Understanding Workplace Bias

“I’m not racist, but…” ✋🏾Stop right there. Whatever follows those four words is about to devalue my humanity, question my competence, or explain why I’m “different from the others.” These four words are the workplace equivalent of “no offense” before saying something deeply offensive. They’re the corporate cousin of “I have Black friends.” They’re the professional version of permission to discriminate. In meetings, it sounds like: > “I’m not racist, but don’t you think Shaniqua is too aggressive for the client-facing role?” > “I’m not racist, but Ranjit’s accent might confuse stakeholders.” > “I’m not racist, but is the team ready for a Latina director?” Here’s what you’re actually saying: “I’m about to be racist, but I want immunity from consequences. That “but” doesn’t erase the bias. It amplifies it. It tells me you KNOW what you’re about to say is problematic, yet you’re choosing to say it anyway. The truth? If you have to preface your statement with “I’m not racist,” you already know you’re in dangerous territory. Your conscience is literally warning you. Listen to it. Real inclusion doesn’t need disclaimers. You don’t hear “I’m not sexist, but I think John would be great for this promotion.” These four words have sabotaged more careers than any performance review. They’ve justified every biased hiring decision, every overlooked promotion, every microaggression we swallow with our morning beverage. Your Black and POC colleagues hear that “but” and know exactly what’s coming: our credentials questioned, our tone policed, our existence debated. We’re not your bias translators. We’re not your racism insurance policy and we’re definitely not here to absolve you of the discrimination you’re about to commit. Those four words are a confession, not a shield. Every “but” after “I’m not racist” has cost someone a promotion. A job. A chance. Your comfort with casual bias is our career death by a thousand cuts. So here’s the deal: If you need that disclaimer, you don’t need to speak. If you can’t make your point without the racist prefix, you don’t have a point worth making. That discomfort creeping up your spine when you’re about to say those words? That’s not political correctness. That’s your conscience screaming. Listen to it before it costs you talent you can’t afford to lose. AA🌸 We bloom together or we wilt alone™️🌱 ——————————————————————— (Substack link in the comments 👀) ♻️ & follow me as I discuss cultural blooming, workplace inclusion, leadership, social equity & justice.

🗣️ "I want to hire someone I can have a beer with."   🗣️ "We’re going to pass because he isn’t a ‘cultural fit.'"   🗣️ “I could see my wife and I having dinners with them on the weekends.”   ⬆️ Those are actual statements I’ve heard throughout my recruiting career from hiring managers and clients.   🍺 These preferences became apparent when I was once a candidate. An interviewer made the "beer" comment to me. I didn’t get the job —evidently, I wasn't an ideal drinking companion.  😏   🚫 Hiring for “cultural fit” can be problematic. Oftentimes it results in a lack of diversity. When individuals with similar mindsets select candidates who reflect their own perspectives and backgrounds, the organization is less likely to be a diverse and inclusive work environment. 🚫 Prioritizing "culture fit" can contribute to bias, especially unconscious bias, fostering groupthink and potentially creating a toxic work environment. This can lead to feelings of alienation, particularly among those from underrepresented backgrounds.   💡Instead of seeking people you'd casually socialize with, consider hiring someone who you can learn from and whose background might differ from yours. ✅ Hire someone who enhances the diversity of the team, who is a "cultural add."   💡"Cultural add" can refer to those who bring unique experiences, perspectives, and ideas to the workplace. 🔥 HOT TIP: Bringing in a "cultural add" or an individual who brings diversity to your team is a positive move. Yet, true diversity isn't achieved with just one person. It should be an ongoing commitment, and NOT a fleeting trend. Embrace inclusivity as a continuous effort rather than a one-time action! 💡#BeIntentional #jobseekers #recruiterlife #diversityandinclusion

We tend to relate to women in the workplace based on how they make the people around them feel, rather than the work that they're doing. It feels like women have to jump through flaming hoops to make it to the top of the corporate ladder-but even when they're outperforming their coworkers, female employees still bear the brunt of criticism. About 76% of top-performing working women received negative feedback from their bosses compared to just 2% of high-achieving men, according to a new report from management software company Textio, which analyzed performance reviews for more than 23,000 workers across over 250 organizations. Kieran Snyder, cofounder and data analyst for Textio, tells Fortune this has largely to do with managers' unconscious bias— women are judged more critically, and on a more personal level than men. "It's a pattern that is not often checked," she says. Article link in comments below.

Microaggressions are anything but micro. I was a DEI leader in an organization and had just started my role. I was on a listening tour and I met another leader who ran another function. 👱♀️”Jaya (pronounced Jay-Yah), it's nice to meet you." 👩🏾 “It's nice to meet you as well! It's actually pronounced Jaya (pronounced Jai-Yuh) - no worries, that happens all the time." 👱♀️”OK” *smiles at me like I’m a total weirdo for correcting her* The next six months, she proceeded to pronounce my name incorrectly. I corrected her every time. Colleagues corrected her constantly or pronounced my name correctly in front of her. She didn’t stop until her boss called her in and explicitly corrected her. During that time, she also made it prohibitively difficult to collaborate with one another: - Hoarded information - Only worked with people similar to her - Intentionally excluded me from meetings The lesson learned from this? Microaggressions are usually on the surface and are intended to make you feel less than on the individual level. Below that surface level aggression are usually more exclusionary behaviors that create a psychologically unsafe environment for underrepresented talent. If you see a colleague doing this, be an upstander. ✔️Interrupt that microaggression. ✔️Call them in. ✔️Call them out, if it’s safe for you. ❌ Just don’t be a bystander. PS: Jaya means Victory in Hindi. 💪🏽

Your job description is 3 pages long AND you require a custom cover letter? Congratulations, you've eliminated half your talent pool before they even apply! I often talk about how recruitment is uninclusive by design, but vague statements don't help anyone fix the problem. Let's get specific about three common practices that are sabotaging your talent attraction, employer branding, and DEI efforts: 🟣 The lengthy, jargon-filled novel you call a job description is actively excluding neurodiverse candidates, people from different cultural backgrounds, and career-changers who don't speak your "industry language." They're closing the tab before they even finish reading! 🟣 "Please submit a customized cover letter explaining why you're perfect for this role." Translation: "We only want candidates with abundant free time and no other responsibilities." Just like that, you've eliminated job-seekers juggling multiple applications, caregivers with limited time, and many disabled candidates. 🟣 The never-changing phone screen: Sure, they're convenient for YOU, but what about candidates who read lips, need ASL interpretation, read captions, process information better visually, or simply perform better with some visual context? The phone screen is the ultimate "this is how we've always done it" trap. These practices aren't random examples. They're standard at most companies and recruitment teams! We follow these steps without questioning how they create unnecessary barriers and perpetuate the very inequities we claim to be fighting. What "standard" recruitment practices is your company clinging to that might be harming your inclusion and equity efforts? 👋🏻 I make hiring systems work for everyone (candidates and recruiters!). DM me to learn more.

They smile. They stay “professional.” They support diversity on the surface. But their silence, their patterns, and their behavior tell another story. These are the silent supremacists of the workplace. Here’s what I’ve seen as an employment lawyer: 🔸 They interrupt you 🔸 Talk over you 🔸 Question your qualifications 🔸 Erase your contributions 🔸 Exclude you from conversations Many call it implicit bias or microaggressions. Let’s call it what it really is: Supremacist behavior disguised as ignorance or politeness. They don’t use slurs. They don’t raise their voices. They don’t need to. Because what they do is subtle, strategic, and sustained. And when they’re confronted, the response is always the same: “I didn’t mean it.” “I didn’t know.” “I was just trying to help.” "It was just a joke." But ignorance is not innocence. It’s often a mask for control. A tool to maintain systems of privilege. If you’ve experienced this based on your: • Race • Religion • Accent • Gender or Gender Identity • Sexual Orientation • Disability • Age • National Origin … you are not imagining it. As someone who’s worked on countless discrimination and hostile work environment cases, here’s my legal tip: ✉️ Do not complain verbally. Send an email to HR or management documenting what happened. Be specific: name the conduct and the type of unlawful discrimination (e.g., race-based, gender-based, etc.). Keep a copy. Always. Why? Because a verbal complaint gives your employer an opportunity to deny it—and get rid of you quietly. Documentation protects you. Retaliation is real. Your paper trail is your shield. Let’s stop calling them “micro-aggressions” when the impact is massive. #workplaceculture #dei #diversity #inclusion #microaggressions #implicitbias #diversityandinclusion #employmentlawyer #nylawyer #njlawyer #lawyer

Women receive more negative feedback than their male counterparts and it's more common for the feedback to be based on social presentation rather than performance....which reeks of gender bias! Unfortunately, I have found this is quite common with my coaching clients as it presents a big challenge for women's advancement. "It feels like women have to jump through flaming hoops to make it to the top of the corporate ladder—but even when they’re outperforming their coworkers, female employees still bear the brunt of criticism. About 76% of top-performing working women received negative feedback from their bosses compared to just 2% of high-achieving men, according to a new report from management software company Textio, which analyzed performance reviews for more than 23,000 workers across over 250 organizations. Rather than being given positive or even constructive feedback, top female staffers often experience unfavorable assessments, and they’re more likely to be judged on aspects of their social presentation. About 88% of these outstanding women workers receive feedback on their personalities, while the same is true for only 12% of their male counterparts, according to the report." #genderbias #womenintheworkplace #negativefeedback #careeradvancement https://lnkd.in/g-B3tHWe

