As the DEI landscape continues to evolve, the need to create fair and equal opportunities for all across the employment lifecycle continues. Representation within workplace cultures – covering both access to work and opportunities to progress up the talent pipeline – should remain a key strategic priority within the context of inclusion mainstreaming.
Social psychologists such as Daniel Kahneman have long stressed the influence of biases on human thinking and decision-making, and the extent to which ‘heuristics’ – or mental shortcuts – influence hiring, work allocation, and promotion decisions.
There are – at least at the last count – 151 known combined social and cognitive biases, which can be divided into four parts:
Also called similarity bias, this bias stresses a preference for candidates who are like us. This can include factors such as gender and ethnicity, but also social background, personal interests, experiences, and even communication style. Affinity bias plays out across the employee lifecycle – we tend to hire people who have similar work experiences, or have worked in a similar job sector.
Beyond hiring, due to the likeability factor, affinity bias influences those who we spend our time with, which can lead to the informal mentoring and sponsorship of colleagues who are ‘like us’. We tend to open up our networks to similar types of people. This impacts work opportunities. In performance reviews, managers may misconstrue likeability with similar communication styles, which they can view as ‘leadership potential’.
This is a cognitive bias where managers and other colleagues place greater emphasis and weight on positive attributes, traits and behaviours of individuals in their team. This leads to a generalisation of skills and competencies. For instance, if a colleague is skilled at data analysis (and this is a skill valued by the manager), the manager starts to assume they are good at unrelated skills, such as client presentations. The halo effect leads to unfair judgements in overall skills and competencies and leads to in-group members being favoured for stretch assignments and fast-tracking promotions. A key aspect of the halo effect is the downplaying of behaviours which do not align to existing assumptions. This is also supported by confirmation bias.
This is a key bias that affects fair and inclusive decisions in the workplace. It plays into basic group stereotypes and reduces objectivity when assessing talent. Instead of evaluating colleagues based on performance data, managers and colleagues (when using 360 processes) make assumptions that are often based on unrelated factors such as gender, ethnicity, and introversion vs. extroversion. This can impact hiring, but once in a team, it can impact decisions on suitability for new projects, assessment of leadership potential (and therefore sponsorship effort), promotion scores, as well as pay and reward.
Overall, these types of biases lead to unfair distortions of work opportunities, favouritism within teams, and ultimately who ends up progressing through the leadership pipeline.
For more information about promoting fair decision-making, watch our webinar, How to Promote Fairness Across the Employee Lifecycle. Alternatively, our cultural-change strategy programme helps organisations embed effective and data-driven DEI practices into everyday systems and processes for fairer and long-term change.