Niagara University how Can Unconscious Biases Effect a Workplace Paper Assignment: Create a one (1) page reflection paper based on the content of the artic

Niagara University how Can Unconscious Biases Effect a Workplace Paper Assignment: Create a one (1) page reflection paper based on the content of the article.

Questions to consider when drafting your paper (you do not have to use any of these):

How can unconscious biases, stereotypes, or discrimination effect a workplace?
Where do unconscious biases come from? How can you work to understand and prevent bias from effecting you as an employee and/or a leader?
Have you ever met someone (work or otherwise) that had an unconscious (or conscious) bias and how did that effect your perception of them?
In what (if any) professional situations could bias be considered ethical?
Have you ever witnessed a situation in which biases have existed across teams or functions within an organization? Think of Toby from the office and Michael Scott’s impression of him due to his role. How did this effect the team(s)?
Implicit bias/favoritism as it relates to personality style differences with a manager and their subordinates.
As a current or future leader, how would you measure/protect against biases occurring with your people managers and/or their staff?
Can biases occur at the customer level? What effect could this have?
Can bias be a structural/organizational level problem?
Name an individual (such as a celebrity) that appears to be non-biased/neutral. What traits do they possess?

Remember this is a REFLECTION PAPER; summarizing the article will result in a loss of a significant amount of points for this paper.

Note: You must include a bibliography; failure to do so will result in a zero (0) for the assignment. This does not count towards the one (1) page limit.

When drafting your paper, pretend you are submitting your thoughts to a Senior Leader within your organization. As such, you want the information to be concise and to be written as professionally as possible. You do not have to write a traditional paper/essay; use of bullet points are fair game. For the exclusive use of h. siddiq, 2019.
www.hbr.org
Good managers often make
unethical decisions—and
don’t even know it.
How (Un)ethical Are
You?
by Mahzarin R. Banaji, Max H. Bazerman, and
Dolly Chugh
Included with this full-text Harvard Business Review article:
1 Article Summary
The Idea in Brief—the core idea
The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work
2 How (Un)ethical Are You?
10 Further Reading
A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further
exploration of the article’s ideas and applications
Reprint R0312D
This document is authorized for use only by hind siddiq in MGT 670AC: People in Organizations; Fall 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Sep 2019 to Oct 2019.
For the exclusive use of h. siddiq, 2019.
How (Un)ethical Are You?
The Idea in Brief
The Idea in Practice
Are you an ethical manager? Most would
probably say, “Of course!” The truth is, most
of us are not.
UNCONSCIOUS BIASES
COUNTERACT BIASES
Are the following unconscious biases levying
what amounts to a “stereotype tax” on your
company?
To keep yourself from making similarly
skewed calls, consider these guidelines:
Most of us believe that we’re ethical and
unbiased. We assume that we objectively
size up job candidates or venture deals and
reach fair and rational conclusions that are
in our organization’s best interests.
COPYRIGHT © 2003 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
But the truth is, we harbor many unconscious—and unethical—biases that derail
our decisions and undermine our work as
managers. Hidden biases prevent us from
recognizing high-potential workers and retaining talented managers. They stop us
from collaborating effectively with partners.
They erode our teams’ performance. They
can also lead to costly lawsuits.
But how can we root out these biases if
they’re unconscious? Fortunately, as a
manager, you can take deliberate actions
to counteract their pull. Regularly audit
your decisions. Have you, for example,
hired a disproportionate number of people
of your own race? Expose yourself to nonstereotypical environments that challenge
your biases. If your department is led by
men, spend time in one with women in
leadership positions. And consider counterintuitive options when making decisions.
Don’t rely on a mental short-list of candidates for a new assignment; consider every
employee with relevant qualifications.
Implicit prejudice
Judging according to unconscious stereotypes rather than merit exacts a high business
cost. Exposed to images that juxtapose physical disabilities with mental weakness or portray poor people as lazy, even the most consciously unbiased person is bound to make
biased associations. As a result, we routinely
overlook highly qualified candidates for assignments.
In-group favoritism
Granting favors to people with your same
background—your nationality or alma
mater—effectively discriminates against
those who are different from you. Consider
the potential cost of offering bonuses to employees who refer their friends for job openings: hires who may not have made the grade
without in-group favoritism.
Overclaiming credit
Most of us consider ourselves above average.
But when every member of a team thinks he’s
making the biggest contribution, each starts
to think the others aren’t pulling their weight.
