Hello and welcome back to our UWA podcast. I am your host Jane. And today we are continuing our chat with Dr. Susan Harwood on unconscious bias. Now this is the second part to a two part conversation. So if you haven't listened the first one I recommend it indeed. But otherwise without further ado let's continue our conversation with Dr. Susan Harwood on unconscious bias. >> To go back to the nub of your question you have to have people on selection panels who understand what their biases are. So like your blind audition example I believe in blind applications. So I've written a lot of job applications for a lot of people. I've updated a lot of resumes. I've done a lot of curriculum vitaes for people. I have a very good hit rate and one of the reasons for that and I can say that it is true that one of the reasons I can say that is because I removed all the factors that I know will be biased against that person if we say their age, if we say their gender, if we give their marital status and if we in any way indicate that they were a homemaker for five years, or three years, or two years or whatever. So I change the language I get women to own what they've done when they say I was in a team where I manage this and so they tend not to talk themselves up. I've sat on interview panels. I've watched how many men, not all men, not at all times speak with confidence and we know that when women look at job applications, they'll say there's three criteria here I can't meet, I can't go for it. Men will look at the same application and say, well I can fudge those three, I'm going for it and they do well at the fudging whereas the women aren't prepared for their or believe that they will be, the interview panel will want them to be able to meet 100%. So it does go back to interview panels. But before you put together your interview panel, you need to have a good hard look at the organization. If you are actively recruiting for diversity in your organization and I believe you'll never get diversity if you don't get gender equality first. Then have a good hard look at your organization. How diverse is it? Where are the women? Where are the people of color? Is there a critical mass anywhere of like 30% women we've achieved at management level, senior management level coming through the pipeline level. What's our representation of indigenous people comparative to the rest of the population and so on? What are we doing to support them? I can give you another brief example here. We had a royal commission here. We've had a few in Western Australia. This one was about what happens to children of indigenous families and this one was focused on Western Australia and the proportion of young adults going into the criminal system from indigenous families. One of the recommendations was that the court system be changed so that because often families would arrive and have no idea how to best represent their child in the court system. And they didn't understand that if they didn't come on Tuesday and fill in this form, they're going to get remanded overnight for example, they didn't know any of that. So the suggestion was, we need to employ indigenous officers in that court who are the bridge. They will create the bridge for those indigenous families and the justice system. Good idea. We need to pay them appropriately for their role. It's not a volunteer role, it's a paid public servant role. They need to be at a level where they hold their clout with others. So they're not someone who can't speak to a magistrate, who can't speak to someone else in the court system, the clerk of courts or whatever. So the structures were put in place, the people were put in place, the bid that was missing was they didn't do awareness raising of all those white people who held all of the positions behind reception. They were resentful. They didn't know why these indigenous officers needed to be there. Their jobs were being taken from them. They were being paid more. They weren't even doing a good job. All they were doing is just going and sitting and talking. They weren't even doing their job. So this was all uncovered when I was asked to do an investigation into workplace bullying, the people being bullied were the indigenous officers. And so, so many things were done right about the selection process, the recruitment process and so many things were done wrong on the inclusion. Now they're in the workplace, let's just let them do their job. What do we do with the others, the people who are already in that job. And these were additional positions to ensure that their resentments, their hostility. And we can apply this to gender. We can apply this to people of color from other cultures, other ethnicities, people with disabilities. They're getting all the special treatment. And so I always take people back to the UN Convention on Human Rights, which talks about special measures. Special measures can be put in place until such times as the playing field is level. Now, if you can find me a level playing field, then I will say to you, no need for special measures. >> Exactly. >> But there is an absolute negativity around special measures. If we look at policing. They removed the wall so that women could get in, they're not proper police officers because they didn't have to get over the wall. Is the wall a good measure? Turns out not, not unless you get every police officers serving all the way out to commissioner level to go over that wall every year to see if they still can. It is not a measure of a good police officer, but it was used for a very, very long time to exclude women. And then it was used for a very long time to be negative about women who came in, who didn't go over the wall. And then it was used against Asian police officers. And the Asian communities want to be represented in policing and policing want Asian police officers, they didn't get to go over the wall either because if we look at heights white Anglo Saxon men are going