How to improve your organisation's culture: The impact of unconscious biases in organisational culture

Jade Tipping

Did you know you are the culture creator?

It comes as no shock that many of us struggle to improve ‘Organisational Culture’ when, as an industry, we still cannot even come to an agreement on its definition. It is suggested that when viewed holistically, organisational culture:

  • is the rolling sum of what we do (or do not do) and whether those behaviours are rewarded and reinforced (monetary, recognition, advancement) or punished
  • contains shared understandings and stories
  • can be reflective of attitudes in the wider local, regional or national culture in which the organisation sits
  • can vary within the company (based on its structure)
  • is viewed by some as static, others as dynamic and continuous (Watkins, M., 2013)

A slightly different lens suggests than an organisation’s culture stems from observable actions/omissions that are a direct result of how individuals perceive one another. These associations can be ‘explicit’, which happens when a person consciously forms a judgement. They can also be ‘implicit’ which happens if a person is unaware they are making a certain association. This is also known as unconscious bias. 

Unconscious biases can colour our opinion of someone’s capability or competency. Metrics intended to be objective, such as performance evaluations, can be interpreted to give weight to the unconscious bias, all under the facade of objectivity. 

They also impact how we might behave towards someone, including inadvertently interrupting or ignoring certain individuals and not considering alternative courses of action. This is described by Catherine Mattice Zundel (2018) as microaggressions – a form of incivility in the spectrum of negative behaviours that requires positive action to be taken, due to their negative impact on organisational culture.

Everyone has unconscious biases. These biases do not necessarily make someone prejudiced or ‘bad’. However, it does mean that a collection of people can inadvertently create a culture that is not fair or inclusive for everyone as first thought. 

These biases can manifest themselves throughout a culture but are particularly observable within the mechanisms of reinforcement, such as the organisation’s decision-making process. 

The answer to the question of ‘How do I address the potential impact of biases on organisational culture?’ is not easily answered.

Leaders who are responsible for decision making should take steps to:

(a) Understand if they potentially have unconscious biases  

(b) Robustly assess whether this has an impact on the content and effect of current and future policies.   

Admittedly, this is a challenging prospect as no one likes to find out that they may not be acting as fairly as intended and expected. However, these stakeholders are key generators and reinforcers of the organisation’s culture. It also means they are the key people to target as change agents and sponsors of any cultural change initiative.

Identifying instances and the impact of unconscious biases in everyday working life is also hard to spot as most manifestations can be subtle, appearing in smaller instances building up over time. They only tend to become acknowledged when the culture catalyses these unconscious biases and distils them into cases of direct discrimination, harassment or watershed moments, such as the #MeToo Movement. 

Blog Post Image

Recent examples in the media 

NHS Secretary becomes oldest person to win age discrimination case 

Colleagues complained about her age and frailty after allegations she failed to upload patient details into a new electronic database and was fired. (People Management, 2019). An assumption was made that she was not competent with the technology due to her age, rather than considering that this staff member had not received adequate training to give her this competence. This suggests an implicit association was held between Age / Competence with technology. 

JP Morgan to pay historic settlement in paternity leave case

A new father was denied parental leave benefit available to all “primary caregivers” of a new-born because under the bank’s policy, he did not qualify as a "primary caregiver" because his wife had "no medical limitations" on her ability to care for their child (BBC, 2019).

This clearly shows two implicit assumptions about a Gender / Career / Childcare held by the policy maker(s): 

Assumption 1: that women are the primary caregivers, unless otherwise impeded.

Assumption 2: that men are not primary caregivers, unless they have to be – not because they might choose to be.

It produces expectations and inequalities that all organisations should seek to change. This was an embarrassing lesson to learn but in JP Morgan’s statement: “JP Morgan will maintain a gender-neutral parental leave policy and train those administering the policy” [Bold is my emphasis]. They identified the changes required in both the content of the policy and the implementation and effect of the policy. 

Air New Zealand drops ban on staff tattoos 

The policy shift comes after high-profile cases of individuals who had been refused roles at Air New Zealand, as well as research that demonstrated more than 35% of New Zealanders under 35 have tattoos and for the Maori community – Moko (tattoo markings) are a sacred tradition (BBC, 2019).

This case of implicit associations impacting culture stands out because the organisational culture is at odds with the wider culture in which this organisation sits I.e. New Zealand, for which Maori culture is integral to the very fabric of that nation (Buchanan, K., 2016), including Moko. 

The implicit associations here are clearly held and reinforced by someone who is not Maori and holds negative implicit associations between tattoos and professionalism. Consequently, it has disproportionately impacted staff and job candidates that did not share in that implicit association. This would be different if this were a Japanese company in Japan, where tattoos are cultural taboo due to the commonly acknowledged links to the Japanese Yakuza (Mafia) (BBC, 2018). It is therefore important to understand the wider societal and national cultures as context to assessing and addressing unconscious biases in the specific organisation’s culture.

It is a very brave move but taking honest stock of behaviours and potential biases, done sensitively, can pay dividends in addressing potential issues in an organisation’s culture and taking the initial steps to create one that is truly inclusive and fair. 





Peer reviewed & contributions by:

  • Elizabeth Sonola, Consultant
  • Matthew Smith, Senior Consultant
  • Michael Clinch, Lead Consultant
  • Paul Devaney, Practice Director
  • Robin Ridgley, Senior Consultant

Latest blog posts

See all blog posts

Keeping it on the DL - Guest Speaker LPI Chairman Donald H Taylor

Shall we jump right in? Are L&D teams relevant anymore? Given the steer towards customised, personalised learning do you still need an L&D team. Well, we are walking into this vlog with a bang. It is a crucial question and the elephant in the room that we should all be asking ourselves. LPI Chairman and Guest Speaker for this month’s vlog Donald H Taylor cleverly approaches this question. So, the answer is yes and no. Unfortunately, you cannot measure learning, but most learning takes place outside what L&D does. We live in a world where people can increasingly access information themselves and there are so many options on the market that it is no longer sufficient to just rely on L&D functions. L&D needs to adjust to this new world and as we have experienced previously, they are not the sole gatekeepers to knowledge anymore. However, they can make themselves an essential cog in the machine. The scope of what L&D should be doing has increased and it needs to adapt so it can help individuals reach their potential. Let’s face facts, Covid-19 has given people the time and determination to take up learning on their own. Upskilling was already a huge priority pressing on people’s minds prior to 2020 and as we move to a remote world, online learning is not only essential but the default option. 

Sarah Vaughan

You know what they say about cyber security…

Cyber security is like underwear: don’t let people see it, change it often and don’t share with strangers.  Perhaps an unheard-of joke, but a very common one amongst cyber security professionals and it has been creeping its way into how a company approaches its security. The four words that should describe an organisations cyber defences; ‘efficient, evolving, integrated and necessary.’ There is no shortage of providers advertising that this is what they can supply and companies’ now holding their hands up admitting it is what they need. However, what a company wants, and needs are two very different things, and it is the difference between a multi-million budget spend or some minor but effective internal changes.  The thirst for new technology is making organisations even more complex, and at the current rate it is progressing, there is a lot of opinion on the necessity for trendy technology and what will create the perfect formula to ‘streamline, accelerate and strengthen.’  

Tessa Fyson

Day 1: Social Housing Annual Conference 2020 and HOMES UK - "A virtual day of inspiration"

Having attended several Social Housing Annual Conferences in my 15 years working in the sector both in Harrogate and in Manchester, this years conference was always going to be different.  Getting up this morning and not having to travel was different and then the thought of not being able to catch up and have a coffee and a chat with ex colleagues and friends was always going to be a little different. I need not have worried as Day 1 once again re-affirmed my love for the sector, its people and how Social Housing is making a huge difference to the lives of people across the country.

Robin Ridgley