Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Dr Pete Jones
1. Executive Summary
The proportion of women on boards and in other senior positions in business is indicative of a more systemic problem with female progression at work. Our research and experience leads us to believe there are three reasons for this:
1.
2.
3.
The interaction of these three factors produces a situation where not only are women not afforded the same opportunity, but they are not afforded critical but developmental feedback which enables them to develop the skills sets and experience for the next career move. Four out of five HR managers believe that unconscious bias impacts decisions around who to appoint and promote and the research evidence is strong that 27% of us have gender biases which impact our behaviour at work and this figure is at 38% in Human Resource managers and related roles. Gender bias manifests as unconsciously seeing a woman or man as more/less competent or unconsciously trying to protect them from difficulty or challenge (benevolence). Anxiety about doing or saying the “wrong” thing or being accused of acting in this way, creates a social distance and this social distance damages the informal work relationship and access to crucial informal networks, as well as undermining male performance when managing women.
2. Introduction
I. Dr Pete Jones is a business psychologist specialising in personal and organisational bias, in the measurement and mitigation of unconscious bias at work and in the design of staff selection and performance management systems. He is widely regarded as one of the UK’s leading expert practitioners in unconscious bias, stereotypes and stereotype threats at work. Since 2003 he has worked nationally and internationally with companies seeking to understand and better manage staff biases in the financial, IT, legal, educational, professional services and engineering sectors. He is the author of Implicitly®, believed to be the first commercial test of a person’s personal biases designed to predict the likelihood of discriminatory behaviour at work. Implicitly® is a 3 minute online test of an individual’s unconscious bias, including gender bias.
3. Do the Gender Equality Duty and the Equality Act go far enough in tackling inequalities, such as gender pay gap and job segregation, between men and women in the workplace?
I. Research suggests that despite legislation workplace gender equality in selection, pay, progression and retention remains an aspiration rather than a reality. The legislation provides one motivation for responsible organisations to change but the anxiety created in the individuals required to enact the legislation in the workplace (eg selectors, line managers and other employees) is counterproductive. Anxiety about infringing ever more complex legislation is, at a psychological level, likely to diminish an individual’s capacity to manage difference and their personal biases, making the legislation less effective. Employees are rarely supported to manage the additional burden of new legislation beyond compliance training which in itself is likely to raise rather than reduce anxiety. Anxiety (and other emotions such as frustration, anger or a feeling of threat) absorb the same neuropsychological resources employees use to solve business problems and make decisions but most importantly these resources are also required in bias control. Therefore increased anxiety caused by compliance legislation with sanctions is likely to lead to more biased decisions, and potentially less gender equality. When employees feel unable to cope with the demands placed upon them the research shows that they are likely to withdraw rather than engage with the woman and the legislation.
II. We should note however that a smaller number of individuals do need the ultimate threat of sanctions to get them to try to better manage their biases if they cannot be motivated by making the right moral and business case and if we cannot create the right conditions at work to help them to better manage their biases. Such behavioural controls form part of the way in which we form the reasoned intent to manage our biases. However, continual threat of sanction is not a complete nor a long term solution. Therefore although the legislation needs to remain, it is the way it is currently used pejoratively which needs better management inside companies to minimise anxiety and be the exception rather than the first port of call.
4. What steps should be taken to provide greater transparency on pay and other issues, such as workforce composition?
I. Pay is not an area of our expertise and it would not be appropriate to comment in this area. However, in terms of companies understanding the nature of the problem and the impact of their interventions mandatory reporting on gender composition is helpful and for those still struggling to see the company has a problem such data can sometimes be critical. Mandatory reporting and public benchmarking, such as that planned by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, is a good example of a sector specific action which can motivate competing companies especially in recruiting well informed candidates.
5. How should the gender stereotyping prevalent in particular occupations, for example in engineering, banking, construction, and the beauty industry, be tackled?
I. Our experience is that many companies have a poor understanding of the science behind stereotypes and bias, and how they impact both men and women, especially in sectors where women are under represented. The research shows that we develop and reinforce gender stereotypes from an early age and that by adulthood they are firmly established in all of us. The research also shows us that we create neurological pathways to these stereotypes which are automatically and unconsciously activated and that we do not have to believe a gender stereotype for it to affect our behaviour and decisions. Although we may think we have conscious control of how we see people the evidence from FMRI scans shows that stereotypes are activated and acted upon between three and ten times faster than our eyes can even consciously process the person’s face as male or female. Therefore asking employees to consciously not be biased is an intervention which is usually too late in the regulatory processing.
II. Companies also have a poor understanding of how some well intentioned policies and interventions have ironic effects. For example some positive action programmes may actually trigger negative neurological effects in under represented groups which reduce rather than enhance their performance in selection and in role. Again this is anxiety related. Good role models, without tokenism, are one way to reduce stereotyping but again we see that companies are ill equipped to navigate this route and can lean towards “politically correct” responses without understanding the psychological implications.
III. Companies need to better understand how bias and stereotypes operate at this scientific level when deciding how they will market to, recruit and develop their employees. The situation is not helped by the numerous “diversity” consultants in the market place who are both unqualified and lack even basic scientific, psychological and neurological insight to the implications of the practices they are suggesting. Neurologically, creating anxiety in boards and employees by critical finger wagging or interventions which are confrontational or require the allocation of significant mental resources to use the “right” words is likely to create rather than reduce bias because our bias control resources, our emotional regulatory and problem solving resources are shared.
IV. Bias and the stereotypes which drive bias are a very personal thing. If board members and employees are to tackle them the culture that bias is somehow “abnormal” and should be subject to immediate sanction must be addressed to allow people to identify, talk about and act on their biases. Research suggests that we have a bias blind-spot which means we can see bias in others (Pronin et al, 2006) but not ourselves but three quarters of people want to better manage or change their biases (Abrahms and Houston, 2006). The minority are those not yet motivated to change. The legislative and policy approach of using threats and sanctions inside companies through discipline is only likely to have an effect of this quarter of employees and again research shows that harsh treatment of this group leads to a backlash which is then supported by the people who were wanting to change (Devine, 1989). The lack of support for the large majority who can be helped to change means that we miss an opportunity in favour of “sheep dipping” staff in compliance training and making futile attempts to persuade people to comply and change their attitudes. In a 2010 review of 985 bias reduction interventions by Betsy Paluck and Don Green was unable to identify a robust method of reducing bias although it did identify some promising areas in need of further investigation. Research suggests only about one third of people are motivated solely by the moral argument for change and the rest need a more sophisticated response. Although we all have biases, they do not always impact our behaviour. Our own research shows that around 70% of people have a gender bias which is so weak it does not affect behaviour, and that of the 30% with biases which affect behaviour and it is as likely to be anti-male bias as anti-female bias. It appears to us that diversity consultants and trainers are sometimes reluctant or unable to recognise the individual differences in the way we manifest and manage bias and themselves stereotype men as the sole source of the problem. Our bias testing of Human Resource managers and diversity consultants supports this assertion.
V. One of the impacts we do see in companies, and these were evident in the Women’s Hour programme on November 14th 2012 is that unconscious bias plays a key role in the opportunities being afforded to women, both overtly but also through the subtle social networks which operate inside companies. Work and role allocation are often driven by stereotypes underpinned by our preference for people who look like us. Our subtle social networks lead to some employees being privy to information and opportunity because of their status as members of the “in” group. This makes progression easier for the majority/dominant group members. Managers and leaders need to recognise their own unconscious biases but also how these impact the subtle work relationships and afford advantage to some employees in terms of opportunity without us realising.
6. To what extent have the recommendations in Lord Mervyn Davies’ Report “Women on Board” (published in February 2011) been acted upon?
I. Our experience has been that the Davies report is a catalyst in getting companies to look more seriously at gender representation. It is frequently mentioned as one driver for organisational change although other drivers include the loss of female talent to competitors and the customer perception of the organisation. The moral case for change is rarely mentioned but is the one often used by trainers and consultants.
7. Why are there still so few women in senior positions on boards, and what are the benefits of having a greater number?
I. Appointment to boards is really a red herring in the sense that the problem is more systemic than appointments to boards. We know that gender pay gaps begin to appear within just 12 months of graduation from university. Even in sectors where women are well represented (eg in academia) their representation falls as we move up the university hierarchy. We believe there are three reasons for the under representation on boards:
1.
2.
3.
II. The interaction of these three factors produce a situation where not only are women not afforded the same opportunity, but they are not afforded critical but developmental feedback which enables them to develop the skills sets and experience for the next career move. They quickly develop a narrower experience because the trust which male managers have with other males leads to them allocate them the more challenging and developmental work and giving them more honest feedback when they under perform. The informal work networks of women are impacted by unconscious bias, whereby men and women seek out people who are similar to themselves because they feel more comfortable with this (affinity bias). This impacts the information and ideas to which they are privy and their potential to get support across and up the organisation. Promotion can be as much about a regular but informal discussion in the corridor where a boss develops an affinity and a feel for a person, as delivering on a major project or doing well in the selection interview. The anxiety created in organisations by the scrutiny of (usually) male behaviour towards female employees can lead to men being wary about how they interact with and manage women. This anxiety about doing or saying the wrong thing, or being accused of this, creates a social distance and this social distance damages the informal networks, as well as undermining male performance when managing women.
III. Under represented groups also tend to be moved or encouraged into stereotypical roles, and for women this may be where more communal skills are valued. These roles tend to be more often in support roles rather than the operational roles where they can gain credibility and experience (Livers and Caver).
8. Recommendations for Action
No legislative action is required. Employers and employee should be advised to:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
27 November 2012