Why the profession needs unconcious bias training
While KPMG’s recent unconscious bias training announcement has been met with mixed responses, Blaire Palmer believes that by challenging our engrained ideas of the workplace, practitioners can help foster a healthier environment for all.
You might also be interested in
Blaire Palmer is a leadership coach, author and conference speaker. As CEO of That People Thing she works with senior executives to help them rethink how to lead in these fast-changing times. Blaire is a judge in the Investing in People category of the 2020 Accounting Excellence Awards...
Replies (44)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I am not sure how we coped without unconscious biased training before! Disagree that it is necessary or even desirable, a waste of time money and resources in my view.for
As long as a Company or business has robust procedures in place for equal opportunities that should be enough. I find most people I deal with in business pretty fair and I feel this sort of 'fashion' of formalising training for preferences or biases is a 'sledghammer to crack a nut', unnecessary
The best way to avoid giving offence?
Avoid people who take offence!
And as I was taught on coming to this country ... "Never discuss politics or religion in polite company", which might cut down on the sectarian divides that the media like to promulgate.
I oppose Unconscious Bias training because there is no evidence it works and some evidence it makes things worse.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/written-ministerial-statement-on-unco...
As another Jewish person I find the best policy is to be a mensch. Some will always be riled by others being different, and that's just life for you.
Good read
Glad HM Gov recognises the issues and have stopped this training and recommends others do the same.
Perhaps trainers need to read it too. But then the negative effects would creep in. I, the trainer, know better than those researchers. But that belief would be deliberate conscious bias that the trainer does not recognise or know how to deal with.
Aaaargh, not again ... please!
Besides, I don't need further training ... I got full marks when last tested for unconscious bias ("any more and I'll have to assume you're actually doing it consciously" said the examiner)!
Does Aweb consider that all of society's faults need to be described as if a fault exclusive to accountants?
Money spent on this kind of activity could be better used on worthwhile activities that address more pressing issues.
I would like to make a comment on this article but Richard removed my last comment on the pride article, gave me a warning and then switched off the comments on the article. So in the interest of not making members feel 'unsafe' I won't comment on unconscious bias training.
The comments weren't just switched off on that article (as is done from time to time), they were deleted wholesale.
Obviously I'm not privy as to what may have been said in some of them, but I recall a few (which, whilst unsupportive of the article and its preachy tone, were not IMHO derogatory or disrespectful) ... so cancel culture seems to have arrived on these shores, which is unfortunate for a public forum based on (reasonable) free speech.
Previous censorship was at least aimed
Delete the comment and close the thread, but often wiping out numerous innocuous replies as collateral damage.
The new regime is a bit like a communist state or 1984: rewrite history and pretend it was locked from day one. Remove the supportive comments.
And expand it, wipe out all comments on all Pride blogs, and also the style guide
The result is less clicks. People read and reread the articles that get comments.
Ben's article was just posative comments last time I read it. I intended to comment quite realistically that his clients were probably not at all concerned his his declared status provided that he did the job efficiently and effectively. Indeed his worry that going public to his clients by linking Aweb to them probably contributed to the growth thereafter. Gays would be drawn in and others it would have no effect on at all.
The other pride article was a bit more preachy telling accouuntants what they must do, so had more discussion on the author's instructions.
The history rewrite means that like the style guide they are now dead articles
Some articles that I initially ignore I will eventually read when I see that people have commented
Articles with no comments are the ones that clearly nobody else thought worthy of even a thank so are not worthy of wasting my time on. They are just cluttering up the site
@ CC ah it was your fault that thread got pulled. no idea what you said but you should perhaps try winding your neck in and perhaps listening to what people have to say if you had already had a ruler over your knuckles. You might learn something about the prejudices and what other people are going through rather than closing your mind to the fact that you seem to be part of the problem by dismissing the issue.
