Full interview: Re-posted from Institute of Managers and Leaders

Leadership Matters Magazine | December 2019 Edition.

What is the prevalence of unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion decisions?


Both conscious and unconscious biases are prevalent in standard corporate activities, including recruitment and promotion. Unconscious biases are cognitively embedded, revealing themselves in everyday interpersonal interactions, most noticeably by an external other versus oneself and, let us not forget about conscious biases as well.


Recruitment and promotion activities in the workplace are obviously areas these heuristics play out frequently. This is quite obvious when we observe and interpret why particular layers of corporate hierarchies may have similar demographics traditionally associated with those layers. For instance, consider upper echelons versus lower rungs. It is obvious to most of us by now that we have major demographic imbalances in the upper layers of corporate hierarchies. We know that certain cohorts are hired and promoted for a multitude of reasons, notwithstanding culture fit.


Hiring on the basis of culture fit is one instance in the recruitment process where biases go easily unchallenged. The circle then closes in on itself. The same demographically-suited person is hired, the opportunity for bias transcendence is lost and the process continuously repeats itself. Conscious and unconscious bias is why gender imbalances in corporate hierarchies are prevalent, not to mention the many other problematic issues associated with workplace diversity disparities across industry sectors.


Firm size: does it play a role?

The size of the firm is of course relevant, however in comparison with the prevalence of highly problematic biases across industry sectors, the latter prevails. Also, in my experience as an organisational anthropologist, smaller firms appear to do less proactive work in this area in large part due to funding and resourcing issues. However, this is not always the case. Larger firms have the additional issue of synchronising training rollout. Typically, the upper echelons undergo training first. Then training is rolled out to middle management and then frontline staff.


Continuous improvement pressures surround the average organisational member, including, but not limited to: profitability, general productivity, cost reduction demands and the recent buzzwords to enter the corporate vernacular - generating creativity and innovation. Cognition is spread across all these workplace responsibilities causing competing demands upon employees.


Unconscious bias transcendence, in many respects, has to compete with those demands because KPIs are closely associated with role expectations. Those demands, of course, consequently challenge one’s mental space for transformative introspection. In my view, additional thinking time is needed. We only have so much attention to spare at any one time and KPIs, in the short term, seem to come first.


Industry sectors have their own problems and shouldn’t be addressed with the same approach. One can’t expect to have positive change in, for instance, the finance sector when the major biases associated with that sector are poorly recognised or understood. It is pointless to use the same training in every industry sector. Therefore, there is a need to correctly observe what the organisation in that particular industry sector needs and tailor training and programs at a much finer-grained level.


One way to address unconscious biases is to first ‘read’ collective behavioural manifestations and the problems associated with the thinking behind those collective behaviours. Therefore, the collective mindset of the organisation is relevant, particularly the collection of mindsets at the top. Who is running the organisation? What are the leaders up to? Do leaders intrinsically understand the need to fix some of the bigger social and cultural issues associated with heuristics experienced in the workplace? Are they trying to cover up biases and their outcomes or adequately address them? If they are addressing them, how so? Do those approaches seem plausible? Are those approaches working? What is the motivation behind addressing those issues? Is unconscious bias training exclusively the answer when we know it doesn’t work in isolation because of the many reasons I have mentioned above.

Does using a panel mitigate against unconscious bias?

Most organisations these days tend to have at least two interviewers, if not more. Of course, it depends on who you have on the panel. If you have individuals on the panel who are demographically similar, you are going to have pertinent blind spots preventing a clearer idea of the candidate’s identity, an interpretative process that is going on in the panel’s mind at the time of hiring.


Demographically similar panels typically result in hiring outcomes that succumb to demographically similar candidates often based on superficial qualities that seem to be centred on a risk reduction approach to hiring rather than putting the additional cognitive workload in to understanding those candidates who are obviously different, that is, where the observable disparities are evident. ‘Different’ here is an important word to interpret and think about. Underneath external facades, we are all fundamentally the same. An atypical candidate, thus, offers less comfort and more risk to the panel’s decision-making processes because similarities are more obscure. In such instances, it’s necessary to look beyond people’s superficial dimensions. Much can be understood when one is truly open to the curiosity of understanding those who are unlike themselves. Common ground can be found where one least expects it. The recruitment process is a perfect place to practice this mentality and interpersonal approach to life more broadly.

