Bias Interrupters

Tools for Managers

Incremental steps that improve diversity in your organization can yield large gains. Gender diverse workgroups have better collective intelligence, which improves performance by the group and its members, leading to better financial performance. Racially diverse workgroups consider a broader range of alternatives, make better decisions, and are better at solving problems. Bias, if unchecked, affects many different groups: modest or introverted men, members of the LGBTQ+ community, individuals with disabilities, first-generation professionals, women, and people of color. Read our Harvard Business Review article to learn more about how you can level the playing field on your team. 

Bias interrupters are small adjustments to your existing systems.

Not sure where to start? Pick the system where you have the most influence in your organization.  

BE THE FIRST TO KNOW

Join our mailing list to stay updated on our latest resources!
!
Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.

Performance Evaluations

THE CHALLENGE

A recent study of performance evaluations in tech found that 66% of women’s performance reviews contained negative personality criticism (“You come off as abrasive”) whereas only 1% of men’s reviews did.(1) We know now that workplaces that view themselves as being highly meritocratic often are, in fact, more biased than other organizations(2) and that the usual responses—one-shot diversity trainings, mentoring and networking programs—typically don’t work.(3)

THE SOLUTION

Consider the Metrics

Here are some things to keep an eye out for:

  • Do your performance evaluations show consistently higher ratings for majority men than for women, people of color, or other relevant groups?
  • Do women’s ratings fall after they have children? Do employees’ ratings fall after they take parental leave or adopt flexible work arrangements?
  • Do the same performance ratings result in different promotion or compensation rates for different groups?’

Implement Bias Interrupters

  1. Start separating personality issues from skill sets for each candidate. Remember the study that found 66% of women’s performance reviews contained negative personality criticism, but only 1% of men’s reviews did?(4)Not acceptable. Personal style should be appraised separately from skills, because a narrower range of behavior often is accepted from women and people of color.  For example, women may be labeled “difficult” for doing things that are accepted in majority men.(5)
  2. Level the playing field with respect to self-promotion by ensuring everyone knows they’re expected to do so and that they know how. Distribute our Writing an Effective Self-Evaluation Guide to help. Some groups, notably women, Asian-Americans, and first-generation professionals may be reluctant to self-promote.(6)By equipping all employees with this our worksheet, modest and introverted people can benefit from this worksheet too.
  3. Don’t accept global ratings without back-up. Require evidence from the evaluation period that justifies the rating. Try: “In March, she gave X presentation in front of Y client on Z project, answered his questions effectively, and was successful in making the sale,” instead of: “She’s quick on her feet.”
  4. Consider performance and potential separately for each candidate. Performance and potential should be appraised separately, given the tendency for majority men to be judged on potential; others on performance.(7)
  5. Empower people involved in the evaluation process to spot and interrupt bias by keeping a copy of our Performance Evaluation Check-List nearby when writing performance evaluations.

To better understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read and distribute our Identifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Guide which summarizes numerous studies.

 

DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCES

Full Toolkit: Bias Interrupters, Identifying Bias & Self-Evaluation Guides

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Performance Evaluations

Toolkit

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Performance Evaluations

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Guide

Guide

Performance Evaluation Check-List

Guide

Writing an Effective Self-Evaluation

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Performance Evaluations

Hiring & Recruiting

THE CHALLENGE

Unconscious bias can affect the hiring process in ways that hurt your company. For example, studies have shown that when comparing identical resumes, “Jamal” needed eight additional years of experiences to be considered as qualified as “Greg,” and “Jennifer” was offered $4,000 less in starting salary than “John.”(1) We know now that workplaces that view themselves as being highly meritocratic often are, in fact, more biased than other organizations(2) and that the usual responses—one-shot diversity trainings, mentoring and networking programs—typically don’t work.(3) 

THE SOLUTION

1. Consider the Metrics

To the extent you can, keep metrics by: 1) individual supervisor; 2) a department; and 3) the organization as a whole.

  • Track the demography of the candidate pool through the entire hiring process, from initial contact, to resume review, to interviews, to hiring. Break down the demography by under-represented groups: women, people of color, people with disabilities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, etc.
  • Track whether hiring qualifications are waived more often for people from certain groups than other groups.