No idea what I said but I need to wind my neck in? My comments were perfectly reasonable, but you wouldn't know as you didn't read them
I think you will find YOU perceived them as acceptable to you.
The moderators did not, or they would not have been pulled.
At that point you have to accept you overstepped the mark, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. And also to question why you think whatever you said is OK, but others do not. That is where your grow as a person and the very nub of the issue.
This is exactly my point, it's an impossible standard to know what someone else will and will not find acceptable.
The rules quoted to me were:
1. We expect members to behave appropriately and sensitively at all times and never to post comments which are knowingly offensive.
2. AccountingWeb.co.uk reserves the right to remove any material from the Any Answers forum without warning or notice as we see fit or if contravenes these rules and guidelines.
The first is completely arbitrary and I didn't 'knowingly' offend anyone and the second just means it doesn't matter if there are rules, comments can be removed for whatever reason.
Let's be honest half the comments on AW could be construed that way but I sense that Richard just took exception to mine given the topic. Again, how would I know what he finds offensive?
I should also say, I did offer to amend the comments he took exception with 3 times but they were not reinstated then all comments were deleted and ability to comment removed from the article.
You are doing what happened in Birmingham
Objecting and placing blame despite having zero knowledge of the specific item
In the workplace, that would be workplace bullying.
You are suggesting that one person's opinion TRUMPS the other party.
People grow by engaging sympathetically with the other party
On a forum the other responders will demonstate by responding if they have a negtive opinion on a post. If a post is awful the poster learns more from other posters than from deletion and cancellation
There is no one correct opinion on social views
+1
A bit people threatening staff at cinemas despite not seeing the film that they are objecting to.
If they think they will not like it then ignore it. I had not heard of the film before the objections, but now I want to see it.
The more people that object the more I want to engage, and the more sympathy I have to the person being objected to
Elon musk seems to be similar
If the elected president of the USA gets cancelled by the idiots contolling a 'free speech' website then the website moderators are the problem. The unelected latter deciding that their opinion matters in the real world
Billy Connolly made your first point when commenting about all the free publicity he got from Pastor Jack Glass protesting about The Crucifixion sketch.
Disagree that you choose to blame one comment for the Putin style reaction of the the moderators
The Mods are grownups and took actions that make no sence making this forum a less safe space for all parties
I think the responses on this thread neatly summarise why the accounting profession does have a problem in some quarters
Refusal to engage in such issues means you are not going to learn about them.
if you don't learn about them, you will keep on offering people whether you intend to or not. Most people really don't mean to, but struggle to see others point of view. To my mind its that lack of perception and assumption everyone is like you or thinks like you which causes most damage.
I never set out to offend anyone other than those that offend others. When I do it unintentionally, personally I want to know about that so I can be a better person.
I'm not sure if you have read the link published above but it's widely known this kind of training does not work.
In addition, offence is very personalised, something you may say innocently could offend 1 person in a million, it's completely subjective with more variables than can be counted. Therefore, it's impossible not to offend some people sometimes it's how you handle it if they raise the objection that counts.
We can't live in a society where it's unacceptable for anyone to be offended ever, it's unrealistic and offence hasn't killed anyone up to now, it's just another human emotion.
Rather than unconscious bias training, just don't work with or hire 'a holes' and you'll be just fine.
The pride articles had support on one and valid discussion on the other
Why did the moderators wipe comments in their entirety?
Was it because they CAN close a thread but, but cannot close comments to an article? If so it is a design fault
This is not a place where article writers should be 'protected' from disagreement
If article writers do not want their opinions to be discussed then just do not publish.
The point I made to Richard is that if you believe in diversity and inclusion then diversity of opinion should be welcomed and all members should be included even if you disagree with them. I got the feeling he wasn't interested based on his responses.
Afternoon folks,
Just thought I'd drop in to ask if we can keep the comments on-topic with the article in order to keep the debate as useful to the wider community as possible.
Cheers everyone!