Which affinity bias is most commonly problematic?


There are several common biases. However, two biases that I feel are worthy of mention are: the false consensus effect and the self-serving bias. Both are truly detrimental in routine organisational life. In the workplace, organisational members may overestimate how much others they work with agree with their own way of thinking, their beliefs, their behaviours and attitudes and their overarching values.


Colleagues in the workplace often allow those with power and privilege to think that their ideas are better than they actually are in reality, allowing those with power and privilege to save face as a means to reduce the negative consequences resulting from authentically voicing an accurate opinion. However, underneath, perhaps a different truth lays dormant. The key for all organisational members, in my opinion, is to get to the truth of collegial opinions. Otherwise, we are just kidding ourselves.


Giving voice to those individuals who are keenly observant but who would normally choose to avoid offering an opinion is a worthy exercise. Also, look at what is being omitted from interpersonal interactions, both verbally and behaviourally. The key to understanding others is often present in the silences and omissions within interpersonal interactions.


The self-serving bias is problematic for different reasons. Consequently, this may lead to the overvaluation of one’s own opinions, a comforting of the ego per se. In this respect, individuals may give themselves undeserving credit for organisational success. When the antithesis occurs, perhaps through individual and organisational failures, for that individual, it may feel plausible to lay the blame on others or even outside causes. The ego aims to protect itself. It is a commonly experienced heuristic and a highly problematic one.


Are there mechanical processes that mitigate against unconscious bias?


One way to mitigate biases is to become as familiar with yourself as possible. Increasing one’s conscious awareness is a life-long process. It is part of a larger set of consciousness-shaping life experiences with internal and external agents.


Socialisation and self-development are some ways of looking at the evolution of conscious awareness, yet there are probably many more. Consciousness, then, is not a stable construct but an ongoing fleeting and perhaps fragmentary aspect of individual life. Consider that if you know yourself well, you are in a better situation to read others, particularly when retrospectively recognising your unconscious behaviours towards them through introspection. As mentioned, this is experienced most often as a delayed reflective experience—a retrospective and insight-delayed process. Intrinsic self-understanding and self-knowledge enable a clearer, less ambiguous and therefore more accurate interpretation of others. This is a good defence, or perhaps, the only defence for transcending unconscious bias.


What good are mechanical processes for intrinsic transformation at both the individual and collective organisational level? I would much rather those responsible for hiring think through the interviewing process in more evolved, humanistic ways than rely on applications that are seemingly doing the work for them. Consider the hiring process as an opportunity to evolve one’s thinking by becoming more aware of others and then rectifying one’s erroneous thinking patterns. This works in conjunction with the primary responsibility, which is, in this case, to hire someone for a role.


Those who keep their attention focused on themselves and others at the same time consciously experience a great deal of what is going on around them, their thinking, how others are thinking and the overarching behavioural patterns associated with those collective thinking patterns. At this point, mechanical processes, in my humble opinion, are simply unable to handle such complex matters.


Unconscious bias training is often not effective. Here are some reasons why!


It is difficult for people to cognitively process conceptual understandings of biases and relate them back experientially in their own lives. We are asking people to understand and interpret their behavioural implications, which are a product of their unconscious mind, that is, behavioural manifestations that sit outside one’s awareness threshold. For those who are emotionally and cognitively more aware of such things, there may be small payoffs for this type of training because the introspective process occurs more readily for those types of individuals, but for those who lack higher levels of intelligence, particularly emotional intelligence, this is like asking them to introspect aspects of their own behaviour which they cognitively cannot process. In other words, it might be too difficult to go there.


Introspection may challenge one’s identity and their conceptions of self and ultimately confront how one operates in the world that surrounds them. From this perspective, if insight is generated, discomfort can be felt. People generally move away from discomfort and therefore find it hard to address their own biases because of it.


I have written an article on this particular question. Here is an excerpt:


Of all the companies I know who have taken part in unconscious bias training, not one of them is able to tell us, with absolute confidence, that it has resulted in sustainable behavioural change. In fact, I asked a question at a Diversity and Inclusion conference last year to a senior manager who was in charge of Diversity and Inclusion in a large government organisation, as she put it, ‘we don’t even know how to measure it, if it is doing anything at all.’


