Interrupting Racial & Gender Bias
in the Legal Profession
You Canโt Change What You Canโt See
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interrupting Racial & Gender Bias
in the Legal Profession
This report was prepared and written for the American Bar
Associationโs Commission on Women in the Profession and the
Minority Corporate Counsel Association by Joan C. Williams, Marina
Multhaup, Su Li, and Rachel Korn of the Center for Worklife Law at the
University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
You Canโt Change What You Canโt See
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cover design by Amanda Fry/ABA Design.
The materials contained herein represent the opinions of the authors and/or the
editors, and should not be construed to be the views or opinions of the law ๎rms
or companies with whom such persons are in partnership with, associated with, or
employed by, nor of the American Bar Association or the Commission on Women in
the Profession unless adopted pursuant to the bylaws of the Association.
Nothing contained in this book is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for
speci๎c cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own
legal counsel. This book is intended for educational and informational purposes only.
ยฉ 2018 American Bar Association and Minority Corporate Counsel Association. All
rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. For
permission contact the ABA Copyrights & Contracts Department, copyright@
americanbar.org, or complete the online form at http://www.americanbar.org/utility/
reprint.html.
Printed in the United States of America.
22 21 20 19 18 5 4 3 2 1
Discounts are available for books ordered in bulk. Special consideration is given
to state bars, CLE programs, and other bar-related organizations. Inquire at Book
Publishing, ABA Publishing, American Bar Association, 321 N. Clark Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60654-7598.
www.shopABA.org
You Canโt Change What You Canโt See 3
Foreword
For decades, the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession
(โthe Commissionโ) and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (โMCCAโ)
have worked tirelessly to combat gender and racial bias in the legal profession.
Nonetheless, statistics on womenโs advancement have not changed appreciably
over the years. In 2016, the Commission and MCCA partnered with the Center
for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law to
conduct research to understand further law ๎rm and in-house lawyersโ experiences
of bias in the workplace. This new research con๎rms that many of the traditional
diversity tools we have relied upon over the years have been ineffective, and the
๎ndings have served as the foundation in developing the next generation of diversity
tools that you will ๎nd in You Canโt Change What You Canโt See: Interrupting
Racial & Gender Bias in the Legal Profession.
The ๎rst part of this research report details four main patterns of gender bias,
which validate theories that women lawyers long have believed and feelings they
long have held. Prove-It-Again describes the need for women and people of color
to work harder to prove themselves. Tightrope illustrates the narrower range of
behavior expected of and deemed appropriate for women and people of color, with
both groups more likely than white men being treated with disrespect. Maternal
Wall describes the well-documented bias against mothers, and ๎nally, Tug of War
represents the con๎ict between members of disadvantaged groups that may result
from bias in the environment.
The second part of the research report offers two cutting-edge toolkits, one for law
๎rms and one for in-house departments, containing information for how to interrupt
bias in hiring, assignments, performance evaluations, compensation, and sponsorship.
Based upon the evidence derived from our research, these bias interrupters are small,
simple, and incremental steps that tweak basic business systems and yet produce
measurable change. They change the systems, not people.
Considerable time, energy, and money were invested to develop persuasive proof of
why we need to take a different approach to diversity issues and to develop the toolkits
that can be used to make those changes. Taken together, the survey results serve as a
reminder of the importance of the connections we make between individuals. Through
sharing, we are reminded that we are not alone in our experiences in the workplace,
and that is an important ๎rst step in making the work environment more inclusive and
welcoming.
Jean Lee, President and CEO
Minority Corporate Counsel Association
Michele Coleman Mayes, Chair, 2014โ2017
ABA Commission on Women in the Profession
You Canโt Change What You Canโt See 5
Acknowledgments
The ABA Commission on Women in the Profession and the Minority Corporate
Counsel Association would like to thank the following individuals for generously
donating their time to this important project.
Working Group Members*
Ricardo Anzaldua, MetLife (Retired)
Kara Baysinger, Dentons
Lois Bingham, Yazaki North America, Inc.
Jennifer Daniels, Colgate-Palmolive Company
Kathryn Fritz, Fenwick & West LLP
Julie Gruber, Gap Inc.
Stasia Kelly, DLA Piper
Kim Koopersmith, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Nancy Laben, Booz Allen Hamilton
Wendi Lazar, Outten & Golden LLP
Wally Martinez, Hunton & Williams LLP
Erika Mason, Constangy Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
Lorelie Masters, Hunton & Williams LLP
Rick Palmore, Dentons
Tom Sabatino, Aetna
Mark Roellig, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
Tom Sager, Ballard Spahr LLP
James Silkenat, World Justice Project
Mary L. Smith, Illinois Department of Insurance
Grace Speights, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP
Laura Stein, The Clorox Company
D. Jean Veta, Covington & Burling LLP
Robert Weiner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Joseph K. West, Duane Morris LLP
Kathleen J. Wu, Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
* Organizations listed were current as of 1/03/2018.
6 You Canโt Change What You Canโt See
Additional Acknowledgments
A heartfelt thank you to Michele Coleman Mayes and Jean Lee for their leadership in
shepherding this project.
A special thank you to Joseph K. West for his support of this project, which allowed
it to move forward.
Thank you to Michelle Gallardo and Elaine Johnson James for the energy and effort
they devoted to this project as Co-Chairs of the Bias Interrupters Committee.
Thank you to staff members Melissa Wood and Lynnea Karlic for their indispensable
assistance on the Bias Interrupters Project.
Thank you to Microsoft Corporation and Walmart for their early support in
completing this project.
You Canโt Change What You Canโt See 7
Executive Summary
This report is the ๎rst of its kind to provide a comprehensive picture of how implicit
gender and racial biasโdocumented in social science for decadesโplays out in
everyday interactions in legal workplaces and affects basic workplace processes such
as hiring and compensation.
In April 2016, the American Bar Associationโs Commission on Women in the
Profession, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and the Center for
WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law launched
a survey seeking to understand in-house and law ๎rm lawyersโ experiences of bias
in the workplace: 2,827 respondents completed the survey, and 525 respondents
included comments.
The survey asked respondents whether they had experienced the patterns of gender
and racial bias that have been documented in decades of experimental social
psychology studies. In addition, the survey asked whether attorneys had experienced
implicit bias in basic workplace processes (hiring, assignments, business development,
performance evaluations, promotions, compensation, and support). Also included
was a series of questions about sexual harassment.
To examine how bias affects workplace experiences in the legal profession, we
compared the reported experiences of women of color, men of color, white women,
and white men. This report shares the survey ๎ndings and paints a picture of
how bias affects law ๎rm and in-house attorneys. All differences discussed in the
following text are statistically signi๎cant unless otherwise noted.
Women and people of color reported Prove-It-Again
(PIA) and Tightrope bias
Prove-It-Again. Women of color, white women, and men of color reported that they
have to go โabove and beyondโ to get the same recognition and respect as their
colleagues.
โข Women of color reported PIA bias at a higher level than any other group, 35
percentage points higher than white men.
โข White women and men of color also reported high levels of PIA bias, 25 per-
centage points higher than white men.
โข Women of color reported that they are held to higher standards than their col-
leagues at a level 32 percentage points higher than white men.
Mistaken for janitors? Men of color and women of all races receive clear messages
that they do not ๎t with peopleโs image of a lawyer.
โข Women of color reported that they had been mistaken for administrative staff,
court personnel, or janitorial staff at a level 50 percentage points higher than
white men. This was the largest reported difference in the report.
8 You Canโt Change What You Canโt See
โข White women reported this bias at a level 44 percentage points higher than
white men, and men of color reported this bias at a level 23 percentage points
higher than white men.
Tightrope. Women of all races reported pressure to behave in feminine ways,
including backlash for masculine behaviors and higher loads of non-career-enhancing
โof๎ce housework.โ
โข White women reported doing more administrative tasks (such as taking notes)
than their colleagues at a level 21 percentage points higher than white men, and
women of color reported doing more of this type of office housework at a level
18 percentage points higher than white men.
Significant bias against mothers reportedโand against
fathers who take parental leave
Maternal Wall. Women of all races reported that they were treated worse after
they had children; that is, they were passed over for promotions, given โmommy
trackโ low-quality assignments, demoted or paid less, and/or unfairly disadvantaged
for working part-time or with a ๎exible schedule. Women also observed a double
standard between male and female parents.
โข White women reported that their commitment or competence was questioned
after they had kids at a level 36 percentage points higher than white men.
Women of color reported this at a level 29 percentage points higher than
white men.
About half of people of color (47% of men of color and 50% of women of color) and
57% of white women agreed that taking family leave would have a negative impact
on their career. 42% of white men also agreed, indicating that the ๎exibility stigma
surrounding leave affects all groups, including majority men.
Bias is pervasive throughout lawyersโ work lives
Most of the biggest ๎ndings of the survey had to do with bias existing in the basic
business systems of attorneysโ workplaces. Women and people of color reported
higher levels of bias than white men regarding equal opportunities to:
โข Get hired
โข Receive fair performance evaluations
โข Get mentoring
โข Receive high-quality assignments
โข Access networking opportunities
โข Get paid fairly
โข Get promoted
In other words, gender and racial bias was reported in all seven basic workplace
processes.
You Canโt Change What You Canโt See 9
Women of color often reported the highest levels of
bias of any group
In almost every workplace process, women of color reported the highest levels of
bias. For example:
โข Women of color reported that they had equal access to high-quality assignments
at a level 28 percentage points lower than white men.
โข Women of color reported that they had fair opportunities for promotion at a
level 23 percentage points lower than white men.
As a trend throughout the report, we often found that women of color reported the
highest levels of bias overall.
Bias in compensation
The gender pay gap in law has received signi๎cant media attention, but much less
attention has been paid to bias in compensation systems. Large amounts of bias were
reported by both white women and women of color, and these were some of the
widest gaps in experience described in the report:
โข Women of color agreed that their pay is comparable to their colleagues of similar
experience and seniority at a level 31 percentage points lower than white men;
white women agreed at a level 24 percentage points lower than white men.
โข Similarly, when respondents were asked if they get paid LESS than their col-
leagues of similar experience and skill level, women of color agreed at a level
31 percentage points higher than white men, while white women agreed at a
level 24 percentage points higher than white men.
The racial element of the gender pay gap is rarely discussed and demands closer
attention.
In another surprising ๎nding, in-house white women reported roughly the same level
of compensation bias as their law ๎rm counterparts. With so much attention placed
on the partner pay gap, in house is thought to be a more equitable environment for
women in terms of pay. These data suggest that may not be the case.
Differences between law firm and in-house lawyersโ
experiences reported
Women of all races and men of color reported lower levels of bias in house than in law
๎rms, whereas white men reported lower levels of bias in law ๎rms than in house.
Sexual harassment
About 25% of women but only 7% of white men and 11% of men of color, reported
that they had encountered unwelcome sexual harassment at work, including
unwanted sexual comments, physical contact, and/or romantic advances. Sexist
comments, stories, and jokes appear to be widespread in the legal profession: more
than 70% of all groups reported encountering these. Finally, about one in eight white
10 You Canโt Change What You Canโt See
women, and one in ten women of color, reported having lost career opportunities
because they rejected sexual advances at work.
Although implicit bias is commonplace, it can be
interrupted
Implicit bias stems from common stereotypes. Stereotype activation is automatic: we
canโt stop our brains from making assumptions. But stereotype application can be
controlled: we can control whether we act on those assumptions. Weโve distilled that
research in our Bias Interrupter Toolkits, available at the end of this report. These
Toolkits provide easily implementable, measurable tweaks to existing workplace systems
to interrupt racial and gender bias in law ๎rms and in-house departments. Many bias
interrupters will help individuals with disabilities, professionals from nonprofessional
families (โclass migrantsโ), and introverted men, in addition to leveling the playing ๎eld
for women and attorneys of color.
Small Steps, Big Change
Bias Interrupters
Tools for Success
12 Bias Interrupters
Incremental steps can improve law ๎rm and in-house diversity in ways that yield
well-documented business bene๎ts. Research shows that diverse workgroups perform
better and are more committed, innovative, and loyal.
1
Gender-diverse workgroups
have higher collective intelligence, which improves the performance of both the
group and of the individuals in the group, and leads to better ๎nancial performance
results.
2
Racially diverse workgroups consider a broader range of alternatives, make
better decisions, and are better at solving problems.
3
Bias, if unchecked, affects
many different groups: modest or introverted men, LGBTQ people, individuals with
disabilities, professionals from nonprofessional backgrounds (class migrants), women,
and people of color. Weโve distilled the huge literature on bias into simple steps that
help you and your ๎rm perform better.
We know now that workplaces that view themselves as being highly meritocratic
often are more biased than other organizations.
4
Research also shows that the usual
responsesโone-shot diversity trainings, mentoring, and networking programsโ
typically donโt work.
5
What holds more promise is a paradigm-changing approach to
diversity: bias interrupters are tweaks to basic business systems
that are data-driven and can produce measurable change. Bias
interrupters change systems, not people.
Printed here are two toolkits, one for law ๎rms and one for in-house departments,
with information for how to interrupt bias in the following business systems:
1. Hiring
2. Assignments
3. Performance Evaluations
4. Compensation
5. Sponsorship Best Practice Recommendation
For additional worksheets and information visit BiasInterrupters.org.
Our toolkits take a three-step approach:
1. Use Metrics: Businesses use metrics to assess their progress toward any stra-
tegic goal. Metrics can help you pinpoint where bias exists and assess the
effectiveness of the measures youโve taken. (Whether metrics are made public
will vary from firm to firm and from metric to metric.)
2. Implement Bias Interrupters: Bias interrupters are small adjustments to your
existing business systems. They should not require you to abandon your cur-
rent systems.
3. Repeat as Needed: After implementing bias interrupters, return to your met-
rics. If they have not improved, you will need to ratchet up to stronger bias
interrupters.
Small Steps, Big Change
Bias Interrupters
Tools for Law Firms
14 Interrupting Bias in Hiring
Interrupting Bias in Hiring
Tools for Law Firms
The Challenge
When comparing identical resumes, โJamalโ needed eight additional years of
experience to be considered as quali๎ed as โGreg,โ mothers were 79% less likely
to be hired than an otherwise-identical candidate without children, and โJenniferโ
was offered $4,000 less in starting salary than โJohn.โ
6
Unstructured job interviews
do not predict job success,
7
and judging candidates on โculture ๎tโ can screen out
quali๎ed diverse candidates.
8
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
1. Use Metrics
Businesses use metrics to assess their progress toward any strategic goal. Metrics
can help you pinpoint where bias exists and assess the effectiveness of the measures
youโve taken. (Whether metrics are made public will vary from ๎rm to ๎rm and from
metric to metric.)
For each metric, examine:
โข Do patterned differences exist between majority men, majority women, men
of color, and women of color? (Include any other underrepresented group that
your firm tracks, such as military veterans or LGBTQ people.)
Important metrics to analyze:
โข Track the candidate pool through the entire hiring process: from initial con-
tact, to resume review, to interviews, to hiring. Analyze where underrepresented
groups are falling out of the hiring process.
โข Track whether hiring qualifications are waived more often for some groups.
โข Track interviewersโ reviews and/or recommendations to ensure they are not
consistently rating majority candidates higher than others.
Keep metrics by (1) individual supervising attorney; (2) department; (3) country, if
relevant; and (4) the ๎rm as a whole.
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
All bias interrupters should apply both to written materials and in meetings, where
relevant. Because every ๎rm is different, not all interrupters will be relevant. Consider
this a menu.
To understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read
the โIdentifying Bias in Hiring Worksheet,โ available online at biasinterrupters.org,
which summarizes hundreds of studies.
Bias Interrupters 15
A. Empower and Appoint
โข Empower people involved in the hiring process to spot and interrupt bias. Use
the โIdentifying Bias in Hiring Worksheetโ (available at BiasInterrupters.org).
Read and distribute it to anyone involved in hiring.
โข Appoint bias interrupters. Provide HR professionals or team members with spe-
cial training to spot bias and involve them at every step of the hiring process.
Training is available at BiasInterrupters.org.
B. Assemble a Diverse Pool
โข Limit referral hiring (โfriends of friendsโ). If your existing firm is not diverse,
hiring from your current employeesโ social networks will replicate the lack of
diversity. If you use referrals, keep track of the flow of candidates from refer-
rals. If referrals consistently provide majority candidates, consider limiting refer-
rals or balance referral hiring with more targeted outreach to ensure a diverse
candidate pool.
โข Tap diverse networks. Reach out to diverse candidates where they are. Identify
law job fairs, affinity networks, conferences, and training programs aimed at
women and people of color and send recruiters.
โข Consider candidates from multitier schools. Donโt limit your search to candi-
dates from Ivy League and top-tier schools. This favors majority candidates
from elite backgrounds and hurts people of color and professionals from non-
professional backgrounds (class migrants)
9
. Studies show that top students from
lower-ranked schools are often similarly successful.
10
โข Get the word out. If diverse candidates are not applying for your jobs, get the
word out that your firm is a great place to work for women and people of
color. One company offers public talks by women at their company and writes
blog posts, white papers, and social media articles highlighting the women who
work there.
โข Change the wording of your job postings. Using masculine-coded words such as
โleaderโ and โcompetitiveโ tends to reduce the number of women who apply.
11
Tech alternatives (see Textio
12
and Unitive
13
) can help you craft job postings
that ensure you attract top talent without discouraging women.
โข Insist on a diverse pool. If you use a search firm, tell them you expect a diverse
pool, not just one or two diverse candidates. One study found the odds of hir-
ing a woman were 79 times greater if there were at least two women in the
finalist pool; the odds of hiring a person of color were 194 times greater.
14
C. Resume Review
โข Distribute the โIdentifying Bias in Hiring Worksheetโ (available at Bias
Interrupters.org). Before resumes are reviewed, have reviewers read the work-
sheet so they are aware of the common forms of bias that can affect the hiring
process.
โข Commit to whatโs importantโand require accountability. Commit in writing to
what qualifications are important, both in entry-level and lateral hiring. When
qualifications are waived for a specific candidate, require an explanation of why
they are no longer importantโand keep track to see for whom requirements
are waived.
15
16 Interrupting Bias in Hiring
โข Ensure resumes are graded on the same scale. Establish clear grading rubrics
and ensure that everyone grades on the same scale. Consider having each
resume reviewed by two different people and average the score.
โข Remove extracurricular activities from resumes. Including extracurricular activ-
ities on resumes can artificially disadvantage class migrants. A recent study
showed that law firms were less likely to hire a candidate whose interests
included โcountry musicโ and โpick-up soccerโ rather than โclassical musicโ
and โsailingโโeven though the work and educational experience was exactly
the same. Because most people arenโt as aware of class-based bias, communicate
why you are removing extracurricular activities from resumes.