That jeopardizes future collaborations. It also
frustrates talented workers who may resign
because they feel underappreciated.
Gather better data.
Expose your own implicit biases. Take the
Implicit Association Test (at http://implicit.
harvard.edu). If you discover gender or racial
biases, examine your hiring and promotion
decisions in that new light. When working
with others, have team members estimate
their colleagues’ contributions before they
claim their own credit.
Rid your workplace of stereotypical cues.
Think about the biased associations your
workplace may foster. Do your company’s advertising and marketing materials frequently
include sports metaphors or high-tech jargon? Make a conscious effort to curb such “insider” language—making your products more
appealing to a diverse customer base. And if
your department invariably promotes the
same type of manager—highly analytic, for instance—shadow a department that values a
different—perhaps more conceptual—skillset.
Broaden your mind-set when making
decisions.
Apply the “veil of ignorance” to your next
managerial decision. Suppose you’re considering a new policy that would give more vacation time to all employees but eliminate the
flextime that has allowed new parents to keep
working. How would your opinion differ if you
were a parent or childless? Male or female?
Healthy or unhealthy? You’ll learn how
strongly implicit biases influence you.
page 1
This document is authorized for use only by hind siddiq in MGT 670AC: People in Organizations; Fall 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Sep 2019 to Oct 2019.
For the exclusive use of h. siddiq, 2019.
Good managers often make unethical decisions—and don’t even
know it.
How (Un)ethical Are
You?
COPYRIGHT © 2003 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
by Mahzarin R. Banaji, Max H. Bazerman, and
Dolly Chugh
Answer true or false: “I am an ethical manager.”
If you answered “true,” here’s an uncomfortable fact: You’re probably not. Most of us
believe that we are ethical and unbiased. We
imagine we’re good decision makers, able to
objectively size up a job candidate or a venture
deal and reach a fair and rational conclusion
that’s in our, and our organization’s, best interests. But more than two decades of research
confirms that, in reality, most of us fall woefully short of our inflated self-perception.
We’re deluded by what Yale psychologist
David Armor calls the illusion of objectivity,
the notion that we’re free of the very biases
we’re so quick to recognize in others. What’s
more, these unconscious, or implicit, biases
can be contrary to our consciously held, explicit beliefs. We may believe with confidence
and conviction that a job candidate’s race has
no bearing on our hiring decisions or that
we’re immune to conflicts of interest. But psychological research routinely exposes counterintentional, unconscious biases. The prevalence of these biases suggests that even the
harvard business review • december 2003
most well-meaning person unwittingly allows
unconscious thoughts and feelings to influence
seemingly objective decisions. These flawed
judgments are ethically problematic and undermine managers’ fundamental work—to recruit and retain superior talent, boost the performance of individuals and teams, and
collaborate effectively with partners.
This article explores four related sources of
unintentional unethical decision making: implicit forms of prejudice, bias that favors one’s
own group, conflict of interest, and a tendency
to overclaim credit. Because we are not consciously aware of these sources of bias, they
often cannot be addressed by penalizing people for their bad decisions. Nor are they likely
to be corrected through conventional ethics
training. Rather, managers must bring a new
type of vigilance to bear. To begin, this requires letting go of the notion that our conscious attitudes always represent what we
think they do. It also demands that we abandon our faith in our own objectivity and our
ability to be fair. In the following pages, we
page 2
This document is authorized for use only by hind siddiq in MGT 670AC: People in Organizations; Fall 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Sep 2019 to Oct 2019.
For the exclusive use of h. siddiq, 2019.
How (Un)ethical Are You?
will offer strategies that can help managers
recognize these pervasive, corrosive, unconscious biases and reduce their impact.
Implicit Prejudice:
Bias That Emerges from
Unconscious Beliefs
Mahzarin R. Banaji is the Richard
Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics
in the department of psychology at
Harvard University and the Carol K.
Pforzheimer Professor at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Max H.
Bazerman is the Jesse Isidor Straus
Professor of Business Administration at
Harvard Business School in Boston.
Dolly Chugh, a Harvard Business
School MBA, is now a doctoral candidate in Harvard University’s joint program in organizational behavior and
social psychology.
Most fair-minded people strive to judge others
according to their merits, but our research
shows how often people instead judge according
to unconscious stereotypes and attitudes, or “implicit prejudice.” What makes implicit prejudice
so common and persistent is that it is rooted in
the fundamental mechanics of thought. Early
on, we learn to associate things that commonly
go together and expect them to inevitably coexist: thunder and rain, for instance, or gray hair
and old age. This skill—to perceive and learn
from associations—often serves us well.
