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. If left unchecked, bias may impact people along many dimensions of identity: gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, class status, and even introversion or modesty. 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.  

Performance Evaluations

Performance Evaluations


A study of performance evaluations in tech found that 66% of women’s performance reviews contained at least one negative personality criticism (“You come off as abrasive”) whereas only 1% of men’s reviews did.[1] In our performance evaluation audit at a law firm, we found that people of color and white women were far more likely to have their personality mentioned in their evaluations (including negative personality traits). What’s optional for white men (getting along with others), appears to be necessary for white women and people of color. Case in point: 83% of Black men were praised for having a “good attitude” vs. 46% of white men, and 27% of white women were praised for being “friendly and warm” vs. 10% of white men.[2]


Research also shows that white men tend to be judged on their potential while “prove-it-again groups” (women, people of color, individuals with disabilities,[3] members of the LGBTQIA+ community,[4] older employees,[5] and first-generation professionals) are judged (or scrutinized) on their performance. Small biases can have large effects: According to one study, women received significantly lower “potential” ratings despite higher job performance ratings and this accounted for 30-50% of the gender promotion gap.[6]



Bias Interrupters are tweaks to basic business systems that can yield large gains: Organizational Bias Interrupters change existing business systems; Individual Bias Interrupters are steps individuals can take on their own.


1.     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 your performance evaluations show consistently higher ratings for in-person workers than remote and hybrid workers?
  • 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?

2.   Implement Bias Interrupters

The Center for WorkLife Law conducted an experiment with Dr. Monica Biernat at the University of Kansas examining the effects of reading our Identifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Guide. Participants completed reviews for hypothetical employees. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to a group that read the Bias Guide and listened to a brief audio recording summarizing the main messages; the other half received no further instructions.

Our findings indicate that reading the toolkit lead participants to give higher ratings, monetary bonuses and promotion recommendations for both women and Black workers.

Before the next round of performance evaluations, have everyone on your team watch this short 2 minute video and read the Identifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Guide. 

  • 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?[7] 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.[8]
  • 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, people of Asian descent, and first-generation professionals may be reluctant to self-promote.[9] By equipping all employees with this worksheet, modest and introverted people can benefit as well.  
  • 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.” In our performance evaluation experiment at a law firm, we redesigned their form to focus on specific competencies that mattered to the organization and required that evaluators list 3 pieces of evidence to accompany every numerical rating. Doing so minimized the “halo-horns effect:” where white men are artificially advantaged by global ratings because they get halos (one strength is generalized into an overall high rating) whereas other groups get horns (one mistake is generalized into an overall low rating).[10]
  • 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.[11]
  • Combat in-person favoritism. With more companies transitioning to hybrid models of work, it is important to ensure that “face-time” in the office doesn’t translate to higher ratings on performance evaluations, quicker promotions, and larger compensation.[12] Instead, when assessing employee performance, be sure to use output based evaluation.
  • Evaluations for remote/hybrid workers should be done through video conference or in-person. To prevent any potential misunderstandings, it is important to have context such as facial expressions.
  • Equip yourself and others involved in the evaluation process by keeping a copy of our Performance Evaluation Checklist nearby when writing and reviewing performance evaluations.



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

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Performance Evaluations


Bias Interrupters for Managers: Performance Evaluations

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Guide


Performance Evaluation Check-List


Writing an Effective Self-Evaluation

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Performance Evaluations


[1] Snyder, K. (2014, August 26). The abrasiveness trap: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews. Fortune. Retrieved from

[2] Williams, J.C., Lewin Loyd, D., Boginsky, M., & Korn, R.M. (2021). How One Company Worked to Root Out Bias from Performance Reviews. Harvard Business Review.

[3] Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F. S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review71(2), 329-364. doi: 10.1177/0019793917717474

[4] Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology,117(2), 586-626. doi: 10.1086/661653

[5] Cuddy, A. J. C., Norton, M. I., Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 265-283. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00405.x

[6] Benson, A., Li, D., Shue, K. (2021). “Potential and the Gender Promotion Gap.” Working Paper.

[7] Snyder, K. (2014)

[8] 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

[9] 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.

[10] Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 4(1), 25-29.

[11] 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

[12] Cristea, I. C., & Leonardi, P. M. (2019). Get noticed and die trying: Signals, sacrifice, and the production of face time in distributed work. Organization Science, 30(3), 552-572.


Hiring & Recruiting

Hiring & Recruiting



Matched-resume studies, in which researchers send identical resumes except for one factor (such as the applicant’s name or membership in an organization that signals something about their identity) provide objective evidence that bias drives decision making. Despite identical qualifications:

  • Race/ethnicity:  “Jamal” needed eight additional years of experiences to be considered as qualified as “Greg.”[1]
  • Gender: “Jennifer” was offered $4,000 less in starting salary than “John.” [2]
  • Sexual orientation: Holding a leadership position in an LGBTQ organization made a queer woman receive 30% fewer callbacks[3] and a gay man receive 40% fewer callbacks than their heterosexual peers.[4]
  • Parenthood status: Membership in the Parent-Teacher Association made a mother 79% less likely to be hired than a non-mother and offered $11,000 less in starting salary. [5]
  • Social class: A candidate that listed elite hobbies: “polo, sailing, and classical music” was 12 times more likely to get a callback than a candidate that listed “pickup socker, country music, and mentoring other first-gen students.” [6]

You can’t tap the full talent pool unless you control for bias in hiring. To truly see results, you will need to correct bias at every stage from the initial job posting to the final offer letter.




1. Consider the Metrics

Organizations should keep metrics by: 1) individual supervisor; 2) department; 3) location if relevant; and 4) the organization as a whole and:

  • Anonymously track the demography of the candidate pool through the entire hiring process: from the initial pool of candidates considered, to who survives resume review, who gets invited to interview, who survives the interview process, who gets job offers, who accepts those offers, and who doesn't. Break down the demography by under-represented groups: women, people of color, people with disabilities, veterans, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, etc and pinpoint which stage(s) of the hiring process are disproportionately weeding out candidates from those groups.
  • Track interviewers’ reviews and/or recommendations to ensure they are not consistently rating majority candidates higher than others.

2. Implement Bias Interrupters

All Bias Interrupters should apply both to written materials and in meetings, where relevant. Because every organization is different, not all Bias Interrupters will be relevant. Consider this a menu.


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 candidate from a historically excluded group. In one study, 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.[7]
  • 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, tap into diverse networks. Identify job fairs, affinity networks, conferences and training programs that are aimed at historically excluded communities in your field and send recruiters.
  • Change the wording of your job postings. Take another look at your job ads to make sure you are asking for what you really want. Sometimes job ads include requirements that aren’t really requirements at all – such as desk jobs that require applicants to be able to lift 25 pounds. This kind of language may weed out applicants with disabilities. Using masculine-coded words like “leader” and “competitive” will tend to reduce the number of women who apply;[8] using words like “responsible” and “conscientious” will attract more women, and men too. Research shows that gender-neutral job postings result in more applications overall.[9]  Tech alternatives (see: Textio or the SAP Job Analyzer for Recruiting) [10] can help you craft job postings that ensure you attract top talent without discouraging women. Also, keep in mind that explicitly stating that the salary is negotiable can reduce the gender gap in applicants.[11]
  • Getting the word out. 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 people of color, women, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, first-generation professionals — and your development plan to support new hires.

Resume Review

  • Distribute the Identifying Bias in Hiring Guide. 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 importantand 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.[12]
  • 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.
  • Redact extra-curricular activities from resumes. Including extra-curricular activities on resumes can artificially disadvantage first-generation professionals. As mentioned above, one study found that law firms were less likely to hire a candidate whose interests included “country music” and “pick-up soccer” rather than “classical music” and “sailing”—even though the work and educational experience was exactly the same.[13] Because most people aren’t as aware of class-based bias, communicate why you are removing extracurricular activities from resumes.
  • Don’t count resume gaps as an automatic negative. Don’t count “gaps in a resume” as an automatic negative. Instead, give the candidates an opportunity to explain gaps by asking about them directly during the interview stage.[14] There are many, many reasons people may take time off from paid work (including to care for children or elderly parents or to take care of their own health). Don’t infer that if someone has taken time off for family caregiving responsibilities that they will be less committed to the job they are applying for now.
  • Consider candidates from multi-tier schools. Don’t limit your search to candidates from Ivy League and other top-tier schools. Using graduation from a narrow range of elite schools as a proxy for intelligence and future success disadvantages first-generation students, the majority of whom are people of color.[15] Studies show that top students from lower ranked schools are often just as successful.[16] Whenever possible, use skills tests to gauge qualification and preparedness for the role.
  • Try using “blind auditions” where the evaluators don’t know who they are reviewing. If women and candidates of color are dropping out of the pool at the resume review stage, consider removing demographic info from resumes before review. This way, candidates can be evaluated based solely on their qualifications.


