat the issue of conformity bias in any organizational meeting. I’d ask if you approve, but I don’t want you to feel pressured to jump on the bandwagon. ;) Instead, why don’t we give these tactics a try and evaluate their effectiveness for ourselves?

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

What Does St Patrick's Day Have to do with Diversity & Incusion?

The predominant associations many of us have with St. Patrick’s Day can be summarized as follows: wear green, get drunk, and party! If we aren’t having a good time on March 17th, then we must be celebrating this Irish holiday incorrectly, right?

Well, truth be told, our modern conception of St. Patrick’s Day couldn’t be much farther from the origins of this celebration. St. Patrick’s Day is a holiday of rather nonlinear origins, as it developed gradually over time with influence from both the Irish in Ireland and the Irish in America. We might think of St. Patrick’s Day in three parts: celebrating Irish culture in the face of discrimination from both British and Americans; honoring the religious legacy of St. Patrick; and remembering the push for Irish national liberation.

But first, a little history.

England was the major colonizing power in Ireland for centuries, resulting in intense discrimination and persecution directed toward the Irish. Protestant England despised Catholic Ireland for their refusal to convert to Protestantism; for their long-time refusal to learn English; and for how different Irish culture was compared to English culture. Although such violent hatred between two groups of the same race might seem unusual to us in the 21st century, it is worth recognizing that during the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and even the early 19th centuries, reliable long-distance transportation in the British Isles was nearly nonexistent. Most people lived and died within a few miles of where they were born. As a result, distinct cultures, lifestyles, and languages developed between England and Ireland despite the isles’ comparative closeness to one another. To the English, the Irish were an “Other,” which meant they needed to be put down.

English discrimination came to a head in the mid-1800s. Most of us are familiar with the Irish potato famine, although some of us may not know that this famine was a product of British landowning colonial power more than it was a mere natural disaster. Facing starvation, over a million Irish fled to America in the hopes of escaping English persecution and finding a better life.

However, the vast majority of Americans at this time were descended from British colonists. Anglo Americans had strong English heritage, were predominantly Protestant, and thus despised the Irish with the same intensity as their colonial counterparts in the British Isles. As in Britain, Irish immigrants to America were hated for their Catholicism and their distinctly non-English culture. They were stereotyped as lazy, violent drunkards and criminals who were incapable of getting jobs and contributing to the economy, though in reality their lower employment rates were a result of refusal by Anglo Americans to hire Irish immigrants.

Over time, especially with the advent of increased industrialization, Irish Americans were hired into what we’d call “blue collar” jobs, such as working in factories. Because they were Irish, they were paid significantly less than Anglo American employees, which led to an anti-immigrant rhetoric that is still pervasive today: “They’re stealing American jobs!”

Employers could get away with paying Irish Americans less money because they were seen as lesser (for being Catholic, for being immigrants, etc.), meaning many sought to hire Irish Americans, since they knew they wouldn’t have to fairly compensate them for their labor. Instead of recognizing that employers were taking advantage of discrimination against Irish Americans, Anglo Americans blamed the “stealing” of jobs on Irish Americans themselves, who in reality were barely scraping by with the pitiful wages they received. This anti-immigrant, “job-stealing” rhetoric echoes throughout American history, from denigrating the Chinese on the West Coast in the mid to late 1800s to the way Hispanic immigrants crossing the southern border of the US are labelled today.

Of course, what does the history of Irish discrimination have to do with St. Patrick’s Day? Well, a key component of the origins of this celebration was taking pride in Irish heritage as a direct response to the persecution they experienced. Celebrating St. Patrick’s Day through parades and other organized movements was therefore a way of announcing, “We are Irish. We know who we are, and we are proud of who we are. You can hate us, you can stereotype us, you can lie about us, but we aren’t going anywhere.”

In a similar vein, another component of the origins of St. Patrick’s Day was specifically honoring the religious legacy of St. Patrick, a Catholic who sought to teach and spread Catholicism even in the face of intense persecution for his beliefs. It is no surprise, then, that the Irish—who were oppressed by Protestant England and America for their Catholicism—found resonance in the tale of a man who refused to sacrifice his faith because of what others believed. Consequently, honoring their religion and refusing to give up their religion despite pressure to convert was an integral aspect of the original Irish St. Patrick’s Day.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, remembering the push for Irish national liberation was the final third of the origins of St. Patrick’s Day, and this remembrance comes primarily through the association of the holiday with the color green. When we think of green and St. Patrick’s Day today, many of us might jump to “good luck” and “four-leaf clovers.” But in reality, green is connected to St. Patrick’s Day because it is a symbol of Irish independence and individuality. When the Irish in Ireland battled for their freedom from the English, they eventually chose to wear the color green because it stood out so fiercely against the English red. There was nothing “lucky” about the push for Irish liberation; they fought hard to develop an identity and nation that was uniquely, independently Irish. As a result, the color green honors their fight.

