Effects of Unconscious Biases at a Workplace

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 5th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $50

Question Description

Please before getting into the prof.'s instructions .. The professor has a high expectations for this assignment so please do your best. SEE his instructions CAREFULLY PLEASE. Thanks



Assignment: Create a one (1) page reflection paper based on the content of the article.

Questions to consider when drafting your paper (you do not have to use any of these):

  1. How can unconscious biases, stereotypes, or discrimination effect a workplace?
  2. Where do unconscious biases come from? How can you work to understand and prevent bias from effecting you as an employee and/or a leader?
  3. Have you ever met someone (work or otherwise) that had an unconscious (or conscious) bias and how did that effect your perception of them?
  4. In what (if any) professional situations could bias be considered ethical?
  5. Have you ever witnessed a situation in which biases have existed across teams or functions within an organization? Think of Toby from the office and Michael Scott's impression of him due to his role. How did this effect the team(s)?
  6. Implicit bias/favoritism as it relates to personality style differences with a manager and their subordinates.
  7. As a current or future leader, how would you measure/protect against biases occurring with your people managers and/or their staff?
  8. Can biases occur at the customer level? What effect could this have?
  9. Can bias be a structural/organizational level problem?
  10. Name an individual (such as a celebrity) that appears to be non-biased/neutral. What traits do they possess?



Note: You must include a bibliography; failure to do so will result in a zero (0) for the assignment. This does not count towards the one (1) page limit.

When drafting your paper, pretend you are submitting your thoughts to a Senior Leader within your organization. As such, you want the information to be concise and to be written as professionally as possible. You do not have to write a traditional paper/essay; use of bullet points are fair game.




And see here how the grades go. And attached is the article.


Rubric

Article Review Rubric

Article Review Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Length No longer than 1 page per instructions.

10.0 to >9.0 pts One page or less

9.0 to >0 pts Over one page

1-2 pages: minus 5 Over 2 pages: 0

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Flow/Ease of Read Is the paper professionally written? Is it easy to understand? Does it flow well?

20.0 to >15.0 pts All to most critera met

15.0 to >0 pts Needs improvement

Not professionally written, and/or not easy to understand, and/or does not flow well.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Established Topic Does the paper have an established topic with sound reasoning about the writer's position on said topic?

20.0 to >15.0 pts All to most critera met

15.0 to >0 pts Needs improvement

Topic is either not well defined or the reasoning surrounding the writer's position is not relevant to OB or not clearly articulated.

20.0 pts

Total Points: 50.0


please help me out. Thanks.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

For the exclusive use of A. Arishi, 2019. www.hbr.org Good managers often make unethical decisions—and don’t even know it. How (Un)ethical Are You? by Mahzarin R. Banaji, Max H. Bazerman, and Dolly Chugh Included with this full-text Harvard Business Review article: 1 Article Summary The Idea in Brief—the core idea The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work 2 How (Un)ethical Are You? 10 Further Reading A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further exploration of the article’s ideas and applications Reprint R0312D This document is authorized for use only by Amal Arishi in MGT 670 A: People in Organizations; Spring 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Jan 2019 to May 2019. For the exclusive use of A. Arishi, 2019. How (Un)ethical Are You? The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice Are you an ethical manager? Most would probably say, “Of course!” The truth is, most of us are not. UNCONSCIOUS BIASES COUNTERACT BIASES Are the following unconscious biases levying what amounts to a “stereotype tax” on your company? To keep yourself from making similarly skewed calls, consider these guidelines: Most of us believe that we’re ethical and unbiased. We assume that we objectively size up job candidates or venture deals and reach fair and rational conclusions that are in our organization’s best interests. COPYRIGHT © 2003 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. But the truth is, we harbor many unconscious—and unethical—biases that derail our decisions and undermine our work as managers. Hidden biases prevent us from recognizing high-potential workers and retaining talented managers. They stop us from collaborating effectively with partners. They erode our teams’ performance. They can also lead to costly lawsuits. But how can we root out these biases if they’re unconscious? Fortunately, as a manager, you can take deliberate actions to counteract their pull. Regularly audit your decisions. Have you, for example, hired a disproportionate number of people of your own race? Expose yourself to nonstereotypical environments that challenge your biases. If your department is led by men, spend time in one with women in leadership positions. And consider counterintuitive options when making decisions. Don’t rely on a mental short-list of candidates for a new assignment; consider every employee with relevant qualifications. Implicit prejudice Judging according to unconscious stereotypes rather than merit exacts a high business cost. Exposed to images that juxtapose physical disabilities with mental weakness or portray poor people as lazy, even the most consciously unbiased person is bound to make biased associations. As a result, we routinely overlook highly qualified candidates for assignments. In-group favoritism Granting favors to people with your same background—your nationality or alma mater—effectively discriminates against those who are different from you. Consider the potential cost of offering bonuses to employees who refer their friends for job openings: hires who may not have made the grade without in-group favoritism. Overclaiming credit Most of us consider ourselves above average. But when every member of a team thinks he’s making the biggest contribution, each starts to think the others aren’t pulling their weight. That jeopardizes future collaborations. It also frustrates talented workers who may resign because they feel underappreciated. Gather better data. Expose your own implicit biases. Take the Implicit Association Test (at http://implicit. harvard.edu). If you discover gender or racial biases, examine your hiring and promotion decisions in that new light. When working with others, have team members estimate their colleagues’ contributions before they claim their own credit. Rid your workplace of stereotypical cues. Think about the biased associations your workplace may foster. Do your company’s advertising and marketing materials frequently include sports metaphors or high-tech jargon? Make a conscious effort to curb such “insider” language—making your products more appealing to a diverse customer base. And if your department invariably promotes the same type of manager—highly analytic, for instance—shadow a department that values a different—perhaps more conceptual—skillset. Broaden your mind-set when making decisions. Apply the “veil of ignorance” to your next managerial decision. Suppose you’re considering a new policy that would give more vacation time to all employees but eliminate the flextime that has allowed new parents to keep working. How would your opinion differ if you were a parent or childless? Male or female? Healthy or unhealthy? You’ll learn how strongly implicit biases influence you. page 1 This document is authorized for use only by Amal Arishi in MGT 670 A: People in Organizations; Spring 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Jan 2019 to May 2019. For the exclusive use of A. Arishi, 2019. Good managers often make unethical decisions—and don’t even know it. How (Un)ethical Are You? COPYRIGHT © 2003 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. by Mahzarin R. Banaji, Max H. Bazerman, and Dolly Chugh Answer true or false: “I am an ethical manager.” If you answered “true,” here’s an uncomfortable fact: You’re probably not. Most of us believe that we are ethical and unbiased. We imagine we’re good decision makers, able to objectively size up a job candidate or a venture deal and reach a fair and rational conclusion that’s in our, and our organization’s, best interests. But more than two decades of research confirms that, in reality, most of us fall woefully short of our inflated self-perception. We’re deluded by what Yale psychologist David Armor calls the illusion of objectivity, the notion that we’re free of the very biases we’re so quick to recognize in others. What’s more, these unconscious, or implicit, biases can be contrary to our consciously held, explicit beliefs. We may believe with confidence and conviction that a job candidate’s race has no bearing on our hiring decisions or that we’re immune to conflicts of interest. But psychological research routinely exposes counterintentional, unconscious biases. The prevalence of these biases suggests that even the harvard business review • december 2003 most well-meaning person unwittingly allows unconscious thoughts and feelings to influence seemingly objective decisions. These flawed judgments are ethically problematic and undermine managers’ fundamental work—to recruit and retain superior talent, boost the performance of individuals and teams, and collaborate effectively with