You need to determine whether inoffensive statements or actions are bias, prejudice or bullying, and calibrate your response accordingly, whether as an individual or a leader.Shutterstock
Interested in more careers-related content? Check out our new weekly Work Life newsletter. Sent every Monday afternoon.
Bias, prejudice and bullying are three train wrecks in our workplaces, argues consultant Kim Scott.
We need to understand them – each is different, even if we usually treat them synonymously – and develop skills to handle them when they are wielded against us.
As a starting point, she offers these handy distinctions between the three:
- Bias is unconscious. It comes from the part of our mind that jumps to conclusions, often reflecting stereotypes that we don’t believe if we stop to think. So bias isn’t really meant.
- Prejudice, on the other hand, is meant. It is a consciously held belief, often rationalizing flawed assumptions and stereotypes.
- Bullying goes even further: It is being mean. But oddly, she says there may be no belief, conscious or unconscious, behind it. “Often it is the instinctive use of in-group status or power to harm, humiliate, dominate or coerce others,” she writes in her book Radical Respect.
Intention may not matter, however. We are all biased, for example, and since it doesn’t usually come from ill intent it can be tempting to dismiss bias as less severe than the other two infractions. While that may be true from the perspective of the person who caused harm, she stresses it may be different from the perspective of the recipients of bias. Many find it more harmful than harassment or bullying because it happens more frequently.
You need to determine whether inoffensive statements or actions are bias, prejudice or bullying, and calibrate your response accordingly, whether as an individual or a leader.
With bias, she recommends an “I statement,” offering your perspective on a situation, thus giving the other person a new lens through which they can understand what’s happening. The simplest “I statement” is a factual correction. A common example is when somebody assumes a man is the leader in a group. If you are the man, simply say, “I am not the decider here; she is.”
If the person has said something inoffensive, Ms. Scott recommends responding, “I don’t really think you meant that the way it sounded to me.” That indicates how the statement landed for you without deliberately attacking the person making the comment. Another response to a common situation: “I don’t think you’ll take me seriously when you call me honey.”
Ms. Scott says an “I statement” is a generous response to someone else’s unconscious response, helping them to learn. It’s also a good way to figure out whether the situation is in fact bias or there is something deeper.
Usually if it’s deeper, you are dealing with prejudice – something conscious. The individual has commented that one race is inferior or superior or a given generation slower or faster on the uptake.
Holding up a mirror with an “I statement” won’t work. “It’s useful instead to draw a clear boundary: A person can believe whatever they want, but they can not impose their beliefs on others,” Ms. Scott writes.
The technique to employ is an “it statement,” which states the boundary by appealing to the law, an HR policy or common sense. She offers this example: “It is against the law / an HR violation / ridiculous to refuse to hire the most qualified candidate because of their hairstyle – or any other identity attribute.” You want to leave some room for discussion. But the boundary must be definitely stated.
With bullying – abusive conduct that is threatening, intimidating or humiliating – pointing out the pain the bully is causing through an “I statement” may only encourage them further. And because bullies usually like to break the rules, setting out a boundary doesn’t help either.
Instead, she recommends a “you statement”: “What’s going on for you here?” or “you need to stop talking to me in that way.” The bully is trying to put you in a submissive position, but this response puts you in the active role, making clear you will not tolerate their abuse, and shines an uncomfortable spotlight on their behaviour.
No, it’s not easy. But it’s a direction forward for handling the three train wrecks we are forced to grapple with at work.
Quick hits
- Lacrosse legend Paul Rabil says you should study the people who shouldn’t be as successful as they are and learn from how they unexpectedly reached so high.
- Consultant Marlene Chism observes that impatience toward others often means you think you are more important than them: Your schedule, time or objectives holds precedence. Get over yourself and respect others.
- Author Mark Manson points out that a few pursuits will generate most of your happiness, a few people will meet most of your needs and a few projects lead to most of your success. The way to improve your life may not be to do more but to focus on less.
Harvey Schachter is a Kingston-based writer specializing in management issues. He, along with Sheelagh Whittaker, former CEO of both EDS Canada and Cancom, are the authors of When Harvey Didn’t Meet Sheelagh: Emails on Leadership.