2. Implement Bias Interrupters

Assembling a Diverse Pool

    • Insist on a diverse pool

If the initial pool is largely homogenous, it is statistically unlikely that you will hire a diverse candidate. The odds of hiring a woman were 79 times greater if there were at least two women in the finalist pool; the odds of hiring a person of color were 194 times greater.(4)

    • Limit referral hiring & tap diverse networks

If your existing organization is not diverse, hiring from your current employees’ social networks will replicate the lack of diversity. Instead, reach out to diverse candidates where they are. Identify job fairs, affinity networks, conferences and training programs that are aimed at women and people of color in your field and send recruiters.

    • Getting the word out

Take a close look at your hiring announcement, signal what you’re looking for by making the necessary and desired qualifications known. Keep in mind, explicitly stating that the salary is negotiable can reduce the gender gap in applicants.(5) Let people know that your company is a great place to work.

One company offers public talks by women at their company and writes blog posts, and social media articles highlighting the women who work there. If you don’t currently have the diversity to create that kind of content, face it head on with an article about your organization’s interest in hiring more diverse candidates and your development plan to support new hires.

Resume Review

    • Ensure resumes are graded on the same scale

Establish clear grading rubrics and ensure that everyone grades on the same scale. Consider having each resume reviewed by two different managers and averaging the score.

Before resumes are reviewed, have reviewers read our guide so that they are aware of the common forms of bias that can affect the hiring process.

    • Pre-commit to what’s important—and require accountability

Pre-commit in writing to what qualifications are important, both in entry-level and in lateral hiring. When qualifications are waived for a specific candidate, require an explanation of why they are no longer important—and keep track to see if there’s a pattern among waiver recipients.(6)

    • Avoid inferring family obligations

Mothers are 79% less likely to be hired than an identical candidate without children.(7) Train people not to make inferences about whether someone is committed to their job due to parental status. Don’t count “gaps in a resume” as an automatic negative. Give candidates an opportunity to explain gaps by asking about them directly during the interview stage.

    • Consider candidates from multi-tier schools

Don’t limit your search to candidates from Ivy League and other top-tier schools. This favors majority candidates from elite backgrounds and hurts people of color and first-generation professionals.(8) Studies show that top students from lower ranked schools are often similarly successful.(9)

Interviews

    • Use structured interviews

Ask the same list of questions to every person who is interviewed. Ask questions that are directly relevant to the job the candidate is applying for.(10)

    • Ask performance-based questions & use skills-based assessments

Performance-based questions (“tell me about a time you had too many things to do and had to prioritize”) are a strong predictor of how successful a candidate will be at the job.(11) If applicable, ask candidates to take a skills-based assessment. For example, if part of the job is analyzing data sets and making recommendations, ask the candidate to do that.

    • Develop a consistent rating scale and discount outliers

Candidate’s answers (or skills-based assessments) should be rated on a consistent scale and backed up by evidence. Average the scores granted on each relevant criterion and discount outliers.(12)

    • If “culture fit” is a criterion for hiring, provide a specific definition

Culture fit can be important but when it’s misused, it can disadvantage people of color, first-generation professionals, and women.(13) Culture fit should not mean the “lunch test” (who you would like to have lunch with), instead make it clear what the hiring criteria is to evaluators and candidates.

    • Provide candidates and interviewers with a handout detailing expectations

Develop an interview protocol sheet that explains to everyone what’s expected from candidates in an interview. Distribute it to candidates and interviewers before interviews begin. Here’s a checklist of what to include:

    • Outline the interview process with as many details as possible. If you’re planning on giving them a skills assessment, say so. If it’s not clear in the assessment instructions, let them know what you’re looking to learn from the assessment – “We will be evaluating your ability to use Adobe Creative Suite by asking you to make a social media graphic for a fictional event.”
    • Qualities your organization values because they better the work environment. Think: “culture fit.”
    • Skill sets required for the position.
    • Any additional qualifications your hiring team thinks are important, cross-check with your interview evaluation form.

To understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read our Identifying Bias in Hiring Guide which summarizes numerous studies.

 

DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCES

Full Toolkit: Bias Interrupters & Identifying Bias Guide

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: Hiring & Recruiting

Toolkit

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Hiring & Recruiting

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Hiring & Recruiting Guide

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: Hiring & Recruiting

Assignments

THE CHALLENGE

Every workplace has high-profile assignments that are career-enhancing (“glamour work”) and low-profile assignments that are beneficial to the organization but not the individual’s career, in some organizations diversity committee work may fall into this category. Research shows that women do more “office housework”(1) than men.(2) This includes literal housework (ordering lunch), administrative work (scheduling a time to meet), and emotion work (“she’s upset; comfort her”). Professionals of color (both men and women) also report less access to desirable assignments than white men do.(3)

  • Glamour work. More than 80% of white men, but only 53% of women of color, 59% of white women, and 63% of men of color, reported the same access to desirable assignments as their colleagues.(4)
  • Office housework. Almost 50% of white women and 43% of women of color reported that at work they more often play administrative roles such as taking notes for a meeting compared to their colleagues. Only 26% of white men and 20% of men of color reported this.(5)

Diversity at the top can only occur when diverse employees at all levels of the organization have access to assignments that let them take risks and develop new skills. If the glamour work and the office housework aren’t distributed evenly, you won’t be tapping into the full potential of your workforce. Most workplaces that use an informal “hey, you!” assignment system end up distributing assignments based on factors other than experience and talent. If women and people of color keep getting stuck with the same low-profile assignments, they will be more likely to be dissatisfied and search for opportunities elsewhere.(6)

To learn more about how assignments may be holding back your star players, read our Harvard Business Review article.

THE SOLUTION

Fair allocation of the glamour work and the office housework are two separate problems. Some organizations will want to solve the office housework problem before tackling the glamour work; others will want to address both problems simultaneously.

1. Identify and Track

The first step is to find out if, and where, you have a problem. Find out:

    • Distribute the Office Housework Survey to your team to find out who is doing the office housework and how much of their time it takes up.
    • Use our Assignment Typology Guide to gather further metrics on what assignments fall into your department’s office housework and glamour work.

2. Implement Bias Interrupters for Office Housework

  • Establish a rotation. A rotation is also helpful for many administrative tasks (e.g. taking notes, scheduling meetings). Rotating housework tasks like ordering lunch and planning parties is also an option if admins are unavailable. Don’t ask for volunteers. Women are more likely to volunteer because they are under subtle but powerful pressures to do so.(7)
  • Hold everyone equally accountable. “I give it to women because they do it well and the men don’t,” is a common sentiment. This dynamic reflects an environment in which men suffer few consequences for doing a poor job on office housework, but women who do a poor job are seen as “prima donnas” or “not team players.” Hold men and women equally accountable for carrying out all assignments properly.

3. Implement Bias Interrupters for Glamour Work

  • Avoid mixed messages. If your organization values such things as mentoring and committee work (like serving on the Diversity Initiative), make sure these things are valued when the time comes for promotions and raises. Sometimes organizations say they highly value this kind of work—but they don’t. Mixed messages of this kind will negatively affect women and people of color.
  • Provide a bounceback. If you have individual assigners whose glamour work allocations is lop-sided, hold a meeting to bring the problem to their attention. Work with them to figure out if either, 1) the available pool for glamour work assignments is diverse but is not being tapped fully or whether 2) only a few people have the requisite skills for glamour work assignments. Read our Responses to Common Pushback and Identifying Bias in Assignments Guide before the bounceback meeting to prepare.

If a diverse pool has the requisite skills…

  • Implement a rotation. Have the supervisor set up a rotation to ensure fair access to plum assignments.
  • Formalize the pool and institute accountability. Write down the list of people with the requisite skills and make it visible to the supervisor. Sometimes just being reminded of the pool can help. Have the supervisor track their allocation of glamour work going forward to measure progress. Research shows that accountability matters.(8)

If the pool is not diverse…

  • Re-visit your assumption that only one (or very few) employees can handle this assignment: is that true or is the supervisor in question just more comfortable working with those few people?
  • Analyze how the pool was assembled. Does the supervisor allocate the glamour work by relying on self-promotion or volunteers? If so, that will often disadvantage women and people of color. Shift to more objective measures to create the pool based on skills and qualifications.

If the above aren’t relevant or don’t solve your problem, then it’s time to expand the pool:

  • Development plan. Identify what skills or competencies an employee needs to be eligible for the high-profile assignments work and develop a plan to help the employee develop the requisite skills.
  • Leverage existing HR policies. If your organization uses a competency-based system, or has a Talent Development Committee or equivalent, that’s a resource to help develop competencies so that career-enhancing assignments can be allocated fairly more fairly.
  • Shadowing and mentoring. Have a more-junior person shadow a more-experienced person during the high-profile assignment. Establish a mentoring program to help a broader range of junior people gain access to valued skills.