But, of course, our associations only reflect
approximations of the truth; they are rarely
applicable to every encounter. Rain doesn’t always accompany thunder, and the young can
also go gray. Nonetheless, because we automatically make such associations to help us organize our world, we grow to trust them, and
they can blind us to those instances in which
the associations are not accurate—when they
don’t align with our expectations.
Because implicit prejudice arises from the
ordinary and unconscious tendency to make
associations, it is distinct from conscious forms
of prejudice, such as overt racism or sexism.
This distinction explains why people who are
free from conscious prejudice may still harbor
biases and act accordingly. Exposed to images
that juxtapose black men and violence, portray
women as sex objects, imply that the physically disabled are mentally weak and the poor
are lazy, even the most consciously unbiased
person is bound to make biased associations.
These associations play out in the workplace
just as they do anywhere else.
In the mid-1990s, Tony Greenwald, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, developed an experimental tool called the
Implicit Association Test (IAT) to study unconscious bias. A computerized version of the test
requires subjects to rapidly classify words and
images as “good” or “bad.” Using a keyboard,
test takers must make split-second “good/bad”
distinctions between words like “love,” “joy,”
“pain,” and “sorrow” and at the same time sort
images of faces that are (depending on the bias
harvard business review • december 2003
in question) black or white, young or old, fat or
thin, and so on. The test exposes implicit biases
by detecting subtle shifts in reaction time that
can occur when test takers are required to pair
different sets of words and faces. Subjects who
consciously believe that they have no negative
feelings toward, say, black Americans or the
elderly are nevertheless likely to be slower to
associate elderly or black faces with the “good”
words than they are to associate youthful or
white faces with “good” words.
Since 1998, when Greenwald, Brian Nosek,
and Mahzarin Banaji put the IAT online, people from around the world have taken over 2.5
million tests, confirming and extending the
findings of more traditional laboratory experiments. Both show implicit biases to be strong
and pervasive. (For more information on the
IAT, see the sidebar “Are You Biased?”.)
Biases are also likely to be costly. In controlled experiments, psychologists Laurie Rudman at Rutgers and Peter Glick at Lawrence
University have studied how implicit biases
may work to exclude qualified people from
certain roles. One set of experiments examined
the relationship between participants’ implicit
gender stereotypes and their hiring decisions.
Those holding stronger implicit biases were
less likely to select a qualified woman who exhibited stereotypically “masculine” personality
qualities, such as ambition or independence,
for a job requiring stereotypically “feminine”
qualities, such as interpersonal skills. Yet they
would select a qualified man exhibiting these
same qualities. The hirers’ biased perception
was that the woman was less likely to be socially skilled than the man, though their qualifications were in fact the same. These results
suggest that implicit biases may exact costs by
subtly excluding qualified people from the
very organizations that seek their talents.
Legal cases also reveal the real costs of implicit biases, both economic and social. Consider Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Despite logging more billable hours than her peers,
bringing in $25 million to the company, and
earning the praise of her clients, Ann Hopkins
was turned down for partner, and she sued.
The details of the case reveal that her evaluators were explicitly prejudiced in their attitudes. For example, they had commented that
Ann “overcompensated for being a woman”
and needed a “course at charm school.” But
perhaps more damning from a legal stand-
page 3
This document is authorized for use only by hind siddiq in MGT 670AC: People in Organizations; Fall 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Sep 2019 to Oct 2019.
For the exclusive use of h. siddiq, 2019.
How (Un)ethical Are You?
point was blunt testimony from experimental
research. Testifying as an expert witness for
the defense, psychology professor Susan Fiske,
now at Princeton University, argued that the
potential for biased decision making is inherent
in a system in which a person has “solo” status—that is, a system in which the person is
the only one of a kind (the only woman, the
only African-American, the only person with a
disability, and the like). Judge Gerhard Gesell
concluded that “a far more subtle process
[than the usual discriminatory intent] is involved” in the assessments made of Ann Hopkins, and she won both in a lower court and in
the Supreme Court in what is now a landmark
case in discrimination law.