To be honest Will, the on topic comments have dried up. Mostly single direction. The side discussion is keeping the article active.
The article argues against the HM Gov research and provides no research or evidence that such training is effective.
Will
You deleted the latest on topic comment
Having read it, I thought you would.
Reason for censorship? My guess would be the experience of the third party (not poster). Real life happens. Denying real life does nothing to help society's problems
Hi there Paul,
The disappearing comment was actually a side-effect of the deletion of an account made by a user who had previously been perma-banned a while back - hopefully that clears things up.
Cheers!
Would that be a springtime Lepus (all references to whom seem to have disappeared from Ruddles' account - treating several of my posts as casualties of friendly fire)?
I couldn't possibly comment! And apologies for the friendly fire Hugo, the back-end tools take a bit of a 'scorched earth' approach when it comes to things like this.
Maybe that some articles need the pride approach
NO COMMENTS ALLOWED
Todays article is 'this is what we say and it is not up to oiks like you to comment and engage for the benefit of the community'
I numerously ask other accountants to engage with this site, but engagement is being deliberately discouraged on virtue signalling articles. We will never see a poppy. Those people gave their lives so that daft people can say daft things in a free democracy.
Anyone noticed the fallout from FINA decision making?
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
Well said Blaire. The majority (if not all) people who seem to disagree here are able to do some from a position of privilege. In the sense that they and their loved ones are fortunate have have probably never suffered from unconscious bias. Which is rather the point. They don't know what they don't know. They assume their view point is superior.
Some may argue that unconscious bias training never works. This makes as much sense as arguing that no skills-focused training ever works.
Such views are typically the result of some high profile publicity as regards a trainer or a course where something went wrong or sounds ridiculous - especially when taken out of context. Then this experience or knowledge is extrapolated to denigrate all such training - regardless of who runs it, how it is structured and how it is followed up. And this seems to be the case with the training referenced in the Ministerial statement.
It is true that ANY one hour or one day training course will, in isolation, rarely have a long-term impact on anyone. This isn't specific to training re 'unconscious bias'.
The real problem is when such training is arranged without any genuine commitment but simply as a tick-box exercise.
Maybe all that is required is an increased awareness and understanding of what unconscious bias is, when we might fall into the traps, and how to be more aware of it, careful and considerate.
It would help (and might even be unnecessary) if everyone accepted that their way of looking at the world is not shared by everyone else. That some people feel discriminated against - sometimes intentionally and sometimes due to unconscious bias.
We're not going to be able to change the minds of real racists, homophobes, sexists etc. But for those otherwise reasonable people who do not mean or want to upset colleagues, such increased awareness can open our eyes and help. Which can only be a good thing surely.
It's not that 'some may argue unconscious bias doesn't work', it's what the evidence says. Have you read the government report on this type of training? It states: "the report highlights that ‘there is currently no evidence that this training changes behaviour in the long term or improves workplace equality in terms of representation of women, ethnic minorities or other minority groups’. It also states that there is emerging evidence of unintended negative consequences"
It later states: "Further evidence also suggests that unconscious bias training may even have detrimental effects. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that evidence for its ability effectively to change behaviour is limited and “there is potential for back-firing effects when UBT participants are exposed to information that suggests stereotypes and biases are unchangeable.” Instructions to suppress stereotypes may not only activate and reinforce unhelpful stereotypes, they may provoke negative reactions and actually make people exacerbate their biases"
So with the evidence being what it is I am wondering why you still believe it's a good idea?
This is the issue with all identity politics, you look at others by an attribute such as race, their sexual preference, age, gender etc and treat them differently according to those attributes. We should be looking at each other as other humans and judge each other on the content of our characters.
I did read the report and I stand by my view that the unconscious bias TRAINING to which it refers was an attempt at a quick fix. Very little skills and behavioural training structured that way is successful at changing hearts and minds.