โข Avoid inferring family obligations. Mothers are 79% less likely to be hired than
identical candidates without children.
16
Train people not to make inferences
about whether someone is committed to the job due to parental status and
donโt count โgaps in a resumeโ as an automatic negative.
โข Try using โblind auditions.โ If women and candidates of color are dropping
out of the pool at the resume review stage, consider removing demographic
information from resumes before review. This allows candidates to be evaluated
based solely on their qualifications.
D. Interviews
โข Use structured interviews. Ask the same list of questions to every person who
is interviewed. Ask questions that are directly relevant to the job for which the
candidate is applying.
17
โข Ask performance-based questions. Performance-based questions, or behavioral
interview questions (โTell me about a time you had too many things to do and
had to prioritize.โ), are a strong predictor of how successful a candidate will be
at the job.
18
โข Try behavioral interviewing.
19
Ask questions that reveal how candidates have
dealt with prior work experiences. Research shows that structured behavioral
interviews more accurately predict the future performance of a candidate than
unstructured interviews.
20
Instead of asking โHow do you deal with problems
with your manager?โ say โDescribe for me a conflict you had at work with
your manager.โ When evaluating answers, a good model to follow is STAR
21
:
the candidate should describe the Situation faced, the Task handled, the Action
taken to deal with the situation, and the Result.
โข Do work-sample screening. If applicable, ask candidates to provide a sample of
the types of tasks they will perform on the job (e.g., ask candidates to write a
legal memo for a fictitious client).
โข Develop a consistent rating scale and discount outliers. Candidatesโ answers (or
work samples) should be rated on a consistent scale, with ratings for each fac-
tor backed up by evidence. Average the scores granted on each relevant criterion
and discount outliers.
22
โข If โculture fitโ is a criterion for hiring, provide a specific work-relevant defini-
tion. Culture fit can be important, but when itโs misused, it can disadvantage
people of color, class migrants, and women.
23
Heuristics such as the โairport
testโ (Who would I like to get stuck with in an airport?) can be highly exclu-
sionary and not work-relevant. Questions about sports and hobbies may feel
Bias Interrupters 17
exclusionary to women and to class migrants who did not grow up, for exam-
ple, playing golf or listening to classical music. Googleโs work-relevant defini-
tion of โculture fitโ is a helpful starting point.
24
โข โGaps in a resumeโ should not mean automatic disqualification. Give candi-
dates an opportunity to explain gaps by asking about them directly during the
interview stage. Women fare better in interviews when they are able to provide
information up front rather than having to avoid the issue.
25
โข Provide candidates and interviewers with a handout detailing expectations.
Develop an โInterview Protocol Sheetโ that explains to everyone whatโs
expected from candidates in an interview or use ours, available at Bias
Interrupters.org. Distribute it to candidates and interviewers for review.
โข When hiring, donโt ask candidates about prior salary. Asking about prior salary
when setting compensation for a new hire can perpetuate the gender pay gap.
26
(A growing legislative movement prohibits employers from asking prospective
employees about their prior salaries.
27
)
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your key metrics. Did the bias interrupters produce change?
โข If you donโt see change, you may need to implement stronger bias interrupters,
or you may be targeting the wrong place in the hiring process.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics improve.
18 Interrupting Bias in Assignments
Interrupting Bias in
Assignments
Tools for Law Firms
The Challenge
Every workplace has high-pro๎le assignments that are career enhancing (โglamour
workโ) and low-pro๎le assignments that are bene๎cial to the organization but not
the individualโs career. Research shows that women do more โof๎ce houseworkโ
28
than men.
29
This includes literal housework (ordering lunch), administrative
work (scheduling a time to meet), and emotion work (โsheโs upset; comfort herโ).
Misallocation of the glamour work and the of๎ce housework is a key reason
leadership across the legal profession is still male dominated. Professionals of color
(both men and women) also report less access to desirable assignments than do white
men.
30
โข Glamour work. More than 80% of white male lawyers but only 53% of women
lawyers of color, 59% of white women lawyers, and 63% of male lawyers of
color reported the same access to desirable assignments as their colleagues.
31
โข Office housework. Almost 50% of white women lawyers and 43% of women
lawyers of color reported that at work they more often play administrative roles
such as taking notes for a meeting compared to their colleagues. Only 26% of
white male lawyers and 20% of male lawyers of color reported this.
32
In law ๎rms, when lawyers become โoverburdenedโ with of๎ce housework, it reduces
the amount of billable time that they can report, which can hurt their compensation
and their career.
33
Diversity at the top can only occur when diverse employees at all levels of the
organization have access to assignments that let them take risks and develop new
skills. If the glamour work and the of๎ce housework arenโt distributed evenly, you
wonโt be tapping into the full potential of your workforce. Most law ๎rms that use
an informal โhey, you!โ assignment system end up distributing assignments based on
factors other than experience and talent.
If women and people of color keep getting stuck with the same low-pro๎le
assignments, they will be more likely to be dissatis๎ed and to search for opportunities
elsewhere.
34
The attrition rates for women and especially women of color in law ๎rms
are already extremely high, and research suggests that the cost to the ๎rm of attrition
per associate is up to $400,000.
35
Law ๎rms cannot afford to fail to address the
inequality in assignments.
Bias Interrupters 19
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
Fair allocation of the glamour work and the of๎ce housework are two separate
problems. Some law ๎rms will want to solve the of๎ce housework problem
before tackling the glamour work; others will want to address both problems
simultaneously. (A โRoad Map for Implementationโ is available at BiasInterrupters
.org.)
1. Use Metrics
A. Identify and Track
The ๎rst step is to ๎nd out if and where you have a problem.
โข What is the office housework and glamour work in your organization?
โข Who is doing what and for how long?
โข Are there demographic patterns that indicate gender and/or racial bias is at
play?
To do this:
1. Distribute the โOffice Housework Surveyโ (available at BiasInterrupters.org)
to your employees to find out who is doing the office housework and how
much of their time it takes up.
2. Convene relevant managers (and anyone else who distributes assignments) to
identify the glamour work and the lower-profile work in the law firm. Use
the โAssignment Typology Worksheetโ to create a typology for assignments
and the โProtocolโ for more details (both available at BiasInterrupters.org).
3. Input the information from the typology meeting into the โManager Assign-
ment Worksheetโ and distribute this to managers (available online at Bias
Interrupters.org). Have managers fill out the worksheets and submit them,
identifying to whom they assign the glamour work and the lower-profile
work.
B. Analyze Metrics
Analyze survey results and worksheets for demographic patterns, dividing employees
into (1) majority men, majority women, men of color, and women of color, (2)
parents who have just returned from parental leave, (3) professionals working part-
time or ๎exible schedules, and (4) any other underrepresented group that your
organization tracks (veterans, LGBTQ people, individuals with disabilities, etc.).
โข Who is doing the office housework?
โข Who is doing the glamour work?
โข Who is doing the low-profile work?
โข Create and analyze metrics by individual supervising attorney.
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
A. Of๎ce Housework Interrupters
โข Donโt ask for volunteers. Women are more likely to volunteer because they are
under subtle but powerful pressures to do so.
36
20 Interrupting Bias in Assignments
โข Hold everyone equally accountable. โI give it to women because they do it well
and the men donโtโ is a common sentiment. This dynamic reflects an environ-
ment in which men suffer few consequences for doing a poor job on office
housework, but women who do a poor job are seen as โprima donnasโ or โnot
team players.โ Hold men and women equally accountable for carrying out all
assignments properly.
โข Use admins. If possible, assign office housework tasks to admins (e.g., planning
birthday parties, scheduling meetings, ordering lunch).
โข Establish a rotation. A rotation is helpful for many administrative tasks (e.g.,
taking notes, scheduling meetings). Rotating housework tasks such as ordering
lunch and planning parties is an option if admins are unavailable.
โข Shadowing. Another option for administrative tasks is to assign a more junior
person to shadow someone more seniorโand take notes.
B. Glamour Work Interrupters
โข Avoid mixed messages. If your law firm values mentoring and committee work
(such as serving on the Diversity Initiative), make sure these things are valued
when the time comes for promotions and raises. Sometimes law firms say they
highly value this kind of workโbut they donโt. Mixed messages of this kind
will negatively affect women and people of color.
โข Conduct a roll-out meeting. Gather relevant managing and supervising attor-
neys to introduce the bias interrupters initiative and set expectations. โKey
Talking Points for the Roll-Out Meetingโ are available at BiasInterrupters.org.
โข Provide a bounceback. Identify individual supervising attorneys whose glam-
our work allocation is lopsided. Hold a meeting with that supervisor and
bring the problem to his or her attention. Help the supervisor think through
why he or she only assigns glamour work to certain people or certain types
of people. Work with the supervisor to figure out (1) if the available pool for
glamour work assignments is diverse but is not being tapped fully or (2) if
only a few people have the requisite skills for glamour work assignments. Read
the โResponses to Common Pushbackโ and โIdentifying Bias in Assignmentsโ
worksheets (available at BiasInterrupters.org) before the bounceback meetings
to prepare. You may have to address low-profile work explicitly at the same
time as you address high-profile assignments; this will vary by law firm.
If a diverse pool has the requisite skills๎.๎.๎.
โข Implement a rotation. Have the supervisor set up a rotation to ensure fair
access to plum assignments.
โข Formalize the pool. Write down the list of people with the requisite skills and
make it visible to the supervisor. Sometimes just being reminded of the pool can
help.
โข Institute accountability. Have the supervisor track his or her allocation of glam-
our work going forward to measure progress. Research shows that accountabil-
ity matters.
