CAN WE BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT OUR SUBJECTIVITY?

In this world of scientific rationalism, we place a high value on objectivity – even if it seems under threat in our political and media discourse. In organizations, the idea is that leaders make decisions based on analysis of data and the careful selection between alternative options.

However, in leadership and life there is a lot of evidence to suggest that emotions sway our decisions, as do underlying biases based on all sort of experiences – familiar, cultural, systemic etc. In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman proposes we have different mental systems driving our decisions, one that is automatic, and a second that can dig deeper and provide checks on bias. This second gear is engaged less and uses more fuel.

The world of work is riddled with inconsistencies that question objectivity in many ways. For example, studies consistently find that taller people tend to earn more money than their shorter comrades in similar roles. (Follow this link for more https://www.businessinsider.com.au/tall-people-really-do-get-paid-more-2016-9 ). Similarly, more attractive people tend to get more opportunities in life. (Have a look at https://www.hcamag.com/us/news/general/racial-bias-in-hiring-still-rampant/170841 ) This doesn’t make a lot of sense but it’s happening right now.

Even more alarming, racial discrimination in selection is business-as-usual in many organizations – even though contrary policies and laws are clear. What makes this difficult to nudge in a different direction is that the subjectivity is (1) generally not intentional, and (2) unnoticed by many. The subconscious is driving the bus. Social psychology has proven beyond doubt that we automatically tend to favor those from our ‘ín-group’ – that is, those who are like us in some way. Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s research in the 70s and 80s demonstrated this tendency is deeply entwined with how we form and perceive the identity ourselves and others.

This is not wrong; it just is. It is also counter to principle of natural justice and organizational efficiency. What is wrong is to ignore the reality of bias and to carry on regardless.

Where organizations have identified that there might be an issue of bias in selection, or cultural bias generally, a first line response is usually around awareness raising. Paradoxically, depending on how this is done, it can make the situation worse. Two things can happen. Firstly, such programs, particularly when compulsory, can cause resistance. If I am a busy manager and I don’t see myself as discriminatory, why should I attend? “How dare they suggest I need to be told not to discriminate!”. Secondly, there is evidence that these courses can surface and reinforce stereotypes – again making things worse. Cultural training that gives some general cultural orientations that are present in various countries carry this risk. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It goes like this ‘Wow, now I know that Chinese are a,b, and c. Li Wei, a new employee I’m thinking of hiring is Chinese, therefore he is a, b, and c. I will manage him accordingly.” Or worse, “I won’t employ him because those traits don’t fit the role”.

Paradoxically then, raising awareness can send us backward. What can we do to address the issue? This HBR article has some suggestions https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

The main idea is to keep things positive and look for advantages and creative energy in attracting difference. Programs that try to ‘fix’ individuals are likely to have the opposite effect. Making courses voluntary seems to offer some pathways forward, though this requires that the experience of participants is rich and rewarding. Done well, potential resisters will be attracted when they hear positive stories. Otherwise, such courses will remain preaching to the converted. The use of mentors is another positive strategy. Giving people experiences in working with different people is also sound practice in countering stereotypes. This can be done by job rotation and placements.

At a more cultural and systemic level, the introduction of leadership coaching can help to discover and address issues of bias and discrimination. The proviso here is that the form of leadership coaching adopted needs to be underpinned by a belief that diversity is of value to companies. One definition of culture is that it is the way a group of people solve problems. If so, diversity will bring different ways of solving problems. Given the challenges most organizations face now and, in the future,, sure this is an attractive way forward.

An effective leadership coaching culture will be based an energy core of values, meaning, purpose and relationships, and favor approaches based on positivity and growth where difference is opportunity. Curiosity and collaboration must drive the approach, with the aim of maximizing engagement with difference. Leadership coaching is not a soft touch. Tough issues will be surfaced and solutions crafted that are fit for the context. Through transparency, it will be clearer where decisions have to be made about getting people off the bus. A leadership coaching approach lessens the risk that you throw the wrong people off the bus just because they are different – thus losing diversity and reinforcing bias. The tension between subjectivity and objectivity here is patently clear. There needs to a rigor in selection processes that minimize the influence of bias and encourages people to look at their own preferences and biases with new eyes (and get other eyes involved).

To summarize, as we make decisions, we have to own up to the reality that we all carry natural biases. (Of course the Sydney Swans AFL club is the best!) However, just because we have a feeling or voice in that might points us in a negative direction doesn’t mean we have to go that way. Coaching encourages us to have a relationship with our thoughts and feeling so that we can make decisions in line with values and intentions – with others in mind. When we challenge negative thoughts and replace them with positive ones to inform our action, our neural pathways change – over time and ideally with support from a coach. To claim full objectivity is delusional and dangerous. We can strive for mindfully-managed subjectivity.

Here are some coaching questions for leaders and coaches that might help trigger some new thinking about difference. They can be used in group discussions and for personal reflection:

1. Who am I? What groups influenced my cultural identity? How might my background be influencing me now and what might be some consequences?

2. What kind of biases might I be carrying in my decision making? How might I find out?

3. Which groups of people do I feel a natural affinity with or attraction to? What groups bring neutral or negative feelings and thoughts to the surface?

4. Is there a diversity of thought and experience in this organization? (When I explore the organization, what and who do I see?)

5. Who around me thinks and operates very differently from me? How might I connect with them?

6. How am I leveraging diversity in my role?

7. How might I bring in some different kinds of thinking into my team/organization?

8. Is the kind of thinking we are using in decision making going to serve us in the next few

years? How might be attract new ideas?

9. How much do I know about the backgrounds of the people I work with?

10. What might a do to be perceived as a natural attractor of different people and

perspectives?