Likewise, the 1999 case of Thomas v. Kodak
demonstrates that implicit biases can be the
basis for rulings. Here, the court posed the
question of “whether the employer consciously intended to base the evaluations on
race or simply did so because of unthinking
stereotypes or bias.” The court concluded that
plaintiffs can indeed challenge “subjective
evaluations which could easily mask covert or
unconscious race discrimination.” Although
courts are careful not to assign responsibility
easily for unintentional biases, these cases
demonstrate the potential for corporate liability that such patterns of behavior could unwittingly create.
In-Group Favoritism:
Bias That Favors Your Group
Think about some of the favors you have done
in recent years, whether for a friend, a relative, or a colleague. Have you helped someone
get a useful introduction, admission to a
school, or a job? Most of us are glad to help
out with such favors. Not surprisingly, we
tend to do more favors for those we know, and
those we know tend to be like ourselves: people who share our nationality, social class, and
perhaps religion, race, employer, or alma
mater. This all sounds rather innocent. What’s
wrong with asking your neighbor, the university dean, to meet with a coworker’s son? Isn’t
it just being helpful to recommend a former
sorority sister for a job or to talk to your
banker cousin when a friend from church gets
turned down for a home loan?
Few people set out to exclude anyone
through such acts of kindness. But when those
in the majority or those in power allocate
scarce resources (such as jobs, promotions, and
mortgages) to people just like them, they effectively discriminate against those who are different from them. Such “in-group favoritism”
amounts to giving extra credit for group membership. Yet while discriminating against those
who are different is considered unethical, helping people close to us is often viewed favorably. Think about the number of companies
Are You Biased?
Are you willing to bet that you feel the same
way toward European-Americans as you do
toward African-Americans? How about
women versus men? Or older people versus
younger ones? Think twice before you take
that bet. Visit implicit.harvard.edu or www.
tolerance.org/hidden_bias to examine your
unconscious attitudes.
The Implicit Association Tests available
on these sites reveal unconscious beliefs by
asking takers to make split-second associations between words with positive or negative connotations and images representing
different types of people. The various tests
on these sites expose the differences—or the
alignment—between test takers’ conscious
and unconscious attitudes toward people of
different races, sexual orientation, or physical characteristics. Data gathered from over
harvard business review • december 2003
2.5 million online tests and further research
tells us that unconscious biases are:
• widely prevalent. At least 75% of test takers show an implicit bias favoring the
young, the rich, and whites.
• robust. The mere conscious desire not to
be biased does not eliminate implicit bias.
• contrary to conscious intention. Although people tend to report little or no
conscious bias against African-Americans,
Arabs, Arab-Americans, Jews, gay men,
lesbians, or the poor, they show substantial biases on implicit measures.
• different in degree depending on group
status. Minority group members tend to
show less implicit preference for their
own group than majority group members
show for theirs. For example, AfricanAmericans report strong preference for
their group on explicit measures but
show relatively less implicit preference in
the tests. Conversely, white Americans report a low explicit bias for their group but
a higher implicit bias.
• consequential. Those who show higher levels of bias on the IAT are also likely to behave in ways that are more biased in faceto-face interactions with members of the
group they are biased against and in the
choices they make, such as hiring decisions.
• costly. Research currently under way in
our lab suggests that implicit bias generates a “stereotype tax”—negotiators
leave money on the table because biases
cause them to miss opportunities to
learn about their opponent and thus create additional value through mutually
beneficial trade-offs.
page 4
This document is authorized for use only by hind siddiq in MGT 670AC: People in Organizations; Fall 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Sep 2019 to Oct 2019.
For the exclusive use of h. siddiq, 2019.
How (Un)ethical Are You?
Would you be willing to
risk being in the group
disadvantaged by your
own decision?
that explicitly encourage this by offering hiring bonuses to employees who refer their
friends for job opportunities.
But consider the finding that banks in the
United States are more likely to deny a mortgage application from a black person than from
a white person, even when the applicants are
equally qualified. The common view has been
that banks are hostile to African-Americans.
While this may be true of some banks and some
loan officers, social psychologist David Messick
has argued that in-group favoritism is more
likely to be at the root of such discriminatory
lending. A white loan officer may feel hopeful
or lenient toward an unqualified white applicant while following the bank’s lending standards strictly with an unqualified black applicant. In denying the black applicant’s mortgage,
the loan officer may not be expressing hostility
toward blacks so much as favoritism toward
whites. It’s a subtle but crucial distinction.
The ethical cost is clear and should be reason enough to address the problem. But such
inadvertent bias produces an additional effect:
It erodes the bottom line. Lenders who discriminate in this w…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment