Recognizing and Managing Implicit Bias

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

One in five British men have no problem using sexist language. Only 14% feel comfortable calling it out when they hear it. Yet over 50% agree that sexist language can be hurtful. The math doesn't add up, does it? CPB London's "Double Standards" campaign exposes something we all know but rarely discuss: the casual sexism hiding in everyday language. The campaign's effectiveness is its simplicity: it shows the stark visual contrast between how we describe the same behavior in men versus women. Their research, conducted by Locaria, revealed the uncomfortable truth about why men use sexist language: → To "be funny" → To show camaraderie and bond with others → To fit in with group dynamics This isn't just about hurt feelings. Language shapes reality. When we casually use words that diminish women, we're not just being "harmlessly" inappropriate. We're reinforcing the very barriers that keep women from reaching their potential. Every "bossy" instead of "decisive." Every "emotional" instead of "passionate." Every piece of casual sexist banter that gets laughed off. It adds up to create environments where women have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously. This isn't just an English-speaking problem. Locaria confirmed that similar double standards exist across French, Arabic, German, Mandarin, Japanese, Italian, and Spanish. This is global. Systemic. Embedded in how we communicate across cultures. Their "Pledge for Positivity" asks people to: → Watch out for hidden sexism in everyday language → Create safe spaces for discussion without finger-pointing → Research the sexist phrases people around them use most → Call out sexist language with sensitivity → Recognize that "harmless banter" isn't harmless What I love about this approach: it's not about shame or blame. It's about awareness and action. Because most sexist language is used unconsciously. People genuinely don't realise the impact of their words. But once you see it, you can't unsee it. The question becomes: what are you going to do about it? Have you noticed double standards in the language used around you? What examples stand out? ♻️ Found this helpful? Repost to share with your network. ⚡ Want more content like this? Hit follow Maya Moufarek.

The culture war clash over diversity, equity, and inclusion will continue forever unless we can bring it from 10,000 ft in the air back down to earth. "Commitment to an inclusive culture for all?" "Marxist philosophy?" "Policies for achieving belonging?" "Wokeism?" Buzzwords against buzzwords against buzzwords, with no one the wiser as to what's actually being discussed. Rachel needs a lactation room, so we're converting a meeting room into one. Steven's going to be a dad and wants to spend time with his newborn kid, so we're expanding "maternal leave benefits" into "parental leave benefits." Andrew's a customer who has shared feedback about our product being inaccessible, so we're having him talk to the product team. Bianca helped us realize that our company's meetings are chaotic and don't make space for everyone's voice, so we're setting meeting norms. Sam worked on debiasing the hiring process at a previous role and we could benefit from that, so we're looking at standardizing our own process. Arjun shared helpful feedback about the difficulty managers face in managing their distributed teams, so we're building out more resources and structure. There is only one "ideology" present in DEI work done right, and it's shared by pretty much every pluralistic democratic society in our world: that everyone deserves dignity, respect, and opportunity regardless of the beliefs, values, needs, circumstances, experiences and perspectives we hold. That's it. The remaining 99.9% of the work is operational. How do we remove barriers to opportunity and fairness in the workplace? How do we meet people's many needs so we can bring out their potential? How do we create an environment where different people can come together and build something bigger than themselves? A great deal of that operational work ought to be done better. Diversity, equity, and inclusion work has a lot of room for improvement, and it'll take everyone's feedback and active involvement — yes, even from skeptics — to ensure that work succeeds. But to get there, we have to get our heads out of the clouds and bring the conversation back down to earth. Flowery abstractions, even if they make us feel righteous and good, will not save us. It's the mundane pragmaticism of speaking in real terms, with real people, to solve real problems, that will break through the misinformation and polarization that keeps us stuck in the status quo.

Your competence at work is judged in seconds. Even when you over-deliver, you can be underestimated. Every day, false assumptions about you are made: — Polite = Weak — Older = Not agile — A foreign accent = Less capable — Introverted =  Not a strong leader — Woman =  Softer voice, less authority It's not just unfair. It's exhausting. So the question is: How do you beat biases without changing who you are? Here’s what I recommend: 𝟭. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 → Speak about impact, not effort. → Articulate your value proposition. →“Here’s the problems I solve. Here's how. Here’s the result."  If no one knows what you bring to the table, they won’t invite you to it. 𝟮. 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 Silent excellence is wasted potential. → Speak up when it feels risky. → Build real not just strategic relationships. → Share insights where people are paying attention. You don’t need to be loud. You need to be seen. 𝟯. 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 The traits that trigger assumptions? Those are your edge. → Introverted? That’s deep listening. → Accent? That’s global perspective. Don’t flatten yourself to fit. Distinguish yourself to lead. 𝟰. 𝗢𝘄𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 → Say “I recommend” not "I think.” → Hold eye contact. Take up space. → Act like your presence belongs (even when others haven’t caught up.) Confidence isn’t volume. It’s grounding. Bias is everywhere. But perception can be changed. Don't let other people's false assumptions define you. Do you agree? ➕ Follow Deena Priest for strategic career insights. 📌Join my newsletter to build a career grounded in progress, peace and pay.

🗣️“Amy, You need to take up more space, stop deferring to others." Last year, this feedback burned into Amy’s memory. She’d walked out of her 2024 performance review, 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 2025. Same conference room. Same 2 VPs across the table. 🔇“"Some stakeholders have found your style... a bit much." 😑 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.    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. That's exactly what our signature program ⭐"𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗛𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿" ⭐ do, it give you the scripts, strategies, and system to stop performing for a moving target and start positioning yourself on your own terms. Waitlist is closed. Cohort starts Jan 26th. If you're tired of being told to be "more" and "less" in the same breath, DM me before we open to the public.

I am (not) your mother, Luke.   Or your sister. Or girlfriend. Or your wife.   I am your boss.   And yet, as a female leader, I often found that my team members unconsciously placed me in a caregiving role. Which triggered in me a need to nurture them, which undermined my authority, and was no good for any of us.   I’m not alone in this. Many of the women leaders I work with in my role as mentor say the same thing. That when they have to make tough decisions, they get reactions that their male equivalents simply don’t have to face.   👩👦 The ‘mother’ role. You’re expected to be nurturing, to provide emotional support and protection. And any criticism may be taken as harsh, like being told off by mummy. 👩 The ‘sister’ role: You’re expected to be friendly, collaborative and fun. Assertiveness can be misread as aggression. 👰♀️ The ‘girlfriend / wife’ role: You’re expected to take on emotional labour, be a supportive ear, or even hand conflict in a soothing manner. These roles are a trap for women in business, where they feel that they have to balance warmth with authority, competence with compassion. And it’s exhausting!   The struggle is real ❌ Women may struggle to progress if they don’t conform to caregiving expectations ❌ Feedback from women leaders is more likely to be taken personally, rather than as professional guidance ❌ Women leaders may try to do it all, fulfilling both emotional and professional expectations – leading to burnout   To avoid this trap, women often try to take on what they perceive as a male archetype – becoming cold and harsh. But that’s not the best way forward. The answer is authenticity. How to be just you ✅ Educate your team and yourself about these biases – knowing about them is the first step to avoiding them ✅ Set boundaries – be clear about professional expectations versus personal involvement ✅ Communicate honestly – don’t feel you have to soften your message, be direct and clear ✅ Support other women – advocate for structures that allow women to lead without having to take on caregiving expectations. It’s time women stopped trying to be everything to everyone and focused on being just the very best version of themselves.   What about you? Are you a female leader who finds herself being put in these boxes? Are you a man working with women who expects them to be the caregivers? Let me know! ⬇️

My number one piece of advice to women starting out in academia: don’t read your teaching evaluations. Hear me out. If your scores are high, the comments are just noise. Your brain—like everyone else’s—is wired to dwell on the negative. Negative comments will stick with you, even if they are irrelevant. You’ll remember them, you’ll react to them, and you’ll waste time and energy trying to fix things that don’t need fixing. If your scores are low, the default advice is to read the comments. My advice: don’t. Especially not if you’re a woman. At this point, there is a robust evidence base showing that student evaluations are a shockingly gender-biased measure of teaching performance. Not only are women rated lower than men for equivalent teaching, but the comments themselves reflect gender stereotypes. We know how gender stereotypes work: You’re either warm and likeable (but not seen as competent), or competent (but too “harsh” or “intimidating”). The written comments on your evaluations will likely reflect those stereotypes. Comments from the first category will focus on your lack of experience, question your fit or your expertise. Comments from the second category will describe you in ways that would be fine—admired, even—if you were a man: too confident, too critical, thinks she’s an expert. And let’s not forget the comments on your appearance and style. Often, junior women are advised to ask a senior colleague to read the comments and summarize the themes. In my opinion, all that does is concentrate the gender bias through a filter. There is a better way: ask a senior woman to observe your teaching. She’ll see you in action, in flow. She’ll see the classroom dynamics. And she’ll give you advice on how to navigate the gendered expectations without compromising your integrity or well-being. When my colleagues and I started doing this, we learned strategies we’d never have discovered through student feedback. Things like: 🎓 They don’t like you, so give them less of you. Use cases, exercises, student-led debriefs. 🎓They respect you, but you need to humanize yourself. Tell stories. Have fun with them. 🎓There’s a power struggle - step into it. Challenge them. Unsettle their assumptions. None of that advice would show up in written comments, but it made us better teachers. 👉 Does this resonate with your experience? I’d love to hear what’s worked for you—or what you wish you’d known earlier.