  • Distribute this interview toolkit  to everyone involved in your interview process. The law firm Ice Miller LLP created this Attorney Interview toolkit to interrupt common forms of bias in their interview process. The toolkit equips interviewers with materials to evaluate candidates based on their knowledge, skills and abilities pertaining to the position and minimizes the risks of unexamined bias influencing their decision-making. This toolkit sets interviewers up for success because it determines consistent criteria upon which to evaluate candidates in advance. The rubrics ensure that every person is rated on the same scale.
  • 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. This can level the playing field for first-generation professionals, Asian Americans, women, and introverts — groups that are more likely to feel pressure to be modest or self-effacing. Setting expectations clearly allows them to make the best case for themselves.
  • Here’s a sample memo as well as 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 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.

  • 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.[17]
  • 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.[18] 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.One good example of a work-relevant definition of culture fit is “Googleyness,” which Laszlo Block, Google’s former SVP of People Operations defined as “Attributes like enjoying fun (who doesn’t), a certain dose of intellectual humility (it’s hard to learn if you can’t admit that you might be wrong), a strong measure of conscientiousness (we want owners, not employees), comfort with ambiguity (we don’t know how our business will evolve, and navigating Google internally requires dealing with a lot of ambiguity), and evidence that you’ve taken some courageous or interesting paths in your life.” [19]
  • Try behavioral interviewing [20] Ask questions that reveal how candidates have dealt with prior work experiences, as research shows that structured behavioral interviews can more accurately predict the future performance of a candidate than unstructured interviews.[21]  Instead of asking, “How do you deal with problems with your manager?” ask them to “Describe a time you had a conflict at work with your manager and how you handled it.” When evaluating answers, a good model to follow is the STAR[22] model: the candidate should describe the Situation they faced, the Task that they had to handle, the Action they took to deal with the situation, and the Result.
  • 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”) provide concrete information about job-relevant skills.[23] 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.
  • Address resume gaps head on. Give candidates an opportunity to explain gaps by asking about it explicitly during the interview stage. Women fare better in interviews if they are able to provide information upfront, rather than having to avoid the issue.[24]
  • Don’t ask candidates about prior salary. Asking about prior salary when setting compensation for a new hire can perpetuate the gender pay gap.[25] (A growing legislative movement prohibits employers from asking prospective employees about their prior salaries.[26])
  • 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.[27]

How to Interrupt Bias in Hiring


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



Full Toolkit: Bias Interrupters & Identifying Bias Guide

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: Hiring & Recruiting


Bias Interrupters for Managers: Hiring & Recruiting

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Hiring & Recruiting Guide

Interview Toolkit

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: Hiring & Recruiting

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: 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;

[2] 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

[3] Mishel, E. (2016). Discrimination against queer women in the US workforce: A résumé audit study. Socius2, 2378023115621316.

[4] Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology117(2), 586-626.

[5] 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

[6] Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1097-1131.

[7] 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:

[8] Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(1), 109. 10.1037/a0022530

[9] LinkedIn, “Language Matters: How Words Impact Men and Women in the Workplace,” 2019 en-  us/ talent-  solutions- lodestone/body/pdf/Linkedin Language-Matters-Report-FINAL2.pdf ; ZipRecruiter, “Removing These Gendered Keywords Gets You More Applicants,” ZipRecruiter blog, September 19, 2016, removing-  gendered-keywords-gets-you-more-applicants


[11] 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

[12] 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

[13] Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on Your Resume. Harvard Business Review:

[14] Joni Hersch, “Opting Out Among Women with Elite Education,”  Review of Economics of the Household  11, no. 4 (2013): 469–506; Hersch, J., & Shinall, J. B. (2016). Something to talk about: Information exchange under employment law. U. Pa. L. Rev.165, 49.

[15] 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; Center for First-generation Student Success. First-generation College Graduates’ Transition to Graduate School and Employment. Available at:

[16] Dale, S. B., & Krueger, A. B. (2002). Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: An application ofselection 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

[17] Thorngate, W., Dawes, R., & Foddy, M. (2009). Judging merit. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

[18] Rivera, L. A. (2016). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton University Press.

[19] Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. Hodder & Stoughton.

[20] Boring, J. (2016). How to Create Behavioral Interview Questions That Don’t Give Away The Answer. ERE.

[21] Torrington, D. (2009). Fundamentals of human resource management: managing people at work. Pearson Education.

[22] Doyle, A. (2020). How to Use the STAR Interview Response Method. The Balance Careers.

[23] Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. Hodder & Stoughton.

[24] Hersch, J., & Shinall, J. B. (2016). Something to talk about: Information exchange under employment law. U. Pa. L. Rev.165, 49.

[25] NWLC. (2018) Asking for Salary History Perpetuates Pay Discrimination From Job to Job.

[26] HR Dive. (2020). Salary History Bans.

[27] 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.





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. 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), emotion work (“she’s upset; comfort her”) and keeping-the-trains-running work. Too often diversity work is treated as undervalued office housework. Among women at the manager level and above, Black women, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities are up to twice as likely as women overall to spend a substantial amount of time promoting DEI.[3] The common practice of assigning large loads of diversity advocacy to these groups further jeopardizes their advancement as they will have to literally work more hours than majority men if they want to get ahead.


In industry after industry, women and professionals of color report less access to desirable assignments than white men do.[4] In our study of lawyers:[5]

  • 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.
  • 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.

Research also shows that LGBTQIA+ employees report less access to opportunities to take on a leadership role and to develop their skills, which in turn impacts their intent to stay at their jobs.[6]


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. Managers that lead hybrid teams need to be particularly mindful to avoid on-site favoritism and to distribute career-enhancing assignments equally among their on-site and remote workers. If women, caregivers, and people of color are more likely to prefer remote work[7] and to be overlooked for glamour work, they likely grow dissatisfied and search for opportunities elsewhere.[8]


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



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 Diversity Work

  • Don’t assume employees who hold historically excluded identities can or would like to take on DEI work on top of their technical roles.
  • Consider hiring a DEI director whose sole job function is to do the DEI work.
  • Make it clear that this is valued work. Sometimes organizations say they highly value this kind of work—but they don’t. When it comes time for performance evaluations and promotion decisions, make sure that mentoring and DEI work are recognized and that employees are compensated for the extra time they spend on this work.
  • Provide administrative support and adequate funding for people running diversity initiatives and Employee Resource Groups (ERGs).

3. Implement Bias Interrupters for Office Housework

  • Don’t ask for volunteers. Women and people of color are more likely to volunteer because they are under subtle but powerful pressures to do so.[9]
  • Establish a rotation. A rotation is also helpful for many administrative tasks (e.g. taking notes, scheduling meetings, sending Zoom links). Rotating housework tasks like ordering lunch and planning parties is also an option if admins are unavailable.
  • 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.”
  • Use admins. If possible, assign office housework tasks to admins, e.g. planning birthday parties, scheduling meetings, ordering lunch.
  • Try the “plus one” Have a more junior person shadow someone more senior to develop new skills — and make sure they take notes.

4. Implement Bias Interrupters for Glamour Work

  • 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, a) the available pool for glamour work assignments is diverse but is not being tapped fully or whether b) only a few people have the requisite skills for glamour work assignments. Read our Responses to Common Pushback and Identifying Bias in Assignments Guide to prepare.

If a diverse pool has the requisite skills…

  • Have the supervisor implement 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.[10]

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.
  • Succession planning. Remember that having “bench strength” is important so that your department won’t be left scrambling if someone unexpectedly leaves the company.
  • 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?



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

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Assignments


Bias Interrupters for Managers: Assignments

Bias 101

Identifying Bias in Assignments Guide


Assignment Typology Worksheets

Metrics Tool

Office Housework Survey

Full Toolkit (with citations)

Bias Interrupters for Managers: 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.; 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] Cooper, M. (2021). Research: Women Leaders Took on Even More Invisible Work During the Pandemic. Harvard Business Review.

[4] 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: Gender-And-Racial-Bias-InEngineering.pdf; Williams, J.C., Korn, R. M., Rincon, R., Finn, P. (2018) Walking the Tightrope: An Examination of Bias in India’s Engineering Workplace. Center for WorkLife Law. UC Hastings College of the Law. Available at: Workplace.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. see-print.pdf; Williams, J.C., Korn, R., & Maas, R. (2021). The Elephant in the Well-Designed Room: An Investigation Into Bias in the Architecture Profession.

[5] Williams, J. C., Multhaup, M., Li, S., Korn, R. M. (2018).

[6] Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Science advances, 7(3).

[7] Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S.J. (2021). Why Working from Home Will Stick.; Combs, V. (2021). Slack Survey Finds That 97% of Black Knowledge Workers Want the Future of the Office to Be Remote or Hybrid. the-future-of-the-office-to-be-remote-or-hybrid/

[8] 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

[9] 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); Berdahl, J. L., & Min, J. A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 141-152. doi: 10.1037/a0027692

[10] 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




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

Research also shows that men interrupt women, more than vice versa.[2] And across industries, women in our studies consistently report that someone has gotten the credit for an idea they originally posed. In our survey of architects, half of women of color and white women reported having their ideas stolen, compared to less than a third of white men and men of color. Multiracial women reported an even worse experience: Almost two-thirds reported that they had an idea stolen.[3]


If companies don’t prevent bias from 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” — but at what cost?


In addition, bias within in-person meetings may also translate to and be exacerbated by virtual meetings.[4]



1. Identify the Source of Bias

Options for finding out whether you have a problem are listed from least to most time-consuming. 

  1. Employ new technologies: GenderEQ is an app that analyzes the ratio of men and women’s speaking time.
  2. Use our free 2-minute downloadable survey to assess bias issues.
  3. Appoint a Bias Interrupter to gather metrics over the course of several meetings. Metrics to gather:
    • 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.[5] 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?

2. Implement Bias Interrupters

Because every organization is different, not all Bias 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 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, 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?” If the person doesn’t get it, take them aside later in private.
  • Don’t give interrupters free reign. If a few people are dominating the conversation, address it directly. A calm, “Please let her finish her point” should send the message to most. If more is needed, 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.
  • Do your best to not schedule meetings at drop-off or pick-up time. Sure, an early meeting may be unavoidable at times. But on the whole, if you respect people’s non-work obligations (driving their kids to school, relieving their parent’s elder caregiver at the end of the day or taking their “furry children” (pets) for a walk), they will be more committed in the long-run. Be mindful of time zones as well.
  • Make a seat for everyone at the table. When there is an inner- and outer-circle of chairs it can create hierarchy.[6] 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.[7] “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.
  • Use gender neutral terms. When addressing a diverse group, it is best to not use gendered terms such as “ladies and gentleman” or “you guys.” Address a diverse group such as “you all,” “folks,” “individuals,” “people” and so forth. Encourage the use of pronouns when introducing each other.
  • 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.[8]
  • 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.[9] If someone isn’t speaking up, ask them to weigh in.[10] “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.[11] 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.[12] 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.”
  • Send the meeting agenda in advance or forewarn people that you plan to call on them. Introverts and anyone who grew up with a modesty mandate may be more reluctant to speak on the fly or speak up at all. Sending the agenda or giving them a heads-up that you plan to call on them will give them a chance to jot down their thoughts in advance.

3. Virtual Meetings:

Bias within in-person meetings may also translate to and be exacerbated by virtual meetings.[13] However, if handled properly, virtual meetings can mitigate many of the patterns of bias mentioned above. Afterall, everyone has a “seat at the table” on Zoom. Here are some best practices to keep in mind to reduce bias and increase participation:

  • Go all-virtual or all-in person. Having some team members meet in-person while remote workers dial-in can discourage participation from remote workers and give on-site workers an unfair advantage. To avoid this, schedule meetings for either all in-person or all-remote. When this isn’t possible, create a buddy/avatar system; for every remote worker, assign an in-person worker who holds space for them during the meeting.[14] The in-person buddy can help the remote employee jump into the conversation.
  • Chronic interrupters? Have people “raise their hand.” Assign one person to lead the meeting and call on people as they use the “raise hand” function to minimize interruptions and equalize speaking turns.
  • Can’t get a word in? Encourage people to use the chat box. Whereas in in-person meetings, it may be difficult for some people to get a word in edgewise, in virtual meetings the chat box allows anyone to participate in real-time.
  • Make cameras-on optional. Allowing people to make their own choices about being on camera will not only help with Zoom fatigue, but also allow employees a sense of privacy if they do not have private office spaces in their homes. Virtual backgrounds are another option.
  • Make meetings accessible and inclusive. Review and encourage your team to read this list of best practices for selecting a meeting platform and settings that can enable individuals with visual, hearing or mobility issues to participate fully in meetings.[15]
  • Normalize adding pronouns to usernames. Do not assume an individual's gender based off their name or appearance, encourage (or require) employees to list pronouns on their screen handles.[16]



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

Bias Interrupters for Mangers: Meetings


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


[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] Cecilia L. Ridgeway and Joseph Berger, “Expectations, Legitimation, and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups,”  American Sociological Review  (1986): 603–617

[3] Williams, J.C., Korn, R. M. & Maas, R. (2021). “The Elephant in the (Well-Designed) Room: An Investigation into Bias in the Architecture Profession,” The Center for WorkLife Law. UC Hastings College of the Law.

[4] Dhawan, N., Carnes, M., Byars-Winston, A., & Duma, N. (2021). Videoconferencing Etiquette: Promoting Gender Equity During Virtual Meetings. Journal of Women's Health30(4), 460-465.

[5] Cecilia L. Ridgeway and Joseph Berger, “Expectations, Legitimation, and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups,” American Sociological Review  (1986): 603–617; 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:; 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.

[6] Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY, US: Alfred A. Knopf.

[7] 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

[8] 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

[9] 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

[10] 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

[11] 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

[12] Ibid.

[13] Dhawan, N., Carnes, M., Byars-Winston, A., & Duma, N. (2021). Videoconferencing Etiquette: Promoting Gender Equity During Virtual Meetings. Journal of Women's Health30(4), 460-465.

[14] Frisch, B. & Greene, C. (2021). What it Takes to Run a Great Hybrid Meeting. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from:

[15] Essential Accessibility. (2021). How to Make Virtual Meetings Accessible. Retrieved from:

[16] For instructions on adding pronouns to your Zoom profile, visit:





Surveys show time and time again that employees want more flexibility at work, with one finding that 96% of white-collar professionals say they need flexibility.(1) Workers value workplaces that value them. In one study, attrition was cut in half when workers went remote, and telecommuting employees took fewer sick days and less time off.(2)

When workplaces rely on an outdated model of a breadwinner who is always available for work, not only do they exclude most people working today, they also hurt the company’s bottom line. According to Cisco, their mobile or remote employees have a voluntary attrition rate a third the size of their office-based employees.(3) Cisco credits this lower attrition rate with $75 million in annual savings for recruiting, hiring, and training replacements. Other studies have found sharp gains in productivity when workplaces move to telework or build-your-own schedules.(4)

Building a flexible workplace enables employers to promote people based on their talent instead of their schedule.


Recognize the difference between crisis work and full-time/part-time telework. Working remotely in the midst of a crisis, like the COVID-19 pandemic, is not the same as telework during normal times. The first steps to successful telework are childcare and a place to work. Organizations designing a permanent telework scheme typically will balance the productivity gains of telework with the innovation gains of in-office work. For tips on creating a telework policy that works for your organization visit: 

  1. Allow for flex time. Flex times allows employees to start and end work at times of their own choosing, often within limits (e.g. start times between 7-11 a.m.). Don’t assume hourly employees can’t participate: having one receptionist work 8-5 and another work 9-6, for example, often benefits an organization.
  2. Eliminate the flexibility stigma. Don’t stigmatize people based on schedule. Message clearly and often that promotion depends on talent and work, not on “face time” at the office—and practice what you preach. 
  3. Don’t overvalue overwork. Encouraging your employees to regularly burn the midnight oil hurts more than it helps. Studies dating back to WWI find that chronic overwork (more than 40 hours a week) hurts productivity and more recent studies find that working less than 40 hours a week can increase productivity.(6) In one study, managers couldn’t tell the difference between employees who actually worked 80 hours a week and those who pretended to. Pay attention to what an employee’s efforts lead to, not how many hours it takes them to get there.


Full Toolkit:

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Workplace Flexibility

Full Toolkit (with citations):

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Workplace Flexibility


(1) A. Dean & A. Auerbach, “96% of U.S. Professionals Say They Need Flexibility, but Only 47% Have It,” June 2018. Harvard Business Review,

(2) S. Mautz, “A 2-Year Stanford Study Shows the Astonishing Productivity Boost of Working From Home,” April 2018. Inc.,

(3) P. Leet, “How Telework Helps Cisco Recruit and Retain Employees,” June 2013. Cisco Blogs,

(4) Shana Lynch, “Why Working from Home is a ‘Future-Looking Technology,’” June 2017. Stanford Graduate School of Business,

(5) For additional remote work tools:

(6) Jill Duffy, “What wartime ‘munitionettes’ can teach us about burnout,” September 2019. BBC,

Sarah Green Carmichael, “The Research is Clear: Long Hours Backfire for People and Companies,” August 2015. Harvard Business Review,; “The Six-Hour Work Day”. Ohio University Online Masters Blogs,; John McNamara, “Create a culture of working less hours and you’ll boost productivity. Here’s why,” February 2018. Sage,

Family Leave

Family Leave


According to a report by Better Life Lab at New America, nearly half of parents didn’t take two days off work after the birth or adoption of a child.(1) Studies show that paid parental leave can reduce infant mortality rates and improve long-term child and maternal health.(2)

Family leave is not just about children. While 30% of Americans say they anticipate needing to take leave to care for a new child, twice that many (60%) say they anticipate needing to take at least some family leave in the future (including caring for ill, disabled, or aging family members).(3) In fact, one-sixth of Americans spend an average of 20 hours a week caring for a sick or elderly family member.(4)

The need for family leave policies is already here, and with a rapidly aging population, these needs are only growing.(5) In order to retain the best workers, companies need to step up and create comprehensive leave and work/life balance policies that work. While employers are expected to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws regarding leaves of absence, employers can and should do more to truly support and retain a diverse workforce with caregiving responsibilities.


