Acceso usuarios
Lucy Taksa, Louise Thomthwaite
Since the 1990s, the concept of Unconscious Bias1 has gained popularity as a basis for management strategies designed to tackle discrimination, inequality, and exclusion in the workplace and in organizations. Originating in social psychology research in the united States (uS),2 the concept was adopted in uS discrimination law in response to legal evidentiary standards and advocacy, before being taken up in Human Resource and Diversity Management, most notably in the form of Unconscious Bias Training. The concept and its management application subsequently spread to other countries, particularly in the Anglophone world, where US disparate treatment law was irrelevant, with Unconscious Bias Training recently described as the latest fashion in Diversity Management.3 Yet, despite the widespread popularity of the Unconscious Bias concept as an explanatory device and a practical approach in many countries, critical empirical research in social psychology and US discrimination law, as well as in human resource and diversity management scholarship, has questioned its conceptual premises, the validity and reliability of tools designed to test and address Unconscious Bias, and management support for them.
This article challenges the widespread acceptance of Unconscious Bias and Unconscious Bias Training in the management of workplace discrimination and workforce diversity through a critical examination of its historical roots in the discipline of social/cognitive psychology and in US discrimination law. Given the US-centric origins of Unconscious Bias and Unconscious Bias Training, and the considerable evidence of weaknesses in the concept and its application, we argue that there is a need for a reappraisal in the public policy arena and by management both generally and particularly in countries outside the US. In addition, we highlight views that suggest Unconscious Bias and Unconscious Bias Training reflect a narrow construction of the causes of inequality and exclusion as well as a form of bias normalization. Accordingly, we conclude with proposals for management practice and law reform that promote a stronger emphasis on standards of behavior and personal and organizational accountability to more effectively address discrimination and inequality at work.