Knowing that St. Patrick’s Day was originally a celebration of Irish culture, religious faith, and national liberation, how did it become what it is today—an excuse for people to drink and party? How did this holiday return to the stereotype of the lazy Irish drunkard that so many Irish Americans fought to disprove?

As with many immigrant groups, the legacy of Irish Americans is complex. Despite that the original St. Patrick’s Day was an effort to celebrate Irish culture, daily discrimination still wore on Irish communities. Moreover, Anglo American society pushed the Irish to assimilate into mainstream culture—in other words, to become more American than Irish. This assimilation occurred twofold: not only did Irish Americans suppress their own heritage, but many sought to turn the discrimination they faced against others, such as toward Black Americans and other immigrant groups. To escape oppression, they would oppress others.

This vicious cycle and the legacy of assimilation is thus reflected in the history of how St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated. Initially a symbol of cultural survival, as Irish Americans became assimilated into mainstream American culture, so was St. Patrick’s Day assimilated into mainstream American celebrations. Rather than honoring Irish heritage and resistance in the face of persecution, St. Patrick’s Day was commercialized by Anglo American society—it became a way to sell alcohol, let loose, and represent little more than “a good time.”

There are many lessons to be learned from the history of St. Patrick’s Day. For one, discrimination is not so clear cut as we might believe. Moreover, discrimination often operates in a vicious cycle—assimilation is a powerful force, encouraging victims to put down other oppressed groups in order to uplift themselves. Perhaps it is time we again recognize St. Patrick’s Day for its revolutionary roots: a celebration that invokes cultural pride, religious freedom, and national liberation. So this March 17th, let us put down the beer and instead lend an ear to this valuable chapter in the story of Irish history.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day. 💚 🧡

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Elevating Inclusion With Five Microaffirmations

Melinda Briana Epler of TED defines microaffirmations as “little ways that [we] can affirm someone’s identity; recognize and validate their experience and expertise; build confidence; develop trust; foster belonging; and support someone in their career.” Because although it is crucial to recognize and combat microaggressions, it is just as important to uplift individuals from marginalized communities through positivity. The blog will explore five key microaffirmations we can implement in our workplaces every day:

1. Uplift achievements and amplify voices

This microaffirmation can be as simple as mentioning an individual’s achievements in conversation or as grand as publicizing it through an award. That said, we must also interpret “achievement” in the most capacious way possible: uplifting achievements includes recognizing an individual’s expertise and skill; giving them specific credit for their contributions; and making a conscious effort not to hold certain people to higher standards than others. For example, research found that “nearly two-thirds of women and people of color in engineering reported having to prove their expertise repeatedly,” where their successes and knowledge were dismissed time and time again. We must therefore amplify the voices of these individuals; their experiences are valuable and should be both heard and understood.

2. Facilitate comprehensive participation

This microaffirmation operates along two lines: firstly, we must explicitly invite individuals from marginalized communities to sit at the (literal or figurative) table where discussion occurs. Note the plurality of individuals: these invitations should be intentional, not tokenistic in nature. Secondly, we must then take steps to ensure these individuals are able to make their voices heard at the table. When we notice someone being excluded, we should ask for their thoughts. If we notice someone being talked over, we correct the interrupter before requesting the person who was interrupted to repeat themself. This microaffirmation is all about paying attention.

3. Establish acceptable and unacceptable behavior

This microaffirmation can apply to the above: during discussions, for example, we should lay down expectations that interruptions will not be tolerated. But we can take this microaffirmation a step further, too, applying it to the organization and workplace as a whole. These policies should then be communicated to everyone. Not only does communication ensure wider awareness, but doing so also allows more precise correction of wrongdoings because we can refer to these specifically articulated expectations. This way, individuals of marginalized communities know they are supported across all levels of an organization.

4. Provide regular and quality feedback

Unfortunately, research shows that “[w]omen — and especially women of color — tend to receive less quality feedback that can help them make needed course corrections and develop as leaders.” Fortunately, knowing of this situation means we can make intentional efforts to correct it. This microaffirmation should also be interpreted as capaciously as possible: “feedback” refers to both formal comments (e.g. offering advice on how to deepen one’s understanding of a specific skill) and informal comments (e.g. demonstrating attention through body language when a person is speaking as well as responding to their suggestion). Furthermore, feedback must be constructive and positive, where recommendations are given for improvement at the same time as recognizing what an individual is already doing well (that way they’ll continue doing it!).

5. Make note of religious and cultural holidays as well as life milestones

This microaffirmation is positive all around; not only do we demonstrate our support to our peers by remaining aware of their lives’ events, in the case of holidays, it is often fun and rewarding to broaden our horizons by researching these experiences! We can wish our Jewish colleagues “Shana tova” on Rosh Hashanah, and we can take Ramadan into account when scheduling major workplace events out of respect to our Muslim team members. Moreover, we can celebrate birthdays and keep in mind anniversaries (such as congratulating a wedding anniversary and offering condolences on that of the death of a loved one). This microaffirmation helps individuals feel seen and supported by those around them.

Microaffirmations are simple actions any of us participate in to create a workplace that is more inclusive for all within it. By doing so, we are better able to uplift people who have been historically pushed down, and moreover we show that we are willing to provide support in many forms.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.

Let's be Super Allies: Three Paths to Allyship

When asked if we are an ally for underrepresented groups, most of us would confidently answer, “Yes!” When asked what we’re doing to be an ally to underrepresented groups, however, some of us might falter. And such a reaction is understandable! Discourse surrounding allyship can be complex, especially because most of us are part of more than one community—a cis Black woman, for example, may want to stand up for her trans sisters in the workplace, but isn’t sure where to start, because she knows the misogynoir she experiences isn’t exactly the same as transmisogynoir. The good news is that there are certain roles of allyship that any of us can participate in, and by doing so we begin an ally’s work of making our world a better and more inclusive place. Let’s dig into the three key types of allies, inspired by Karen Catlin’s breakdown:

1. The Sponsor

The Sponsor is an ally who recognizes the skills of individuals from marginalized communities and provides specific credit to them for those skills, ideas, and contributions. Being a Sponsor includes celebrating an individual’s major achievements, such as awards, but it must also involve recognition on the everyday level. When a Black coworker provides insight on a matter, the Sponsor articulates credit for that insight: “Joana showed me [x], [y], and [z].” In doing so, they provide recognition to the individual and moreover help them build their credibility before the audience at hand. In essence, we must give credit where credit is due!

The role of the Sponsor doesn’t end there, however. Recognizing the skills of people from underrepresented groups also means handing the mic over, both literally and figuratively. If we recognize that we aren’t the right person to speak on a subject, we must ensure that someone who is the right person to do so gets to speak. Karen Catlin gives this example:

In May 2015, Andrew Grill was a Global Managing Partner at IBM and a speaker at the Online Influence Conference. He was on a panel along with five other men when a female member of the audience posed the obvious question to the all-male lineup: “Where are the women?”

The moderator then asked the panelists to address the topic of gender diversity, and Andrew, after sharing some of his thoughts, quickly realized he wasn’t the best person to respond. In fact, none of the panelists were. He instead asked the woman who asked the question, Miranda Bishop, to take his place on the panel.

Being a sponsor means redirecting questions, passing the mic over, and being intentional in crediting the voices and ideas of individuals from underrepresented groups.

2. The Amplifier

The Amplifier is similar to the Sponsor in that we must emphasize giving credit to the contributions of marginalized communities, but there are some key differences, too. In essence, the Amplifier pushes for “representation within communication,” where we choose to pursue roles of advocacy. Codes of conduct for meetings are a classic example, where they ensure all participants have a chance to be heard. But the Amplifier goes further. For example, if we are attending an event and we notice that individuals from underrepresented groups are absent from the invitees, the Amplifier works to gain them access, including—or even especially—for public roles (e.g. speaking or presenting). The Amplifier also ensures that networks are available to individuals from marginalized communities, such as by offering to set up introductions. In essence, we must open doors and thus amplify voices!

That said, there is another half to the Amplifier’s role. While it is critical to uplift individuals from marginalized communities, Amplifiers must also call attention to the problems and challenges they notice these individuals face. For example, if Michaelyn uses they/them pronouns, but their coworker keeps referring to them with she/her, the Amplifier steps in and corrects the coworker. It is important to note that amplifying issues does not mean generating conflict, as it is likely the person from the marginalized community will suffer from the blowback. Rather, the Amplifier “pushes back on offensive comments or jokes, even if no one within earshot might be offended or hurt,” which can be as simple as shutting down a conversation before it escalates.

3. The Learner

This final type of ally commits to the journey of self-education and self-reflection. In some ways, this task is straightforward: the Learner reads books about anti-racism, attends events and workshops run by marginalized individuals, asks questions (where appropriate) to further their understanding of injustice, and takes the initiative to spread existing resources developed by underrepresented groups within their own communities. But another component of this ally’s role is to then put that knowledge into action. Intentional action includes tasks like donating to bail relief funds, but it can also be as simple as supporting businesses owned by underrepresented individuals: shopping from Black grocers, supporting Hispanic-owned restaurants, buying from queer clothing brands, and so on. The Learner doesn’t interject their own experiences. Instead, they seek to understand the experiences of others.

But as with the previous categories, the role of the Learner doesn’t stop there. While it is critical that we educate ourselves on the systemic injustices that marginalized communities face, we must also act as confidants to individuals from these communities. Why? Because “listening to their stories and trusting that they’re being truthful creates a protective layer of support.” Empathy and understanding goes beyond overarching issues; the Learner shows they care about and will fight for the rights of the specific individual at hand, too. Educating ourselves cannot stop at the “overall.” We must recognize how discrimination and injustice are presented in our immediate surroundings, too.

True allies are intentional in their efforts to support underrepresented groups, and as this list of key types of allies demonstrates, there are numerous ways we can illustrate this support. Want to know the best part?

Each and every one of us can be all three: the Sponsor, the Amplifier, the Learner.

An ally.

---

Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.

Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.