If you can’t expand your pool, re-frame the assignment so that more people could participate in it. Could you break up the assignment into discrete pieces so more people get the experiences they need?

 

DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCES

Full Toolkit: Bias Interrupters, Identifying Bias Guide, Survey, & Worksheets

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Assignments

Toolkit

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Assignments

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Assignments Guide

Worksheets

Assignment Typology Worksheets

Metrics Tool

Office Housework Survey

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Assignments

Meetings

THE CHALLENGE

Having expertise increases men’s influence—but decreases women’s.(1) This is just one way subtle biases play out in meetings.

If companies don’t interrupt bias playing out in meetings, they may lose the talent and insight they pay for—or even encounter safety risks. We heard from one scientist in a workplace that handled dangerous materials that she was sharply criticized as aggressive when she brought up a flaw in a male colleague’s analysis. After that, she took to “bringing in baked goods and being agreeable.”

THE SOLUTION

Identify the Source of Bias

In your next meeting consider the following:

  • Floor Time: Who mostly speaks at meetings? Is it representative of who attends?
  • Interruptions: Is there a culture of interrupting in your meetings? If so, is there a demographic pattern in who does the interrupting and who gets interrupted?
  • Stolen Idea: Research shows that women and people of color report that others get credit for ideas they originally offered much more than white men do.(2) Keep track of who gets credit for ideas offered and who originated them.
  • Attendees: Are the right people getting invited? Be sure everyone who has a part to play is at the meeting.
  • Ideas: Whose contributions get lauded or implemented?
  • Office housework: Track who takes the notes, who keeps the minutes, who gets coffee, and other office housework tasks.
  • Meeting scheduling: Are meetings scheduled at times or at locations that make it difficult or impossible for parents and caregivers to attend?

 

Implement Bias Interrupters

Because every organization is different, not all interrupters will be relevant. Consider this a menu. To better understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read our Identifying Bias in Meetings Guide which summarizes numerous of studies and encourage other team members to read it too.

  • Rotate office housework tasks. Women are more likely to be asked to do the “office housework” tasks for meetings: taking notes, scheduling the conference rooms, ordering lunch/snacks for meetings, cleaning up afterwards. If admins are available to do these tasks, use them. If not, don’t ask for volunteers. Instead, figure out a fair way to spread the housework tasks evenly by rotating based on arbitrary criteria (birthday, astrological sign, seniority, etc.) For more bias interrupters about office housework, see Bias Interrupters for Managers: Tools for Assignments.
  • Mind the “stolen idea.” Make sure people get credit for ideas they offered. When you see ideas get stolen, you can say: “Great point, Eric, I’ve been thinking about that ever since Pam first said it. Pam, what’s the next step?”
  • Don’t give interrupters free reign. If a few people are dominating the conversation, address it directly. Take them aside and explain that your workplace employs a broad range of people because you need to hear a broad range of viewpoints. Some may not even realize they’re frequent interrupters. Create and enforce an overall policy for interruptions. One option is a no-interruptions policy, where you make it clear that interruptions are not to be tolerated, and ding people when they interrupt. A gentler policy is to keep track of who is continually interrupting and getting interrupted, and talk about the problem.
  • Schedule meetings appropriately. Schedule meetings in the office, not at the golf course. For an off-site, schedule lunch or afternoon coffee. Overall, stick to working hours and professional locations for work meetings.
  • Make a seat for everyone at the table. When there is an inner- and outer-circle of chairs it can create hierarchy.(3) Pay attention: do all the men sit in the inner circle and the women sit in the outer circle, or is race playing a role? If this happens routinely, have everyone trade places with the person in front of them, or better yet, rearrange chairs so there is only one circle.
  • Signal everyone’s role. Let your team know what everyone in the meeting brings to the table.(4) “Monique has five years of event planning experience and I’m excited to have her on this project,” or “Sam managed a similar portfolio last spring and we’d like him to run point with the client.” When people know the reason behind everyone’s inclusion on the project, and their role, it’s much easier to have productive and inclusive conversations about the tasks at hand — people are more likely to listen to their ideas and respect their air-time. If you’re not sure everyone with influence understands why you’ve tapped someone into a meeting, be sure to mention it explicitly beforehand.
  • Establish ground rules for diverse groups. When meetings are diverse, people may fail to speak up for fear of not being politically correct. To combat this, simply state at the beginning of the meeting that because people can sometimes get offended, everyone should try their best to speak in a way that’s “politically correct” (aka respectful). Research shows that this simple statement can decrease uncertainty and increase creativity from participants.(5)
  • Ask people to speak-up and encourage risk takers. Women and people of color often face social pressure to speak in a tentative, deferential manner and decades of research have shown that women face social pressures to hedge and use softeners. Additionally, both women and people of color may face double-standards for speaking in a direct and assertive manner.(6) If someone isn’t speaking up, ask them to weigh in.(7) “Reagan, you have experience here, what are we missing?” This strategy can also help first-generation professionals and introverts feel included. It’s also tough to speak up against a majority opinion — especially for someone who’s not in the majority group.(8) Research shows that people are more likely to voice minority opinions when at least one other person expresses a minority opinion — even if the minority opinions don’t agree with each other.(9) Some ways to make it easier to voice minority opinions:
    • State explicitly at the beginning of meetings that you want to hear devil’s advocate ideas.
    • Support people who diverge from the majority. If someone starts to voice an opinion and senses that nobody wants to hear it, they will likely pipe down. If you see this happening, say “Let’s hear this idea out.”

DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCES

Full Toolkit: Bias Interrupters, Identifying Bias Worksheet, & Survey

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: Meetings

Toolkit

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Meetings

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Meetings Guide

Metrics Tool

Bias in Meetings Survey

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Meetings

Need Assistance Implementing Bias Interrupters? We can help.

Footnotes

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

1 Snyder, K. (2014, August 26). The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/ 2 Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-576. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543 3 Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmation action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100404 4 Snyder, K. (2014, August 26). The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/  5 Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2005). Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 436-445. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00244.x; Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can angry women get ahead? Gender, status conferral, and workplace emotion expression. Psychological Science, 19(3), 268–275. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x; Judge, T. A., Livingston B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys--and gals--really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 390-407. doi: 10.1037/a0026021; Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157-176. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157 6 Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 120-143. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00006.x ; Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological review, 94(3), 369-389. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369; Heilman M. E., & Chen J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship. Behavior Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431– 441 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431; Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990. doi: 10.1086/226425; Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. W. (2014). What works for women at work: Four patterns working women should know. New York, NY: New York University Press. 7 Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126; Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83; Hewstone, M. (1990). The ‘ultimate attribution error’? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 311-335. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200404

HIRING & RECRUITING

1 Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review,94(4), 991-1013. doi: 10.1257/0002828042002561; Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 2 Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-576. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543 3 Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmation action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100404 4 Johnson, S. K., Hekman, D. R., & Chan, E. T. (2016). If there’s only one woman in your candidate pool, there’s statistically no chance she'll be hired. Harvard Business Review, 26(04). Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2016/04/if-theres-only-one-woman-in-your-candidate pool-theres-statistically-no-chance-shell-be-hired 5 Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. (2014). Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Management Science, 61(9), 2016-2024. doi: 10.187 6 Norton, M.I., Vandello, J.A., & Darley, J. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 817-831. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.817; Brewer, M.B. (1996). In-Group Favoritism: The Subtle Side of Intergroup Discrimination. Behavioral Research and Business Ethics, 160-170. Russell Sage, New York.; Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (2009). Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination?. Research in organizational behavior, 29, 3-38.doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.002 7 Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297-1338. doi: 10.1086/511799 8 Rivera, L. A. (2016). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton University Press.; Kraus, M., Torrez, B., Park, J. W., & Ghayebi, F. (2019). Evidence for the reproduction of social class in brief speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1900500116 9 Dale, S. B., & Krueger, A. B. (2002). Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: An application of selection on observables and unobservables. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 491-1527. doi: 10.1162/003355302320935089; Dale, S., & Krueger, A. B. (2014). Estimating the return to college selectivity over the career using administrative earnings data. Journal of Human Resources, 49(2), 323-358. doi:10.3368/jhr.49.2.323 10 Thorngate, W., Dawes, R., & Foddy, M. (2009). Judging merit. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. 11 Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. Hodder & Stoughton. 12 Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. Hodder & Stoughton.; Thorngate, W., Dawes, R., & Foddy, M. (2009). Judging merit. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.13 Rivera, L. A. (2016). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton University Press.

ASSIGNMENTS

1 Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. W. (2014). What works for women at work: Four patterns working women should know. New York, NY: New York University Press. 2 Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., & Templer, A. (2012, June). Gender, Work Time, and Care Responsibilities Among Faculty 1. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 300-323). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x; Mitchell, S. M., & Hesli, V. L. (2013). Women don't ask? Women don't say no? Bargaining and service in the political science profession. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46(2), 355-369. doi:  10.1017/S1049096513000073; Porter, S. R. (2007). A closer look at faculty service: What affects participation on committees?. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 523-541. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2007.0027; Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Six of one and half a dozen of the other: the gender subtext of Taylorism and team‐based work. Gender, Work & Organization, 5(1), 5-18.doi:  10.1111/1468-0432.00042; Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers' developmental job experiences. Academy of management Journal, 37(1), 46-67. doi: 10.5465/256769; De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E., & Bechtoldt, M. N. (2010). Gender differences in job challenge: A matter of task allocation. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(4), 433-453.doi:  10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00477.x 3 Williams, J. C., Multhaup, M., Li, S., Korn, R. M. (2018). You Can’t Change What You Can’t See: Interrupting Racial & Gender Bias in the Legal Profession. American Bar Association & Minority Corporate Counsel Association. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714-47.doi: 10.1257/aer.20141734 7 Heilman M. E., & Chen J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship. Behavior Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431– 441 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431; Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 120-143. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00006.x; Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714-47.doi: 10.1257/aer.20141734; Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. W. (2014). What works for women at work: Four patterns working women should know. New York, NY: New York University Press. 8 Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(1), 74.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74; Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (2009). Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination?. Research in organizational behavior, 29, 3-38.doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.002

MEETINGS

1 Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30(12), 1585-1598.doi: 10.1177/0146167204271186 2 Williams, J.C., Li, S., Rincon, R., & Finn, P. (2016). Climate Control: Gender and Racial Bias in Engineering? Center for WorkLife Law. UC Hastings College of the Law. Available at: https://worklifelaw.org/publications/Climate-Control-Gender-And-Racial-Bias-In-Engineering.pdf; Williams, J. C., Multhaup, M., Li, S., Korn, R. M. (2018). You Can’t Change What You Can’t See: Interrupting Racial & Gender Bias in the Legal Profession. American Bar Association & Minority Corporate Counsel Association. 3 Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY, US: Alfred A. Knopf. 4 Loyd, D. L. (2019). Tug of War: Understanding dynamics among number minorities. Presentation at the Women’s Leadership Edge: Cutting Edge Conference Workshop, San Francisco.; Rajecki, D. W., De Graaf-Kaser, R., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1992). New impressions and more discrimination: Effects of individuation on gender-label stereotypes. Sex Roles27(3-4), 171-185 5 Goncalo, J. A., Chatman, J. A., Duguid, M. M., & Kennedy, J. A. (2015). Creativity from constraint? How the political correctness norm influences creativity in mixed-sex work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly60(1), 1-30. doi: 10.1177/0001839214563975 6 For representative studies, see Haselhuhn & Kray, 2012; Heilman & Taylor, 1981; Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012; Berdahl & Min, 2012; Williams et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2018. A thorough bibliography of this body of research is available in Climate Control: Gender & Racial Bias in Engineering, Williams et al., 2016, available at worklifelaw.org 7 Kim, S., Phillips, K. W., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Cabrera, S. F. (Forthcoming). Giving her the floor: How solicitation helps female experts be more influential.; Ridgeway, C. L., & Nakagawa, S. (2017). Is deference the price of being seen as reasonable? How status hierarchies incentivize acceptance of low status. Social Psychology Quarterly80(2), 132-152.doi: 10.1177/0190272517695213 8 Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. doi: 10.1037/h0093718 9 Ibid.

Looking for more resources? Visit the Master Bibliography.

200 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102

The Center for WorkLife Law's website and its content are provided for general information purposes only and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Any information contained in the website should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel. No attorney-client relationship will be formed based on your use of this website or any service provided.

Check out our new toolkits for managers - featured in Harvard Business Review  GO TO TOOLKITS
close
open