Managing Workplace Bias

Here’s 14 things that can be invisible to men in the workplace And they all involve women Men rarely notice That women are more likely To be interrupted To be on the outside of social workplace networks To be judged more harshly and punished for underperformance or mistakes To have their credentials or competence questioned or be expected to provide evidence To be promoted on previous performance rather than future potential To be negatively judged for being assertive or ambitious To be given non promotive tasks and work housework And that women are less likely To be sponsored or given similar progress opportunities To get space to contribute in meetings To be give clear, actionable feedback To be seen as deserving promotion to leadership To be given stretch projects and high profile assignments To be consider for promotive work when they are mothers To have airtime with those most senior in their organisation I can honestly say I wasn’t noticing these in my early career. A lot of my focus went on following the advice of working twice as hard, as a young Black lad from a lower socioeconomic background. My own microaggressions blurred my vision of gender biases. And if you can’t see them, and they don’t happen to you, how can you challenge them? Studies show that men’s awareness and ability to act is four times higher after they partake in allyship training which highlights gender biases and microaggressions. Suddenly they see inequity they couldn’t see before. And they can’t unsee it. The opportunities to tackle them increase, practicing the skills of allyship. Having been through that process myself I can say that taking the blindfold off is an uncomfortable reality check But it is also empowering, and makes your curious about what else you might not be seeing. A world that was black and white, suddenly was a world full of colour And this is just one of the reasons why I’m passionate about bringing allyship to organisations and stages across the country Becoming accomplices, rather than opposition Because everyone benefits when we shine a light on each others blind spots What would you add to the list?

Why so few female professors? 🔹97% of female professors say "barriers within academia" such as "implicit bias in evaluations, male networks and an unwelcoming academic culture" play an important role. 🔹Only 22% of male professors mention such barriers. Instead, male professors are more likely to point to "family factors" and "women's own interests and preferences". 🔹A majority of male professors shows "hesitation, uneasiness or reluctance when asked how the low proportion of female professors can be explained". Only 3% of female professors do so. These are among the key results of a study by sociologists Margaretha Järvinen and Nanna Mik-Meyer, based on 77 qualitative interviews with full professors in economics, political science, and sociology in Denmark. Moreover, the study identifies "a ‘silent standpoint’ among the participating male professors: the idea that women are generally less qualified than men as candidates for full professorships." Read the full study here: Margaretha Järvinen and Nanna Mik-Meyer (2026), The Silent Standpoint: How Professors Explain Gender Disparities in Academia, British Journal of Sociology, forthcoming: https://lnkd.in/eG6UkJ6x (open access) The quotes from the interviews in the "Supporting information" file are also quite illuminating. HT Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard

A few days ago, a male colleague made a sexist joke. When I said I didn’t find it funny and that it felt misogynistic, his response was: “Relax, it was just a joke.” And that’s exactly the problem. Misogyny doesn’t usually kick the door down. Most days, it slips in wearing a grin. It’s the “joke” you’re supposed to laugh at. The “comment” that’s framed as harmless. The moment you’re expected to swallow discomfort so no one else feels awkward. Research shows that when sexism is delivered as humour, people are less likely to recognise it as bias - and women are less likely to challenge it. Jokes disguise prejudice, making it easier to dismiss and harder to confront. Over time, that normalisation creates a culture where bigger misogyny feels more acceptable. That’s why micro-misogyny matters. “Micro” doesn’t mean insignificant - it means constant, normalised, and easy to deny. It’s the background noise that keeps the system running. The small comments, jokes, and assumptions that quietly reinforce the idea that women should tolerate being diminished. And misogyny is deeply embedded in our culture. When a bias exists across almost every layer of society, people stop noticing it. It becomes invisible - until someone names it. And then suddenly they’re the problem. So when we don’t laugh. When we say, calmly, “I don’t find that funny.” When we ask, “What do you mean by that?” We’re not being difficult. We’re interrupting something that’s been running unchecked for generations.

🗣️“You must be more assertive.” Last year, those five words burned into Amy’s memory. She’d walked out of her 2023 review at XYZ Global determined to “step up.” Speak more in meetings. Push harder on decisions. Stop softening her tone so she wouldn’t intimidate anyone. She did exactly that. Fast forward 12 months. Same conference room. Same 2 VPs across the table. 🔇“You’ve become too intense, need to work on softening your approach.” 😑 Amy stared at them, speechless. Wasn’t that what you asked for last year? Which version of me do you actually want? She thought about the past year: 🤔 The time she challenged a flawed budget forecast in front of the CFO, saving the company $3 million, but earning whispers that she was “abrasive.” 🤔 The time she stepped in to rescue a failing project, praised for her “grit” publicly, yet privately told she “dominated the room.” 🤔 The time she finally got invited to an executive offsite, only to overhear a VP say, “She’s great, but can be… a lot.” This is the tightrope trap senior women walk daily: • Be assertive, but not too assertive. • Be collaborative, but don’t fade into the background. • Be visible, but not “hungry.”    The same behavior praised in men (decisive, strong leader) gets women penalized as abrasive or too much. Until you set the narrative yourself, you’re trapped performing for a moving target. If you’re exhausted from balancing on a wire men don’t even see, here’s how to step off it and still rise. 1. Audit the pattern, not just the feedback • Track every piece of feedback, especially contradiction. Patterns reveal bias. If the goal keeps moving, it's not you! • Phrase to use in review: “Last year I was encouraged to increase my presence; this year I’m told to soften it. Can we clarify what success really looks like?”    2. Control the frame before the room does • Pre‑set the narrative in 1:1s and emails leading up to reviews. I.e., “This year I focused on driving results while bringing the team with me, you’ll see that reflected in project X and Y.” • This primes leadership to view your assertiveness as an intentional strategy, not a personality flaw.    3. Build echo chambers, not just results • Secure 2–3 allies who reinforce your strengths in rooms you’re not in. • Promotions happen in the absence, you need people echoing your narrative, not someone else’s. • Phrase to brief an ally: “If my leadership style comes up in review, can you speak to how I challenge decisions but still align the team?”    Women aren’t just asked to deliver results. They’re asked to perform, decode, and reframe, all while walking a wire men don’t even see. If you’re exhausted from balancing between “too soft” and “too aggressive,” stop walking the wire and start controlling the narrative. Join the waitlist of our next cohort of ⭐ From Hidden Talent to Visible Leaders ⭐ https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because leadership shouldn’t feel like an impossible balancing act.

Just by being Black, the level of latitude you're given for behaviour – especially behaviour deemed "bad" – is often completely different. The consequences are harsher and the scrutiny is sharper. Take disciplinary matters, for example. Black employees are often judged more harshly for the same behaviours as their white counterparts. A Black professional might be labelled “difficult”, “angry”, “intimidating”, or “unprofessional” for expressing frustration in a meeting, while a white colleague might be excused as “passionate” or “assertive”. You know the type of comments – “Elizabeth is just expressing how she feels,” or “Johnny was just a bit hot under the collar.” The disparity isn’t just anecdotal – it’s backed up by research into workplace racial bias. Then there’s career progression. Black employees are frequently held to higher standards to earn the same recognition. Feedback like, “You need to prove yourself more” or “be more of a team player” is often levelled at those who have already delivered exceptional results. Meanwhile, others are promoted based on potential or likeability rather than consistent performance. Not sure if this is (or has) happened in your workplace? 1) Look at patterns in employee relations cases – Are Black employees disproportionately disciplined or receiving harsher feedback compared to their peers in similar roles? 2) Examine promotion criteria – Are Black employees expected to overperform just to be considered for opportunities, while others get ahead based on vague ideas of potential or even subpar performance? How do performance and potential ratings for Black employees compare with others? 3) Observe how behaviours are labelled – Is there a difference in the language used to describe similar actions? Are words like “angry” or “unapproachable” disproportionately applied to Black colleagues? For Black women, how are their traits described compared to non-Black women? For Black men, what “advice” is given under the guise of mentorship to ensure they aren’t perceived as “intimidating” or “scary” – particularly when they express frustration or anger? To address this, the first step is noticing the patterns (or not dismissing or acting defensively when it’s pointed out), the second is to question and avoid making assumptions that it is an “unfounded accusation” and the third? Well, that’s up to you. You can either take action or ignore it. I say that only because too many organisations are still struggling to get past the first step 🤷🏾♀️ 📹 Sterling K. Brown

If #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion practitioners want to get ahead of anti-DEI backlash, we have to address an elephant in the room: no two people in the same workplace perceive their workplace the same way. I see this every time I work with client organizations. When asked to describe their own experience with the workplace and its DEI strengths and challenges, I hear things like: 😊 "I've never experienced any discrimination or mistreatment; our leaders' commitment is strong." 🤨 "I had a good time in one department, but after transferring departments I started experiencing explicit ableist comments under my new manager." 🙁 "I've never had anything egregious happen, but I've always felt less respected by my team members because of my race." Who's right? Turns out, all of them. It starts to get messy because everyone inevitably generalizes their own personal experiences into their perception of the workplace as a whole; three people might accordingly describe their workplace as a "meritocracy without discrimination," an "inconsistently inclusive workplace dependent on manager," or "a subtly racist environment." And when people are confronted with other experiences of the workplace that DIFFER from their own, they often take it personally. I've seen leaders bristle at the implication that their own experience was "wrong," or get defensive in expectation they will be accused of lacking awareness. It's exactly this defensiveness that lays the foundation for misunderstanding, polarization, and yes—anti-DEI misinformation—to spread in an organization. How do we mitigate it? In my own work, I've found that these simple steps go a long way. 1. Validate everyone's experience. Saying outright that everyone's personal experience is "correct" for themselves might seem too obvious, but it plays a powerful role in helping everyone feel respected and taken seriously. Reality is not a question of "who is right"—it's the messy summation of everyone's lived experience, good or bad. 2. Use data to create a shared baseline. Gathering data by organizational and social demographics allows us to make statements like, "the average perception of team respect is 70% in Engineering, but only 30% in Sales," or "perception of fair decision making processes is 90% for white men, but only 40% for Black women." This establishes a shared reality, a baseline for any effective DEI work. 3. Make it clear that problem-solving involves—and requires—everyone. The goal of DEI work is to achieve positive outcomes for everyone. Those with already positive experiences? Their insights help us know what we're aiming for. Those with the most negative? Their insights help us learn what's broken. The more we communicate that collective effort benefits the collective, rather than shaming or dismissing those at the margins, the more we can unite people around DEI and beat the backlash.

Denmark is often held up as a frontrunner in gender equality. Yet in the social sciences, women make up only 26% of full professors, placing Denmark in the lowest third of EU countries. A new open-access article in The British Journal of Sociology tries to explain why progress can stall even in “high equality” contexts. The authors interviewed 77 full professors (46 men, 31 women) across economics, political science, and sociology at three Danish universities. Their core finding is not simply that people disagree. It is that men and women tell systematically different stories about the same disparity. Male professors predominantly explain women’s career barriers via family responsibilities and women’s own interests or “preferences”. Female professors overwhelmingly point to university-level mechanisms: lack of recognition, implicit bias in evaluations, male networks, an unwelcoming culture, and the distribution of service work that erodes research time. The authors call it a “silent standpoint” among many male professors: an implicit belief that women are generally less qualified candidates for full professorships. This standpoint is rarely stated cleanly. Instead, it shows up through hesitation, awkwardness, contradictions, and a rapid pivot toward the good old fashioned “meritocracy” argument, and the idea that efforts to improve gender balance threaten research quality. This matters for academic work conditions because professors are not neutral observers. They are gatekeepers: they recruit, supervise, mentor, assess, and decide on hiring and promotion. If the dominant “common sense” explanation in a department is that disparities are driven by “women’s choices” or “qualifications”, then organizational reform will always look unnecessary ...or even illegitimate. The paper also connects to a pattern that keeps reappearing across systems: institutions invest heavily in “fixing the women” (mentoring schemes, confidence workshops) while being far more reluctant to “fix the organization” (evaluation criteria, incentive structures, accountability for biased decision-making). If we want better academic workplaces, the question is not only what causes gender disparities? It is also which explanations are treated as legitimate inside the institution, and which ones trigger defensiveness, silence, or backlash? Here is the link to the open access publication: https://lnkd.in/dfu_RrAj #Academia #GenderEquality #AcademicLeadership #HigherEducation  

Black women lost 91% of all women’s jobs in April. But that number isn’t the whole story — it’s just the tip of the truth. Here’s what’s “under the hood”: 1. This isn’t a fluke. It’s design. We’re overrepresented in jobs labeled essential during crisis and expendable during recovery. Admin, healthcare support, education, retail — sectors that get cut first and protect last. This is occupational segregation, and it’s doing exactly what it was built to do. 2. We were already leaking out of the pipeline. Let’s not pretend this started in April. We’ve been underpromoted, underpaid, and undersponsored — despite being the most educated demographic in the country. So when layoffs come, we aren’t just losing jobs. We’re losing hard-won ground. 3. Post-2020 performative #DEI is dead — and we’re the collateral. Many of us were hired into DEI roles or “diversity-friendly” spaces when companies wanted good press. Now, as backlash builds and budgets shrink, we’re first on the chopping block — again. This is what happens when #equity is cosmetic. 4. The economic damage is generational. 91% job loss isn’t just a stat. It’s a ripple: • Mortgage denials • Career derailment • College fund delays • Entrepreneurship on pause • Healthcare gaps This hits families, not just individuals. 5. Stop calling this a resilience issue. Resilience isn’t a fix for economic exploitation. We are not interested in masking systemic harm with individual hustle. So no, this isn’t just about job loss. It’s about power. It’s about who gets to stay. It’s about who gets protected — and who gets the short end of the stick just for taking up space. Black women are architecting a strategy that doesn’t require permission. Black women are pivoting on purpose, rebranding without code-switching, and rising without waiting for rescue. If this shook you, good. If it lit a fire under you, even better. Now let’s build something they can’t lay off. #RebrandAndRise #CareerNomadNoir #BlackWomenAtWork #StillEmployedStillAfraid #RNA #Layoffs #WorkplaceTruths #StopTheErasure #PowerToPivot #LinkedInNews LinkedIn News #hellomonday #officehours Source: Black Enterprise Magazine, May 2025 Jeffrey McKinney https://lnkd.in/eCMzUd8K

It's time we talk about how Black women face hyper-visibility & invisibility simultaneously at work. Black women in leadership are asked to be the representative of diversity and inclusion, but the irony is we’re often left stuck in the same roles without the growth we deserve. The constant push and pull between being both overexposed and overlooked takes a mental and emotional toll. I was talking about this on X and someone commented: “And unfortunately this is reality in most spaces in which we navigate and involve ourselves. It's heartbreaking (and deeply concerning) that a great deal of us possess a number of stories about these experiences.” I couldn’t agree more. The number of stories I’ve heard from professionals across industries, stories of being praised for the very things that make us stand out, only to be dismissed when we ask for the same respect, promotions, and growth opportunities. If you want to build inclusive workplaces, we must begin by valuing and compensating the contributions of Black women fairly.