to be much taller than Asian men and women. So many of these measures are actually discriminatory when they removed the structural discrimination. It's not enough to say, well, we've removed those now, everything's going to be fine. It is not because you haven't addressed the attitudinal barriers and those attitudinal barriers are the ones that continue to discriminate. And to go back to our unconscious bias, I would say some interview panels, people will still think she's not good for the job. I don't like her, but they're not going to write that in their report. >> How do you help clients identify their unconscious bias? >> It's very uncomfortable. >> [LAUGH] I can imagine. >> I have some very uncomfortable meetings, not for me actually because I welcome corporate executives who actually take it on. I think it's fantastic when they do. So I have sat with large groups of men in senior organizations and I do say start by saying if you can address the gender equality issues in this organization, you will also be addressing diversity and inclusion. I promise you 51% of the population are women in amongst those women of course, there are women from different cultures, different backgrounds, different ethnicities, different language groups. And so on. If we don't get gender right, we're never going to get diversity right. So one of the things to do, I will not do anything other than a full day's training. Now, ideally you'd have three, four days. But remember I started from a very low base of two hours, >> [LAUGH] Two hours. >> Deep training once a year, dunk everyone in this sheep dip will all come out being diverse and inclusive and not discriminating and we're just fabulous. And in 12 months time, just in case we've forgotten, we'll do it again. All of that went online, that is part of the problem. All of that went online, so you and I can go into an organization and I sat through this recently with an organization. I asked them to link me to all of their training courses around this issue and I sat them and I did them and I got a score. And I just said to them tick and flick, you are never going to change the culture of this organization with tick and flick. Everyone can learn the right answers and we can do that interview as well. We can give the right answers. I'm so inclusive and here's some good examples of how I've done that. We don't want to import people who are misogynist, who are racist, who engage in very excluding behaviors. But the amount of work I've had in that space tells me that organizations are still doing that. So how do we stop that? Well, you really have to check your referees. If it's really, really, really glowing the actual reference or references, check behind them because it could be in the public sector in particular. An organization that can't get rid of someone other than to give them a glowing reference for the next job. Yeah, so when you finally get a truth teller, they'll say look really sorry but that person was so toxic in our workplace. Yeah, we gave them a glowing reference. Probably shouldn't have, but it was the only way. When they said they were applying for this job, we were so relieved because we wanted to get rid of them. So you have to know your own organization. You have to know the data, collect good data. Do your gender equity audit, do your demographic profile. Don't sit there patting yourselves on the back saying we're doing really well. And going back to those one day training courses that I do with corporate executive groups, we have a rule which is within these walls, some people call it Chatham house rules. Anything can be said. There are no correct questions. There are no incorrect questions. There are no wrong answers. And I'll say that to people, this is your opportunity to test something out to say, well, like we tried one once and it didn't work to say what you need to say. Well women just aren't robust enough or people's domestic backgrounds have difficulty with our training courses. Okay, so how are you going to address that? So in these one day intensive, you actually get people to address and name and understand their own biases. And generally younger people, not always the case, but generally younger members of that group will challenge those who have the dinosaur type attitudes and there's going to be dinosaurs in every group like this. I get them to do activities where they actually don't know that their beliefs and values and biases are being measured and then they'll see it and hear it. I've been using this activity called the Gold Watch for about 20 years. You get people to sit in groups and you mix them all up and they have to come to consensus about who is the worst person of the six characters in this story and who is the least worst. And they have to rank them one to six, one being the least, six being the character they think is worst. And they have to read the story and discuss it in their group and then come to a group ranking for each character. Now they can go on for a couple of hours. Sometimes if I'd let them, it would have gone on all day because they can't have consensus. Why can't they reach consensus? Because they'll say things like yeah but Jane, we can't reward somebody who blew the whistle. She's just one of those people who runs her mouth off goes back. Okay, so whistleblowers can't be rewarded. People who see corrupt fraudulent behaviors can't be rewarded. They have to run them out of town. They kind of take a while to hear themselves. The names are deliberately from other cultures. It does involve another culture in the transaction that they have to make a decision about. And you'll hear people say things like, but people from those countries, we don't practice that this way here in our country. So there's no kind of understanding if you like of it being lawful in one country. So our laws must take precedent. And you think, okay, in the general workplace then what does this mean when someone from another culture challenges something that we're used to doing? Do we sit around the table and come to consensus or do we decide there from that background? Don't cross them. Don't even go there, don't even try. So bringing to the surface and actually addressing what's going on. The other thing that I do is I write scripts for people as part of training courses and I get them to act out role play. What would you say as a leader to this group of people who have just been accused of racist, sexist, language towards one of their own? What is your role as a leader? How do you actually address this? Because you know it's unlawful. How do you get them that group of people that work with these people, one not to victimize the complainants for having made a complaint because that's unlawful to and two, to change their behaviors. And a lot of leaders don't actually know how to do that. And that is why I started writing scripts and I said to them, you've got to stand on your own organization's policies, which by the way have been framed within the legislative framework that we all operate within, call it unlawful. The three years that I spent embedded in a policing organization, I suddenly recognized it took the brain a while to work that I needed to start calling out the discrimination, the sexual harassment, the sexist language as unlawful. Now, what were policing officers doing within their own organization, engaging in unlawful behavior. >> Unlawful behavior, yeah. >> And then how do we expect them to deliver services to the community without bringing with them those unlawful discriminatory behaviors and practices. So you have to change the culture within and if you're going to bring in new people, this is our new shiny, inclusive, diverse, wonderful workplace. It doesn't stop recruitment, it has to keep going. And ideally you actually, if I go back to that example of the indigenous court officers, you don't wait till they arrive. You actually set the ground welcoming before they come and deal with those challenging comments that people are going to make. How come they're getting paid at a level that they should have had to start at the bottom, like you'll hear all of that kind of stuff. >> So final question then on recruitment, if you were advising companies on how to run an effective recruitment process, what do you think the three most important things are that they would need to do? >> So to carry on from where we just were, identify the structures, attitudes and behaviors in the organization right now, the demographic profile where are you bringing this person, these people into? What kind of space are you making for them? Will they be supported? >> Mentored, coached, who will they speak to? One of the findings, and one of the recommendations that I now make two organizations, when they're wanting to change the culture from being discriminatory, full of harassment and bullying. Instead of having a three month probationary period for every new recruit, put yourselves on probation for three months. And after that three months, bring that person to the CEO and say, tell us, how are we doing with our diversity inclusion code of conduct, respect integrity, how are you finding us? You've come from outside, you've been in other places, tell us how we are doing? Now we don't do that, we measure the new person against the selection criteria, put them on probation, was that a good selection or not? They've selected us to have come in the door, how are we doing? And so some of the organizations I've working with, have actually put that into their recruitment process, that they check in. Not just, have you done all your training, have you completed your induction training? It's a separate thing, tell us how we're doing, here's our code of conduct. Here's what we say about ourselves, do we measure up, and if we don't, what could we be doing that's different? How have you found us, have you been subjected to any language or behaviors or attitudes that surprised you? There would be a raft of questions that you could ask around this, so the panels have to be trained. They're not thrown together at the last minute, you're a woman, could you come and sit on the panel? We won't listen actually to your recommendations, but we need one or your divers, could you come in and show that we're a diverse organization. There needs to be robust training of selection panels, and then I'll go back to the one that I'm really keen on and that's instituting blind selection processes. So when people are doing that first cult, no, totally unsuitable, didn't answer the selection criteria, all of those things. Their age is not there for anyone to see, their gender is not there for anyone to see, there's nothing about marital status, there's nothing about home care responsibilities. We are just looking at them for the skills and knowledge that they could bring to this job. >> On that, what do you think about names as well, because I know that there are- >> [CROSSTALK] yes, absolutely. >> [CROSSTALK] That's what I mean by blind you take the name. >> Absolutely, that, sorry, I should have started with that, take the names off, so you don't know who this person is. I can't tell you how bad I feel having someone join our family, who deliberately anglicized their name. Because their husband who is Australian said, they'll never get a look in that interview with that name. So I've done the writing of the job applications that the supporting of the writing this and so on. And I've deliberately left out the identifying information, so that this person gets a fair go, and they did get a job, would they have got that job if we had used their correct name? >> Yeah, I mean it seems it's tragic that in that instance has to come from the person who the candidates [CROSSTALK] It has to feel like they're changing their name, they're the ones that- >> I want you to see me and hear me really let you sing it. >> Yes of course, as opposed to having a blanket rule from within the organization to be able to say no names, were not seeing anyone. >> Real name [CROSSTALK] And then equally important as those who do apply, who hasn't applied. Now, that might seem counterintuitive because maybe they didn't apply, because they didn't think they were qualified famously, Fagel University of Western Australia's first woman Vice Chancellor. Her selection crew would be looking for a new head, a new dean of the Mathematics department, for example. They had come to her with the short list, here's the shortlist vice chancellor and she would say there's no women on this list. And they would say unfortunately no women applied. >> Right. >> And why do you think that might be the case? So she had to educate, and what they knew after a while, was don't present our vice chancellor, with a list that doesn't have women on it. He would ring up her colleagues all around the world and say, we've got this fantastic position going, do you know anyone who you could recommend, who would apply? Now, the woman who became the professor of Mathematics, famously, had twins on the job, which is fantastic and was there for a very long time. She had the merit, she had the skills, but she didn't see any women at, UWA, perhaps she didn't even know, that there was a woman vice chancellor from where she was sitting. It wasn't until someone prompted and said you should apply, they really are wanting to change the culture of the organization. So in her time those selection practices changed enormously, she would challenge men on selection panels who said, unfortunately, I just found her a little too soft, tell me what you mean by that. Why does a person who isn't as loud spoken as the men we've heard, cause you to have some concerns, what's behind that? So people learned not to make those comments, but it did change the practices as well. And there was a leadership development program for women in the organization equal importance. There was a mentoring program that only men were allowed to go on, why did only men go on it? Because it was the men who were in positions of power, who needed to understand that there were these good women dotted around the university. Who weren't being seen, and if they mentored them for a full year and nine months of the program, they might just know them next time their name comes up. They might more importantly learn something about what it's like for women in this organization, and that's exactly what happened. They did a ten year review of the program, it changed the culture from within because men learned things, they didn't know. The higher up you go, the more you believe that you've got all the policies in place discrimination is something that we've identified. It doesn't happen, those microaggressions that you talked about earlier, why would you apply for that job Jane? You don't, I think it's a little bit out of your rich, I wouldn't think the selection panel would even consider your application. You have that thing said to you a few times, so you're not going to put your head up above the parapet. So selection panels are vital blind interviews and interviewing, going back to the third one, interview your new appointees three months after they've got into the job. Men and women and ask them, how do you think we could improve what you think is happening? I mean, I've interviewed women who have left organizations within six months because of what started to happen to them in week one. >> Yeah. >> So you've got an opportunity within three months to hopefully address some of those lower level, but not always lower level. >> It can happen in executive teams attempts to consciously push somebody out, to make comments about them that are exclusive and not inclusive. To drop them off route mail, to not have them attend the meetings they need to attend, there's multiple ways of consciously excluding people, and Interesting what you were saying very briefly before looking at the idea of like, well, they didn't apply, that's one thing. It's a very easy thing. >> They are behind the data. >> Yeah, exactly. >> [CROSSTALK] >> So women police, women police, and again, I've done a lot of research in that space, often did not apply. They knew who was on the panel, they knew what their perspectives were on women in policing, there was no point. So then you have higher up the chain saying, if only women would apply, the problem Susan is that women just won't apply well, yeah, there's good reasons for that. But let's collect some of those up. Some decisions of interview panels as well were overturned when it was seen that the basis on which they appointed that person and did not appoint that person was to discriminate in favor of that person and make that a ground for not appointing that one. Unfortunately, you didn't have enough longevity in the job. Well, he didn't have equal longevity either. So, how did he get the job? Unfortunately, you didn't have the depth of experience. Well, he didn't either, but he got the job. So, unpacking some of the decisions that interview panels make is another way of doing it. There's a book, Behind The Scenes of Science Van Den Brink is the author. She looked at reports of selection panels across universities in Europe, mainly Germany and I think the Netherlands. And what she discovered was that decisions were often made before the person entered the room about the suitability of the, mainly men who were selected into the higher level positions across those universities. How did that happen? Because men had very strong networks and the men on the selection panel would wring their friend at such and such university, I note your colleague Fred Blogs is coming in tomorrow for an interview panel. Is there anything we should know about him? He'd be excellent, he'd be great. So those things were known, the same thing could not be said for the women applicants. They were un knowns, no one rang up to find out about them beforehand. So again, we could say it was an unconscious bias. I would argue it's conscious, if you're not ringing up about every applicant, men and women, there is a conscious bias there. >> And there we go, I'm thrilled we've made our way background to unconscious biases, conscious bias. [LAUGH] The debate is still there, we've got to discuss that extensively. And the thing that I've loved about this conversation is, yeah, just looking at it, a holistic approach. We're looking at inside of organizations, the language that's being used, the aftermath of someone entering into a company that, you can't just solve a problem by saying we found a woman, here she is and it didn't work then that obviously the process hasn't failed. It's not that applicants, it's not about that candidate, it's about the measures put in place to support, as a woman in performance and I think in comedy as well. It's pretty hard to expect a woman to walk into a room with as much confidence as a man, if she's the only female in the entire ensemble. And yet you still expect it's like, why was she shy? Why was she. >> because she's carrying the burden of her, >> [CROSSTALK] >> Expectations of women aren't very good at that. >> Exactly. >> So it's more than, it's more than she should be carrying. There's so many ways in which we expect people who are different, not it. And it really does come back to an intolerance of the other. And the other, whether they are from a different ethnic background, if they're a different color, different gender, someone with a disability, someone of a different age, then people seem to carry, some people in power seem to carry a belief that they don't fit. And they have to work against that we don't fit. If you look at women in sport, they didn't fit. The tv channels didn't have time to put them on, the sponsors didn't sponsor them. How come they became a sellout? Well, a huge amount of work in the background to overcome the discriminatory practices. Are they being paid the same? Did the winner of the Australian open female just get the same pay as the male who won? So all of those things send messages about equal weight, equal worth and so on. Whether we're looking at sport or as we're doing today predominantly looking in the workplace and saying, what can we do to be more inclusive? How do we address our biases, whether conscious or unconscious? And really the reality is, we have to know them, we have to understand them, we have to name them. We have to refuse to accept the continuing I'm not racist, but, it's just not an acceptable term, it's not true. Unfortunately, we are racist and we are trying to do things about that and we're not there yet. Just read any report, anywhere. So we are sexist, we are misogynist. We have to accept the labels, understand what they mean and by all means be ready to accept when people say I had no idea that what I just said to you was so offensive. I teach people how to apologize. That sounds unbelievable. I actually teach them how to apologize. This is what you say. You'll get the cue from the person, they will look distressed when you've offended them. They may take a step back. They may not speak to you for a while. Is there something I just said to you that you found offensive? Well, yes, what you just said was really racist. I'm not a racist, instead of that response, tell me, please help me to learn what I just said was racist, I had no idea, I am so sorry. Please tell me how I can address that change that, and so on. People do not wish to be labeled in that way, I think we have to. And if I go back to what I said right at the beginning, there are so many words, there's been so much time and money spent going back to me doing those two awareness sessions, all of this money, all of this time. Hello, wake up. None of that is working. We have to be more creative but also take bolder steps, take bigger steps. I won't tolerate that language around my corporate executive. I won't have people making sexist jokes, I won't have people making jokes about people with disabilities. Here is my credo for us working together on this team. I'll call it out and I expect you to do the same with the teams that you laid. So the role modeling from the top is crucial, but they have to know what their role model, they have to understand what the biases are that they have. You know, that kind of comment as a woman, you know this, yeah, actually, what actually do you mean by that? [LAUGH] But it's not up to women. Having said that, I've worked with a lot of men and very deliberately and that is to engage in the dialogue, to engage men in the dialogue, but I'm paid to be a trainer. Other women are not paid to do that work. >> Of course. >> They're paid to do the job they are employed for and they shouldn't have to be subjected to some of the stuff that we've been reading about, whether they're actors in Hollywood, whether they're women in the mining industry, whether they're comedians on stage, it's unlawful. So that's I guess where I'd like to say that all of this sits, we have the legal framework, we have international legal frameworks, we have conventions on human rights, we shouldn't have to keep saying this is the law, this is unlawful behavior. But I think it's a good place for organizations to start to remind everyone. >> Dr. Susan Harwood, it has been an absolute pleasure chatting with you today. >> Thank you. >> That is all we have time for. >> Yes. >> But thank you so much for today. We have so much for our students to digest and maybe the debate will continue, unconscious bias, conscious buyers who very well knows, but thank you so much for talking to us today about gender equality and unconscious bias. >> Thank you, my pleasure. >> That brings us to the end of our two part series on unconscious bias with Dr. Susan Harwood. Thank you so so much again to Susan for all of her insight today. Thank you all for listening and we will see you next time for another University of WA podcast. See you then.
