#BEING THERE HOW TO#

We found that when a majority of the finalists were white (demonstrating the status quo), participants tended to recommend hiring a white candidate. Half of them evaluated a finalist pool that had two white candidates and one black candidate, and the other half evaluated a finalist pool that had two black candidates and one white candidate. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed that each candidate was the best for the job. We manipulated this by using names that sound stereotypically black (Dion Smith and Darnell Jones) or white (Connor Van Wagoner and David Jones), and we used a job that has some ambiguity about the racial status quo (athletic director). The candidates had the same credentials - the only difference among them was their race. In our first study, using an experimental setting, we had 144 undergraduate students review qualifications of three job candidates who made up a finalist pool of applicants.

We conducted three studies to examine what happens when you change the status quo among finalists for a job position. So because 95% of CEOs are white men, the status quo bias can lead board members to unconsciously prefer to hire more white men for leadership roles.

It’s well known that people have a bias in favor of preserving the status quo change is uncomfortable. We recently conducted research that suggests a potential solution.

#BEING THERE HOW TO#

But the biggest challenge seems to be figuring out how to overcome unconscious biases that get in the way of these well-intentioned programs. Many have started investing hundreds of millions of dollars on diversity initiatives each year. This doesn’t mean that companies haven’t tried to change. (That would be John, at 5.3%.)ĭespite the ever-growing business case for diversity, roughly 85% of board members and executives are white men. companies who are named David (4.5%) than there are CEOs who are women (4.1%) - and David isn’t even the most common first name among CEOs.

Being there