Choosing to Challenge — searching for a better balance
As I reflected on this year’s IWD theme taking responsibility for our thoughts and actions. When we choose to challenge our own beliefs, as well as others, how do we challenge bias?
I know, the mere mention of “bias” produces a confused or wary look. Like ‘politics’ or ‘power,’ it elicits a visceral reaction, often filed under “negative.”
Bias is our natural proclivity, choosing one thing over another, and is not always negative. Bias is not good nor bad; it’s how our brains work. For those who actually think they’re not biased, the nature of deception is such that you never know when you are being deceived. Or you’re a Martian.
Researching women in leadership in Asia Pacific, I’ve seen unconscious bias all across organisations, and its impact (not so good) on diversity and inclusion efforts. We’ve all participated in some form of unconscious bias training. Does it stick?
Every facet of the employee life cycle; recruitment, on-boarding, promotion, pay, talent-mapping, and leadership selection — all provide opportunities for bias to flourish. If we choose to challenge our decisions at each one of these cycles, bias awareness is much more likely to stick.
Progress of sorts is being made. According to Catalyst, “In 2019, the proportion of women in senior management roles globally grew to 29%, the highest number ever recorded. In 2020, this percentage remains the same.”
So why am I focusing on bias, and choosing to challenge matters? Here’s why.
Conscious or unconscious, bias hinders our ability to accept something new or different. Bias triggers an automatic reaction towards a person, place or thing.
I’ve witnessed more automatic judgement or over-reliance on a certain leadership quality than I can recall. But of course, leadership encompasses many capabilities, not just one. We possess those unconscious beliefs of what we believe leadership to be, or assume similarities with leaders across cultures.
Otherwise, those beliefs (tucked away in the recesses of our minds) affect our perspective and impact a leadership selection process. How could it not?
Leadership selection highlights the challenges with bias, often with implicit associations and misplaced ideas of physical attributes, tenor of voice, communication style, body English and loosely defined qualities. I’ve found much confusion around word definitions, and assumptions around leadership.
For example, “presence”, “ambition”, “failure”, even the word “leader” are often misinterpreted, all with different connotations. In Korea and Vietnam, “ambition” has more of a negative undertone than in India, China, or the Philippines. As does “failure.” And so forth.
Another stumbling block in leadership selection is that over-emphasis on one quality, which is not necessarily a competency. People can quickly be overlooked or get put on “needs development” program due to a perceived lack of visibility, or ‘presence’, which is highly subjective, along with the nuances of culture. Presence is sometimes linked to charisma,so how then is charisma depicted across cultures? For example, a charismatic leader in Beijing may display different behaviors than leaders in Boston, Bombay or Buenos Aires.
Here’s what I’ve found:
At a meeting with Tim, SVP with a global luxury brand in Asia. Tim mentioned, “Helen is our top performer — which is why she was promoted. We lobbied hard to get her promoted. And now I’m getting push back. She needs much more presence.”
‘Tell me what you mean by presence?’ I asked. “I don’t know”, he said slowly, “but by the end of the coaching she’d will have it.”
Not the best way to start a coaching assignment.
Presence as a goal is loaded with ambiguity. More so, presence is vastly different cross-culturally. It’s almost a catch-all phrase wrapped around cultural norms of company or country. Can Helen develop ‘presence’ when her boss or organization can’t define it?
I’ve worked with many talented, quiet and humble individuals who have had outstanding track records of success. In some cases leaders with a gift for speaking openly and candidly may overshadow a more observant and reserved leader. Those more animated qualities can easily be mistaken as charismatic — bias in action.
Best to simply be aware of different rhetorical styles in different cultures, along with the choice of words used; communication style impacts and influences any community of followers. Challenging decisions -especially when shaded with bias — requires courage and self-awareness to reflect and pay attention to the moment at hand. Such awareness keeps us on track, guides our conscience, makes us acknowledge what we cannot immediately grasp and exposes those limiting beliefs. The ability to turn inward and be consciously aware, dusted with a coating of courage, should be part of an organisation’s process in leadership selection within a multicultural, gendered environment.
#choosetochallenge
