Recognizing and Managing Implicit Bias

One in five British men have no problem using sexist language. Only 14% feel comfortable calling it out when they hear it. Yet over 50% agree that sexist language can be hurtful. The math doesn't add up, does it? CPB London's "Double Standards" campaign exposes something we all know but rarely discuss: the casual sexism hiding in everyday language. The campaign's effectiveness is its simplicity: it shows the stark visual contrast between how we describe the same behavior in men versus women. Their research, conducted by Locaria, revealed the uncomfortable truth about why men use sexist language: → To "be funny" → To show camaraderie and bond with others → To fit in with group dynamics This isn't just about hurt feelings. Language shapes reality. When we casually use words that diminish women, we're not just being "harmlessly" inappropriate. We're reinforcing the very barriers that keep women from reaching their potential. Every "bossy" instead of "decisive." Every "emotional" instead of "passionate." Every piece of casual sexist banter that gets laughed off. It adds up to create environments where women have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously. This isn't just an English-speaking problem. Locaria confirmed that similar double standards exist across French, Arabic, German, Mandarin, Japanese, Italian, and Spanish. This is global. Systemic. Embedded in how we communicate across cultures. Their "Pledge for Positivity" asks people to: → Watch out for hidden sexism in everyday language → Create safe spaces for discussion without finger-pointing → Research the sexist phrases people around them use most → Call out sexist language with sensitivity → Recognize that "harmless banter" isn't harmless What I love about this approach: it's not about shame or blame. It's about awareness and action. Because most sexist language is used unconsciously. People genuinely don't realise the impact of their words. But once you see it, you can't unsee it. The question becomes: what are you going to do about it? Have you noticed double standards in the language used around you? What examples stand out? ♻️ Found this helpful? Repost to share with your network. ⚡ Want more content like this? Hit follow Maya Moufarek.

Being told you’re “easy to work with” is the worst compliment you could receive. Here’s why: Nine times out of ten, that “compliment” isn’t about your skills or leadership potential. It’s about your ability to shrink so that everyone else can be comfortable. How smoothly you silence your preferences, your truth, your self. How quietly you take on extra work and stay in line (whatever that means). If you're not careful, you'll mistake it for a badge of honor when in reality it's a receipt & proof that you've been paying the likability tax. The likability tax is the unspoken toll women—especially Black women and women of color—pay to be seen as non-threatening, agreeable, and palatable in the workplace. It’s the cost of downplaying your voice and muting your truth in exchange for being “liked.” And it’s expensive. It’s when you smile and nod, even when you disagree. It’s when you say “I’m good either way” when you're actually not. It’s when you edit the deck, run the meeting, take the notes, follow up, and still don't ask for credit because somewhere deep down, you've learned that being liked is safer than being loud. And don’t get it twisted—this isn’t about being a team player. This is about self-erasure dressed up as professionalism. Because we know on some teams, when a woman has a strong opinion, a clear boundary, or ambitious ask she's labeled. Either she's too much, too difficult, too assertive, too entitled, too ______. So instead of speaking up, she's always agreeable, pleasant, and quiet - trading her voice for job security. And what does she get in return? Praise but no promotion. Thanks but no pay increase. Titled "low maintenance" and applauded for her invisible labor. This is how women, especially Black women and women of color—get underpaid, underestimated, and overlooked while being told how “nice” they are to work with. But let’s be clear: Nice doesn’t build equity. Agreeable doesn’t close pay gaps. Being “easy” to work with won’t get you in the rooms where decisions are made. It just ensures you won’t be seen as a threat. So no, you're not thriving sis. You're surviving. And you're tired of downplaying your contributions so that others feel comfortable. Tired of working twice as hard and getting half the credit. Tired of claiming it's “teamwork” when it’s really just a masterclass in self-sacrifice. When you're as good as you are, certain people benefit from you being quiet than they do from you speaking up. You don't need to be easier to work with. They need to be better at working with women like you. The next time someone says, “You’re so easy to work with,” ask yourself why. You just may be paying the likability tax. — Found this valuable? Make sure to ♻️ repost because friends don’t let friends miss out on helpful content! Want to work with us? Book your Fulfilled Career Clarity Call here - isimemen.com/start

Non-inclusion is often viewed as major offenses, such as abusive language or inappropriate behaviour. However, "micro-moments" can also be serious, particularly since (a) those affected are less likely to report them, (b) any reports may be dismissed as harmless banter, and (c) those causing them may not be intending any harm, and so they build up over time. Some interviewees in my report for Diversity Project - Investment Industry shared how the common use of the word “guys” gives the impression that investors are male, or that the only investors that matter are male (such as “are you guys coming to the meeting?”). The “solution” of referring to “guys and girls” remains non-inclusive, since female professionals are women and “girls” is diminutive. Full report at https://lnkd.in/eASk7x3P

"She's a gold digger" Of late, I've heard this term thrown around a LOT for women. Whether a woman prefers fair compensation at work or chooses to marry a financially stable partner, or even advocates for her rights.....this judgment is quick and cruel. BUT WHY are more and more women being labelled 'gold digger'? Lets take a step back and challenge this judgment: 1️⃣ For centuries, Indian society has expected women to prioritize security in marriage. Dowry, parental financial dependency & unequal work opportunities have reinforced the idea that a woman must “marry well” because she may not have the same financial independence as men. 𝐈𝐟 𝐰𝐞’𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬? 2️⃣ Studies consistently show that Indian women earn less than men for the same work. The gender pay gap in India is 24% (World Economic Forum, 2023). Women often face career breaks due to caregiving responsibilities. If a woman prioritizes financial security in her partner, is she a "gold digger," or 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲? 3️⃣Bollywood has glorified men choosing partners based on beauty, youth, and submission—rarely do we hear them being called "superficial." Songs such as क्यों पैसा पैसा करती है, क्यों पैसे पर तू मरती है? make it even more direct that its only her who is behind men who earn well. And also- पैसा, गाड़ी, महंगा घर, I need a man who can give me all that! When a woman values financial stability, she is ridiculed. Why this double standard? 𝐈𝐟 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧? 4️⃣Inheritance laws and property rights have only recently started acknowledging women’s equal rights, yet enforcement remains weak. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡. If economic security is systematically denied to them, is it so wrong for women to seek it in marriage? Instead of shaming women, let’s ask: ✔️ Are we creating a world where women can be financially independent? ✔️ Are we raising boys to see partnership as shared responsibility? ✔️ Are we acknowledging how economic realities shape choices? It’s not about "gold-digging." It’s about survival, dignity, and breaking centuries of financial inequity. Let’s stop blaming women for navigating a system they didn’t create. Instead, let’s work on fixing that system. #golddigger #feminism #patriarchy #the_therapist_mommy

There is a strong belief that women are more generous, and care more about equality, than men. Also, many people believe that women tend to be underconfident. None of these beliefs are true, two recent papers find. One paper —nicely titled "Men are from Mars, and Women Too"— focuses on self-confidence. The paper starts by surveying hundreds of experts, finding that 77% of them think that women are underconfident whereas men are overconfident. Next they do a comprehensive survey of all experimental tests of self-confidence that have been published in the past twenty years. The key result: 72% of all studies find that *both* women and men are overconfident. Only 18% of published studies support the commonly held view. The other paper considers social preferences. "Using data from 15 studies and 8,979 individuals" the paper finds "that women are believed to be more generous and more equality-oriented than men. [...] Yet this believed gender gap is largely inaccurate." The authors "find little to no evidence for gender differences in behavior or attitudes relating to social preferences". Hence, women and men are much more similar than commonly thought. Sure, people differ in their social preferences and self-confidence, and actually differences can be quite substantially. But gender is not predictive of such differences. Why is this important to know? Why is it important to correct these misperceptions about women and men? One reason is that misperceptions may affect selection and sorting in the labor market, in politics, and in society at large, resulting in a misallocation of talents and traits. For instance, if people think that to be a good leader one needs to have sufficient self-confidence, they may be biased against women, as they mistakenly believe that women tend to be underconfident. Likewise, people may be biased against men when selecting for positions that require generosity and care, mistakenly thinking that these qualities are mainly or only present among women. Read the full papers here (all open access!): Oriana Bandiera, Nidhi Parekh, Barbara Petrongolo, and Michelle Rao (2022), Men are from Mars, and Women Too: A Bayesian Meta-analysis of Overconfidence Experiments, Economica: https://lnkd.in/e6_dMRyG Christine Exley, Oliver Hauser, Molly Moore, and John-Henry Pezzuto (2024), Believed Gender Differences in Social Preferences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming: https://lnkd.in/ecZCS2er And see also: Esther-Mirjam Sent and Irene van Staveren (2019), A Feminist Review of Behavioral Economic Research on Gender Differences, Feminist Economics: https://lnkd.in/ejJ8S6iX

In today's digital era, it's disheartening to witness stereotypes perpetuated against women, belittling their accomplishments to mere superficial traits. Phrases like "It's easy for her, she's a girl," or "A selfie is all it takes for her to succeed," painfully underscore the ignorance that still prevails, undermining the relentless efforts and tenacity of countless women. Particularly in a realm where social validation through social media has become a norm, such misguided judgments add an extra layer of bias that women have to fight against daily. If success was as effortless as being 'pretty' for women, the narrative of gender pay disparity or underrepresentation in leadership roles wouldn't exist. The reality is starkly different. Many incredibly talented women I know continue to earn less than their male counterparts, not because of a lack of competence, but because of an embedded gender bias. I've devoted a decade to my career, propelled by an unyielding passion for my work. Yet, the reductionist view of attributing any success I or other women achieve to mere appearance is not only unfair but grossly inaccurate. The road to recognition and fair treatment is an uphill battle, demanding a daily confrontation with biases and stereotypes. Every individual, irrespective of gender, faces challenges in their pursuit of success. If being 'pretty' was a shortcut to an easier life, we'd be living in a matriarchal society, which is far from our current reality. It's crucial to shed these preconceived notions and foster a more inclusive and respectful environment for all. Here are three tips on fostering respect and inclusivity: 1️⃣ Educate Yourself and Others: Understand the systemic biases and educate others around you. Awareness is the first step towards change. 2️⃣ Listen and Empathize: Before making assumptions, listen to the experiences of women and empathize with their struggles. 3️⃣ Advocate for Fair Treatment: Stand up against injustices, support policies that promote equality, and encourage others to do the same. P.S.- I am pretty but I am a good professional. Just don't drop your ignorance in the name of giving your validation just because Internet is free.

When Mum told me she chose Alexandra so I could use Alex as a nickname, and be assumed a dude - I was educated enough to know it would be an asset in her time, but naive enough to believe that for me, it was irrelevant. Fast forward a decade, and to my surprise, I learnt otherwise. Hi, I’m Alexandra Stacey James, but Alex James, strategically, for short. Now, this is not a story of sinister sexism and overt discrimination but instead highlights a powerful insight into unconscious bias. Ten years ago, I started working in roles that required dealing with C-Level executives of SME’s, up to multi-billion dollar businesses. As it turned out, my name became an asset. Thanks to these senior leaders strongly resisting calls, the initial stages of these relationships were entirely online. I could communicate with them for months via email only. I started to notice an interesting trend, so started to intentionally play with it. I observed that by tailoring my language slightly, and keeping my signature “Alex James” it was easier to get a reply or meeting. I could instantly tell by their response if they thought I was a man: 1. They would refer to me as “mate” 2. The emails would be more direct 3. They were more open to meeting From this field data, I hypothesised a few key insights: 1. Thinking I was a man created an instant camaraderie (makes sense) 2. The communication style being more aligned to their own meant feeling less effort in responding (fair) 3. They felt less friction in building a relationship with a stranger of the same gender (I get that) While not ideal, that’s natural human behaviour. We trust people like us. Which leads me to my first point for #IWD… Firstly, It’s not enough to assume (for men and women) that because you’re not an a&$hole (i.e not sexist, racist, homophobic etc) that you aren’t contributing to the problem. We are conditioned one way, which means that the fight for equality is everyone's fight against their unconscious prejudice. My second point… This story illustrates why women must be fairly represented in influential seats. Without this, we’re creeping forward with the handbrake on. Women need others “like us” in positions of power to trust and be trusted by. Due to the centuries of dominance by men, we require unequal dominance supporting women until the issue is rectified. To find equilibrium after a history of inequity, we need to actively over-support those oppressed by it. To be neutral or passive is to be part of the problem. This why days like #internationalwomensday are so important. Because it’s too easy to let time pass accepting “good” and let slow progress be “enough”. And that’s not how we succeed at anything. This International Women's Day don’t assume you know the problem. Act as though you don’t. Because truth is, it’s what you can’t see that’s at the heart of it. #iwd2024 #womeninleadership #unconsciousbias

I don't support women, because they are women. I support women, because they are great. I support women, because I see them struggling for the wrong reasons. I support women, because the data proves what I am seeing. 👉 In "The Authority Gap" Mary Ann Sieghart highlights that female Supreme Court Justices are interrupted four times more frequently than male justices. If this happens to female judges at the Supreme Court, imagine what this means for women in other professions. 👉Around 76% of high-performing women reportedly receive negative feedback from their managers compared to just 2% of high-performing men. This comes from data collected from 23,000 employees across 250 organizations (Source: Textio). 👉 Potential vs. Performance: Researchers at Harvard University analyzed data from a multinational firm and found that gender biases in performance appraisals often result in women receiving lower ratings based on past performance rather than potential. Women are often evaluated based on their past performance, while men are more likely to be evaluated based on their potential for future success. These statistics underscore the systemic biases and challenges women face even in positions of authority. Now, in many conversations, when I argue on behalf of women, I get to hear: Look at you. Woman. Mother. Refugee. You made it into rooms and sit at tables where most men don't sit. Well, if you asked my dad, he would tell you a different story. And he is right: I worked twice as hard as many male peers. I did dim my light for many years, and I still do it in certain situations, letting others present my ideas as their own. While my dad never criticized the hard work, he still challenges me on not standing up for myself. I then explain to him the dangers of doing that, the unconscious biases, that men are evaluated on potential while women on past experience. Then he says: Anahita, you go and change that for the next generation. We all have unconscious bias and a role to play in overcoming them and giving everyone a fair chance. Look in the mirror, reflect, and let's make change happen! 📸Photo Credit: Bundespräsidialamt - with my mentee Sadaf at the invitation of #President Steinmeier and DSI, advocating for the next generation.

𝗢𝗡 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗗 I was once in a meeting where I relayed an idea. I was a VP. There was another male VP in the meeting. And our boss. The meeting went on as if I didn't say anything. Then, the male VP relayed the same idea. And the boss said, "Great idea!" The oversight wasn't necessarily intended. It manifested an unconscious bias that often goes unnoticed in our daily interactions. Recognizing this is the first step toward making meaningful changes. When a woman states an idea, it may be overlooked, but everyone notices when a man repeats it. This is called the “stolen idea.” When a male coworker runs away with a woman’s idea, remind everyone it originated with her by saying something like, “Great idea! I loved it when Katie originally brought it up, and I’m glad you reiterated it.” If someone takes your idea, you can speak up for yourself by saying, “Thanks for picking up on that idea. Here’s my thought. . .” (then add something new). Ways that we can make sure women’s ideas are heard: 1. Invite other women to speak 2. Distribute speaking time equally 3. Ask to hear from women who are being interrupted and spoken over 4. Amplify other women’s ideas by repeating them and giving credit 5. Praise and showcase other women’s work 6. Create systems to distribute “office housework,” such as note-taking, in meetings 7. Share public speaking opportunities with women who have less power or privilege 8. Share pronouns In reflecting on this experience, I'm reminded of the importance of RAW leadership: Being 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟 in acknowledging our biases and striving for equity, Being 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 in amplifying and crediting ideas regardless of their source, and recognizing the 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗛𝗬 impact of ensuring every voice is heard and valued. By adopting these practices, we can dismantle unconscious biases and create a more inclusive environment where everyone feels seen and heard. How do you ensure all voices are heard in your spaces?