August 2006 Issue: "Fake It Till You Make It"

Sally was sure it was gone – her long-held bias that perpetually whispered in her ear, “All people over 50 are ‘technologically-challenged.’” But, just as she was about to interview an applicant for a newly-opened IT position, up that pesky bias popped making its unwanted appearance in the form of this thought: “This applicant has got to be at least 53, there is no way she can keep up with our new technology.”

Sally’s example forces us to face the sad reality that some biases simply refuse to stay out of our way. For whatever reason, every time we are convinced that our “inflexible belief” is finally and forever shoved out of our brains, it comes meandering back like an unwanted houseguest. In the unlikely event that this happens to you, remember that there is still hope and that hope lies in this simple suggestion: Act as if you don’t have the bias.

Aristotle was a fan of this approach. He knew that attitude follows behavior and with respect to bias he would no doubt have supported the modern dictum, “Fake it till you make it.” Psychologist Daryl Bem put it another way: ASaying and doing becomes believing. The psychological truism that underpins this statement is that most of us can't stand doing something that does not conform to what we really feel. This disconnection between action and feeling is called cognitive dissonance. Because cognitive dissonance is so unpleasant, something has to give, and if we're stuck with the behavior, we are forced by our discomfort to change our attitude.

Let me create a composite character named Bess to show how beneficial faking it can be. Ever since she can remember, Bess has had, as she put it, a “thing” about people who don’t express themselves well. Whether it’s that English is their second language or that they lack formal education, as soon as she hears them speak, her mind is filled with judgments like “unintelligent,” “will never be able to do the job” (even if the job has little to do with communication skills), “uncreative,” negative etc., negative etc., negative etc.

For whatever reason, Bess just couldn’t exterminate this bias. She was aware it existed and aware it distorted her view of many employees who had much to offer, but she still found herself avoiding people who did not articulate up to her standard. The problem became so bad that one staff member, a Latino immigrant, told Bess that he felt she was discriminating against him.

Bess felt awful about this accusation; after all, she is one of those nice people who would never deliberately make another person feel excluded or diminished. Determined to change her behavior, Bess made a list of the things her bias was causing her to do and the consequences of those behaviors:

Behavior: Failure to initiate conversations with the objects of her bias.

Negative Consequences: Perception of discrimination. Alienation of the team.

Behavior: Failure to assign certain employees to plum projects.

Negative Consequences: Employees’ inability to gain valuable experience and exposure. Perception of discrimination.

Behavior: Failure to call on particular team members during meetings.

Negative Consequences: Missed opportunities to voice ideas or ask questions. Perception of discrimination.

Having made her behaviors concrete and measurable, Bess set out to substitute correct behaviors for the faulty ones that her bias was causing her to commit.

Sustitute Behavior: Bess consciously began to initiate conversations with people whom she used to ignore.

Positive Consequences: She discovered how much these people had to offer and began to treat them more fairly.

Substitute Behavior: Bess started consciously assigning those employees who were qualified to good projects. Notice, I said, “those who were qualified”; she resisted the temptation to lower her standard and, thereby, fall in the trap of over-compensating for her bias.

Positive Consequences: Most of the employees excelled.

Substitute Behavior: Bess began to call on people more equally during meetings and, most important, really listened to what they had to say.

Positive Consequences: She and her team were exposed to different perspectives. Also, the employees, because they were given the opportunity to speak, were able to hone their communication skills.

The ultimate consequence was that Bess’ bias began to fade. It faded because it couldn’t survive the onslaught of positive and varied information that Bess’ new behaviors caused to come her way. The better she treated people, the better they responded; the better they responded, the more positive her experience; the more positive her experience, the better she felt about a group whom she had previously dismissed. In Bess’ case, each positive experience served as a layer of poultice on her festering bias and before she knew it, the wound had healed. Fake it till you make it; it works.

Next Month's Topic: "Is 'Guerilla Bias' Making War on Your Organization?"

Sondra Thiederman is a speaker and author on bias-free leadership, diversity, bias-reduction, and cross-cultural issues. She is the author of Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Reducing Bias in the Workplace (Chicago: Dearborn Press, 2003) which is available at her web site or at www.Amazon.com. She can be contacted at:

Sondra Thiederman, Ph.D.
Cross-Cultural Communications
4585 48th Street
San Diego, CA 92115
Phones: 619-583-4478 / 800-858-4478
Fax: 619-583-0304
www.Thiederman.com / STPhD@Thiederman.com

Copyright 2006 Cross-Cultural Communications. Should you wish to re-print this article, you may do so as long as the current copyright statement and all contact information is included.

Email This Article To A Friend! Your name: Your email: Your friend's name: Your friend's email: