Managing Workplace Bias

🥊 “Jingjin, have you ever considered that women are just inferior to men?” That was her opening line. The lady who challenged me was not a traditionalist in pearls. She was one of the top investment bankers of her time, closed billion-dollar deals, led global teams, the kind of woman whose voice dropped ten degrees when money was on the line. And she meant it. “Back in my day, if I had to hire, I’d always go for the man. No pregnancy leave. No PMS. No emotional volatility. Just less… liability.” And she doesn’t believe in what I do. Helping women lead from a place of wholeness. Because to her, wholeness is a luxury. Winning requires neutrality. And neutrality means: be less female and suck it up! I’ve heard versions of this many times, and too often, from high-performing women who "made it" by suppressing. But facts are: 🧠 There are no consistent brain differences between men and women that explain men’s “logic” or women’s “emotions.” 💥 Hormones impact everyone. Men’s testosterone drops when they nurture. Women’s cortisol rises in toxic workplaces, not because they’re weak, but because they’re sane. 📉 What we call “meritocracy” is often a reward system for those who can perform like they have no body, no children, no cycles. None of those are biologically male traits. They’re artifacts of a system built around male lives. So, if you're a woman who's bought into this logic, here are some counter-strategies: 🛠 1. Study Systems Like You Studied Deals Dissect the incentives, norms, and bias loops of your workplace the same way you’d break down a P&L. Don’t internalize what’s structural. 🧭 2. Redefine Strategic Strengths Stop mirroring alpha aggression to prove you belong. Deep listening, self-regulation, and nuance reading, these are leadership assets, not soft skills. Use them ruthlessly. 💬 3. Name It, Don’t Numb It If your hormones impact you one day a month, say so, but also say what it doesn’t mean: It doesn’t cancel out 29 days of clarity, strategy, and execution. 🪩 4. Build Your Own Meritocracy Start investing in spaces, networks, and cultures where your wholeness isn’t penalized. If none exist, build them. 🧱 5. Deconstruct Before You Self-Doubt When you catch yourself thinking “maybe I’m not built for this,” pause. Ask: Whose rules am I trying to win by? Who benefits when I question myself? This post isn’t about defending women. We don’t need defending. It’s about calling out the internalised metrics we still use to measure ourselves. 👊 And choosing to rewrite them. What’s the most 'rational' reason you’ve heard for why women are a liability?

There is a strong belief that women are more generous, and care more about equality, than men. Also, many people believe that women tend to be underconfident. None of these beliefs are true, two recent papers find. One paper —nicely titled "Men are from Mars, and Women Too"— focuses on self-confidence. The paper starts by surveying hundreds of experts, finding that 77% of them think that women are underconfident whereas men are overconfident. Next they do a comprehensive survey of all experimental tests of self-confidence that have been published in the past twenty years. The key result: 72% of all studies find that *both* women and men are overconfident. Only 18% of published studies support the commonly held view. The other paper considers social preferences. "Using data from 15 studies and 8,979 individuals" the paper finds "that women are believed to be more generous and more equality-oriented than men. [...] Yet this believed gender gap is largely inaccurate." The authors "find little to no evidence for gender differences in behavior or attitudes relating to social preferences". Hence, women and men are much more similar than commonly thought. Sure, people differ in their social preferences and self-confidence, and actually differences can be quite substantially. But gender is not predictive of such differences. Why is this important to know? Why is it important to correct these misperceptions about women and men? One reason is that misperceptions may affect selection and sorting in the labor market, in politics, and in society at large, resulting in a misallocation of talents and traits. For instance, if people think that to be a good leader one needs to have sufficient self-confidence, they may be biased against women, as they mistakenly believe that women tend to be underconfident. Likewise, people may be biased against men when selecting for positions that require generosity and care, mistakenly thinking that these qualities are mainly or only present among women. Read the full papers here (all open access!): Oriana Bandiera, Nidhi Parekh, Barbara Petrongolo, and Michelle Rao (2022), Men are from Mars, and Women Too: A Bayesian Meta-analysis of Overconfidence Experiments, Economica: https://lnkd.in/e6_dMRyG Christine Exley, Oliver Hauser, Molly Moore, and John-Henry Pezzuto (2024), Believed Gender Differences in Social Preferences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming: https://lnkd.in/ecZCS2er And see also: Esther-Mirjam Sent and Irene van Staveren (2019), A Feminist Review of Behavioral Economic Research on Gender Differences, Feminist Economics: https://lnkd.in/ejJ8S6iX

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.

We often talk about the “motherhood penalty”—the hit to women’s earnings after having children. But there’s another gap we need to address: the #menopause penalty. It’s a financial setback many women face during one of the most transformational (and inevitable) phases of life. New research shows women with severe or noticeable menopause symptoms experience a 4.3% drop in pay within four years of diagnosis—and that grows to 10% by year four. That’s incredibly significant. Think about what that means: fatigue, migraines, and hot flashes are quietly costing women their paychecks. And because very few workplaces broach the topic, many women suffer in silence. Menopause usually begins between ages 45 and 55, lasts around seven years, and affects nearly 20% of the workforce at any given time. That makes women in midlife the fastest-growing demographic in today’s workforce. And that’s not a weakness—it’s a superpower. Women over 50 are hitting their stride—bringing decades of experience, leadership, and clarity. They’re proof that success doesn’t have to slow down with age—it can evolve in big ways. I’ve done some of my best growing, leading, and learning in this phase—with menopause symptoms. I manage them with hormones, which come with their own side effects (dry mouth… not ideal when you’re speaking on stages!). But I choose to talk about it, because normalizing this conversation makes it easier for all of us. So what can we do? Awareness is everything. We need workplaces to better support women with access to care, policies that acknowledge menopause, and education that empowers everyone to understand what it really means. Because when women are supported, they stay in the workforce—and thrive. And when we talk about menopause as more than just a health issue, but as a workplace issue, we shift the system. Progress starts with a conversation. Let’s have it.

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.

I was the only woman in the room so through some unspoken rule — I was supposed to plan the farewell party? A University of California survey of 3,000 employees found that women were 29% more likely than white men to report doing more office “housework” than their colleagues. Planning team lunches, and parties, taking notes, cleaning up the table after a meeting, scheduling calls — and other such “thankless” tasks often fall into women’s laps. Each of these is significantly hurting gender equality. Harvard Business Review labels these tasks as 'low-promotability tasks' — that are helpful to the organization but the person performing them isn’t perceived as making an impact. The way work is allocated in organizations needs to change. Not only do we need to re-address the perceived value attached to these tasks, but we also need to ensure that women aren’t the only ones doing office housework. Whenever it happened to me, I didn't have the courage to push back. I still wish I had. It's an unappreciated burden that a lot of women carry but we’re afraid of pushing back because we want to be seen as team players. It's time leaders make sure all work is shared equally, including “Dave’s” goodbye lunch. The trend of non-strategic work being piled up on women's desks needs to stop. We don't need logistical tasks, give us career-making roles and responsibilities. We'll no longer accept being sidelined. #bias #genderequality #womenintech #womenleaders #career #leadership

In our world today, almost everything is designed with men as the default. From the buildings we live in to the policies that govern us, the male perspective is too often the only one considered. This pervasive bias extends even to critical areas like medicine and safety, where the consequences can be life-threatening for women. Take, for instance, the development of drugs. Even when creating treatments specifically for women's health issues, researchers frequently test these drugs on male subjects—both animals and humans. This approach fails to account for the physiological differences between men and women, leading to medications that may be less effective, or even harmful, for women. The repercussions of this oversight are not just about discomfort or inconvenience; they can have serious, even deadly, consequences. But it doesn't stop there. Consider the car you drive. Most crash test dummies used in safety testing are modeled after the "average" male body. As a result, women are 47% more likely to suffer serious injury in a car crash than men. The seats, seatbelts, and airbags are designed to protect a male body, leaving women at a disproportionate risk of harm. This is a systemic issue that permeates nearly every aspect of our lives. The world we live in has been engineered with one gender in mind, leaving the other to navigate a landscape that often doesn't account for their needs. It's not just about fairness, it's about safety, health, and ultimately, survival. It's time for a radical shift in how we design our world. We must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and start considering the diverse needs of all people. This means demanding that medical research includes both men and women, that safety standards account for different body types, and that every aspect of our world, from public spaces to the products we use, reflects the reality that women are not an afterthought. Women's lives, health, and well-being should never be compromised simply because the systems in place fail to consider them. It's time to build a world that is truly inclusive, where everyone’s safety and health are prioritized, not just those of half the population. Creator: @annaakana Shot by @johnleestills Grip @meliseeta Sound @mobleywillwork Edited by @benchinapen La Gouvernance au Féminin - Women in Governance

Another rough one — also in this month's American Economic Review. This long awaited paper — by Pascaline Dupas, Amy Handlan, Alicia Modestino, Muriel Niederle, Mateo Sere, Haoyu Sheng, Justin Wolfers, and the Seminar Dynamics Collective — explores how men and women are treated in economics seminars. Economics seminars are important for our field. They are one of the main ways we circulate our research and develop reputations among colleagues (some are also "job talks," in which audience members are deciding whether they want to hire us as colleagues). The researchers coded up thousands of seminars, both in-person and virtual, and explored gender differences in how male and female speakers were treated (controlling for various features of the seminar, including talk topic and attendance). Women were interrupted 10 to 20 percent more often then men. While interruptions could be positive (e.g., helpful suggestions) or negative (e.g., critical comments), the evidence points to women getting treated worse than men.   First, women receive nearly 50% more interruptions that are distinctively "negative in tenor (e.g., patronizing or hostile)." Second, women are much more likely to receive mid-sentence interruptions: where audience members talk over the seminar speaker (a potential sign of disrespect). These additional mid-sentence interruptions received by women come exclusively from men (see Figure 4 from the paper). There is a potential silver lining. Female seminar speakers draw more attendees on average, including more women. As the authors note, this could generate a positive "role model effect." (Unfortunately, it also exposes the next generation of researchers to our relatively poor treatment of female speakers.) These disappointing results are probably not shocking to those of us who regularly attend economics seminars. Many of us had the feeling that female economists were being treated worse. But documenting it is still incredibly important. We need to collect data on social dynamics so we can address them head on. And while academia may be a bit of an unusual industry, I suspect many of these same patterns are playing out in board rooms and online meetings across the entire labor market. #Gender #Economics #Seminars cc: Lise Vesterlund, Corinne Low, Christine Exley, Xiaoyue Shan, Eve Rodsky, American Economic Association ps: Kudos to the AER editors (Chinhui Juhn, Stefano DellaVigna, and Erzo Luttmer) for publishing two important papers on gender in the same issue.

I changed my name to Daniela for 4 days. Over the past week, women on LinkedIn ran an experiment: They switched their profile gender to "male" - and their reach exploded. Sometimes by hundreds of percent. So I did the opposite. I changed my backend gender, my display name, and my pronouns. Nothing else. The result? 📉 Day 1: reach down –26% 📉 Day 2: down another –48% 📈 Day 3: back up +38% 📉 Day 4: down –37% This wasn't a scientific study. But it's one more data point in a pattern women and marginalized identities have been naming for years. Bias rarely announces itself. There's no line of code saying "IF woman > THEN deprioritize." It hides in the architecture. In the training data. In the assumptions about who gets amplified - and who gets silenced. Now think about this: If this is how the platform handles posts, what happens when hiring systems filter people? ____ A few things worth naming: 1) This trend took off during Trans Visibility Week - a week meant to center trans and non-binary voices. Instead, the conversation shifted to cis people testing gender as a variable. Thank you daniela (dani) herrera for naming that. 2) Bias isn't just gendered, it's intersectional. As Bo Young Lee 이보영 and Cass Cooper, MHR remind us, gender, race, disability, age - they all compound. 3) If this post grows legs, spread some love to those who inspired it: Grateful to Lucy Ferguson and Megan Cornish, LICSW Cornish for the experiment, Break the Silence Collective for amplifying it, and to Cindy Gallop, who's been a relentless advocate for as long as I can remember. If AI is a mirror, it’s reflecting something we need to address.