Alright, folks, buckle up because it's time to talk about something many of us love to tiptoe around—religious bias and microaggressions in the workplace. Now, before your inner prosecutor dismisses this or YOU, let's get one thing straight: religious bias is as real as the unpaid overtime your boss "kindly" requests. 🙄 Picture this: You're at a team meeting, and Janet from accounting mentions she's fasting for Ramadan. What happens next? A round of awkward silence, a few eye-rolls, and maybe someone mutters something about how they "could never skip lunch." Harmless? Not at all. These microaggressions are as damaging as an open fire in a paper factory. Religious microaggressions—those subtle, often unintentional, comments or actions—chip away at an individual's dignity and sense of belonging. And guess what? They're accepted and tolerated because they’re not overt. But let’s not get it twisted; subtle does not mean harmless. So, what does religious bias look like? I'm glad you asked! 😂 1. Casual Dismissal: You casually mention that you can't attend the team-building retreat because it's your Sabbath. The response? "Oh, can't you skip it just this once?" Translation: "Your religious practices are inconvenient for us." 2. Stereotyping: Someone makes a "harmless joke" about Jewish people being good with money or Muslims being aggressive. Spoiler alert: There's nothing harmless about perpetuating stereotypes. 3. Exclusion: Important meetings or events are scheduled without considering major religious holidays, effectively sidelining those who observe them. Translation: "We value diversity—just not yours." I was the senior HR and DEI executive at a previous employer, where one of my colleagues converted to Islam and needed a place to pray. Within the Muslim faith, it is customary to pray five times a day. He was visibly shaking. I thanked him for being his own advocate and told him that we'd do everything we could to make sure that he could exercise his religious practices. I met with his senior leader and supervisor, informing them that he would need to be excused 2-3 times for 5-10min daily. THEN, my team and I went upstairs and converted an old office into a prayer and meditation room for anyone who needed it, regardless of their religious beliefs So, what's the takeaway? Listen, learn, and, most importantly, act. I'll never forget seeing him in that room every day praying, witnessing his official name change, and seeing him celebrated by his colleagues. #ReligiousBias #Microaggressions #WorkplaceCulture #InclusionRevolution #DisruptTheNorm #CertifiedHRPros

It's performance review season ✨ and a great time to remind leaders to check themselves to ensure that gender bias is not part of the process. I was disheartened, but not all that surprised, to read that recent studies have uncovered significant gender biases in how performance is evaluated: 1️⃣ Women's achievements are often attributed to luck or dedication, not skill or ability. 2️⃣ Women receive vaguer, less constructive feedback -- this inhibits their ability to learn what they need to do to grow and advance. 3️⃣ Men's reviews tend to be longer and focus on technical skills, while women's are shorter and emphasize communication. A 2022 Textio study (link in the comments) found that 100% of women, non-binary, and gender fluid individuals reported receiving personality-focused feedback instead of work-substance evaluations. Women were twice as likely to be described as “collaborative” and “nice,” seven times more likely to be identified as “opinionated,” and 11 times more likely to be labeled as “abrasive.” In comparison, men received feedback describing them in words like “confident” and “ambitious.” Doing a quick language check on your review to scan for personality trait feedback vs. work-substance feedback is an easy place to start. #WorkplaceEquity #GenderBias #PerformanceReviews #DiversityAndInclusion

A few conversations lately have raised concerns around recruiting practices that effectively exclude candidates from outside of the US. As automation has entered recruitment, it’s common for resumes and applications to be run through an initial tool that selects the applicants for interviews based on their fulfillment of specific criteria, like an automated checklist. The trouble is, some of the criteria can be skewed towards US applicants and make it virtually impossible for foreign applicants to get an interview or meet with someone at the company. Examples: 🎓 A GPA requirement excludes anyone who didn’t graduate from a US college, even if they graduated top of their class from a college elsewhere. 🏆 A requirement for courses of study that are expressed in a unique way in the US, such as a JD, excludes people who may have obtained that course of study but from a different region. Obviously where the candidate has to be a US-qualified and barred lawyer, these criteria make sense. When the job is in legal tech, though, and the vendor is looking for a customer success manager who has legal experience, or a salesperson with a certain base level GPA, this type of routine first-pass checklist is likely reducing your pool of candidates unnecessarily. Consequences: 😈 Your recruitment may be biased and discriminatory, which is inherently problematic. 😢 You may be missing out on outstanding candidates whose value would be obvious, if they had the opportunity to meet with and speak to an officer of the company. Some of the people I've spoken to about this are overseas but applying to US companies (sometimes for roles in the US, other times not). Others live in the United States but still can't get an interview because of their educational and cultural background. My concern is this type of hidden bias in recruitment tactics will get worse as #AI is increasingly injected into the hiring process, unless the evaluation criteria are carefully reviewed and managed for diversity and cultural difference. Something we all need to watch for. #legaltech #legal #legalrecruitment #law