  1. Set strong norms that everyone is expected to take their entire paid leave for childbirth/adoption. Leaders need to send a strong message that employees are expected to take the full amount of paid leave available to them, and that taking additional unpaid leave will not count against them. The best way to do this is to celebrate a pregnancy/adoption announcement (for men as well as women) by offering a company-logo onesie and group announcement signaling that children are something to be celebrated, not hidden. Once that norm is set, pregnancy/adoption announcements can be followed by having HR (or supervisors, if they are on-message) tell men as well as women that they are expected to take their full leave. Supervisors may need training to do this effectively. If there is a cultural expectation to come back early, then that is exactly what most employees will do. If men are not taking leave, your messaging is not effective, and men who want work-life balance are likely leaving your company for this reason.
  2. Eliminate the flexibility stigma. Effective policies depend on cultural shifts in your organization. If you tell employees– and you should– that taking leave won’t undercut their progress in the organization, then walk the talk. Make sure to plan for leaves effectively so that employees don’t feel slighted when they return, and so that their colleagues don’t feel like they are taking on undue burdens. 
  3. Don’t violate the Family and Medical Leave Act. It is illegal to interfere with or discourage any employee, male or female, from taking leave under the FMLA. Although employers are not completely forbidden from contacting employees while they are on leave, these calls should be limited to brief, necessary business-related calls.  Communications to return to work early, weekly status checks, or calls to perform work while on leave can make an employer liable for interference with FMLA rights.(6)  Calls to employees out on leave should be managed through Human Resources. It is illegal to penalize employees for requesting or taking leave, either before or after they do so.
  4. Use a three-meeting model for off-ramping. Effective on- and off-ramping is vital, both to ensure smooth transitions and to eliminate the flexibility stigma.
    1. After a pregnancy announcement, the employee’s supervisor should ask for a meeting, congratulate the future parent, hand out the company onesie (see # 6 above), and say: “We expect everyone to take their full paid leave—and the entire amount of unpaid leave available to them if they wish. We will develop a transition plan that works for you.” At the initial meeting, assign a leave liaison if you have that program (see. #12 below).If your employee is an adopting or foster parent, or if your employee is taking family leave for elder care or medical reasons, the two meetings may be on an accelerated schedule.
    2. Three months before the leave is set to start, the employee’s supervisor should schedule a meeting, saying: “Come prepared with a list of all your ongoing projects and who you think might be a good fit to take them while you’re on leave. If no one comes to mind, don’t worry. We can figure it out together at the meeting, even if we need to hire temporary help—your list is just a jumping off point.”
    3. Shortly before the expected leave date arrives, meet again to finalize the plan for transitioning job duties. The supervisor should ask about the employee’s thoughts about post leave (understanding that plans may change). Are they thinking about returning on a part-time or flex schedule? For equity and legal reasons, make sure everyone taking family leave, regardless of gender, is asked the same questions.
  5. Don’t forget to ramp up when they return. Often women return for maternity leave and find it is very difficult to ramp up due to assumptions that they have limited time, and perhaps limited commitment, to work. That’s why it’s important to schedule a meeting immediately when someone returns, with at least two weekly check-ins thereafter, to ensure that an employee returning from leave isn’t being sidelined for projects because colleagues are benevolently (or not so benevolently) concerned about the returned employee’s workload. Doing this helps avoid attrition—and helps prevent maternal wall bias from becoming a legal problem. 
  6. The best practice is a gradual-return-to-work policy. The best way to ensure that employees do not return to an overwhelming wall of work, and end up leaving the company, is a gradual-return-to-work policy. Typically these start with a 50% schedule and gradually build back to full-time. Without a formal policy, companies often find that some supervisors handle the return-to-work well, but that others do so poorly, resulting in high attrition. 
  7. Designate leave liaisons. Create a workplace mentorship program that links leave-takers with mentor colleagues. Mentors then act as guides on issues like off- and on-ramping and the transition into parenthood. 
  8. Schedule the time to review your family leave and work/life balance policies. Like anything else that’s a priority, add discussions on these policies to your strategic plan and budget meetings.

This toolkit was adapted from the Harvard Business Review article: “Need a Good Parental Leave Policy? Here it is.” by Joan C. Williams and Kate Massinger, available at:



Full Toolkit:

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Family Leave

Full Toolkit (with citations):

Bias Interrupters for Managers: Family Leave


(1)   A. Lenhart, H. Swenson, & B. Schulte, “Lifting the Barriers to Paid Family and Medical Leave for Men in the United States,” December 2019. New America: Better Life Lab.

(2)    Arijit Nandi et al., The Impact of Parental and Medical Leave Policies on Socioeconomic and Health Outcomes in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature, 96 The Milbank Quarterly 434–471 (2018).; “Paid Family Leave Policies And Population Health, " Health Affairs Health Policy Brief, March 28, 2019:

(3)   A. Lenhart, H. Swenson, & B. Schulte, “Lifting the Barriers to Paid Family and Medical leave for Men in the United States,” December 2019. New America: Better Life Lab.

(4)   Paid Leave US, “Making Caregiving Work for America’s Families,”

(5)   10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. - Paid Leave US, “Making Caregiving Work for America’s Families,”

(6) Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., 826 F.3d 1149, 1158 (8th Cir. 2016) (some courts have found that “asking or requiring an employee to perform work while on leave can constitute interference.”).


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

Need Assistance Implementing Bias Interrupters? We can help.

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.

New Report: Pinning Down the Jellyfish: The Workplace Experiences of Women of Color in Tech   Read Here