Most people, and rightly so, see unconscious bias training as a 'tick the box' exercise because organisations have no other concepts or ideas on how to tackle it. When I have asked leaders about becoming more insightful through the application of the key learnings taken from unconscious bias training, often there is an uncomfortable silence that follows. Not many are able to experientially communicate to me how, under what circumstances, when and where they have become ‘more conscious’ in their working lives and how the perceived reduction of collective heuristics through training has benefited the overarching organisational culture. Also, the perception that an organisation is doing something in this space seems to be important from a public image perspective which is not the right motivation for anything, be it training or otherwise.


Unconscious bias training or programs can be counter-productive if they make people feel defensive and offended. How can this be avoided?


Unconscious bias training isn’t counter-productive if it causes a reaction triggered by cognitive defences. If someone has reacted due to some or all of the content, that is exactly where one should start introspection. Dive deep into the trigger points. That reaction is a gateway towards deeper self-analysis and understanding. A reaction suggests that there is something hidden in that person’s psyche that requires transcendence. However, bias conceptualisations mostly need an application for transcendence, in other words, applying what you are learning conceptually in real-time.


What is needed for training and a follow-up program to be successful?


Ongoing mindfulness training is valuable and a worthy consideration. Mindfulness training can be carried out before, in conjunction with, and post bias training. If an organisation can afford to do both, then do both. The mindfulness state allows one to observe their thoughts and behaviour more readily, hence it is a worthwhile combination to consider. Again, any training, particularly unconscious bias training, should be tailored for the industry sector, organisational culture, levels of corporate hierarchies, specific roles and other idiosyncrasies pertinent to the specific organisation. The one size fits all approach is not effective.

At the personal and cultural level, what are effective tools to overcome unconscious bias?


The personal level is simpler to conceptualise, but hard to overcome because it requires the individual to bring to conscious awareness difficult realities about themselves. The main thing to avoid is judging oneself negatively when an insight becomes conscious. Rather, accept the cognitive bias as is and carefully look where it plays out in everyday life, then, correct it by stopping the thought pattern that leads to that repetitive thought process or behaviour. Write it down, become objectively familiar with it - then stop it.


As mentioned, you can teach people conceptualisations of biases, however, it isn’t until people connect with insight and personal feelings associated with such biases in their own lives that transcendence of those biases may occur, resulting in reduced myopic perspectives of the world, the people in it and perhaps, more importantly, conceptions of self. Mindfulness meditation, journal writing or any other introspective practice is a good idea. Moreover, documenting decisions one makes coupled with retrospective analysis concerning the outcomes of those decisions are some ideas to address biases at the individual level.


From a culture perspective, heuristic transcendence is a much more challenging issue to address. There are more variables associated with bias problems at the collective level—more people are involved in the process with different levels of insight, motivation and intellect, at different stages of their lives and careers more generally.


Cultural dynamics are complex in and of themselves. There are not only layers of culture, which should be, at the very least, loosely identified and understood, but also divergent cultural perspectives that should be taken into account. For instance, how does the leadership team view and create culture? Leadership biases will undoubtedly play out in how the leadership team aim to control or engineer culture. However, there are other cultural perspectives as well. Different departments or sub-groups, for instance, also shape culture through their biases.


Simply put, heuristics play out within all layers and levels of culture creation and moment-to-moment re-creation. It’s important to pay attention to the micro details of organisational life and interpret details of finer interpersonal exchange, those fundamental microstructures of interpersonal relations in order to better observe our biases.

About the author

T.A. Kiaos Ph.D (c) is an Organisational Anthropologist specialising in critical ethnographic research methods. T.A. Kiaos' research spans several interconnected topics: the underlying systems of cultural and sub-cultural meaning, managerial ideology and normative control, with a particularly strong focus on how these interconnected phenomena affect marginal cohorts in the workplace.


Contact: connect@diversityfirst.com.au


Diversity First | Diversity and Inclusion Awards: Is Failure Dressed Up As Success?

An award to be won every other day


The many accolades tempting practitioners within the diversity and inclusion space to build their perceived professional legitimacy in the corporations by which they are employed could be seen as excessive; are they driving practitioners down thought-deprived, short-term, incorrect pathways in terms of focus, activity and output? In reality, such pathways disconnect and disengage the marginalised further while potentially placing the authority of the profession at risk. In these processes, the actual impact of diversity and inclusion work - work that is thoughtfully crafted for real impact upon marginal organisational members on the ground - is not appropriately measured. This includes life-changing outcomes for organisational members at different layers of the corporate hierarchy, sub-groups, functions and departments. Unfortunately, the complexities and ambiguities of marginal organisational members and their daily working life experience are not observed accurately or closely enough to warrant the excessive praise given to diversity and inclusion practitioners. The cultural ambiguities and complexities of those who are marginal in workplaces cannot be unearthed so easily: yet, in most cases, awards are bestowed without due consideration for the authentic opinions of those whom the profession is supposedly representing – marginal workers.

Short-term self-serving drivers versus long-term professional suicide

It does not take long, scrolling through social media channels like LinkedIn to find a practitioner in this field who has won either a local or international diversity and inclusion award - usually based on superficial (and rather basic) work practices, such as writing policies and developing simple frameworks. The industry could be perceived as polluting itself with over-simplistic metrics and misleading outcomes. To the trained eye, this indicates that failure may often be dressed up as success in the corporations for which diversity and inclusion practitioners work.

Diversity and inclusion cultural incongruence: what the organisation claim itself to be versus what it really is

As an organisational anthropologist, I have researched and also consulted in this field. I have no hesitation, though considerable regret, in stating, that a significant number of organisations are at odds with their own espoused diversity and inclusion values and policies. Some would argue that the profession is still in its infancy: in my view, that makes it critical now to course-correct the profession in order to make worthwhile progress in cementing its professionalism.


When organisational members at middle and lower levels of the corporate hierarchy are presented with diversity and inclusion policies and procedures, they seek to observe the everyday diversity and inclusive values of the organisation enacted by those who are morally and ethically charged with the responsibility of developing those policies. When such values and behaviours are not reflected in the daily realities of organisational life, there is a failure to execute what the corporation is claiming itself to be. This causes significant disengagement and, more problematically, disconnects the employee from trust in the values claimed by the corporation. When organisations can espouse a culturally diverse and inclusive workplace, primarily aiming to generate publicity through diversity and inclusion awards, yet, concurrently display incongruent realities on the ground, such disconnection foreshadows serious problems for the profession.


When the marginalised see themselves reflected in the demographic profiles of the upper echelons; when they are comfortable in providing unreserved commentary; when they are heard and understood in their workplace; when the espoused diversity and inclusive culture that is written in the policies, standards and procedures and values of the corporation are congruent and consistently observed in the daily realities of organisational life, only then can organisations proclaim that they are progressing from a diversity and inclusion perspective. Any award received before such time is probably a PR exercise in a profession aiming to build its legitimacy while delivering little but cupcake parties or other pointless celebratory gatherings that achieve very little of substance for those marginalised in workplaces. PR activities designed to boost the profile of award-winning practitioners and the companies they represent generally do little to produce ground level impact and they should be recognised as cosmetic. Perhaps it is time to look behind the façade of unnecessary accolades and examine more thoroughly what is actually changing, or not, in the daily realities of those marginalised within corporations.

Redefining Diversity and Inclusion impact

Drafting up and rolling out diversity and inclusion policies are very basic steps in diversity and inclusion work and it does not warrant awards or official recognition. It is the most rudimentary part of a practitioner’s job, preceding the really important responsibilities required of diversity and inclusion managers – albeit responsibilities that are rarely accomplished. That is, work that shifts the collective cognitive processes of organisational members, including those of upper echelons, to consistently demonstrate an organisation’s espoused diversity and inclusive culture, unfailingly enacted, carefully observed through behavioural interpretations indicating that the organisation’s culture is reflecting what it is preaching.


Another difficult, yet vital, component of diversity and inclusion work for which the practitioner is responsible is shifting the power dynamics within organisations to reflect greater equality. This is achieved by moving the rigid psychological and physical boundaries of organisational privilege. In my professional opinion, few have managed to execute thoughtful strategies to achieve this successfully and this is why the dial has moved very little on gender pay gaps, board compositions and cohort heterogeneity within the upper echelons of ASX organisations.


To summarise, diversity and inclusion awards should be based on the impact that diversity and inclusion work has on the marginal worker and their membership role within the organisations wherein they work. This should be measured through the observable, direct and indirect daily actualities of organisational life. From this perspective, the ethnographic approach to organisational research is the most appropriate method of analysis.


