Looking at the Finger-Pointer: A New Approach to Identifying Racism and Sexism

Context and Problem

In the wake of #MeToo and the heightened anti-racist efforts following George Floyd’s death, companies fired employees for alleged sexism and racism. However, the problems with how they did so were immediately clear: some companies did not fire employees who engaged in repeated sexism and racism. Others fired those who did nothing wrong.

Challenges in Defining and Identifying Racism and Sexism

Companies need to address racism and sexism in their ranks. Letting it go can harm employees, prevent companies from gaining the insights of all workers, and put the company at risk of lawsuits. However, there is no agreed-upon definition of racism and sexism or methods for determining whether they occurred.

New Research and Approaches

New research highlights that there are two main ways that people decide what’s racist and sexist. Some people use a narrow definition of racism and sexism, defining them as the intent to harm others due to their race or gender. People who use this definition tend to take an investigative approach to establish whether such malintent occurred.

Others take a different approach. They define racism and sexism broadly, as harming someone due to their race or gender, acting on implicit biases about race and gender, and as the existence of unequal outcomes by race and gender—all whether intended or not. People who use this definition tend to take an algorithmic approach to deciding whether racism or sexism took place.

Limitations of Existing Approaches

There are issues with both approaches. Take an example of a situation in which a woman and a man are hired at the same time for the same role, and the woman is paid less than the man. Those using a narrow definition and an investigative approach would deem the situation not sexist if the pay discrepancy was not purposefully inflicted. Focusing on the case apart from patterns of gender-based pay disparities, they also may not think to investigate this case at all. Those using this approach are then likely to miss real instances of unfair pay disparities. Those who use a broad definition and an algorithmic approach would deem the incident sexist; there is a pattern of women being paid less than men, and this case fits that pattern. Jumping to this conclusion quickly, they may not check whether this case is part of a pattern of gender discrimination at this particular firm or consider explanations other than sexism.

A Better Approach

There is a better approach. Managers and HR professionals can act as surveyors, using patterns of how people of each race and gender tend to be treated to notice potential problems in their landscape and then digging into the case site to see if the problem exists there. In this way, they start with the algorithmic approach, noting that a case matches a pattern, but then use aspects of the investigative approach by reviewing evidence within each case and considering alternative explanations as to what occurred.

Conclusion

This approach will help firms avoid the mistakes of the last several years. By starting with a broad lens and then relying on hard evidence about what occurred, companies can avoid overlooking real incidents of racism and sexism and stop firing employees who do nothing wrong.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why is it important to define and identify racism and sexism in the workplace?
A: Letting it go can harm employees, prevent companies from gaining the insights of all workers, and put the company at risk of lawsuits.

Q: What are the limitations of existing approaches to identifying racism and sexism?
A: The two main approaches, a narrow definition and an investigative approach, and a broad definition and an algorithmic approach, both have limitations and may miss real instances of racism and sexism.

Q: What is a better approach to identifying racism and sexism in the workplace?
A: Managers and HR professionals can act as surveyors, using patterns of how people of each race and gender tend to be treated to notice potential problems and then digging into the case site to see if the problem exists there.