37
Bias Interrupters 21
If the pool is not diverse๎.๎.๎.
โข Revisit the assumption that only one (or very few) employees can handle this
assignment. Is that true, or is the supervisor just more comfortable working
with those few people?
โข Analyze how the pool was assembled. Does the supervisor allocate the glamour
work by relying on self-promotion or volunteers? If so, that will often disadvan-
tage women and people of color. Shift to more objective measures to create the
pool based on skills and qualifications.
If the above suggestions arenโt relevant or donโt solve your problem, then itโs time to
expand the pool:
โข Development plan. Identify what skills or competencies an employee needs to
be eligible for the high-profile assignments work and develop a plan to help the
employee develop the requisite skills.
โข Succession planning. Remember that having โbench strengthโ is important so
your department wonโt be left scrambling if someone unexpectedly leaves the
company.
โข Leverage existing HR policies. If your organization uses a competency-based
system or has a Talent Development Committee or equivalent, use that resource
to help develop competencies so career-enhancing assignments can be allocated
more fairly.
โข Shadowing. Have a more junior person shadow a more experienced person
during the high-profile assignment.
โข Mentoring. Establish a mentoring program to help a broader range of junior
people gain access to valued skills.
If you canโt expand your pool, reframe the assignment so that more people could
participate in it. Could you break up the assignment into discrete pieces so more
people get the experiences they need?
If nothing else works, consider a formal assignment system. Appoint an assignments
czar to oversee the distribution of assignments in your organization. See examples of
what other law ๎rms have done at BiasInterrupters.org.
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your metrics. Did the bias interrupters produce change?
โข If you still donโt have a fair allocation of high- and low-profile work, you may
need to implement stronger bias interrupters or consider moving to a formal
assignment system.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics improve.
22 Interrupting Bias in Performance Evaluations
Interrupting Bias in
Performance Evaluations
Tools for Law Firms
The Challenge
In one study, law ๎rm partners were asked to evaluate a memo by a third-year
associate. Half the partners were told the associate was black; the other half were
told the identical memo was written by a white associate. The partners found 41%
more errors in the memo they believed was written by a black associate as compared
with a white associate.
38
Overall rankings also differed by race. Partners graded the
white author as having โpotentialโ and being โgenerally good,โ whereas they graded
the black author as โaverage at best.โ
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
1. Use Metrics
Businesses use metrics to assess their progress toward any strategic goal. Metrics
can help you pinpoint where bias exists and assess the effectiveness of the measures
youโve taken. (Whether metrics are made public will vary from ๎rm to ๎rm and from
metric to metric.)
For each metric, examine:
โข Do patterned differences exist between majority men, majority women, men
of color, and women of color? Include any other underrepresented group that
your firm tracks, such as military veterans, LGBTQ people, or individuals with
disabilities.
โข Do patterned differences exist for parents after they return from leave or for
lawyers who reduce their hours?
โข Do patterned differences exist between full-time and part-time employees?
Important metrics to analyze:
โข Do your performance evaluations show consistent disparities by demographic
group?
โข Do womenโs ratings fall after they have children? Do employeesโ ratings fall
after they take parental leave or adopt flexible work arrangements?
โข Do the same performance ratings result in different promotion or compensation
rates for different groups?
Keep metrics by (1) supervising attorney; (2) department; (3) country, if relevant; and
(4) the law ๎rm as a whole.
Bias Interrupters 23
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
All bias interrupters should apply both to written evaluations and in meetings, where
relevant. Because every ๎rm is different, not all interrupters will be relevant. Consider
this a menu.
To understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read
the โIdentifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Worksheet,โ available online at
BiasInterrupters.org.
A. Empower and Appoint
โข Empower people involved in the evaluation process to spot and interrupt bias.
Use the โIdentifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Worksheet,โ available
online at BiasInterrupters.org. Read and distribute.
โข Appoint bias interrupters. Provide HR professionals or team members with
special training to spot bias and involve them at every step of the performance
evaluation process. Training is available at BiasInterrupters.org.
B. Tweak the Evaluation Form
โข Begin with clear and specific performance criteria directly related to job require-
ments. Try โHe is able to write an effective summary judgment motion under
strict deadlinesโ instead of โHe writes well.โ
โข Require evidence from the evaluation period that justifies the rating. Try โIn
March, she argued X motion in front of Y judge on Z case, answered his ques-
tions effectively, and was successful in getting the optimal judgmentโ instead of
โSheโs quick on her feet.โ
โข Consider performance and potential separately for each candidate. Performance
and potential should be appraised separately. Majority men tend to be judged
on potential; others are judged on performance.
Separate personality issues from skill sets for each candidate. Personal style should
be appraised separately from skills because a narrower range of behavior often is
accepted from women and people of color. For example, women may be labeled
โdif๎cultโ for doing things that are accepted in majority men.
C. Tweak the Evaluation Process
โข Level the playing field. Ensure that all candidates know how to promote them-
selves effectively and send the message that they are expected to do so. Distrib-
ute the โWriting an Effective Self-Evaluation Worksheet,โ available online at
BiasInterrupters.org.
โข Offer alternatives to self-promotion. Encourage or require supervisors to set up
more formal systems for sharing successes, such as a monthly e-mail that lists
employeesโ accomplishments.
โข Provide a bounceback. Supervisors whose performance evaluations show per-
sistent bias should receive a bounceback (i.e., someone should talk through the
evidence with them).
โข Have bias interrupters play an active role in calibration meetings. In many law
firms and legal departments, the Executive Committee or another body meets
24 Interrupting Bias in Performance Evaluations
to produce a target distribution of ratings or to
cross-calibrate rankings. Have participants read
the โIdentifying Bias in Performance Evaluations
Worksheetโ on bias before they meet (available at
BiasInterrupters.org). Have a trained bias inter-
rupter in the room.
โข Donโt eliminate your performance appraisal
system. Eliminating formal performance evalua-
tion systems and replacing them with feedback on
the fly creates conditions for bias to flourish.
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your key metrics. Did the bias inter-
rupters produce change?
โข If you donโt see change, you may need to
implement stronger bias interrupters, or you may
be targeting the wrong place in the performance
evaluation process.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics
improve.
Whatโs a bounceback?
An example: in one organization,
when a supervisorโs ratings of an
underrepresented group deviate
dramatically from the mean, the
evaluations are returned to the
supervisor with the message:
either you have an undiagnosed
performance problem that requires
a Performance Improvement Plan
(PIP), or you need to take anoth-
er look at your evaluations as a
group. The organization found
that a few people were put on
PIPs, but over time, supervisorsโ
ratings of underrepresented groups
converged with those of majority
men. A subsequent survey found
that employees of all demographic
groups rated their performance
evaluations as equally fair (where-
as bias was reported in hiringโ
and every other business system).
Bias Interrupters 25
Interrupting Bias in
Partner Compensation
Tools for Law Firms
The Challenge
The gender pay gap in law ๎rms has been extensively documented for decades. A
2016 report by Major, Lindsey, and Africa found a 44% pay gap between male and
female law ๎rm partners.
39
The report also found a 50% difference in origination
credit, which many use to explain the pay gap: men earn more money because they
bring in more business. Studies show the picture is much more complicated.
โข One study found that even when women partners originated similar levels of
business as men, they still earned less.
40
โข Another study found that 32% of white women income partners and 36% of
women partners of color reported that they had been intimidated, threatened,
or bullied out of origination credit.
41
โข The same study found that more than 80% of women partners reported being
denied their fair share of origination credit in the previous three years.
42
โข Doesnโt everyone think their compensation is unfair? Not to the same degree: a
recent survey of lawyers found that male lawyers were about 20% more likely
than white women lawyers and 30% more likely than women lawyers of color
to say that their pay was comparable to their colleagues of similar experience.
43
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
1. Use Metrics
Businesses use metrics to assess their progress toward any strategic goal. Metrics
can help you pinpoint where bias exists and assess the effectiveness of the measures
youโve taken. (Whether metrics are made public will vary from ๎rm to ๎rm and from
metric to metric.)
For each metric, examine:
โข Do patterned differences exist between majority men, majority women, men of
color, and women partners of color? (Include any other underrepresented group
that your firm tracks, such as military veterans or LGBTQ people.)
โข Are partners disadvantaged for taking parental leave? Are parents or others
with caregiving responsibilities excluded from future opportunities?
โข Do part-time lawyers receive less than proportionate pay for proportionate
work? Are they excluded from future opportunities?
26 Interrupting Bias in Partner Compensation
Important metrics to analyze:
โข Compare compensation with a variety of lenses and look for patterns. Lenses
include relationship enhancement, hours and working time revenues, and so
forth. Do separate analyses for equity and income partners.
โข Succession. Analyze who inherits compensation credit and client relationships
and how and when the credit moves.
โข Origination and other important forms of credit. Analyze who gets origination
and other important forms of credit, how often it is split, and who does (and
does not) split it. If your firm does not provide credit for relationship enhance-
ment, analyze how that rule affects different demographic groupsโand consider
changing it.
โข Comp adjustments. Analyze how quickly compensation falls, and by what per-
centage during a lean period and how quickly compensation rises during times
of growth. (When partners lose key clients, majority men often are given more
of a runway to recover than other groups.)
โข De-equitization. Analyze who gets de-equitized.
โข Pitch credit. Analyze who has opportunities to go on pitches, who plays a
speaking role, and who receives origination and other forms of credit from
pitches.
โข Lateral partners. Analyze whether laterals are paid more in relation to their
metrics. This is a major factor in defeating diversity efforts at some firms.
Keep metrics by (1) individual supervising lawyer; (2) department; (3) country, if
relevant; and (4) the ๎rm as a whole.
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
To understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters,
read the โIdentifying Bias in Partner Compensation Worksheet,โ available online at
BiasInterrupters.org.
A. Find Out What Drives Compensationโand Be Transparent about What
You Find
โข Commission an analysis. Although firms may say they value a broad range
of factors, many experts agree that origination and billable hours account for
almost all variance in compensation.
44
Hire a law firm compensation consultant
or statistician to find out what factors determine compensation at your firm.
โข Be transparent about what drives compensation. This is a vital first step to
empowering women and people of color to refuse work that does not enhance
their compensation and focus on work that positions them to receive higher
compensation. Studies show that reducing ambiguity reduces gender bias in
negotiationsโand law firm compensation often involves negotiation among
partners.
45
If only those โin the knowโ understand whatโs really valued, that
will benefit a small in group that typically reflects the demography of your
existing equity partnership.
โข Value everything thatโs valuable. Give credit for nonbillable work that is vital to
sustaining the long-term health of the firmโincluding relationship enhancement
credit, credit for lawyers who actually do the clientโs work, and talent manage-
Bias Interrupters 27
ment. If the firm says it values mentoring and greater diversity but does not in
fact do so, this will disadvantage women and lawyers of color.
B. Establish Clear, Public Rules
โข Establish clear rules governing granting and splitting origination and other valu-
able forms of credit. Research suggests that men are more likely to split origina-
tion credit with men than with women and that women may get less origination
credit than men even when they do a similar amount of work to bring in the
client.
46
Set clear, public rules addressing how origination credit should be split
by publishing and publicizing a memo that details how partners should split
credit under common scenarios.
โข Establish a formal system of succession planning. If your firm allows origina-
tion credit to be inherited, institute a formal succession planning process. Other-
wise, in-group favoritism means that your current pattern of origination credit
will be replicated over and over again, with negative consequences for diversity.
โข Pitch credit. Women attorneys and attorneys of color often report being used
as โeye candyโโbrought to pitches but then not given a fair share of credit or
work that results. Establish rules to ensure this does not occur. The best practice
is that if someone does the work for the pitch, he or she should be recognized
with credit that accurately reflects his or her role in doing and winning the
work.
โข Parental leave. Counting billables and other metrics as โzeroโ for the months
women (or men) are on parental leave is a violation of the Family and Medical
Leave Act, where applicable, and is unfair even where it is not illegal. Instead,
annualize based on the average of the months the attorney was at work, allow-
ing for a ramp-up and ramp-down period.
โข Part-time partners. Compensation for part-time partners should be propor-
tional. Specifics on how to enact proportional compensation depends on which
compensation system a law firm uses. See the โBest Practices for Part-Time Part-
ner Compensationโ paper for details, available at BiasInterrupters.org.
C. Establish Procedures to Ensure the Perception and Reality of Fairness
โข Institute a low-risk way partners can receive help in disputes over credit. Set up
a way to settle disputes over origination and other forms of credit that lawyers
can use without raising eyebrows.
โข Provide templates for partner comp memosโand prohibit pushback. Some
firms provide opportunities for partners and associates to make their case to the
compensation committee by writing a compensation memo. If your firm does
this, distribute the worksheet (online at BiasInterrupters.org) on how to write
an effective compensation memo and set rules and norms to ensure that women
and minorities are not penalized for self-promotion. If not, give partners the
opportunity to provide evidence about their work: research shows that wom-
enโs successes tend to be discounted and their mistakes remembered longer than
menโs.
โข Institute quality control over how compensation is communicated to partners.
Design a structured system for communicating with partners to explain what
factors went into determining their compensation.
28 Interrupting Bias in Partner Compensation
โข When hiring, donโt ask candidates about prior salary. Asking about prior salary
when setting compensation for a new hire can perpetuate the gender pay gap.
47
(A growing legislative movement prohibits employers from asking prospective
employees about their prior salaries.
48
)
โข Have a bias interrupter at meetings where compensation is set. This is a person
who has been trained to spot the kinds of bias that commonly arise.
โข Training. Make sure that your compensation committee, and anyone else
involved in setting compensation, knows how implicit bias commonly plays out
in law firm partner compensation and how to interrupt that bias. Read and dis-
tribute the โIdentifying Bias in Partner Compensation Worksheetโ (available at
BiasInterrupters.org).
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your key metrics. Did the bias interrupters produce change?
โข If you donโt see change, you may need to implement stronger bias interrupters,
or you may be targeting the wrong place in the compensation process.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics improve.
Small Steps, Big Change
Bias Interrupters
Tools for In-House
Departments
30 Interrupting Bias in Hiring
Interrupting Bias in Hiring
Tools for In-House Departments
The Challenge:
When comparing identical resumes, โJamalโ needed eight additional years of
experience to be considered as quali๎ed as โGreg,โ mothers were 79% less likely to
be hired than an otherwise-identical candidate without children, and โJenniferโ was
offered $4,000 less in starting salary than โJohn.โ
49
Unstructured job interviews
do not predict job success,
50
and judging candidates on โculture ๎tโ can screen out
quali๎ed diverse candidates.
51
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
1. Use Metrics
Businesses use metrics to assess their progress toward any strategic goal. Metrics
can help you pinpoint where bias exists and assess the effectiveness of the measures
youโve taken.
For in-house departments, some metrics may be possible to track; others may require
HR or can only be tracked company-wide. Depending on the structure and size of
your in-house department, identify whatโs feasible.
Whether metrics are made public will vary from company to company and from
metric to metric.
For each metric, examine:
โข Do patterned differences exist between majority men, majority women, men
of color, and women of color? (Include any other underrepresented group that
your department/company tracks, such as veterans, LGBTQ people, etc.)
Important metrics to analyze:
โข The goal is to track the candidate pool through the entire hiring processโfrom
initial contact, to resume review, to interviews, to hiringโand then to analyze
where underrepresented groups are falling out of the hiring process. How much
you can track will depend on how your companyโs systems are set up, as will
the extent to which you will need help from HR.
โข Track whether hiring qualifications are waived more often for some groups.
You may be able to do this only for those parts of the hiring process that are
done at a departmental level, such as final-round interviews.
โข Track interviewersโ reviews and recommendations to look for demographic
patterns. Again, your departmentโs ability to do this will depend on what is han-
dled at a departmental level, or your HR department may be willing to do this
tracking.
Bias Interrupters 31
Keep in-house metrics by (1) individual supervisor; (2) department, if your in-house
department is large enough to have its own departments; and (3) country, if relevant.
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
All bias interrupters should apply both to written materials and in meetings, where
relevant.
Because in-house departments are all different and vary in size and structure, not all
interrupters will be relevant. Depending on how much of the hiring process is done
by the in-house department versus HR, some of the interrupters may be more feasible
than others. Consider this a menu.
To understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read
the โIdentifying Bias in Hiring Worksheet,โ available online at BiasInterrupters.org,
which summarizes hundreds of studies.
A. Empower and Appoint
โข Empower people involved in the hiring process to spot and interrupt bias. Use
the โIdentifying Bias in Hiring Worksheet,โ available online at BiasInterrupters
.org, and distribute this to anyone involved in hiring.
โข Appoint bias interrupters. Provide HR professionals or team members with spe-
cial training to spot bias and involve them at every step of the hiring process.
Training is available at BiasInterrupters.org.
B. Tips to Help You Assemble a Diverse Pool
โข If your department hires by referral, keep track of the candidate flow from refer-
rals. Hiring from current employeesโ social networks may well replicate lack of
diversity if your department is not diverse. If your analysis finds that referrals
consistently provide majority candidates, consider limiting referrals or balance
referral hiring with more targeted outreach to ensure a diverse candidate pool.
โข Recruit where diverse candidates are. If your department handles recruiting,
make sure to reach out to diverse candidates where they are. Identify law job
fairs, affinity networks, conferences, and training programs aimed at women
and people of color and send recruiters. If your department does not do recruit-
ing, consider asking the people in charge to do more targeted recruitment.
โข If recruitment happens mostly at law schools, consider candidates from multi-
tier schools. Donโt limit your search to candidates from Ivy League and top-tier
schools. This practice favors majority candidates from elite backgrounds and
hurts people of color and professionals from nonprofessional backgrounds
(class migrants).
52
If another department handles recruiting, let them know that
your department would like to consider candidates from a broader range of law
schools.
โข If your department writes its own job postings, make sure you are not using lan-
guage that has been shown to decrease the number of women applicants (words
such as competitive or ambitious). If HR is in charge of the job postings, sug-
gest that they review job posts in the same way. Tech companies such as Textio
and Unitive can help.
32 Interrupting Bias in Hiring
โข Insist on a diverse pool. If HR creates a pool for your department, tell them
that you expect the pool to be diverse. One study found the odds of hiring a
woman were 79 times greater if there were at least two women in the finalist
pool; the odds of hiring a person of color were 194 times greater.
53
If HR does
not present a diverse pool, try to figure out where the lack of diversity is com-
ing from. Is HR weeding out the diverse candidates, or are the jobs not attract-
ing diverse candidates?
C. Interrupting Bias While Reviewing Resumes
If your in-house department conducts the initial resume screening, use the following
bias interrupters. If HR does the initial screening, encourage them to implement the
following tips to ensure that your department receives the most quali๎ed candidates.
โข Distribute the โIdentifying Bias in Hiring Worksheetโ before resumes are
reviewed (available at BiasInterrupters.org) so reviewers are aware of the com-
mon forms of bias that can affect the hiring process.
โข If candidatesโ resumes are reviewed by your department, commit to what qual-
ifications are importantโand require accountability. When qualifications are
waived for a specific candidate, require an explanation of why the qualification
at issue is no longer importantโand keep track to see for whom requirements
are waived.
54
If HR reviews the resumes, give HR a clear list of the qualifica-
tions your department is seeking.
โข Establish clear grading rubrics and ensure that all resumes are graded on the
same scale. If possible, have each resume reviewed by two different people and
average the scores. If HR reviews resumes, encourage them to review resumes
based on the rubric that you provide to them.
โข Remove extracurricular activities from resumes. Including extracurricular activ-
ities on resumes can favor elite majority candidates.
55
Remove extracurriculars
from resumes before you review them or ask HR to do this.
โข Watch out for Maternal Wall bias. Mothers are 79% less likely to be hired than
an identical candidate without children.
56
Train people who review resumes
not to make inferences about whether someone is committed to the job due to
parental status. Instruct them not to count โgaps in a resumeโ as an automatic
negative. If HR reviews resumes, ask them to do the same.
โข Try using โblind auditions.โ If women and candidates of color are dropping out
of the pool at the resume review stage, consider removing demographic infor-
mation from resumes before reviewโor ask HR to do it.
D. Controlling Bias in the Interview Process
โข Ask the same questions to every person you interview. Come up with a set list
of questions you will ask each candidate and ask them in the same order to
each person. Ask questions that are directly relevant to the job for which the
candidate is applying.
57
โข Ask performance-based, work-relevant questions. Performance-based questions,
or behavioral interview questions (โTell me about a time you had too many
things to do and had to prioritize.โ), are a strong predictor of how successful a
Bias Interrupters 33
candidate will be on the job.
58
Ask questions that are directly relevant to situa-
tions that arise in your department.
โข Require a work sample. If applicable, ask candidates to demonstrate the skills
they will need on the job (e.g., ask candidates to write an advisory letter to the
sales team about a new product.)
โข Standardize the interview evaluation process. Develop a consistent rating scale
for candidatesโ answers and work samples. Each rating should be backed up
with evidence. Average the scores granted on each relevant criterion and dis-
count outliers.
59
โข Try behavioral interviewing.
60
Ask questions that reveal how candidates have
dealt with prior work experiences. Research shows that structured behavioral
interviews can more accurately predict the future performance of a candidate
than unstructured interviews.
61
Instead of asking โHow do you deal with prob-
lems with your manager?โ say โDescribe for me a conflict you had at work
with your manager.โ When evaluating answers, a good model to follow is
STAR
62
: the candidate should describe the Situation faced, the Task handled, the
Action taken to deal with the situation, and the Result.
โข If you use culture fit, do so carefully. Using culture fit as a hiring criterion can
thwart diversity efforts.
63
Culture fit (โWould I like to get stuck in an airport
with this candidate?โ) can be a powerful force for reproducing the current
makeup of the organization when itโs misused.
64
Questions about sports and
hobbies may feel exclusionary to women and to class migrants who did not
grow up playing golf or listening to classical music. If culture fit is a criterion
for hiring, provide a specific work-relevant definition. Googleโs work-relevant
definition of culture fit is a helpful starting point.
65
โข Ask directly about โgaps in a resume.โ Women fare better in interviews when
they are able to provide information up front rather than having to avoid the
issue.
66
Instruct your interviewing team to give, in a neutral and nonjudgmental
fashion, candidates the opportunity to explain gaps in their resumes.
โข Be transparent to applicants about what youโre seeking. Provide candidates
and interviewers with a handout that explains to everyone whatโs expected
from candidates in an interview. Distribute it to candidates and interviewers for
review so everyone is on the same page about what your in-house department is
seeking. An example โInterview Protocol Sheetโ is available at BiasInterrupters
.org.
โข Donโt ask candidates about prior salary. Asking about prior salary when setting
compensation for a new hire can perpetuate the gender pay gap.
67
(A growing
legislative movement prohibits employers from asking prospective employees
about their prior salaries.
68
)
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your key metrics. Did the bias interrupters produce change?
โข If you donโt see change, you may need to implement stronger bias interrupters,
or you may be targeting the wrong place in the hiring process.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics improve.
34 Interrupting Bias in Assignments
Interrupting Bias in
Assignments
Tools for In-House Departments
The Challenge
Diversity at the top can only occur when diverse employees at all levels of the
organization have access to assignments that let them take risks and develop new
skills. A level playing ๎eld requires that both the glamour work (career-enhancing
assignments) and the of๎ce housework (the less high-pro๎le and back-of๎ce work) are
distributed fairly. If your department uses an informal โhey, you!โ assignment system
to distribute assignments, you may end up inadvertently distributing assignments in
an inequitable fashion.
If women and people of color keep getting stuck with the same low-pro๎le
assignments, they will be more likely to be dissatis๎ed and to search for opportunities
elsewhere.
69
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
Fair allocation of the glamour work and the of๎ce housework are two separate
problems. Some in-house departments will want to solve the of๎ce housework
problem before tackling the glamour work; others will want to address both
problems simultaneously. This will depend on the size of your in-house department
and how work is currently assigned.
1. Use Metrics
A. Identify and Track
For each metric, examine:
โข What is the office housework and glamour work in your department?
โข Who is doing what and for how long?
โข Are there demographic patterns that indicate gender and/or racial bias at play?
Important metrics to analyze:
1. Distribute an office housework survey to members of your department to
find out who is doing the office housework and how much of their time it
requires. Create your own survey or use ours, available at BiasInterrupters
.org.
2. Convene relevant managers (and anyone else who distributes assignments)
to identify what is the glamour work and what is the lower-profile work in
the department. Worksheets and protocols to help you are available online at
BiasInterrupters.org.
Bias Interrupters 35
3. Once you have identified what the glamour work is in your department, ask
managers to report which employees have been doing the glamour work.
Worksheets are also available at BiasInterrupters.org.
B. Analyze Metrics
Analyze of๎ce housework survey results and glamour worksheets for demographic
patterns, dividing employees into (1) majority men, majority women, men of
color, and women of color, (2) parents who have just returned from parental
leave, (3) professionals working part-time or ๎exible schedules, and (4) any other
underrepresented group that your organization tracks (e.g., veterans, LGBTQ people,
individuals with disabilities). (This will also depend on the size of your in-house
department. If there are only one or two people in a category, the metric wonโt be
scienti๎cally viable.)
โข Who is doing the office housework?
โข Who is doing the glamour work?
โข Who is doing the low-profile work?
โข Create and analyze metrics by individual supervisor.
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
Because every in-house department is different and varies so much in size and
structure, not all interrupters will be relevant. Depending on how much of the hiring
process is done by the in-house department versus HR, some of the interrupters may
be more feasible than others. Consider this a menu.
A. Of๎ce Housework Interrupters
โข Donโt ask for volunteers. Women are more likely to volunteer because they are
under subtle but powerful pressures to do so.
70
โข Hold everyone equally accountable. โI give it to women because they do it
wellโmen donโt.โ This dynamic reflects an environment in which men suffer
few consequences for doing a poor job on less glamorous assignments and
women who do the same are faulted as โnot being team players.โ
โข Use admins. Assign office housework tasks (e.g., planning birthday parties,
scheduling meetings, ordering lunch) to admins if your department has enough
admin support to do so.
โข Establish a rotation. A rotation is helpful for many administrative tasks (e.g.,
taking notes, scheduling meetings). Rotating housework tasks (e.g., ordering
lunch and planning parties) is also an option if admins are unavailable, making
it a good option for in-house departments.
โข Shadowing. Another option in larger departments is to assign a more junior
person to shadow someone more seniorโand to do administrative tasks such as
taking notes.
B. Glamour Work Interrupters
โข Value whatโs valuable. If your department values such things as mentoring and
committee work (such as serving on the Diversity Initiative), make sure these
things are valued when the time comes for promotions and raises. Sometimes
36 Interrupting Bias in Assignments
companies say they highly value this kind of workโbut they donโt. Mixed
messages of this kind will negatively affect women and people of color. If
your department doesnโt have complete control over promotions and raises,
work with relevant departments to ensure that communicated values are being
rewarded appropriately. When members of your in-house department take on
diversity work, make sure they have suitable staff support.
โข Announce your goals of equitable assignments. Gather your team (or the mem-
bers of your team who distribute assignments) to introduce the bias interrupters
initiative and set expectations. Key talking points for the roll-out meeting are
available online at BiasInterrupters.org.
โข Provide a bounceback. If your metrics reveal that some members of your
department distribute assignments inequitably, hold a bounceback meeting.
Help the person in question think through why he or she assigns glamour work
to certain people or certain types of people. Work with the person to figure out
whether (1) the available pool for glamour work assignments is diverse but is
not being tapped fully or whether (2) only a few people have the requisite skills
for glamour work assignments. Use the โResponses to Common Pushbackโ and
โIdentifying Bias in Assignmentsโ worksheets (available at www.BiasInterrupters
.org) to prepare for bounceback meetings.
If a diverse pool has the requisite skills๎.๎.๎.
โข Implement a rotation. Set up a system where plum assignments are rotated
between qualified employees.
โข Formalize the pool. Write down the list of people with the requisite skills and
make it visible to whomever distributes assignments. Suggest or require anyone
handing out plum assignments to review the list of qualified legal professionals
before making a decision. Sometimes just being reminded of the pool can help.
โข Institute accountability. Require people handing out assignments to keep track
of who gets plum assignments. Research shows that accountability matters.
71
If the pool is not diverse๎.๎.๎.
โข Revisit your assumptions. Can only one (or very few) employees handle this
type of assignment, or is it just that you feel more comfortable working with
those few people?
โข Revisit how the pool was assembled. When access to career-enhancing assign-
ments depends on โgo-gettersโ who ask for them, women, people of color, and
class migrants may be disadvantaged because self-promotion is less acceptable
to them or less accepted when they do it.
If these suggestions arenโt relevant or donโt solve your problem, then itโs time to
expand the pool. Small in-house departments may have to ๎nd creative ways to do
this.
โข Development plan. For the attorneys or other legal professionals who arenโt yet
able to handle the plum assignments, what skills would they need to be eligible?
Identify those skills and institute a development plan.
Bias Interrupters 37
โข Succession planning. Remember that having โbench strengthโ is important so
that your department wonโt be left scrambling if someone unexpectedly leaves
the company.
โข Leverage existing HR policies. If your company has a Talent Development Com-
mittee or professional development resources, use this resource to help your
legal professionals develop the skills they need to handle plum assignments.
โข Shadowing. Have a more junior person shadow a more experienced person
during a high-profile assignment.
โข Mentoring. Establish a mentoring program to help a broader range of junior
people gain access to valued skills.
If you canโt expand your pool, reframe the assignment. Can you break up the
assignment into discrete pieces so more people can participate and get the experiences
they need?
If nothing else works, consider a formal assignment system.
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your metrics. Did the bias interrupters produce change?
โข If you still donโt have a fair allocation of high- and low-profile work, you may
need to implement stronger bias interrupters or consider moving to a formal
assignment system.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics improve.
38 Interrupting Bias in Performance Evaluations
Interrupting Bias in
Performance Evaluations
Tools for In-House Departments
The Challenge
Bias in performance evaluations has been well documented for decades.
72
In one study, law ๎rm partners were asked to evaluate a memo by a third-year
associate. Half the partners were told the associate was black; the other half were
told the identical memo was written by a white associate. The partners found 41%
more errors in the memo they believed was written by a black associate as compared
with a white associate.
73
Overall rankings also differed by race. Partners graded the
white author as having โpotentialโ and being โgenerally good,โ whereas they graded
the black author as โaverage at best.โ
The problem isnโt limited to law ๎rms. One informal study in tech revealed that 66%
of womenโs performance reviews but only 1% of menโs reviews contained negative
personality criticism.
74
Bias in the evaluation process stretches across industries.
The Solution: A Three-Step Approach
1. Use Metrics
For in-house departments, some metrics may be possible to track; others may require
HR or can only be tracked company-wide. Depending on the structure and size of
your department, identify which metrics you are able to track.
For each metric, examine:
โข Do patterned differences exist between majority men, majority women, men
of color, and women of color? Include any other underrepresented group that
your company tracks, such as veterans, LGBTQ people, or individuals with
disabilities.
โข Do patterned differences exist for parents after they return from leave or for
employees who reduce their hours?
โข Do patterned differences exist between full-time and part-time lawyers and
other legal professionals?
Important metrics to analyze:
โข Do your performance evaluations show consistent disparities by demographic
group?
โข Do womenโs ratings fall after they have children? Do ratings fall after profes-
sionals take parental leave or adopt flexible work arrangements?
Bias Interrupters 39
โข Do the same performance ratings result in different promotion or compensation
rates for different groups?
Keep in-house metrics by (1) individual supervisor; (2) department, if your in-house
department is large enough to have its own departments; and (3) country, if relevant.
2. Implement Bias Interrupters
All bias interrupters should apply both to written materials and in meetings, where
relevant.
Because in-house departments vary so much in size and structure, not all interrupters
will be relevant to every company. Also, some interrupters will not be feasible,
depending on how much of the hiring process is done by the in-house department
versus HR. Consider this as a menu.
To understand the research and rationale behind the suggested bias interrupters, read
the โIdentifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Worksheet,โ available online at
BiasInterrupters.org, which summarizes hundreds of studies.
A. Empower and Appoint
โข Empower people involved in the evaluation process to spot and interrupt bias.
Use the โIdentifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Worksheet,โ available
at BiasInterrupters.org, and distribute it to those involved in the evaluation
process.
โข Appoint bias interrupters. Provide HR professionals or team members with
special training to spot bias and involve them at every step of the performance
evaluation process. Training is available at BiasInterrupters.org.
B. Tips for Tweaking the Evaluation Form
Many in-house departments do not have control over their performance evaluation
forms, so some of these suggestions will not be feasible.
โข Begin with clear and specific performance criteria directly related to job require-
ments. Try โHe is able to write clear memos to leadership that accurately por-
tray the legal situations at handโ instead of โHe writes well.โ
โข Instruct reviewers to provide evidence to justify their rating and hold them
accountable. Global ratings, with no specifics to back them up, are a recipe for
bias and do not provide constructive advice to the employee being reviewed.
โข Ensure that the evidence is from the evaluation period. The evaluation form
should make it clear that a mistake an employee made two years ago isnโt
acceptable evidence for a poor rating today.
โข Separate discussions of potential and performance. There is a tendency
for majority men to be judged on potential and others to be judged on
performance.
โข Separate personality issues from skill sets. A narrower range of behavior often is
accepted from women and people of color than from majority men.
40 Interrupting Bias in Performance Evaluations
C. Tips for Tweaking the Evaluation Process
โข Help everyone effectively advocate for themselves. Distribute the โWriting an
Effective Self-Evaluation,โ available online at BiasInterrupters.org.
โข If the evaluation process requires self-promotion, offer alternatives. Set up more
formal systems for sharing successes within your in-house department, such as a
monthly e-mail that lists employeesโ accomplishments.
โข Provide a bounceback. If possible, ask HR for an analysis (or do your own) to
ensure that individual supervisorsโ reviews do not show bias toward or against
any particular group. If they do, hold a meeting with that supervisor to help the
person in question think through why certain types of people are getting lower
performance evaluations. Work with the supervisor to figure out whether (1)
the individuals in question are having performance problems and should be put
on Performance Improvement Plans or whether (2) the supervisor should reex-
amine how employees are being evaluated.
โข Have bias interrupters play an active role. If your in-house department holds
calibration meetings, make sure there is a bias interrupter in the room to spot
and correct any instances of bias. If a bias interrupter canโt be in the room, have
participants read the โIdentifying Bias in Performance Evaluations Worksheetโ
before they meet, available online at BiasInterrupters.org.
โข Donโt eliminate your performance appraisal system. To the extent that you have
a say in the HR operations in your company, encourage your company not to
eliminate formal performance appraisal systems. Informal, on the fly perfor-
mance evaluation systems are becoming more popular, but they have a tendency
to reproduce patterns of bias.
3. Repeat as Needed
โข Return to your key metrics. Did the bias interrupters produce change?
โข If you donโt see change, you may need to implement stronger bias interrupters,
or you may be targeting the wrong place in the performance evaluation process.
โข Use an iterative process until your metrics improve.
Bias Interrupters 41
Interrupting Bias in
Compensation
Tools for In-House Departments
The Challenge
The in-house gender pay gap has not been well studied, but a 2017 report from the
Association of Corporate Counsel described a โdramaticโ gender pay disparity based
on a survey taken by 1,800 in-house counsel. The report found that there is a higher
proportion of men in six of seven salary bands above $199,000โyet only 8% of
male respondents believed that a pay gap existed.
75
Interrupting bias in compensation for in-house departments can be tricky because
decisions and policies around compensation typically are made at the company level,
but there are steps your department can take to begin to address the problem.
The Solution
The following recommendations can be implemented at the departmental level to
reduce bias in compensation.
โข Communicate your organizationโs compensation strategy. If only those โin the
knowโ understand whatโs really valued, that will only benefit a small in group.
โข When hiring, donโt ask candidates about prior salary. Asking about prior salary
when setting compensation for a new hire can perpetuate the gender pay gap.
76
(A growing legislative movement prohibits employers from asking prospective
employees about their prior salaries.
77
)
โข Read and distribute the โIdentifying Bias in Compensation Worksheetโ to any-
one involved in compensation decisions in your department (available online at
BiasInterrupters.org).
โข Obtain surveys and benchmarking data at regular intervals. Assess whether
compensation in your in-house department is competitive with the relevant
market. SHRM and similar organizations provide guidance to help you choose
reputable compensation surveys and benchmarking data. Typically these data
are behind a pay wall.
โข Encourage HR to implement pay equity audits under the direction of the legal
department or outside lawyers to maximize the chance that the data collected is
not discoverable under attorneyโclient privilege.
โข When pay disparity is discovered, work with HR or the equivalent department
to address the disparity within a reasonable period of time.
โข Institute a low-risk way people can get help in disputes over compensation. Set
up a way to settle disputes over compensation that lawyers and legal profes-
sionals can use without raising eyebrows.
42 Best Practice: Sponsorship
Best Practice:
Sponsorship
Based on Ricardo Anzalduaโs MetLife Sponsorship
Program
These Best Practice recommendations are based on conversations with Ricardo
Anzaldua, GC of MetLife, who implemented a similar program in his department.
Identify top talent. Create a system that controls for unconscious bias to identify top
talent (including nondiverse talent) to defeat arguments that the program is designed
to unfairly advantage or disadvantage particular groups. To identify top talent early,
MetLife used existing talent-identifying tools and introduced survey techniques to
control for unconscious bias. Make sure that your system:
โข Draws input from many different sources (not just managers; also include cli-
ents, peers, subordinates, etc.)
โข Seeks assessments of both performance and potential from varying perspectives
Pair each top-talent candidate with a trained senior-level sponsor who is held
accountable.
โข Tie effective sponsorship with manager performance evaluations, compensation,
and ability to be promoted.
โข To ensure that sponsorship does not come to be regarded as a risk of being
considered a poor performer with little reward, either (1) enlist all officer-level
managers to be sponsors or (2) create upside rewards available only to effective
sponsors. (Note: enlisting all managers to be sponsors is simpler and helps get
buy-in to the program.)
โข Create and inculcate leadership competencies for managers that they can also
use to advance.
โข All top talent should be paired with sponsors, but pair diverse top-talent candi-
dates with senior management.
โข Make sure each protรฉgรฉ has a mentor (preferably not the sponsor).
Develop goals and milestones for protรฉgรฉs.
โข Each sponsor-protรฉgรฉ pair creates a mutually agreed-upon career goal that can
be accomplished in three to five years.
โข Each sponsor creates a development plan that includes milestones along the
way (opportunities and experiences needed to accomplish the career goal). Mile-
stones may include presentations, managing/leading a team, communication
training, leading a significant project (e.g., transaction, litigation, regulatory
examination), and executive presence coaching.
Best Practice: Sponsorship 43
Create action learning teams (ALTs).
โข Create small teams of protรฉgรฉs and sponsors (pair sponsors with different
groups of protรฉgรฉs).
โข Give ALTs senior-management-level problems and task them with formulating,
in three to six months, written proposals to solve the issues, including how to
involve non-legal resources.
โข Bring in SMEs to facilitate the more technical aspects of specific problems.
โข At various points in the process, ALTs should brief senior management on the
status of their work.
Bake sponsorship and ALTs into existing talent development systems, performance
evaluations systems, and HR processes.
44 You Can't Change What You Can't See
Endnotes
For complete citations, see the bibliography at BiasInterrupters.org/toolkits/orgtools/
1. For example, Dahlin et al., 2005; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999.
2. Richard et al., 2004; Wooley et al., 2011; Lewis, 2016.
3. Phillips et al., 2006; Antonio et al., 2004; Richard et al., 2003.
4. Castilla, 2015.
5. Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006.
6. Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Benard & Correll, 2010; Correll et al., 2007;
Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012.
7. Dana, Dawes, & Petersen, 2013.
8. Rivera, 2015.
9. Ibid.
10. Dale & Krueger, 2002, 2011.
11. Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011.
12. http://www.unitive.works.
13. https://textio.com.
14. Johnson, Hekman, & Chan, 2016.
15. Norton, Vandello, & Darley, 2004; Brewer, 1996; Tetlock, & Mellers, 2011.
16. Correl & Paik, 2007.
17. Thorngate, 2009.
18. Bock, 2015.
19. https://www.eremedia.com/ere/
how-to-create-behavioral-interview-questions-that-dont-give-away-the-answer.
20. Derek Torrington, The Fundamentals of Human Resource Management:
Managing People at Work, 2009.
21. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-star-interview-response-technique
-2061629.
22. Bock, 2015; Thorngate, 2009.
23. Rivera, 2015.
24. Bock, 2015: This is how Google de๎nes it: โGoogleyness:๎.๎.๎. enjoying fun, a
certain dose of intellectual humility๎.๎.๎. a strong measure of conscientiousness๎.๎.๎.
comfort with ambiguity๎.๎.๎. and evidence that youโd take come courageous or
interesting paths in your life.โ
You Can't Change What You Can't See 45
25. Hersch & Shinall, 2016.
26. https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Asking-for-Salary-History-
Perpetuates-Discrimination.pdf.
27. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/will-new-jersey-be-next-to-jump-wage
-history-ban-wagon.
28. Williams & Dempsey, 2014.
29. Misra, Lundquist, & Templer, 2012; Mitchell & Hesli, 2013; Porter, 2007;
Benschop & Dooreward, 1998; Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994; De Pater,
Van Vianen, & Bechtoldt, 2010.
30. ABA Commission on Women, 2017.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Jaffe, Chediak, Douglas, & Tudor, 2016.
34. Babcock, Recalde, Vesterlund, & Weingart, 2017.
35. Epstein, Sautรฉ, Oglensky, & Gever, 1995.
36. Heilman & Chen, 2005; Allen, 2006; Babcock, Recalde, Vesterlund, &
Weingart, 2017; Williams & Dempsey, 2014.
37. Tetlock, 1983; Tetlock & Mitchell, 2009.
38. Reeves, 2014.
39. Major, Lindsey, & Africa, โ2016 Partner Compensation Survey,โ https://www.
mlaglobal.com/publications/research/compensation-survey-2016.
40. Triedman, 2015.
41. Williams & Richardson, 2010.
42. Ibid.
43. ABA Commission on Women, 2017.
44. Williams & Richardson, 2010.
45. Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005.
46. Williams & Richardson, 2010.
47. https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Asking-for-Salary-History-
Perpetuates-Discrimination.pdf.
48. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/will-new-jersey-be-next-to-jump-wage
-history-ban-wagon.
49. Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Benard & Correll, 2010; Correll et al., 2007;
Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012.
50. Dana, Dawes, & Petersen, 2013.
46 You Can't Change What You Can't See
51. Rivera, 2015.
52. Rivera, 2015.
53. Johnson, Hekman, & Chan, 2016.
54. Norton, Vandello, & Darley, 2004; Brewer, 1996; Tetlock, & Mellers, 2011.
55. Rivera, 2015.
56. Correl & Paik, 2007.
57. Thorngate, 2009.
58. Bock, 2015.
59. Bock, 2015; Thorngate, 2009.
60. https://www.eremedia.com/ere/
how-to-create-behavioral-interview-questions-that-dont-give-away-the-answer/.
61. Derek Torrington, The Fundamentals of Human Resource Management:
Managing People at Work, 2009.
62. https://www.thebalance.com/
what-is-the-star-interview-response-technique-2061629.
63. Rivera, 2012, 2015.
64. Rivera, 2015.
65. Bock, 2015: This is how Google de๎nes it: โGoogleyness:๎.๎.๎. enjoying fun, a
certain dose of intellectual humility๎.๎.๎. a strong measure of conscientiousness๎.๎.๎.
comfort with ambiguity๎.๎.๎. and evidence that youโd take some courageous or
interesting paths in your life.โ
66. Hersch & Shinall, 2016.
67. https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Asking-for-Salary-History-
Perpetuates-Discrimination.pdf.
68. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/
will-new-jersey-be-next-to-jump-wage-history-ban-wagon.
69. Babcock, Recalde, Vesterlund, & Weingart, 2017.
70. Heilman & Chen, 2005; Allen, 2006; Babcock, Recalde, Vesterlund, &
Weingart, 2017; Williams & Dempsey, 2014.
71. Tetlock, 1983; Tetlock & Mitchell, 2009.
72. For an overview of the literature on bias in performance evaluations, see the
โIdentifying & Interrupting Bias in Performance Evaluations Worksheetโ available
on BiasInterrupters.org.
73. Reeves, 2014.
74. Snyder, 2014. http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/.
You Can't Change What You Can't See 47
75. Association of Corporate Counsel, โGlobal Perspectives: ACC In-House Trend
Report,โ 2017. Executive Summary.
76. https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Asking-for-Salary-History
-Perpetuates-Discrimination.pdf.
77. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/will-new-jersey-be-next-to-jump-wage
-history-ban-wagon.
48 You Canโt Change What You Canโt See
About the ABA Commission on Women in the
Profession
As a national voice for women lawyers, the ABA Commission on Women in the
Profession forges a new and better profession that ensures that women have equal
opportunities for professional growth and advancement commensurate with their
male counterparts. It was created in 1987 to assess the status of women in the legal
profession and to identify barriers to their advancement. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
the ๎rst chair of the commission, issued a groundbreaking report in 1988 showing
that women lawyers were not advancing at a satisfactory rate.
Now entering its fourth decade, the commission not only reports the challenges
that women lawyers face, it also brings about positive change in the legal workplace
through such efforts as its Grit Project, Women of Color Research Initiative, Bias
Interrupters Project, and the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement
Awards. Drawing upon the expertise and diverse backgrounds of its 12 members,
who are appointed by the ABA president, the commission develops programs,
policies, and publications to advance and assist women lawyers in public and private
practice, the judiciary, and academia.
For more information, visit www.americanbar.org/women.
About the Minority Corporate Counsel Association
(MCCA)
The preeminent voice on diversity and inclusion issues in the legal profession, MCCA
is committed to advancing the hiring, retention and promotion of diverse lawyers in
law departments and law ๎rms by providing research, best practices, professional
development and training, and pipeline initiatives.
MCCAโs groundbreaking research and innovative training and professional
development programs highlight best practices and identify the most signi๎cant
diversity and inclusion challenges facing the legal community. MCCA takes an
inclusive approach to the de๎nition of โdiversityโ including race and ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, disability status and generational differences.
Since MCCAโs founding 20 years ago, it has been recognized and honored by the
Association of Corporate Counsel, the National LGBT Bar Association, the National
Minority Business Council, Inc. and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, among others. MCCAโs vision, โTo make the next generation of legal
leaders as diverse as the world we live in,โ is what drives the organization and our
passionate and committed partners.
For more information, visit www.mcca.com.