Equally, raising awareness may be all that is required. But many of those who feel excluded or discriminated against do not want to risk conscious discrimination. I include myself here. So, we appreciate others doing this on our behalf. And helping colleagues, friends and associates to be aware of the hurt they may be calling through their unconscious biases.
If we make no attempt to help those who are unconsciously biased we all risk otherwise lovely people being lumped in with all those who really are racists, homophobes, misogynists etc.
The whole point of exposing unconscious bias is to enable us all to be more understanding and kind. By definition the negative biases we exhibit are unconscious. As in, we are not intentionally upsetting, excluding or discriminating against others. The more aware we all are of our tendency to do this, the more we can make a conscious decision whether we want to continue behaving that way or to show we care enough by changing our behaviour.
I rarely go on the offensive, but there are limits ...
1. "The majority (if not all) people who seem to disagree here are able to do some from a position of privilege."
On what possible basis can you make such a smug assertion?
It's unlikely that you've ever met any of the contributors and even less likely that you know anything about their individual backgrounds.
Who is defining 'position of privilege'? And versus what comparator benchmark?
2. "We're not going to be able to change the minds of real racists, homophobes, sexists etc."
This is carefully worded to be defensible (in not directly stating to whom you think those terms apply), but is deliberately incendiary - especially the inference that anyone who disagrees with you should be presumed to fall into one of those categories until they can demonstrate otherwise.
Please stop trying to take on your shoulders the guilts you appear to feel on behalf of others. It is frankly patronising to be told by a stranger that they understand my formative environment (or worse 'feel my pain') ... when they can't & don't, and cause more angst than the receipt of open abuse.
BTW I don't intend to disclose here every facet of what makes me who I am ... but does your 'privilege' encompass:
* having a price on your head when you're under 5 years old; having to change country only to find that you get called names and end up in hospital with a cut face at 6 years old; learning a new language (English) by trial & error; having to change all your names (because the British CS wouldn't employ your father if he had a Wog name) before you're 8 years old; not going to University; etc etc?
So, open discourse and opposing opinions are fine ... but don't try to shut them down by claiming a moral higher ground (especially when it's not yours)!
My apologies that my choice of words upset or annoyed you. Not my intent. In my experience those who argue loudest against raising awareness and understanding of unconscious bias are least likely to suffer from it. They have the privilege of being part of the majority who do not exhibit a minority tendency - whether related to the colour of their skin, their sexual preference, their choices and so on.
At it's simplest this is evident when white people cannot understand why anyone should be offended or excluded by their words or behaviour, just because they have a darker skin tone.
It's also evident when white people look for ways to argue they are being discriminated against and that this is akin to the racism that people of colour experience.
Like you I don't often choose to reveal why I feel so strongly about such issues. But I am aware that I can make this choice from a position of privilege - in that it's not obvious and the only people who understand are those I choose to tell.
[quote=Hugo Fair]
2. "We're not going to be able to change the minds of real racists, homophobes, sexists etc."
This is carefully worded to be defensible (in not directly stating to whom you think those terms apply), but is deliberately incendiary - especially the inference that anyone who disagrees with you should be presumed to fall into one of those categories until they can demonstrate otherwise.
--------
Hmmm. Seems you feel you can read my mind - but you're incorrect in your assertions as to my motives here.
Not carefully worded at all. Simply trying (perhaps clumsily) to make clear that the whole point of raising awareness of UNCONSCIOUS bias is to help us avoid unconsciously coming across as if we truly were racists, homophobes, mysogynists, sexists etc. Sadly those who are so minded will not change their minds on the back of any 'training' however good it is.
You have written words that have clearly caused friction
But you now want to exacerbate by accusing the other of......what exactly?
It is as if you did not follow the the 'causing negative consequences' bit of the research.
There are times when it is best to stop digging.
+1
you have my admiration
HM Gov research says it does not work AND likely to cause counter effects.
Endex for reasonable people
Anyone got better unbiased equally extensive research?