partners. This article explores four related sources of unintentional unethical decision making: implicit forms of prejudice, bias that favors one’s own group, conflict of interest, and a tendency to overclaim credit. Because we are not consciously aware of these sources of bias, they often cannot be addressed by penalizing people for their bad decisions. Nor are they likely to be corrected through conventional ethics training. Rather, managers must bring a new type of vigilance to bear. To begin, this requires letting go of the notion that our conscious attitudes always represent what we think they do. It also demands that we abandon our faith in our own objectivity and our ability to be fair. In the following pages, we page 2 This document is authorized for use only by Amal Arishi in MGT 670 A: People in Organizations; Spring 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Jan 2019 to May 2019. For the exclusive use of A. Arishi, 2019. How (Un)ethical Are You? will offer strategies that can help managers recognize these pervasive, corrosive, unconscious biases and reduce their impact. Implicit Prejudice: Bias That Emerges from Unconscious Beliefs Mahzarin R. Banaji is the Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics in the department of psychology at Harvard University and the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Max H. Bazerman is the Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School in Boston. Dolly Chugh, a Harvard Business School MBA, is now a doctoral candidate in Harvard University’s joint program in organizational behavior and social psychology. Most fair-minded people strive to judge others according to their merits, but our research shows how often people instead judge according to unconscious stereotypes and attitudes, or “implicit prejudice.” What makes implicit prejudice so common and persistent is that it is rooted in the fundamental mechanics of thought. Early on, we learn to associate things that commonly go together and expect them to inevitably coexist: thunder and rain, for instance, or gray hair and old age. This skill—to perceive and learn from associations—often serves us well. But, of course, our associations only reflect approximations of the truth; they are rarely applicable to every encounter. Rain doesn’t always accompany thunder, and the young can also go gray. Nonetheless, because we automatically make such associations to help us organize our world, we grow to trust them, and they can blind us to those instances in which the associations are not accurate—when they don’t align with our expectations. Because implicit prejudice arises from the ordinary and unconscious tendency to make associations, it is distinct from conscious forms of prejudice, such as overt racism or sexism. This distinction explains why people who are free from conscious prejudice may still harbor biases and act accordingly. Exposed to images that juxtapose black men and violence, portray women as sex objects, imply that the physically disabled are mentally weak and the poor are lazy, even the most consciously unbiased person is bound to make biased associations. These associations play out in the workplace just as they do anywhere else. In the mid-1990s, Tony Greenwald, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, developed an experimental tool called the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to study unconscious bias. A computerized version of the test requires subjects to rapidly classify words and images as “good” or “bad.” Using a keyboard, test takers must make split-second “good/bad” distinctions between words like “love,” “joy,” “pain,” and “sorrow” and at the same time sort images of faces that are (depending on the bias harvard business review • december 2003 in question) black or white, young or old, fat or thin, and so on. The test exposes implicit biases by detecting subtle shifts in reaction time that can occur when test takers are required to pair different sets of words and faces. Subjects who consciously believe that they have no negative feelings toward, say, black Americans or the elderly are nevertheless likely to be slower to associate elderly or black faces with the “good” words than they are to associate youthful or white faces with “good” words. Since 1998, when Greenwald, Brian Nosek, and Mahzarin Banaji put the IAT online, people from around the world have taken over 2.5 million tests, confirming and extending the findings of more traditional laboratory experiments. Both show implicit biases to be strong and pervasive. (For more information on the IAT, see the sidebar “Are You Biased?”.) Biases are also likely to be costly. In controlled experiments, psychologists Laurie Rudman at Rutgers and Peter Glick at Lawrence University have studied how implicit biases may work to exclude qualified people from certain roles. One set of experiments examined the relationship between participants’ implicit gender stereotypes and their hiring decisions. Those holding stronger implicit biases were less likely to select a qualified woman who exhibited stereotypically “masculine” personality qualities, such as ambition or independence, for a job requiring stereotypically “feminine” qualities, such as interpersonal skills. Yet they would select a qualified man exhibiting these same qualities. The hirers’ biased perception was that the woman was less likely to be socially skilled than the man, though their qualifications were in fact the same. These results suggest that implicit biases may exact costs by subtly excluding qualified people from the very organizations that seek their talents. Legal cases also reveal the real costs of implicit biases, both economic and social. Consider Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Despite logging more billable hours than her peers, bringing in $25 million to the company, and earning the praise of her clients, Ann Hopkins was turned down for partner, and she sued. The details of the case reveal that her evaluators were explicitly prejudiced in their attitudes. For example, they had commented that Ann “overcompensated for being a woman” and needed a “course at charm school.” But perhaps more damning from a legal stand- page 3 This document is authorized for use only by Amal Arishi in MGT 670 A: People in Organizations; Spring 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Jan 2019 to May 2019. For the exclusive use of A. Arishi, 2019. How (Un)ethical Are You? point was blunt testimony from experimental research. Testifying as an expert witness for the defense, psychology professor Susan Fiske, now at Princeton University, argued that the potential for biased decision making is inherent in a system in which a person has “solo” status—that is, a system in which the person is the only one of a kind (the only woman, the only African-American, the only person with a disability, and the like). Judge Gerhard Gesell concluded that “a far more subtle process [than the usual discriminatory intent] is involved” in the assessments made of Ann Hopkins, and she won both in a lower court and in the Supreme Court in what is now a landmark case in discrimination law. Likewise, the 1999 case of Thomas v. Kodak demonstrates that implicit biases can be the basis for rulings. Here, the court posed the question of “whether the employer consciously intended to base the evaluations on race or simply did so because of unthinking stereotypes or bias.” The court concluded that plaintiffs can indeed challenge “subjective evaluations which could easily mask covert or unconscious race discrimination.” Although courts are careful not to assign responsibility easily for unintentional biases, these cases demonstrate the potential for corporate liability that such patterns of behavior could unwittingly create. In-Group Favoritism: Bias That Favors Your Group Think about some of the favors you have done in recent years, whether for a friend, a relative, or a colleague. Have you helped someone get a useful introduction, admission to a school, or a job? Most of us are glad to help out with such favors. Not surprisingly, we tend to do more favors for those we know, and those we know tend to be like ourselves: people who share our nationality, social class, and perhaps religion, race, employer, or alma mater. This all sounds rather innocent. What’s wrong with asking your neighbor, the university dean, to meet with a coworker’s son? Isn’t it just being helpful to recommend a former sorority sister for a job or to talk to your banker cousin when a friend from church gets turned down for a home loan? Few people set out to exclude anyone through such acts of kindness. But when those in the majority or those in power allocate scarce resources (such as jobs, promotions, and mortgages) to people just like them, they effectively discriminate against those who are different from them. Such “in-group favoritism” amounts to giving extra credit for group membership. Yet while discriminating against those who are different is considered unethical, helping people close to us is often viewed favorably. Think about the number of companies Are You Biased? Are you willing to bet that you feel the same way toward European-Americans as you do toward African-Americans? How about women versus men? Or older people versus younger ones? Think twice before you take that bet. Visit implicit.harvard.edu or www. tolerance.org/hidden_bias to examine your unconscious attitudes. The Implicit Association Tests available on these sites reveal unconscious beliefs by asking takers to make split-second associations between words with positive or negative connotations and images representing different types of people. The various tests on these sites expose the differences—or the alignment—between test takers’ conscious and unconscious attitudes toward people of different races, sexual orientation, or physical characteristics. Data gathered from over harvard business review • december 2003 2.5 million online tests and further research tells us that unconscious biases are: • widely prevalent. At least 75% of test takers show an implicit bias favoring the young, the rich, and whites. • robust. The mere conscious desire not to be biased does not eliminate implicit bias. • contrary to conscious intention. Although people tend to report little or no conscious bias against African-Americans, Arabs, Arab-Americans, Jews, gay men, lesbians, or the poor, they show substantial biases on implicit measures. • different in degree depending on group status. Minority group members tend to show less implicit preference for their own group than majority group members show for theirs. For example, AfricanAmericans report strong preference for their group on explicit measures but show relatively less implicit preference in the tests. Conversely, white Americans report a low explicit bias for their group but a higher implicit bias. • consequential. Those who show higher levels of bias on the IAT are also likely to behave in ways that are more biased in faceto-face interactions with members of the group they are biased against and in the choices they make, such as hiring decisions. • costly. Research currently under way in our lab suggests that implicit bias generates a “stereotype tax”—negotiators leave money on the table because biases cause them to miss opportunities to learn about their opponent and thus create additional value through mutually beneficial trade-offs. page 4 This document is authorized for use only by Amal Arishi in MGT 670 A: People in Organizations; Spring 2019 taught by Jeremy Kephart, Niagara University from Jan 2019 to May 2019. For the exclusive use of A. Arishi, 2019. How (Un)ethical Are You? Would you be willing to risk being in the group disadvantaged by your own decision? that explicitly encourage this by offering hiring bonuses to employees who refer their friends for job opportunities. But consider the finding that banks in the United States are more likely to deny a mortgage application from a black person than from a white person, even when the applicants are equally qualified. The common view has been that banks are hostile to African-Americans. While this may be true of some banks and some loan officers, social psychologist David Messick has argued that in-group favoritism is more likely to be at the root of such discriminatory lending. A white loan officer may feel hopeful or lenient toward an unqualified white applicant while following the bank’s lending standards strictly with an unqualified black applicant. In denying the black applicant’s mortgage, the loan officer may not be expressing hostility toward blacks so much as favoritism toward whites. It’s a subtle but crucial distinction. The ethical cost is clear and should be reason enough to address the problem. But such inadvertent bias produces an additional effect: It erodes the bottom line. Lenders who discriminate ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Hellenath
School: Rice University

Attached.

Running head: UNCONSCIOUS BIASES

1

Effects of Unconscious Biases at a Workplace
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Date

UNCONSCIOUS BIASES

2

Unconscious biases are an unavoidable truth. Unconscious biases in the work
environment can frustrate assorted variety, enrolling and maintenance endeavors, and
unwittingly shape an association's way of life. In any workplace, unconscious biases are
always present. Uncon...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors