When the invisible rules

We like to think that we make rational and objective decisions. But in reality, we are largely governed by unconscious mental shortcuts -- known as bias. This is not because we are bad people, but because the brain tries to simplify a complex world (Kahneman, 2011).

The problem is that these shortcuts often misplace us — especially in human assessments.

What is unconscious bias?

Unconscious bias is automatic, unconscious assumptions we make about other people, based on traits such as gender, age, ethnicity, education, language, or social background (Banaji and Greenwald, 2013). Bias is closely related to stereotypes -- simplistic notions of groups -- that the brain uses to save time.

Bias affects how we interpret expertise and potential, assign responsibilities and opportunities, determine who “fits in,” and how we provide feedback and support.

This happens not only in recruitment and evaluation, but also in daily meetings, conversations and decisions. And because bias operates in what we call blind zones (Luft and Ingham, 1955), it is difficult to detect in itself—but noticeable to those affected.

How does bias affect teams and decisions?

Bias not only impairs individuals' opportunities -- it undermines psychological security, inclusiveness, and the team's capacity for learning and achievement.

Psychological safety weakens. When co-workers feel overlooked or misinterpreted, they become more cautious. They hold back ideas, dare not speak up, and avoid taking risks (Edmondson, 2019).

The Pygmalion effect reinforces biases. Research shows that managers' expectations influence how employees perform (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968). Bias often leads to lower expectations—and thus lower support and development opportunities—for certain groups.

Recruitment and talent development are affected. Bias affects who gets hired, who gets development opportunities, and who gets promoted. Over time, this can impair both diversity, engagement, and achievement (Derous and DeCoster, 2017; McKinsey, 2020).

How is psychological safety built in practice?

Reducing bias requires more than awareness -- it requires concrete behaviors and systematic actions. Amy Edmondson (2019) points to several practical approaches that managers can use:

Lead with curiosity. Ask open-ended questions, listen actively, and show that you value different perspectives. Thank co-workers for their input — especially when they challenge established truths.

Normalize errors and uncertainties. Share your insecurities and show vulnerability: “I don't know the answer to this — what do you think?” It signals that it's safe to be open.

Building feedback culture. Give and ask for feedback regularly. Use recap rounds, check-ins and reflection exercises to include more voices.

Create structure in meetings. Allocate speaking time, actively ask for more points of view and be conscious of who gets to define the topics of conversation.

How can the organization counter bias?

To succeed over time, work on bias needs to be lifted up at the organizational level. It's about systematic action, not just individual awareness.

Use of structured interviews. Standardized questions and assessment criteria reduce the effect of subjective impressions. Research shows that this produces more equitable and reliable hires (Campion et al., 1997).

Anonymized application processes. Several studies show that when personal data such as name, gender, and age are removed in the first phase, the chance of underrepresented groups moving on increases (Behaghel et al., 2015; Bohnet, 2016).

Training and reflection tools. Training in unconscious bias helps leaders recognize patterns in their own judgments and decisions. It must be combined with concrete tools and support in everyday life.

Diversity strategies with goals and follow-up. Targeted initiatives to strengthen diversity and inclusion have a proven effect on both engagement and outcomes (McKinsey, 2020; Harvard Business Review, 2016).

Documented case: Police recruitment of operational managers

A concrete example of how structured processes can reduce bias comes from Norwegian police. A study at OsloMet examined the hiring processes for operational leadership roles, documenting how police instituted measures to counter bias:

• Applications were anonymised in the first round of assessment — with name, gender and location information removed.

• Structured interviews with standardized questions and a score scale were adopted.

• Reflection on assessment practices and decision-making bases was introduced as part of the process.

The result was less variation in assessments, increased confidence in the process, and an experience of greater fairness and transparency among applicants. The case shows how structures and reflection can make a real difference — also in a sector with clear hierarchy and traditions (Carlsen, 2013).

Reflection questions for you as a leader

When was the last time I overlooked a good idea — because I didn't expect it from that person?

• Who in my team gets the most and least attention in meetings?

• Do I have any “favorites” that I consider gentler than others — and why?

• Who do I think is “not quite clear” — and what do I base that on?

• What systems do we have—or do we lack—that help us see past bias?

Bias is not dangerous -- unless we ignore it

Acknowledging that we all have bias is not a sign of weakness -- it's a sign of humanity. When we take responsibility for building inclusive cultures, safe teams and fair processes, we do more than be fair — we make the organization better equipped for the future.

For talent knows no template. But bias does.

References

• Banaji, M. & Greenwald, A. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.

• Edmondson, A. (2019). The Fearless Organization.

• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow.

• Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structured interviewing.

• Bohnet, I. (2016). What Works: Gender Equality by Design.

• McKinsey & Company (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters.

• Behaghel, L., Crépon, B., & Le Barbanchon, T. (2015). Unintended effects of anonymous résumés.

• Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom.

• Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari Window.

• Carlsen, C. (2013). Recruitment and gender: Operational policing in change. Oblomet/grind.

‍