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?

What happens when a Black woman switches her gender on LinkedIn to “male”? …apparently not the same thing that happens to white women. ✨ Over the past week, I’ve watched post after post from white women saying their visibility skyrocketed the moment they changed their profile gender from woman → man. More impressions. More likes. More reach. 📈 So I tried the same thing. And my visibility dropped. 👀 Here’s why that result matters: these experiments are being treated as if they’re only about gender; in reality they reveal something deeper about race + gender + algorithmic legitimacy. 🔍 A white woman toggling her gender is basically conducting a test inside a system where her racial credibility stays constant. She changes one variable. The algorithm keeps the rest of her privilege intact. 💡 When a Black woman does the same test? I’m not stepping into “white male privilege”; I’m stepping into a category that platforms and society have historically coded as less trustworthy, less safe, or less “professional.” Black + male is not treated the same as white + male. Not culturally. Not algorithmically. 🧩 So while white women are proving that gender bias exists (which is true), they’re doing it without naming the racial insulation that makes their results possible. Meanwhile, Black women and women of color are reminded—again—that we can’t separate gender from race because the world doesn’t separate them for us. 🗣️ This isn’t about placing blame; it’s about widening the conversation so the conclusions match the complexity. 🌍 If we’re going to talk about bias, visibility, and influence online, we cannot pretend we all start from the same default settings. 🔥 I’m curious: Have you run your own experiment with identity signals on this platform? What changed… and what didn’t? 👇🏾

I speak with a lot of people about gender equality. Sometimes people ask if “things are better for …. women who’ve made it to the top, the next-generation women who grew up thinking they could be anything, women with elite credentials, etc." Unfortunately, research mostly shows that the answer is “no”--gender inequality is at play at every level of organizational life, from early career to the C-suite. For example, I listened to a very interesting webinar hosted by Russell Reynolds Associates about their research study: Time to Tell a Different Story. They used media as a proxy for public sentiments about CEOs and tracked 20,000 news articles, covering almost 750 CEOs across FTSE 100, S&P 500, and Euronext 100 companies. What they discovered is that, even at the CEO level, patterns of language describing and telling the story of women differs from those for men. Here is one pattern from their study: The media tend to use very different adjectives to describe women CEOs versus their male equivalents. Based on the proportion of mentions across media, men were twice as likely to be described as ‘innovators,’ whereas women were 72% more likely to be described as ‘inspirational.’   Research at the Stanford VMware Women's Leadership Innovation Lab also showed gendered, and often disadvantaging, language patterns in performance reviews. (https://lnkd.in/gG2zy8vX) So, it’s not just the media. These patterns reflect societal norms and can lead to disparate outcomes for strong performing women. What can you do? First, you can catch gendered language patterns. Here are a few: 1️⃣ Using more people-oriented skills for women and more task-oriented for men (see RRA research) 2️⃣ Using more doubt-casting language, such as “seems to” or “managed to”. For example, instead of saying “They produced outstanding results” using “They seemed to produce outstanding results. (Do a doubt-check. See this post I wrote: https://lnkd.in/g_655tc2) 3️⃣ Using or not using stand-out language. Notice if your industry or role has some terms that indicate stand-out impact. Then notice if you only use those words to describe certain kinds of people. 💡 🌟 Once you catch these patterns, then you can find ways to remove doubt, equally use task-oriented and people-oriented descriptors and try stand-out language for all top performers. While language often reflects societal norms and stereotypes, a strategic use of language can help set the conditions for folks to succeed. https://lnkd.in/gEJJRsXS #words #language #performancemanagement #media