About the author

T.A. Kiaos Ph.D (c) is an Organisational Anthropologist specialising in critical ethnographic research methods. T.A. Kiaos' research spans several interconnected topics: the underlying systems of cultural and sub-cultural meaning, managerial ideology and normative control, with a particularly strong focus on how these interconnected phenomena affect marginal cohorts in the workplace.


Contact: connect@diversityfirst.com.au


Organisations enacting classic management practices can present serious challenges for diversity and inclusion practitioners wanting to contest the status quo and carry out effective work. These bureaucratically oriented organisations impel routinised, rather than democratised, orientations to work, and their structures and cultures typically operate against logic that encourages individuation and self-actualisation.


Managers of bureaucratic organisations can justify authoritarian mannerisms, operating largely through highly systemised operational practices, by citing economic drivers that mandate stable and predictable environments. Because of this, the need to innovate, embrace change, transform and revolutionise organisational practices may be strongly resisted. Predictably, this impacts the ability of the diversity and inclusion practitioner to find degrees of freedom in their scope of work.


Over the past two centuries particularly, the external environment impacting classic management practices has forcibly catalysed bureaucratic organisations to adapt through the process of decentralisation. We are living in that epoch now. Degrees of freedom in the scope of diversity and inclusion work can more readily be found because of this change. A good starting point, for interested leaders and practitioners in the field of diversity management who are contemplating potentialities and degrees of freedom, might be asking probing questions concerning the decentralising nature of organisation life.


Decentralisation occurs via functional areas of the organisation that require increased democratisation, risk taking and innovation in order to stay competitive. The key here is to find apertures, through decentralising processes, which support increased primary and secondary levels of diversity, inclusion and self-agency. In reality, this might occur through new-found, yet traditionally atypical channels of employee communication; new network creations for marginal cohorts; and alternate forms of autonomy, for example, gradations of individual decision-making capacities. The practitioner should look for avenues that induce micro emancipation, through apertures in organisational systems and structures. The aim is to catalyse small changes that will lead to large employee effects.


Decentralisation may result in bifurcation points around key pressures, paradoxes or contradictions that block new, democratic ways of operating. The diversity and inclusion practitioner must deal with these contradictory tensions. For example, existing decision-making systems and forms of control, associated politics of hierarchy and careerism may block or undermine new developments. The diversity and inclusion practitioner must remember that new futures will always create tensions. Cognitive rigidity, otherwise known as black and white thinking, is a further problem, because resistance sits more with binary thinkers – those who operate at lower frequencies. However, finding creative ways to mobilise and retain desirable qualities on both sides, while minimising negative resistance, is a challenge worth fighting for.


Asking questions calls for careful interpretation of answers


Diversity leaders and practitioners would do well to employ an ongoing process of reflection when considering questions about the nature of their organisation. Accurately "reading" the organisation - observing, thinking and then interpreting the nature of organisational life - may catalyse new potentials and possibilities. Reflecting quite deliberately on the nature, complexities, ambiguities, paradoxes and contradictions of the organisation, as well as contemplating the life of its members, may offer crucial insights into one's ability to question the status quo and make innovative inroads. I encourage diversity and inclusion practitioners to write about their insights and reflections continuously, and further, to contemplate on what is known; what is unknown; what is observed as well as document organisational patterns and what sense can be made of those insights. This personal and iterative and interpretative process is foundational. It is an ideal starting point, designed to compel the diversity and inclusion practitioner to think, before acting prematurely, about their capacity to deliver worthwhile outcomes.


My professional view is that no effective strategy can be developed or deployed without an interpretative process; otherwise, the practitioner has almost nothing of value to say or to contribute about the nature of the organisation beyond what others, either management or those in the industry, are saying and doing. The latter approach should be avoided at all costs. Firstly, the practitioner should be guided by their interpretations of the nature of the organisation and their capacity to do effective work, delivering in the process far superior and more convincing proposals which are particularly valuable during budget and resource allocation periods. More importantly, the diversity and inclusion practitioner will be highly influential when the time comes for building both internal and external coalitions from various interlocking networks, to assist in deploying a thoughtful strategy while concurrently pacifying potential enemies.


Practitioners might begin by concentrating broadly on macro-focused considerations. Is the organisation structured simply, or is there a higher level of discretion in organisational capacities? Is the organisation operating in stable or unpredictable economic environments? What are the patterns of economic growth? What are the environmental warning signals? What are the changing trends and patterns that could hint at economic turbulence? It is important to consider environmental dynamisms and potential technological, labour and sociopolitical influences, because these factors may ultimately function as resistance hubs. Could any of these environmental dynamisms create new opportunities or hinder progress in the pursuit of delivering a potentially sound strategy? Reading broader environmental conditions may assist in grasping key dimensions that challenge existing assumptions and may open new avenues for effective action.


The next question is, what organisation-wide strategies are currently in action or have withered? It might be worthwhile to take a chronological perspective. At this stage, it would also be wise to find out who created and deployed those strategies, the rationale for such strategies and, most importantly, the outcomes of those strategies to date. Moreover, consider whether the organisation is operating in a reactionary manner, reacting in response to both intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli? If so, what stimuli, and why? Or is the organisation moving towards market proactivity, seeking new ideas and approaches for strategy development? Another possible and interesting scenario: is the organisation willing to change operating practices that question status quo activities, in an attempt to catalyse innovation?


Thinking now in terms of the nature of work: is there a high, medium or low latitude for agency? What parts of organisational life are flexible or rigid? Moreover, are members predominatingly turning up to work just for the money? If so, why? Are members deeply committed to the values of the company? Are members searching for a challenge? Are they seeking involvement? Can you describe the culture, the espoused and enacted values and beliefs and the overall, underlying assumptions? Is the organisation largely driven by upper echelon rhetoric, with little action? Or is there substance behind what management transmits? Who, in the organisation, transmits substance? Make sure to find and recruit those individuals into your coalition. Finally, what are the overall presenting themes? Be detailed in the interpretative process and aim to continually fine-tune the analysis.


My research focus acknowledges the central importance of knowing the marginalised worker. Some important questions arise from this for the practitioner’s consideration and interpretation. How have the marginalised arrived at their capacity of work? What can the practitioner interpret about their journey? What about their challenges? What have the marginalised overcome? What have they endured? Are there privileged cohorts who have not faced challenges? It is almost impossible to know the marginalised worker’s life from a distance. The diversity and inclusion practitioner should join the marginalised worker in order to know them and intricately understand them: their struggles, their aspirations and their self-actualising efforts and life road blocks. It is important to learn about their experiences from their point of view and then to interpret those experiences in order to assist in their pursuit of greater agency and self-actualisation.


In interpreting responses to these questions, the diversity and inclusion practitioner may notice that there are often hidden and unquestioned assumptions in the management of bureaucratic organisations: assumptions built into the organisational structure, systems and information flows that can offer greater degrees of freedom and, therefore, can leverage the practitioner’s ability to catalyse change, develop an effective strategy and deliver honourable work. The central purpose of this careful, reflective approach is to reduce myopic viewpoints. Deliberate contemplation of the nature of organisational life produces a broader and more accurate “reading” of organisational reality. The observations, thoughts and interpretations generated should be ample, insightful and interesting. What this process means, in reality, is that the diversity and inclusion practitioner has embarked on the necessary thought-provoking foundational work that will give them conviction, respect and authority in voicing their ideas. Indeed, upper management should want to prevent the organisation from suffering as a result of requisite variety – in the organisational setting, a system that insulates itself from diversity and inclines to atrophy.


Intelligent action silences resistance

All organisational life is interest based, and we must evaluate all aspects of functioning with this in mind. In many respects, it is the practitioner’s responsibility to define the realities of others and to persuade members to enact those realities. This may seem undemocratic. However, it is sensible for a practitioner operating in a bureaucratic environment to identify and dismantle illegitimate and unjustified systems of bureaucratic forms of power. In the process, the practitioner pulls the crucial strings that create valuable changes at the margin. Consider also that new solutions tend to create the basis for new problems; as a practitioner, recording new potential solutions to problems that may surface is a good habit to enact. This is an important strategy in preparing for unintended consequences.

About the author

T.A. Kiaos Ph.D (c) is an Organisational Anthropologist specialising in critical ethnographic research methods. T.A. Kiaos' research spans several interconnected topics: the underlying systems of cultural and sub-cultural meaning, managerial ideology and normative control, with a particularly strong focus on how these interconnected phenomena affect marginal cohorts in the workplace.


Contact: connect@diversityfirst.com.au